The Sun.
London, England, 1809-07-08 00:00:00

DAVIES V. DAVIES.

This was a suit of divorce instituted'on the part of
Mary. Davies aglinst 'William Davies her husband,
by reason.of cruelty and ad-ultery.. 'lt ; appeared that.
the marriage in this case took place between the
pirties on the 4th of November, 1804; and that they
continued to live and cohabit together, as man and
wife, till 1806, when Mrs. D ivies separated from
her husband,. on account of his ill treatment and
personal violence towards her, and his adulterous in- ,
tercourse with women of the town, whereby her
health became much injured* The facts being made
out to the satisfaaion of die Court, it was of opinion'
the wife was entitled to the relief she prayed, and
accordingly pronounced for the•same. •
B: NG v. PRICE, (falsely calling herself BING).
• This was a suit of . nullity of marriage, instituted
by Susannah Bing, widoW, as the natural guardian
of John Bing, her son, against Mary Price, by reason
of Minority. It appeared that the parties Were mar-
ried by licence, obtained by the woman on tile 30th
August, 1807, the minor (John Price) being not
then 17 years of age, and which marriage was so-
leinn4ed ‘virhont the knowledge or consent of Su-
sannah Bing, the mother.
The necessary fats being clearly proved in this
case, the Judge (Sir Writ: Scorn) pronounced the
marriage,to be null and void.
GURNEY V. PRICE, (falsely calling herself GoixNEy).
This was a proceeding of nullity of Inairiage,
,brought by Charles Gurney, the husband, against
Anne his wife, by reason of minority:
From the proceedings it appeared, that the parties
were married in 1803,- by license, obtained on the
oa-h of the husband ; and the material points to be
established in this case
~ were the proof of the mi-
nority of the party; and want 'ot consent of the
father; w ho, it appeared, had 'absconded from his
family, when his daughter Ann was only three
years old, and went to America, and had not since
that titne been heard of. The Court, after making
several pertinent observations applicable to the case,
was of opinion that the proof was defeCtive as to the'
points of minority and Want of consent, and there:-
fore dismissed the application made on the
part
of
the husband.

COURT OF KING's BENCI-1, pity 7.
P 1 ARSON AND OTHERS V. HiTTCHINSON.

This was xi action against the indorser of a Bill of
Exchange for 1601. under the following citlCum-
stances. The Bill had. been lost by the holders, who
had offered au indemnity .to the Delendpnt if he
• could pay it. The.Defettclant.said they must pro-
duce the bill—they could not do so, and therefore
brought am aCilcm. In a Court of Equity, if it
was proved that the Plaintiffs hpd offered to give the
necessary guarantee, the Court wOuld'assist them,
and, he added, that if the same proofs were adduced
in a Court of L w, also, Ley might recover in' this
/talon.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. was clearly of opi-
nion, iliar the Law, of the case was against him.,7-
The Plaintiris were nonsuiled.

BOTHAM.V. DIXON.
Thin was an aElion brought by the Plaintiff, an
innkeeper, at Salthill, against the Defendant, the
proprietor of the City Repository, Barbican, for 391,
Fes. paid for a horse, which the Defendant war-
rdnted quiet to ride and quiet in harness, but which-
the Plaintiff returned as unquiet. The Defendant_
did not produce any evidence of the quietness of the
bore, but relied on his conditions of sale, by one
of which, it was. declared, that though the horse
should not answer the warranty, yet if be Was not
.reiiuned by six o'clock the pext evening after the
sale, the ptirchaser must keep him with all fatilts.
After a very distin& and impartial charge by Lord
.ELLENBOROUGII, in which his. Lordship observed,
that it would. be difficult for the Defendant to Carry
on bUsiness at all, if his conditions of sale were not
to he adhered to, and that it appeared the Defendant
441 A been very industrious in making known the con-
ditions by which he sold, the Jury immediately found
a verdia for the Defendant.

JULY 6..
SEDUCTION.

!lEESOM V. CIIIVERS.

r.‘
The ATT9RNEY-%.7ENERAL stated this to be ati ac-
tion brought for
,the sedu&ion, by the defendant,
of the plaintiff's daughter. It was a case which
w-oilid call for the grave-attention of the Jury,
The plaintiff's daughter had received a religious edu-
cdtion, aid had been brought u'p in the paths of vir
Ric, an] she had no eyil example set to her. The
short statement of the case was this :—The plaintiff
a respeaable tradesman, who lived by the river-
. %i.te, at the. bottom of the street that 'leads from
Silisbury-court, Fleet-street, to the Thames. On
the metnorable occasion of the procession up the
river, of the remains of the late Lord -Nelson, the
plaintiff admitted a number of persons on his pre-.
wises, -which commanded a view Of the river.—
..A.tnong the persons so-admitted. was the defendant,
who then was, and now is, the first mate of an
' Eact-Incliaman. He was introduced by a gentleman
-of the name of Knight. In the evening of that day
many of those who were present at that sight had a
d.n and the defendant chanced to dance.with this
• young lady, who was the subjea.of Then
ab iut 17. An intimacy thus arose between the de-

fondant and the pl tintiff's fami;y, which he visited
very frequently, bit nothing occurred to excite the
suspicion •of the plaintiff, or any part of his: fa- _
After this_ the defendant went on a voyage to
'and returned in the year 1808, when het t
re-
newed his acquaintance with this family at
plaintiWs house, which was then at Christ Church-
reef, on the other site of Blackfriars-bridge soon
after which, this young woman eloped from her pa-
tents, and it was iiot until the ,e4lh of March that
her parents discovered'where she,was, and that was
at a lodging in which she was kept,bY the defendant,
a place in Tabereacle-Tow,. in the City.. Upon this
discovery of where she was, the- plaintiff wrote to
the defendant a proper letter, reproaching him with
his rniscondua, and telling. him that he could make.
no 'atonement for it but that of marrying the young
woman., to' which he paid no regard whatever ; upon
which the plaintiff,
_her father, arid his4ife brought
the Young woman home, with the hope of reclaim-
ing,her,
:but she elopedeigaie with the defendant the
following day, and had lived with him in a• state of
fornication ever since, and.does so at present... This
was a serious case, and he put it to the Jiiry to con-
sider what either of theelsel;:es, as probably most
of them were parents would expect hi case this-had
-happened to one of their own daughieri., He had
further to observe, that if this young woman, 'at-
tending to the. dilates .of her conscience, and to
the principles of that religion in which she was edu-
cated, should ever knock at her parents' door, ask
foigiveness, and.seek proteaiou,
,the door should be
opened unto her, and she should meetwith what she
should so seek; meanwhile- the Jury would do the
injured father's feelings justice:
• The witnesses being called, none appeared. His
Lordship indulged theplaintiff's attorney with time
to go 'to look .after thbm- at the,coffee-house, and
then gently rebuked ,him for not taking-care that
they were ready before the cause was opened.
The plaintiff'S eldest son Was-thefirst witness.—
He said his father was a chair and eabinct-maker ;
and in the year 1806, resided , Salisbury-street,
'with prenlises commanding a • view the river.
He then gave an .account the defendant, who is
the first mate of an East-Indianian, being introduced,-
' asahe Attorney-General had opened, to his lather's
family, through the medium of Mr. Knight ; of-his
dancihg with the sister.of. the witness, then of the
age of 17 ; ..it was the night of the funeral Of Lord
Nelson ; of his visiting the family frequently after-
wards ; and of the final elopement of the sister of
the Witness ; the place to which ..he went was not
discovered for five months afterwards by her parents,
;,althpugh the witness knew where she was.abont
fortnight after she left home. -His sister ,reque,ted
him not to inform •ther father or mother where she
-was, for that would .be her destruCtion, since in that
that case Mr. Chivers would go to sea, and never see
her again ; . and thus be was prevailed on bY his sister
not to tell their parents where she- was; but his fa-
ther endeavoured to discover where she was, -which
he found at last, by the information dt the mother,
who inquired at the India House whether the de-'
fendant was gone abroad ; found, he was not, met
him afterwards at the' Jerusalem Coffee-house,

where they found out where the yOug woman way,
and got her back again in a fortnight ; but she went
away again the next morning. The 'reason why.
they did not go sooner for her was, Ow she was dan-
gerously ill of a fever, and could not with safety be
removed. This the witness knew.; for he went to
see her in her illness., He, was sure it was ,against
the consent of the father that she went away. She
was not present in Court to-day ; but she was in
Court on, the first day of the, present'sittings, when
this couse was expeaed to be tried, and was intended
to he examined as a witness she was the person
who (aimed and excited so much entotion in Court
on that occasion ; she was on that occasion handed
into a hackney-coach by her father,- and she went
back to her plesetit ; but her father never
visited her there.'

Thomas Christopher Meesom,_ the next brother
was then examined, gave an account of his, siSte,
having eloped from her family on the 17th of March,.
and none of the family knew of it before that time.
This witness said he accompanied' his mother to the
Jerusalem coffee-house, where they found the'de7
fendant, and where the mother put to the defendant
the question point-blank, forthe 'purpose of confnsing
him-.—saying to him, " You know the bUSiness lam
come npon ; and he seemed very much confounded.
He said nothing distio6tly, but muttered, and' seem-
ed , frightened. The mother said, "You know the
busines; I am come upon, _but this is not the•pro-
per place to speak about it ;" and asked hith where
he would appoint a proper place to Meet her, and
he proposed the'Cross.Keys, iu Gracechurch-street,
at tour o'clock, "and they met there accOrdingly.---7
The mother requested to know where the young
woman was.: The mother Saw 'that the Defendant
was guilty, and demanded to know where her child
was,
,and the Defendant took a pen and ink, ,and
wrote the direaion, No. Tabernacle-row, saying,
at the same time, that-she was dangerously ill, and
begged of the mother to be,-goad-temp6ed with' her,
and then she might be:as well as ever; but it Might
be dangerous to cross her in that state. He then
accompanied the mother and the witness as far as
Finsbury7square; fo conduct them part.of the way-,
and then lett them, and said be would be dowry in
the evening.. The witness saw his sister 'after-
wards:. she was so ill then in .bed that she Could
hardly speak.

Cross-examined, he said tjiey-, went four or five
times -to see her, but never until they went to de-
mand her home. When she came home she
slept with her sister and her eldest brother in the
same bed ; -but when they awoke in the morn-
ing she was gone. Her sister that slept with
her, was eleven, and the brother eighteen ; they
slept in the same bed: with her to take care of
her, but she escaped in 'the' morning before they
were up. Mr.Chivers.used to come very often, un-
til the father and mother looked cool upon him,
and then he kept away ; after which the young wo-
man becanie very perverse, used to provoke her mo-.
ther • on purpose taget out, pretending she was ill
used, although nobody beat her. _ About a fortnight
'after Mr. Chivers left off visiting she would not
live at home; her father never 'chastised her, lie
bad very little to do with her; she constantly framed
excuses to go out.to meet Mr.,thbers. There was

nothing.impropei'in.ber„ conduct - before- she went,
away: They had. uo opportunity of doing any thing
improper at her fathees,• they were 'never left by
themselves. After sh 4 was gone, She fiequentry.
wrote letters tb her parents as ,it they came from
Brentford, and that for about four months but she
contrived always to have. them pht into the letler-
box of a house in which there was a clerk who was
acquainted with her family, and they always came
without a post-mark ; -so that they could never trace
her until they foUnd out the Defendant at the Jere-:
salem Coffee-house.

It thepappeaied in evidence that This young wo7
man was perfeetly inodest in her manner.before the
elopement, .and perfeolly constant to the Defendant
after it, and went by the naive of Mrs. Chivers ever
since ; that she is now very ill, and had said to some
of some of the witnesses she hoped. the Court would
dispense with het attendance a 4 a witness this day.
Here Lord ELLENBOROUGU suggested to the par-
ties the pnlicy of their coining to an accommodation
without, proceeding further.; upon which Mr. Gar-
row went out of Court, and consulted his client,
but returned withbut accomplishing bis object.
_ _

Mr. GARROW, for the . Defendtpt, contended,
that this was not a,case for excessive damages, and:
that the action was very properly 'brought forrthe
loss of. services of ethe .daughter ; as it was not for a
'compensation to the daughter, but to.the father.--
He remarked, with some severity, ripon the neglet
of the Plaintiff, in suffering-his daughter to escape
a second time, and particularly in not using due dili-
gence- for her discovery. Under all the circum-
stances., he held that the damages, if any, ontst be
very nioderate. - .
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, in 'addressing the Jury,
said, there could be no, doubt of an improper inter-
course having taken place.; •and that it was a casein
which there was much to •be felt, and something
to•be blamed ; -although. perhaps not to the extent
insisted:upon by the Counsel
.for the
,Defendant.-
There ' Were. no aggrabted attendant circumstances,
no regular plan of sedu,-,tion, in which case the laW
would allow compensation in a wore extended view,
than for the mere loss of services; there, appeared
a mutual -affeCtion. The Plaintiff was, however,
entitled. to their -verdia-, .unlesS, they .thought that
his daughter threw herself into the arms of the
Defendant, • His Lorti•dlip- concluded by recom-
mending to the Jury to take all the circumstances
into their temperate consideratiorr, and give-such
verdict aw they thought consistent -with justice: ,
The Jury, -after a few minutes consideration, re-
turned a verdict for the Plaintiff---Damages; :701.

• •
the American, in forwarding his goods to th 4
British Islands, has second freight to pay, and
hcre the;ir. produce is already 'plenty, and at low
••-• • •
•
price§.
A mericanVessels to pay a Tonnage Ilutyof 6s. 8d per ton. -
Ditto - Produce iii their Vessels-. Flour 6 8 per barrel.
Ditto Corn'Meal - - 3 4 per ditto.
Ditto - -Corn, Pease, and Beans - oto per bust4l.
Ditto . • ' 3 4 per cwr.
Ditto - 'BoSton Chips - 3 4 per .M
Ditto - - Shingles
Ditto - . Stai,res-
Ditto . - Pitch Pine Lumber - -
Ditto -4, - Common Ditto - - -• to o ditto.
Ditto - Wood Hoops - - - 5 A ditto;
Ditto - Horses, Cattle, &c. - to o ditto.

A most melancholy accident happened on Friday
seinnight,, in two of the pits belonging to Messrs.
Lee, Watson, and Co. situate at East Ardsley; near
Wakefield.—Ten men and lout boys, colliers, em-
ployed in the said pits, were instantly drowned by
the bursting; it is supposed, of the tunnel of some' old
pits,)yiug near and not now in uce.—Tire waler,wluch
is not less than ten or eleven yards deep in each pit, is
drawing Off as quick as possible, bits it was thought
th'e bodies could not be, got out before TueSday:—
SeveraLof . the unfortunate sufferers have left wives
and families.