The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-22 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,

lIAYDON V. LORD NEWRY.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated that this was an aetiou
brought by the plaintiff, an innkeepj at Hampton Wick, t°
recover froth the defendant a sum of money for the keep of nue
of his horses. It appeared that on the day preceding Wl°
Races, last year, the defendant had sent his boy with
hcese to the plaintiff's house, intending himself to ride tle
horse from thence on the following day' to Epsom. Meer'.
ingly, the next day, accompanied by a friend, he called for
the horse, but had a dispute with the ostkr about the charge.--
The defendant paid as. asking if there was any other de-
mand ? The ostler replied in the negative, but added, you
have not given me any thing." The (lefendant. called him a
cheating rascal, and said he would not give him a farthing.--
The ostler then said, he should not take any care of the horse °t'
which the defendant had ridden to the inn, nor should it e
hav
either food or stabling room. The horse was afterwards Put
into the stable by the defendant's boy, and fed with corn be".
longing to another person. In the evening the defendant re'
turned, and the landlady made an apology for what had tab
curred in the morning, and requested the defendant to, tei`e
away his horse, which the latter refcsed to do, adding that he
had been ill treated, and would rm.lre Mr. Haydon stiffer
for it.
Mr. Serjeant PEEL, for the defendant, contended that t'
ill
plaintiff must be nonsuited. There had not been the slighte;
pretence for saying that the defendant had expressly promise-
to pay for the keep of the horse, and he submitted that nothing,
on the evidence adduced by. the plaintiff afforded suffieleu
ground on which to raise an implied assumpsit. dras
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN contended that the innkeeper
baund to receive the horse of a travt.ller, and in the prew",
case could have been punished for refusing to do so. The
would therefore raise an implied assumpsit.
Serjeant PELL in reply, ot scrveu, that it
an odd way of punishing an indiviGual, to incur a wad
t
him for the article which constituted his trade. The ae=en d;
had done nothing which could render him liable to this denial!, ,
and as to the obligation of receiving the horse, he conterltleed
justine
that in the present case the plaintiff' would have' been
in law if he had turned the horse into the street. non'
• 'The CHIEF JUSTICE acceded to the objection, and
~d
suited the plaintiff; but gave leave to move-to set it aside, a,Te,
have a new trial, if the Court should think the plaintiff, ue
• all the circumstances, entitled to maintain his action.
was certaie.liti

CONSISTORY COURT, MAY 21. En
GREEN, FALSELY CALLED DALTON (BY GREEN,
GUARDIAN'), AGAINST DALTON.
In this case, the facts of which we have already brought be-
fore our readers, rriage
CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON decided that the Ina of the
was null and void. It appeared that•the baptismal name the
Minor was Sophia Green, and that sh.e was married by
of
names of Sophia Augusta. In the memorandum-booted
the clerk of St. Mary's, Islington, the husband had en
teroti
the names of his intended wife as Sophia Augusta Green, ,ape,
she herself, after the ceremony, he. so subscribed her
hieh
in the marriage registry of that. parish—circumstances wwere
fixed a fraud on both the parties. The facts which rt to
pleaded being admitted, it was necessary for the C 0; bad
enter into them. The case of " Sullivan and Sullivan..,o to
been much relied on, in the argument ; but upon loeitlifor
the decision of the Arches' Court, (to which that cause I ste
pealed from the Consistorial Court of London') it WO, le
found that the Learned Judge had laid down this Prinlist
that it was not necessary to prove a positive fraud ags,
fo
party in order to invalidate a marriage, where the suit so;air
nullity by reason of undue publication of banns, false 'le 00
tion, or minority ; but it was enough . to chew that whtirrair
done might have the effect of fraud—namely, deception 0 „jot
information. Now, in the prey! nt-Case, the marriage was ter;
the expressed wishes of the father ; the female Was a ofee
lv
and the Subscriptions both by the husband and the wife% th
wife's name, were false. The marriage was concealed 1014
I female from her father's knowledge, and only acknovilefeoioa
after inquiry on the one part, and denial followed by hilt thwtoit
on the other. Not merely the intention, then foe, 1".„,,
knowledge of fraud was thus traced to both the part'; 05
might be difficult to say that iittbe pleadings any
assigned for such fraud on the part of Dalton ; htt, fat;
enough that the circumstances of the case, taken togeu.:,•as to
niched proof of that of which there was no direct evidelto
intention. One circumstance, however, was s'long to vraide
fraudulent intention. - Here was no wedding-garment Ctbe safa,, tet
for this ceremony ; but Dalton went to be married in wiitieP 't
clothes he usually wore when• at work—,a fact frail 4002
was almost impossible not to infer that disguise or conc'a 106
was contemplated. Upon the Whole of the evidence,tPstitilrn,
ing to the proper manner in which this suit had been ittil to crto
by the.father of the minor, the 'Court felt itself boto .
w'
nounce against the validity of this pretended marriagAtratt
declare Sophia Green, party in this cause, free from
°"*" •
monial contracts or engagements whatsoever. •
frzinesessrraanog iseatasnatiaera=l
ost. • AeT".
On Friday and Saturday last, several thousands of 000
and whitings were hauled on shore with a seine
The mackerel sold for two guineas per lOU.

t.......t...........■••■••••••••.....•..t......
MARIIIED. .ii:As4a,Ki
On Friday last, at St. Thomas's, Church, Peter A' 7,,,-,,' gbt°
,of the Ordnance Department, to Louisa, Dublin..""-' -let
Thomas Daniell, Esq., of the North Strand, D ,e. 0100(
On the 21st inst., at St. .Vdrcd's, in the Poulty, i..,,,tibter
Bryant, Esq., of Naple,._ to Mt.7.-ry Elliot, eldest 4" ...
Joseph Brown, Esq., of ;-.:..nnington.-
DIED In earlArf
On Saturday, the 4tl, inst.,. at the Rising Stin,s__.eh
Tooting, Surrey. (of which he was upwards of 20/„111,"
prietor,) in the 116th year of his age, Air. John 1" 'yr
sincerely regretted by all who knew him.
~a" D„ Food
On the 18th inst., at Wadhurst, aO.l 7•52 —,l
li:.t of the late Admiral Wm. Fooks. • ttage' °
n the'2h inst. at his house, liingsbridge-coororA
Esq.,
Reading, in his 88th vear,.Samuel Athawes,
Virginia merchant of this city. ' fe
----- —____ ate
Printed and Published for the Pita!' RIE'T Olt g, ~..
Office, No. 112, Strand, by J. D. CAltsTOPs—
• '