The Sun.
London, England, 1809-06-28 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Ivirit 27.

GEISLRAL. C. ASIII.est V. DRUMMOND.
The Plaintiffin this case is an eminent performer.
on the ilolin, and the Defendant achninistritrix of
the late Colnnei Bothwell, rtind the nation was
brought to recover 55'04, alleged by the PlaintitY to
be due to• him for attending and instructing Colonel
Dot hWell on the violin.
Mr: Charles Ashley proved the Plaintiff's having
attended Colonel 13. at Canterbury and Hastings (at
both whidh places the Colonel's Regiment laid),
frequently for a fortnight and three weeks at a time,
ever Since the year '1842, up to,tha latter part' of ,
last year the Colonel also whilst in town had coo-
stately a musical party twice a Week at his lodgings,
which the Praititiff always attended at the Colonel's
desire, and for which lie had received no remuneta-'
rice whatever.
The Rev. Mr. Graham, a friend of the Colonel,
'proved Mr.. Ashley's frequent attendance, and he
always conceived that the Colonel considered the'
Pl:timid' as entitled to a remuneration for his tinuble.
The defetice set up was, that Mr. Ashley had no
demand whatever on Colonel' Bothwell, he having
alWays been considered and treated by that 'Gentle-
, mantis a friend, and not as A professional man, To
support this a servant of the Colonel was called, who
stated, that whilst, Mr. Ashley was with them at •
Canterbury, and other places, ihe was always con-
sidered as a friend of hit master; that he had the
use °Ms master's horses and carriage, and a servant
to attend on him, and on varidus occasions had worn
the Colonel's linen. • • "
Captain Tonkin stated a conversation which pass-
ed between
.himself and Colonel Oothwell, in which
,the Colonel stated, that he had sent 601. to Mr.
Ashley to be applied to a 'particular purpose, for
*which, however, it was not eventually wanted ; he
had therefore requested . Mr. Ashley to keep it in
part'rernuoeration of hie trouble, but that he (Mr.
Ashley) had refused to do so.
Mr. Dance, Mr. Sale, and several other profes7,
sional Gentlemen were called, Who stated the charges
in the bill to be tirderatn Ores.
The Learned Jtidge observed, the question for the
Jury to decide on was, whether the Plaintiff hnd any
right to make this demand, it would have loOked
much better if he had delivered in a bill during the'
lifetime of Colonel Bothwell ; it certainly had a very
strange appearance; that the bill should- have been
suffered to run on from 1802 to the' time of the Co
loners. death in January last, and no demand made
during all that time. The evidence of Captain
Tonkin also, of the refusal of 501. was also a strong
circumstance in his mind,' towards proving that the
Plaintiff at that time had ~no intention of making
anydemand of the description of that now made. If
the Jury should be of that opinion, they would find
a verdid for the Defendant, if they were of A con-
trary Opinion, they
,would find for the Plaintiff—
. for the Defendant.

BATES V. BITTIMITOII.
Th. 0114114 itt this case is a house-agentin
beck-street, Cavendish-square, and the Defendant *.
m Gentlean of independent fortune. It was an ac-
lion brought to recover a sum of 6AI. ss. the com-
mission on the sale of a house value 3,0751. at Wal-
ton upon Thames. The Detiihdant had paid rol;
info court..
The fads of the case were shortly as follows

the defendant .had entered a description Of hiShouse,
which he wished le.be sold, in the registry books of
the plaintiff, and desired that any applicants who
might inquire should be directed to the premises.—
A gentleman, named Turner did apply in conie-
(inenceOf the
,publicity given to the defendant's ad-
vertkinent in the plaint ithicatalogue ; and after some
negociation, fie purchased 'the house for 3,0751.
The Witnesses oft the part of the plaintiff swore po-
sitively that p citti of the,,iiSevl commission tees
were.sheivn to the 'defendant vilien be first applied,
and,Char he did not object to them.
On the part of the Defendant, much
~caress was
upon the scandalous excess, of charge, made by
the Plaintiff, whose demand it was alledged 6!..jght to•
be well satisfied by the 101. 'paid into Court:
Witness, who was presetit at one of the, interviews
between the Defendant add the Plaintiff, swore that
there was no card of commission fees shev.at to the
Defendant, and that it was Understood mutually that
the Plaintiff Was merely to refer the applicants for
the purchase of the house to the ,Defendant, who
was to take upon himself the entire neootiation of the
business.

The Jury', however, found a verdiEt for the
IX—Damages 301.

DOCTORS' COMMONS, Iii;:

PORTHR L. TAYLORi•IVALSELY t7ALI4IN6 HERSELF •
•
vas_a suit of Ntaliity of Marriage brnughf by'
the h aiid against the'wife, ,and is came on before
the Coiirs by Petition: ,• It appeared in this case, that
the partieS were married by banns, the Lady as-
suming the name of: Eliza Shepherd, instead of
Hannah I dylor; which was her real and true name ;
the reason assigned, for this was in order ,to deceive
the father of the luisbandi in case he should have
any. objedion to•iuChmatriage.,

Sir Vai. Scorn vrai col opinion ip :thit case, that
under these circumstances it was a sufficient ground
fOr OD to pronoundo the:,marriagO 'to be null and
void. '.