The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 23.
WARD OF COURT.
Mr. CHINO moved for an injunction to restrain a gentleman,
named William Wells, a pupil in medicine, who walks St.
Bartholomew's Hospital, from making suite to a lady of 17
years of age, named Susannah Adams. The application was
made. by Mrs. Anne Jenner, the mother of the young lady, who
stated that on the Bth of July last the lover had sent her a letter
avowing his passion for her daughter, and requesting her acqui-
escence as theonly thing wanting to secure the mutual happiness
of him and his fair one. Upon this the mother consulted with
the other relations, and they were all of opinion that a lady of
28,000/., and of suchl connexions, was toogood a match for one who
had no other title than that of a student walking the hospital.
She wrote to bins accordingly, and so did her solicitor, to inform
him that the lady was a ward of Court, that his pietensions were
by no means admissible, and that if he meant to act as a gen-
tleman, he would not disturb the peace of a quiet family, and
prejudice the young lady's education (which Is not yet finish-
ed) and prosperity in life, by urging them further. The soli-
citor, in consequence of no answer being received to either of
the letters, called upon him about the 26th of July. Mr.
Wells admitted that he had received the letters. The soli-
citor intreated him to spare the family and the lady the
disagreeable consequence of an application, to the Lord
Chancellor, which must inevit<daly take , place it' he were to
persist in his suit. Mr. Wells gave him plainly to understand
that he had no intention of desisting; and as to the Court of
Chancery, he seemed to think that be knew how to manage
matters, so as to evade any exercise of that authority. It was
also sworn that he had, by bribery, induced one of the ser-
vants at the school to deliver a card of his address, and a re-
quest to write to him, to the young lady ; and that the Gover-
ness of the said school threatened that if the parents and
friends did not take effectual means to prevent the recurrence
of such conduct, she must be returned upon their hands..
The affidavits also conveyed an assertion that the father of
Wells was likely to give his concurrence to the project of
his son upon the person and fortune of the ward.—lnjunction
granted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR promises to devote the whole of
Wednesday and Friday in next week to giving judgments for
which he has prepared himself.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nor. 23.
The CouRT heard exceptions and further directions argued;
but none of them were of general interest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 23.
The COURT were engaged the whole day in hearing argu-
ments of sessions cases, and motions of no general interest, but
did not rise till near five o'clock.—The Lord Chief Justice was
absent; and we were sorry to hear indisposition mentioned as
the cause.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 23.
BROOK V. CARPENTER.

This was an action brought against the defendant, an attor-
ney, for false imprisonment, in which a verdict was given for

the plaintiff, damages 3JOI. The circumstances of the case
were these :—The defendant got a bill for 381. drawn by a
person named Eisen:, end accepted by 'plaintiff, who is a•
widow; upon which he lodged a detainer, alleging that 10/. of
it remained unpaid. The plaintiff refused to pay it, on the
ground that it was already paid by Elsam, and therefore re-
mained in prison for a considerable time. Several applications
were made to the defendant to discharge her, but he refused,
sometimes alleging that the plaintiff owed him t money for
services done for her as an attorney ; at other tires, that the
ten pounds was as a bonus for a lean of -thirty pounds pro-
cured for her; and at other times various reasons, but always
refusing to liberate her until the money was paid, or security
given. The matter was at length brought before the Court, and
referred to the 'Prothonotary, who, having heard both parties,
awarded that the bill should be given ttp,tbe plaintiff discharged
oot of custody, and that Carpenter should pay eli costs. With
this award Carpenter refused to comply, and it was again brought
before the Court, when the award was made a rule of Court,
and Carpenter compelled to pay the additional costs. It having
been thus decided that no cause °faction existed, Mrs. Brook
brought her action for a malicious detainer and false imprison.
meet: On the trial, the award of the Prothonotary was -put in
evidence, in support of the plaintiff's case. Thi,, was objected
to, as not 'being stamped, and the objection was held to be
valied. The rule of Court was then lint in, whiCh was founded
upon the award. This was also objected to, as not being
legal evidence, it having been founded on the oath of the
plaintiff: Chief Justice Rest 'diver-ruled the objection; but
gave the defendant leave to more to have the verdict set aside,
and a nonsuit entered, should the Court above be of opinion
that the rule of Court ought not to be received in evidence. In
the present Term a rule to that effect was obtained ; and on
Tuesday
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN spewed cause against the rule,
contending that the rule of Court was most properly ad-
mitted, to shew that the action was at an end. Other evidence
had been adduced to shew malice, and want of probable cause
in the action ; nor had the rule been obtained on the oath of
the plaintiff alone. The action had been put oh, to try the rule
of Court, and if it were not admitted as evidence • there could
be no other means of proving it. He submitted, therefore,
that the rule to set aside the verdict ought to be discharged.
Mr. Sergeant LawEs followed on the same side, after which
the case was ordered to stand over till this. day.
This morning Mr. Sergeant TADDY was heard in support of
the rule, and contended that no action in a Court could be sup-
ported; directly or indirectly, by the oath of the plaintiff. The
Learned Sergeant here quoted cases in support of his position.
One of which was an action for assault, it which the record
of conviction was refused to be admitted by Lord Kenyon, be-
cause partly fOunded upon the evidence of the plaintiff:
The LORD CHIEF JusT,lcF said, that the rule must bedis-
charged. The ca:sehad been argued upon general principles,
which he did not question,-'and which no lawyer would contest.
But was there no case in which an exception might not be made.
He thought there was ; and thecase in the 6th Modern Reports,
where the information of a wife before a Magistrate was received
on the part of her husband, in an action for a malicious prosecu-
tion, was in point upon the subject, as was also that of a man
who was robbed, whose evidence will be received in an action
against Atae Hundred, for the recovery of the money of which
he was robbed, upon this clear principle, that there might have
been no other person present when the robbery was committed,
and unless his evidence were received he mig ht be without a
remedy. The case before the Court stood upon grounds pre-
cisely similar, and therefore the rule must be discharged, it ap-.
peering to him that' the plaintiff had no other Means of proving
.that the action was-at an end than by the Production of the rule
of Court.—The other Judges coincided in this opinion, and the
rule was accordingly discharged.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 23,
CURTIS V. CURTIS.

In this case, Dr. LUSINGTON stated that James Curtis,
of Hackney, the deceased, left a will dated 20th December,
1823, whereby he bequeathed the whole of his property to his
sister Mary, omitting all sort of testamentary benefit to his
'wife. whotti 'he mentioned with great disrespect. The present
application to the Court was, that it would permit the terms
complained of to be expunged from the will.
They were to this efFe.ct—that he made such disposition of
his property " inconsequence of the cruel and murderous treat-
ment which he had experienced at her hands during his then
subsisting illness, and at former periods."
The Learned Counsel added, that the wife was not objecting
to the grant of the Court's probate to this paper, provided
the Court would consent to direct such words to be erased and
omitted. . '

Dr. JENNER said, that unfortunately this property was too
small to warrant the widow going into any suit about the mat-
ter'• otherwise he should have been prepared to show that there
wiinot the slightest foundation for the extraordinary manner in
which she had been mentioned in the will.

Sir JoiN stated that it was utterly impossible for
the Court to accede to this application. It was a written will,
admitted to have been executed by the deceased, and therefore
the Court did not feel that it hid any authority to interpose.—
Thore was a former case in which a similar prayer had been
made, and was rejected by, this Court. •