The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-27 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT. _SATURDAY.

mAy.,i v. rd,(l./A4c
The L 8.14? N4A:i>6.l.',f.ibit. gave.ltidirrifti lee this case,
which came before hal* dlciititurrer from the lice' Chan-
Geller, who allowed-a demurrer tti trl4olainiiff's bill for went
of Parties. His Lordship said that fliA' V,ite;Chancellor
ttlin to have taken anierroneous cidif ei the case.
Tiff pitet4i# e'l'tiiinVe4 an Dceount against tie two Alaiachvs
of Le OAS ot. tigtid in Cornwall, or a proportion Pf tile
shatr.eg treieoVl'; &Ida ft). hi:s interest in the mine. -Mc
Malacho; hare the'le'sse'eS. of the mine, divided it into 100
st'a'res; and the' ii Wan* the owner of one or two of
th'OSe sha'reS: One of ow litgatiiys afterwards assigned
hl4 the; othersf isho raised a joint-stock
Company, ail;,/ Mil* to three trustees for the
Company. The proß'f6i*Oas. then dilvided into fire thou-
sand shares, of which 2,50( tlicie reserved to Malueby ;
the other 2,500 were sold.. All this Was done behind the
plaintiff's back. The bill did not make the trustees or new
shareholders parties defendants ; and that was one ground of
demurrer. The object of the bill ti 1s to obtain for the plain-
tiff, from his joint-proprietors, the Nijachys, an account
of the plaintiff's proportion of the profits, .pr of the new
shares ; and he had a right to have that questiak
.discussed
as between him and the Malachys, without bringi;,st• be-
fore the Court the trustees and the others who subse-
quently became interested in the mine. These could not
be affected by a decree made on this bill. The justice of the
case appeared, from the statements in the bill, to be that the
•Aaintiff ought to have an account, The answer or the de-
I--
renditntg !!1,11 alter the case ; and the best time to judge
whether new pa"(: 5 to the suit were necessary was after
that answer came in.. was of opinion that the de-
murrer should be overrules with costs.

KING'S BENCH.-SATURDAY.

MUMMA. V. SKINNER.

This was ati action of criminal conversation, to which
the defendant had pleaded not guilty. Sir FARDERICK
roLtoeic said, that the plaintiff had formerly carried
on the htigness of a silvereraith, but, having acquired
an independent property, retired from business. In
1816, he was married to the lady wbeoe conduct was
now to form the subject of investigation. The plain-
tiff took a house some time since in the neighbourhood
of Maida-hill, and he allowed his wife the frequent use
of a four-wheeled phaeton, in which she used to drive to
town for any purpose she might require. In the beginning
of 183.5 the plaintiff had strong reason to believe that his
wife had proved unfaithful to him. The defendant was the
agent and receiver of rents for the Duke of Portland, and
in that character had had dealings with the plaintiff, who
was,letsee of some houses upon the Portland estate. On
some eccaalons during the temporary illness of the plaintiff,
his wife had gone to the office of the defendant on business.
These occasions did not necessarily lead to any very long
or frequent interviews ; but the plaintiff had at length rea-
son to suspect that assignations were made, and he caused
his wife to be watched, and the result was a discovery too
clear to be doubted, that his domestic honour and happiness
had been sacrificed. On the 10th of February, 1835, the
wife drove to town in the phaeton, got out of it in Berner's-
street, where she directed it to wait, and then crossing Ox-
ford-street, she went into an adjoining thoroughfare called
Carlisle-street, and then she entered a house of ill-fame.
At 'the end of two hours she came forth from that house,
and was within a few minutes afterwards followed by the
defendant. Of the identity of the wife there could
not possibly be the least doubt, for the hus-
band, in the indignation and agony of the
moment, addressed her, and covered her with re-
proaches for her misconduct. The identity of the de-
fendant would also be satisfactorily proved, for the plain-
tiff having traced his wife to the house introduced himself
to a person who kept a shop in the neighbourhood, and
having stated that it was his object to watch .a female rela-
tive, whom he believed to have been betrayed into entering
a house of that character, obtained the permission of that
person to wait in his house for her coming forth, and pro-
cured at the same time the assistance of two little boys
who were playing near the spot to watch the door, and
warn him when anybody was coming out. This action was
brought, he might at once avow, with the object of entirely
getting rid of a woman who was so utterly unworthy of the
station she filled. He did not state this as a case in which
the defendant had availed himself of the kindness and hos-
pitality of the husband to seduce his wife ; but though the
circumstances under which the parties had become ac-
quainted might diminish the amount of damages they were
not less fatal than others to the domestic happiness of the
plaintiff. He did not mean to say that there were children
to regret the loss of a parent—there were none; nor that
the wife was young. She had long passed forty, but she
still preserved her comeliness, and a large portion of the
beauty which had once distinguished her.
Mrs. Young had known the parties for about twelve
years. They always appeared to live happily together.
Cross-examined—Her late husband bad been the attor-
ney for the plaintiff. They were not very intimate, but
the families had frequently visited.•
Mr. Byers—l was the landlord of the house at Maida-
hill, where the plaintiff and his wife Elie& I have been
there very often. I thought •that they lived. ,happily to-
gether. He used to allow her more than I won:d have
allowed to any woman.—(A laugh.) I went to She'
George and Blue Boar to identify Mrs. Scrivener. I am
sure the person -I pointed out was Mrs. Scrivener. She is
a stoutish, very good-looking lady. She is a pretty woman.
She is not a young lady. She is about forty-seven.
Henry Becke—l live in Regent's Park-place. I had a
house in Oxford-street. 1 know the defendant. He re-
sides in Mortimer-street. He is the receiver of rents of
the Portland estate. In April last I went with two
women, a man and a boy, to the Marylcbone Court-house to
identify the defendant. It was on the 20th of April last.
He was recognised by the persons who were with me.
Cross-examined—l had seen defendant before. I should
say that the defendant is between fifty and sixty. .
Lord DENMAN summed up the evidence to the Jury,
who returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

COMMON PLEAS-SATURDAY.

CLEMENTS V. MAY.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 511.
from the defendant for the education and board of his sons
,it the plaintiff's school, at Turnham-green. The defendant
stated in his plea that his sons did not receive the proper
instruction or treatment which was undertaken to be given.
The Jury, after hearing the Learned Judge's summing
up, found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed,
311.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, SATURDAY.

A meeting of the creditors of Mr. William Ward, late
Director of the Bank of England, took place. His accounts
were rather voluminous :.;•!tt perfectly satisfactory; and has'-
' in.. passed his final csamini:tion the principal creditors in
the warmest manner • shook ht,;nds with him. The total
amount of claims against the cant 36,7971. There will
be about 18,0001. to meet the claim, The debts due to
the estate amount to 36,283/.