The Sun.
London, England, 1814-12-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 5.
CHARGE OF USURY.

STEIN, SMITH AND CO. V. KENSINGTON AND CO.

This was a Motion by Mr. LEACH, for an order
to exclude from the Special Jury- directed to try
the action in tins case, chiefly on the circumstance,
Whither a sum-of 292,0001. a dividend proved by
-the defendant's bankrupts against the asserts of
the plaintiff's bankrupts, likewise be an usurious
debt, being created by a charge of one half
per cent. commission on monies furnished to
the plaintiff's two- houses in London and Edin-
burgh by the defendants ; the charge, as to
the house in London being deemed illegal or
usurious, while the accommodation to that at
Edinburgh was legal and allowable. -The charge
was made against both, and created the action
directed.to he tried in the City of London. The
immediate object of this motion respected the ex-
clusion of the creditors of the defendants, and the
relatives and all persons connected with, or in any
way connected with such creditors or relatives,
from being impanneled on such Jury, and getting
a list of the' defendant's.creditors.

Mr. HART -opposed this Motion in' part as too
extensive, and quite unprecedented, but offered
to comply with the furnishing to the plaintiffs. a
list of the principal creditors in time to object to
the pannel.
• Mr. LEACH replied, that the extraordinary na-
ture of this case pLstitied the extent of his motion.

The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that the mo-
tion went too far, and, could not in its full extent
be acceded to ; but as far as the list of creditors
assented to went, it was fair to furnish it two
days before striking the pannel, that the plaintiffs
may object to all the creditors or any of them be-
ing of the Jury, or any of their relatives ; but as
to connections or dependants, he could make no
such precedent, as none had hitheito existed.
With these qualifications the motion was
granted..
PUBLIC CHARITIES.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS V. THE COR-
PORATION OF WINCHESTER.

, .
Mr. LEACH, in this matter, native(' for an order
on the proper Officer of the Corporation to.deposit
with the 'Clerk in Court certain books called Li-
bri donationum oinnium benefactorum hujus Sorie-
tatis, for inspection of the plaintiffs, in order to
ascertain the extent of the abuses or perversions
ot the several charitable donations in question, by
the Corporation.
Mr. HAar, 'fDr the defendants, did feel war,
ranted in resisting this application, and the mo-
tion was ot course grailted.
• The LORD CHANCELLOR rose early, and no-
thing of interest occurred in the Vice-Chancel-
lor's Court.

couirr OF KING'S BENCIJ, DEcEmsun 5.
ASSAULT UPON A MAGISTRATE.
THE KING V. LORD BOY LE.

This was an indictment against John .Boyle,
Esq. commonly called Lord Boyle, for an assault
upon Mr. Richardson, the -Magistrate at Bow-
street. it appeared that the' defendant was in-the
Navy, and having been released from a French
prison. upon the late peace, bad got intoxicated
on an illumination night in London, and had
committed some assault, for which he was under-
going an examination at Bow-street'before Sir N.
Conant and Mr. Sketchley, the Magistrates, when
Mr. Richardson, the prosecutor, came in, and
took his seat' with his brother Magistrates. The
defendant abused Mr. Stafford, the clerk, who
was taking down the examinations of the wit-
nesses against . him.; and . upon the prose-,
cutor (who sat- near him) remonstrating with
him, the defendant assaulted him, attempting
to drag him out, and challenging.him. Upon be-
ing told by the other Magistf:4-tespsat the prosecu-
tor was also a Magistrate, and uplan the prosecu-
tor's felling the defendant that heliad been to sea
him Self (as lie had-7 years), the defendant wished
'to make it on with bins, and offered to shake
hands with him, but. the prosecutor refused. It
slid not appear that the defendant knew the pro-
secutOr was a Magistrdte in the execution-of his
duty, when -he-assaulted him, so that he could
only be convicted of a common -assault ; but it
did appear most plainly-that he was very drunk,
and had offered an ample apology-by his Attorney:
But Lord _ELLENZOROUGH held the-assault com-
mitted ; -and that a Gentleman, who had had his
feelings wounded by one, however noble, was
entitled to -expect that that Nobleman should de-
scend from his rank, and make- a personal repara-
tion to those wounded feelings. The defendant
was, therefore, under -his Lordship's directions,
found guilty : But his Lordship hoped, that before
the next Term such an arrangement would- be
made, as that the Court should hear no more of
the case.

sDEFAMATIO:sI.

NOTTINGHAM, GENT. V. KINNARD, ESQ.'

This was an action for defamation, brought by
an Attorney at East Redford, in the Ctiunty -of
Notts, against the Middlesex Magistrate. It ap-.
reared that the defendant and Mr. Duncan Camp-
bell were co-trustees of Lady Ankers, under her
late husband's will ; and that the plaintiff was
appointed to act for Mr. D. C. (luring his ab-
sence abroad. The uarties had had disputes re-,,
•specting these affairs ; but they were considered
to be all settled at a meeting of the parties pre-
vious to Mr. D. C's going abroad, and that all the
defendant's defamation of the plaintiff had been
put an end to. Nevertheless, the Mendant since
wrote a Long letter to Mr. P. Campbell, requesting
him to urge his brother not to entrust the plain-
tiff with his affairs, in which he renewed all his
defamation, and had also slandered the plaintiff in
conversation. The plaintiff's case being opened
by I'ir. TOPPING, his client proposed a compro-
mise urn being paid his costs; and the ATTOR-
NBy-OENERAL, for the defendant, closed with a
proposal which he acknowledged to be handsome.
Lord ELLENBOILOUGII commended the discre-
tion of both parties : he had read every ,word of
the long correspondence out of which this talon
grew,: and though he was of opinion that a great
deal of the defendant's language might. be protect-
ed by the confidential relation in which he stood,
yet he had overstepped by his indiscretion the
litnits which that relation allowed, and a verdict

w ould probably in the result have passed against
hi in. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to
Uis costs ; to cover which lie took a verdict for 40s.

FIODGKINSON AND ANOTHER V. PLETCHER.

The plaintiffs who are linen-drapers in Bond-
street, sought by this action to charge the de-
fendant with drapery goods to. the amount of 531.
delivered to his wife, who is living separately
from him, at a house in Dean-Street, Audley-
square. There was an action brought by another
tradesman against the same gentleman, tried in
the Court of Common Pleas on Saturday, in which
the then plaintiff was nonsuited. The decision
upoo the present case was looked to as of consi-
derable importance, 'likely to affect in its result
the claims of other: persons who have credited
Mrs. Fletcher, and also as Calculated to influence
the future establishment Of that lady.
IhCATTORNEY-GENNHAL, for the plaintiffs, said,
that after.he had proved the
.delivery of the goods
to Mrs. Fletcher, the only grounds of defence left:
to Mr. Fletcher would be, either that his wife had
been incorrect in her -conduct, or that, living se-
parate, by mutual consent, he allowed her a fair
provision, considering his circumstances in life.
As to the first suggestion, he believed that even
the breath of calumny had never in any way pro-
faned her name. If Mr. Fletcher had allowed
her three hundred pounds a year, he-had during
the last year deducted froth the miserable pit-
'Nine the amount-of a tradestnan's bill that he
paid for her. The rent of the house in which she
lived, and as was proved by the letter, with A-Ir.
Fletcher's approbation, was 801.. alear, it would
not be too much to take the taxes of such a house
at 301. and after having paid these expences, was
it to be supposed that she could pay her butcher,
her baker, and her servant, and maintain herself
with the remainder ? The case appeared to hint
so clear, that he should trouble the Jury no fur-
ther upon it, only just observing upon the verdite
of the Common Pleas on Baturday, that there must
have been sonie material difference in the question
before the Court, or the case could not have been
decided as it had been.

The ATTORNEY -GENERAL having proved his

case,

Mr. PARK, for the defendant, regretted equally
with-his friend, the Attorney-General, that these.
unhappy misunderstandings should become the
subject ofpublic discussion. Mrs. Fletcher, upon
whom he could charge nothing more than vio-
lence of temper, had left her husband's house
against his wish ; and, wh6n it was considered that
she had only herself and her servant to maintain'
while Mr. Fletcher had the whole expense of the
support and edueati?n of their four children,
after the' losses he had had, he trusted the Jury.
would think the allowance that had been made
fully sufficient. Mr. Park substantiated his de-
fence by several witnesses.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied.
The Court laid down the law to the Jury :—lf
a woman elopes from her husband and lives in
adultery, the husband is not liable for any of the
obligations she may contract ; but if he parts
with her from caprice or in any other way, he is
bound to find her a suflici(nt maintenance accord-
ing to his. means. It was for the Jury to consi4er
whether NU a-year, after all his
,losses and ex•
pences,- was not as much as he could afford ber ;
if so, the plaintiffs must look for payment from
Mrs. Fletcher out of the means with which her
husband supplied her: if they thought otherwise,
the goods supplied to her being necessaries, thy:
defendant would, be liable, and they must give a
verdict for !lie plaintiff.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—.
Damages 531. 15s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 5.

CON.

KNIGHT V. LOAD. MIDDLETON.

This .was an action brought by the plaintiff, a.
Gentleman of Fortune, against the defendant,'
Lord Middleton, for Criminal Conversation,
pitted to have been held with the Hon. Frances
linight,• the plaintiff's wife. In taller terms, it
was an. action to recover a compensation in da-
mages for a civil injury sustained, in which the
plaintiff had been deprived of the affection, com-
fort, and fellowship of his wife, by seduction and
adultery on the part of the defendant. •

Mr. Serjeant BEST opened the case by obServ.
ing, that he should have to encounter considerable
ditficulty; as it happened that a great part of the
witnesses were under the influence of the defen-
dant and the adultress. The plaintiff %vas apersots
of large property and honourable. connections.
He.bad been a Member of Parliament,:and wasiti
every sense highly honourable. The defendant
was a person of great Consideration ; he was.a.
Peer of the realm, and possessed of one of the
largest fortunes in the kingdom. At the time of his
adultery with the plaintiff's wife, which gave oc-
casion for this action, the plaintiff and Mrs. Knight
were not living together; but whatever might be
the circumstances which led to that separation, he.
should be able to prove the plaintiff was en-
,titled to a verdict and damages. He should be
able to prove at the time the adultery was com-
mitted by the defendant, that the plaintiff resided
in •London. Mrs. Knight at that time lived in a
village at Hampton Cottage, a short distance
from Warwick. The Noble defendant had large
estates in than part of the country, and one of
those estates was within a short ride of Hampton
Cottage. At the latter end of 1812, the Noble
Lord was in the habit of visiting-the cottage. He
was addressed, when he
.went there, in a manner
different from oilier visitors. When he came
to the plaintiff's wife, he continued in a room
with her for several hotirs together—that he
remained late in the evening, (end excited the-sus-
picion of the servants. They were ordered to
keep away from • that part of the building where
the Noble Lord and their mistress wweareys;
but one of the servants, in Conn oneseque the Noblenceofsusp
t-
cion, looked in at the window. There were sofas
on each side the fire-place ; o
Lord was seated with Mrs. Knight. The defend-
_ant kept a number of servants, and was always
attended by a groom, except when he visited-the
plaintiff's wife.; on those occasions he came alone,
went aback way to the house, and frequently put
his horse up himself hi the stable, locking the door,
and keeping the key. The Learned Sedeant said
be had a number of circumstances to prove tha