The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Marcy 20.

ROLLS' COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
THE SWINFEN ESTATES.--BROUN V. KENNEDY.
.`,this was a suit arising out of the litigation con-
eeening the Swinfen estates, which attracted so
much attention a short time ago. It will be re-
membered that the question in that litigation was
the validity of the late Samuel Swinfen, and that
an issue to try the question between Mrs. Swinfen
(now Mrs. Broun, the plaintiff in this suit, the
-widow of the testator's son) and Captain Swinfen,
his heir at law, was compromised by the counsel
engaged at the Stafford Assizes, in March, 1856,
and that such compromise was afterwards eon- ,
sidered invalid for want of sufficient authority on
the part of Mrs. Swinfen's enamel, and that ulti-
mately Mrs. Swinfen succeeded in establishing the
-validity of the will, and thereby recovered estates
the value of which was stated in this suit to be
about £60,000. Mr. Kennedy acted as Mrs. S win-
fen's counsel in the litigation which succeeded the
compromise, and the bill in this suit stated that
some months after the litigation had been decided
in Mrs. Swinfen's favour, Mr. Kennedy induced
her to exece.le a deed, dated the 10th of May,
1859, by which she conveyed all the Swinfen
estates Co him in fee simple, subject to a life in-
terest, therein reserved to herself, and subject to the
de}:Jts which she might owe at her death not exceed-
Jig £lO,OOO, and subject to such other sums not ex-
ceeding £lO,OOO, as she should by will appoint.
This deed recited that Mrs. Swinfen was desirous
to convey to Mr. Kennedy the reversion of the said
estates to recompense him for his services as her
counsel. It seems that, shortly after the date ni
this deed, Mr. Kennedy prepared a will for Mrs.
Swinfen, leaving all her real estate to him or to his
children, chargeable with £lO,OOO to be divided
among some of her relations, and subject to such
..debts as should be due from her at her death, and
-appointing him one of her executors. This will,
however, she did not execute. In December, 1861,
Mrs. Swinfen married Mr. Broun, her co-plaintiff
Za this suit, and in January, 1862, Mr. Kennedy
brought an action against Mr. and Mrs. Bromn for
services performed for her as counsel and otherwise
in the cause of " Swinfen v. Swinfen," and for

money paid for her, and for money due from her
upon accounts stated. Particulars of demand were
delivered in this action, which were deemed insuf-
ficient, and at length such particulars were reduced
to a claim for £20,000 upon accounts stated in
January and April, 1859, and all the claims in the
action, except that upon accounts stated, were struck
out of the declaration. It appeared that recently
Mr. Kennedy had distributed in the county of
Stafford handbills of an offensive character, headed
thus:
" Shortly will be published The Serpent of Swinfen, ' "
threatening a publication to show, as it was
expressed, "how the serpent has stung her bene-
factor."
The bill in this suit was filed to set aside the
deed of 'che 10th of May, 1859, and the alleged
stateo., accoants, and for an injunction to restrain
Mr. Kennedy from selling or mortgaging the pro•
perty, and from further prosecuting the action, and
from issuing the threatened publication; and the
ecause now came on upon an interlocutory motion
for an injunction for these purposes.
Mr. Cole, Q C., and Mr. Kay were for the plain-
tiffs ; Mr. Chapman Barber and Mr. Kennedy in
person appeared for the defence ; and, after some
discussion, the motion was directed to stand over
until the first day of Easter Term, upon Mr. Ken-
nedy's undertaking not to deal with any judgment
he might obtain in the action until four days after
the commencement of Easter Term, and giving an
undertaking not to do any of the other acts sought
to be restrained by the notice of motion.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BUNT V. HUNT AND lIUNT.-CURIOUS CASE.
Sir F. Slade, Q C., and Dr. Spinks appeared for
the petitioner; Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr.
Besley, for the respondent ; Mr. Searle for the co-
respondent.

In 1850 George Hunt, an engineer in the Borough,
married Rebecca Cross. In 1854 he received an
appointment in the navy, and sailed in the Leopard
for the Black Sea, from which he returned in 1856.
Soon afterwards he left England again in the Assis-
tance troop ship for China, and he arranged that
his wife should live, in his absence from England,
with his father at Beaminster, Dorsetshire, and
should receive £3 a month for her maintenance. In
1858 his brother Edward, who paid the allowance,
taxed her with being in the familyway ; but she
denied it, as there was a God above, and attributed
her shape to dropsy. The allowance was, however,
soon afterwards stopped; Edward Hunt having
satisfied himself that the respondent had committed
adultery with his half-brother, James Hunt, who
also lived at Beaminster. It was deposed that at
first she had a bedroom to herself at old Mr. Hunt's,
but she complained that the house was " trouble-
some"--tiat was, haunted by supernatural noises.
(Laniter.) After about three weeks, therefore, she
her bed removed to the room of her father-in-
; but she took advantage of a visit paid him by
his daughter, Mrs. Burdett, to leave and to go to
the co-respondent's, who was a widower. While
she was there, Martha Harris, a charwoman, swore
that she had twice surprised her in the very act ;
and that she had given her a shilling and two shifts
riot to tell the old man. She was afterwards con-
fined of a child. Two or three months before then
:Harris spoke to the co-respondent about it, and he
said, with an oath, " What's the odds ? If I cannot
keep them the parish must." _

The respondent afterwards bore the co-respondent
a second child.

For the wife the adultery was admitted, but she
had pleaded several recriminatory charges against
her husband, including one of adultery with her
sister, Jane Cross. To support this allegation, Jane
Cross and another person were called on their sub-
reenas, but they did not appear.
The jury found a verdict for the husband on all
the issues.

The court made a decree nisi. It also granted
decrees in the cases of " Thompson v. Thompson
and Barras," and of "Hall V. Hall and Williams,"
tried yesterday ; but it refused costs in the former
instance.