The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-23 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 21.

THE ATTORNEY-GENEHAE v. THE DUKE OF MARL-
BOItOUGH.

Mr. WRAY stated; that.Thi;;va;aPetition on the part of his
Grace the Duke of Marlborough, praying that it should be re-
ferred to the Master to inquire to what extent the cutting down
of timber, pursuant to the order of the Court, should be carried.
The petition of his Grace stated, that he had caused what was
termed the little park at Blenheim to be surveyed by two sur-
veyors, and that it was their opinion that it would contribute'
highly to the ornament of Blenheim if the plan which they
(the surveyors) had made were carried into effect. It was also
prayed that the balance of the sale of the timber cut down
upon the estate, should be paid into the petitioner's hands.
--Mr. Lititz) appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, the Mar.
quis of Blandford, and would not object to any .order which
the Court thought proper tO4grant to the petitioner, as far
'as respected a reference to- the Master.- He wished, how-
ever, to explain to the Court the nature of the proceedings
which had been taken since the order for felling timber had
been pronounced. He did not mean to say that that order was
not a most proper one at the time it was made, nor did he
mean that it was improper even at this moment ; but it was
necessary to call the attention of the Court to the steps which
had been taken, in order that it might judge whether its order
had been abused. •
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that he could only send
a reference to the Master in the words of the order already pro-
nounced by the Court. _ _

Mr. HEALD said, that according to the petition of his Grace.
the Duke of Marlborough it seemed that the plan of these sur-
veyors was to cut down an immense avenue of fine grown trees,
and convert them into clumps. This would have the effect of
converting Blenheim, at present a most noble park, into some-
thing like a box or villa, of which many were to b,.; seen in the
neighbourhood of London. He thought that if this plan were
adopted, it would be going further than the Court had Origi-
nally intended. He particularly objected to the latter part of
the petition, relative to the balance on the sale of the timber
being paid into the hands of the petitioner.
The VicE-Criaxcum.ort said, he was now called upon to
determine whether the plan of improvement made by these sur-
veyors ought to be adopted. This he had no power to to do,
and the Master only was the proper person to consider- the
subject. If the petitioner was dissatisfied with the Master's
conclusions, he might then apply to this Court. 'With respect
to the park of Blenheim there was only, one way of viewing it
in its real character, and every one would regret to see it con-'
verted into a mere country villa. He should direct that it be.
referred to the Master to inquire (and these were the words of
the order) whether it would he • expedient, for the purpose of
. the improvement of the pleasure grounds, park, and planta-
tions of Blenheini, to adopt the plans mentioned in the report,-
with any and, what variations.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 21.
Middlesex Adjourned Sittings after 7'rinity Term, Wore
.` the LORD CHIEF USTICE.

THE KING v. THE REV. RICHARD BINGHAM, CLERIC..
This was an indictment for wilful and corrupt perjury, al-
ledged to have been committed by the defendant in an affidavit
filed in this Court, for the purpose of setting aside, an annuity
granted by the defendant to persons of the names of Kilvington
and Boston.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, MI. MARRYAT, Mr. Gun.
NEY, and Mr. EsPINASSE, were for the prosecution ; and Mr.
SCARLETT and Mr. ADOLPHUS were for the defence.
The.substance of the case for the prosecution was this.--In
the year 1815, the defendant being perpetual curate of the cu-
racy of Gosport, and possessed of freehold property at Fareham,
Titchfield, and Alverstoke, in the County of Southampton,
was desirous of raising upon the security of 'the latter a sum
of 3,0001. by way of annuity, and. for that purpose applied to
Mr. Benjamin Lewis, an attorney of Mark-lane, to negociate
the loan. At this time the Reverend defendant was a good,
deal embarrassed ; the freehold estates in question were mort-
gaged for a large sum, and there were several outstanding
judgments against him. Mr. Benjamin Lewis undertook to
raise the money. It was proposed, that in consideration of the
sum of 3,000/. the defendant should giant an annuity during
his life of 4501. secured on his freehold property. Messrs. Kil-
vington and Boston, retired tradesmen, became the grantees of
this annuity, and the deeds being prepared, the parties on the
23d of Dec., 1815, met at the house of Mr. Benjamin Lewis to
execute the same, and pay the consideration money. The
amount of the mortgage debt upon the estates was 1,1831. 10s.'
and the judgment debts were estimated at 1,5011. Ios. Mr. B.
Lewis was to receive a sum of 300 guineas for his trouble in
preparing the deeds and negociating the annuity, which sum,
added to the others last mentioned, amounted to 3,0001. When
the parties met, the deeds were executed, and the 3,0001. was
paid over to. the defendant. It was alleged, that in conse-
quence of the non-payment of this annuity, an ejectment was
brought to recover the estates, upon Which it was secured, in
which the grantees recovered a verdict ; that the defendant
afterwards moved for a new 'trial, but it was refused, and the
grantees obtained possession of the estates ; that the defendant
afterwards brought another ejectment himself against the
grantees to recover back the possession, but had not been allow-
ed to prc.zeed in such ejectment, not having paid the costs of
the former ejectment; that the defendant then applied to the
Court of King's Bench to set aside the annuity in question for

several reasons, but. principally on the ground that part of the
money, which was the price of the annuity, was retained by the
person granting it; which rendered it void by the Annuity Act.
On that part occasion the defendant anide the affidavit on which
the alleged perjury was assigned, stating that he never"had the
entire possession of the money.
Mr. Prugen, the conveyancer, who prepared the deeds, Mr.
Esdaile, a clerk of Mr. B. Lewis, Mr. Kilvington, one of the
grantees, and Mr. B. Lewis himself, were severally called,
and they distinctly swore, that when the deeds were executed,
the consideration, amounting to 3,0001. in bank notes, was
delivered over to the defendant, Mho had the complete con-
troul and manual possession of the money ; and that he had
voluntarily paid it over again to Mr. Lewis for the purposes
above-mentioned. •
Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Jury, and spoke in terms
highly complimentary to the defendant, whom from a long ac-
quaintance he believed to be utterly incapable of a wilful false-
hood, although he had been ground by misfortune, and driven
to the very extremity of ruin. lie proposed to show that the
affidavit sworn by the defendant was the honest result of his
impression at the time, and not a deliberate act, with the know-
ledge of its falsehood.
Mr. Hugh Lewis, attorney, was present when the deeds were
executed. Witness attended as the defendant's attorney. A
bundle of bank notes, which he supposed to be 3,000/. was
handed over by Mr. B. Lewis to Mr. Bingkani in this manner;
Mr. B. Lewis held one end of the bundle of bank notes and the
defendant the other, and then it was returned by the defendant
to Mr. B. L. in bulk. This was witness's own impression from
his memory pf what took place several years ago.
The Lout) CHIEF JUSTICE said, it appeard that the whole
question in the case was as to the ceremony used in paying over -
the consideration money of the annuity. The witness just exa-
mined gave his evidence with great propriety, and lie he was
evidently impartial. If, then, according to his impression and
recollection, that occurred which the defendant had sworn in
his affidavit, it seemed but reasonable that the defendant might
also have imbibed the same impression ; and, if so, it was too
much to say that the affidavit in question was the result of a
deliberate determination to swear that which was untrue.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, after such a suggestion,
he could not think of carrying the case farther.
The Jury were then directed to acquit the defendant, and he
was accordingly found—Not Guilty.

LAGON V. NARY ANN HIGGINS, ALIAS ISAAC.
This was an action for goods sold and delivered by the plain.
tiff to the defendant, amounting to 4,161. 17s. Gad. The defen-
dant pleaded coverture, and averred that at the time of con-
tracting the debt in question she was, and still is, the wife of
one Henry. Higgins. This was denied by the plaintiff's repli-
caticin, and issue was taken thereon.
The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. SCARLET T, Mr.
ESPINASSE, and Mr. Dowurro„ and the defendant's by the
SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. F.
The plaintiff was a perfumer, and his wife a dress-maker, re-
siding at No. 16, Albemarle street. The amount of the de.
nand being adinitted by the pleadings, it was agreed that the
defendants Counsel should begin.
TheSo LICIT OR-GE NEit AL said the single point in the cause
was, whether the defendant, who was a lady of considerable
beauty and
.accinnplishments and very well connected, was a
married woman at the time this debt was contracted. . _

Misg Donovan, sister of the defendant, stated, that in 1813
she accompanied the defendant to Paris. She was then the
widow of Mr. Isaac, who had been Secretary to a Governor in
Africa, and was in one of the African Regiments. She knew
Mr. Henry Higgins ; he was paying his addresses to her sister,
who received his attentions, and it was agreed that they should
be married ; believed there was a day fixed for the marriage,
but she was not present, being too ill to attend. The defendant
came back from Versailles as the wife of Mr. Higgins, and
'they afterwards lived together as man and wife. The,marriage
took place in January, 1818. They were visited by their friends
and relatives, and believes that ever since they have lived to-
gether as man and wife. Believed that Mr. Higgins was a
Lawyer at Dublin ; did not knoW where he carried on his
business.
Lord Clanmorris had been acquainted with Mr. Henry Hig-
gins for eight or ten years ; he was a native of theSottpty. of
Mayo ; he knew him to-te—a;-tinlicitoii. Witness was intro-
duced to Mrs. Higgins in 1820 by Mr. Higgins in the County
of Kildare. They were received as man and wife by all per-
sons who knew them, and were visited by people of the highest
respectability of boat sexes. Understood. that Mr. Higgins
was now living at. Brussels.
Mr. Bryan Higgins Everard was present at the marriage of
Mr. and Mrs. Higgins at Versailles in 1818. They were married
by a Clergyman of the Church of England, named Sullivan,
according to the rites of the Church of England. The Cere-
mony did not take place in a Chapel but at an inn, called the
Hotel de France. Madame Simone, the other witness, was
gone to Greece with her husband.
Sir John Scott Lilly suet Mr. Higgins in Paris, in 1818.—:
Understood him to be married at that time. Has known Mr.
and Mrs. Higgins living together since as man and wife. Fre-
quently met them in society in London, as man and wife.
Capt. NVildie had known Mr. and Mrs. Higgins in Dublin,
and knew them from that time to the present to have been
visited by pergons of the first, respectability as man andiwife.—
They were Roman Catholics.
In answer to this case, the defendant's Counsel, after urging
some other points, contended that supposing ',lr. and Mrs.
Higgins to have been married in the way stated, still the mar-
riage was void by the law of France.
It was agreed by Counsel on both sides, that the cause should
be determined by the opinion of the Chief Justice on this point,
which should be final and conclusive of the case.
M. P. P. Nettlement, the French Consul, produced a copy
of the Civil Code of France, which he bought in Paris, and
deposed that such a book would be acted upon in the French
Courts.
A discussion of some length took place as to the admissibility
of such evidence oithe law of France ; but, on the authority
of the ease of Sir Thomas Picton, mentioned by Mr. Flanna-
an, curlce, it was received.
The Loßn CHIEF JUSTICE then said, that, the greatest
difficulty he had in the case was as to the admissibility of the
evidence as to what was the law in France. A copy of the civil
code had been produced by the French Consul as an authentic
copy of the law of France, acted upon • in the Courts of that
country. He should have been disposed to think that this was
not sufficient evidence of the law of France, but acting upon
the authority of Sir T. Picton's case, where similar evidence
was received respecting the laws of Spain, he thought this
proof 'of the law of .France was sufficient. Admitting then such
evidence, he was clearly of opinion, that he was.bound to con-
sider the legality of the marriage as it would be considered in
France. This was decided by Lord Stowell, in Dalrymple v.
Dalrymple ; and regard being had to the French law, it ap-
peared to him that this marriage was absolutely null en
void, and, consequently, the defendant's plea fell to the
ground.
The defendant's Counsel having aareed •to abide by the b
de-
cision of the Learned Judge,
The Jury were directed to find for the plaintiff—Damages,
4161. 17s. 60.—Costs, 40s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 21.
Sittings in London,
(Before Lord Chief Justice DALLAS, and a Special Jury.

-RUNNING DOWN OF A VESSEL.
WILSON AND OTHERS V. FORBES. _

This was an action to recover compensation in damages for
an injury done to the plaintiff's brig the Fame, by the defend-
ant's smack the Superior, in having run foul of her while lay-
ing off the Note, in November, 18'21.
Mr. Serjeant LENS (with whom was Mr. Serjeant
VAUGHAN) stated the case to the Jury. It would appear,
he observed, that the Fame, a brig of about 280 tons bur-
den, on her way from Shields with a cargo of coals, came
to anchor off the Nore, in a part called the Swim. She was
in about ten fathoms water. At nine o'clock the Captain saw
the Superior (which was a vessel much smaller than the Fame)
pass him to windward. . He took no further notice at that tiMe.
In the course of the night he was called on deck, and then
saw the Superior drifting towards him with wind and tide, and
without the appearance of having any person on board. This
was about one o'clock in the morning, . The weather was clear
at the time. When he first saw the smack she was about a
mile distant. As she neared him, he and his crew repeatedly
called out to her to " look out," but they received no answer.
There was no person on deck during the time. The Superior
at length struck the Fame, by which the latter sustained consi-
derable injury. For that injury the present action was brought.
If, as he was instructed, it should be proved that the accident
was owing to the negligence of those on board the smack, then