The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-07 00:00:00

BRANSCOth V: BRIDGER.

This was an action brought to recover compensation in da-
mages from the defendant, for having unlawfully seized. the
goods of the plaintiff for rent, after a tender had been made of
the sum then due, and also for an excessive distress.

The case for the plaintiff was conducted by Mr. GURNEY

and Mr. JEREMY ; for the defendant by the .OLICITOR-
GENERAL and MT. CHITTY.

It appeared that the plaintiff, Lady Branscomb, occupied
some apartments in the defendant's house, who was a tailor in
Blenheim-street, Bond-street. Her Ladyship being desirous
of going to the country, wished. to give up her lodings. Ac-
cordingly she sent for an appraiser to value the fixtures, which
were her property, that she might either dispose of them to her
landlord or to tne next tenant. The day after the appraise.
went had been made, the defendant came into the breakfast-
room of her Ladyship, and after stating that he would give no
such sum for the fixtures as the appraiser had fixed as their
value, he demanded his rent in rather a'rude manner.. Lady
Branscomb offered him 101. 10s. which was the suns due. With-
out taking any notice of this tender, he ordered some of his
Menlo come up stab's, and take poisession of the property in
the apartthents. A seizure took place of the whole furniture,
the value of which was sworn to amount to about 311. but only
a part was taken away and sold, which the plaintiff's• brokers
swore to he Worth 251. .
The SoLicrron.GsrtitAr.,objected to the plaintiff's pro-
cAcling on the first count in the declaration, which stated this
to be an action •on the case, whereas it was. in fact a trespass,
to
/proceed to seize for rent, after a tender had been made. -
The Lora) (ilium —JUSTICE was of opinion that the plain-
tiff could not support her action on the first count, but that the
case might go.to the Jury on .the second count, the object of
which was to obtain compensation for the damages consequent
on the seizure. -

The 50z.7c4T0t-GENEnAr. called two brokers, who had
valued the goods in question, and they swore that the real value
of the *property sold was only 131, instead of 23/. as stated by
the plaintiff's witnesses.
The CHIEF' .1t; sTicr. having summed. up- the evidence,-
,observed to the Jury, that the only point now for their consi-
deration' was, what was the difference between the sum origi-
nally due, and the value of the property taken by. the
:defend-
ant's broker. Of this point they were to fudge upon the evi-
dence of the different -appraisers who had been called before
them.'

The Jury, after a short consideration, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages 5/. costs 40s.
• The SOLICITO ft-GENERAL obtained permission from his
.I.4orciship to move for a ,rule to shew cause why a nonsuit should
not be entered, and a new trial granted, on the ground of the
plaintiff's incompetency to proceed on the second count.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEc.
T.OMKIXS v. HILL.

The Court was occupied the whole of the dad in hearing this
case, which possessed little-interest, except to the' parties im-
mediately concerned. It was an action to recover damages
frdm the defendant, for not having treated a farm, let to him
by the plaintiffin a inuthandman-like manner, according to
agreement: After hearing the opinions of many witnesses on
both sides, as to the treatment of the farm in question, (those
on the Bide of the plaintiff avering that the farm was not well
used, and those on"the other aide attesting that it wps managed
in a husband-like manner), the Jury, without a motlient's hesi-
tation; returned a verdict for the defendant.

CONSISTORY COURT, DEC. 6.
THE PRINCIPAL •AND ANCIENTS OIL GRAND, BROTHERS
OF Tity SOCIETY OF STAPLE-INN, BY THEIR SYNDIC,
BURLEY AND BOYER, •CHURCIIWARDENS OF ST.
ANDREW, HOLBORN.
In our last report of theproceedings in this Court we gave an
abStract of a part of the speech of Dr. Adams, on behalf of the
churchwardens of the parish of St. Andrew, Hellion, who
are. the parties proceeded against by the Society of Staple-inn,
in a cause of perturbation of seats. (See The Sun of the 30th
Of NoVember last.) The Learned Counsel, in contending Thr the
necessity of strict proof of the prescription or permission set tip by
the Society and for which, if that permission was ever granted,
a valuable consideration must, in all probability, have been.
gvien, though no, such consideration was attempted to be
ed)observed that if the right to these pews were conceded to•
the principal, ancients, and grand brothers of the Society, therewas nothing to show why or how it could be withheld from
other inhabitants of the same extra-parochial district—proprie-
tors of chambers, for instaece, and students of, t 1 inn. In•
the year 1668, the pews appeared to haye been repaired (at the
expence of the inhabitants of the inn) for the sum of 141.;
having, been marked out in. 16211, anti lint in 1023 ; and in
1709 there was some mention of a sum of 'money, about 4/.,,
paid for repairs; but after this last period there was no entry
on the Society's books to show that the Society had paid any
further sum in compensation for, or consideration of, the pews..
There was, therefore, up to the present year, 1822; not one item.
in the lapse of 113 years of this kind,' it being in the mean
time most material to the case of the inhabitants of this inn, to
show reparations frequently as possible. Yet from 1709 there
was an altuns silenti UP?, on:the part of these accounts on the
subject. It was little for the gentlemen to show, that till late
years they were aecnstomed to go to this church in sonic pomp,.
with their beadle bearing his mace, and their butler carrying
the keys of the pews before them. The mere possessimtor oc-
cupation of these pews for any length of time could not give
the society a right to. them ; for former churchwardens might
have been equally well disposed to resist such a claim, but
might have thought an Inn of Court rather formidable anta-
gonists, and have been, therefore, reluctant to attack them.
Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON. this day, on the question of
admitting the libels after stating the nature of the cause, which
was understood to have been 'promoted with the consent of the
minister of the parish, observed that it seemed from the evi-
dence, that the society's possession of these pews had been dis-
turbed by the churchwardens alone, . without any application
to the ordinary. The Court, • therefore, meant to consider
the present suit without reference to any motives as on the
part of the ordinary ; but as one between the churchwar-
dens, and the society alone, so far as any legal effects were
likely to result front it. The question, for the Court, then,
was, whether the law on these subjects was of such a de-
scription as shtiuld lead to the dismission of this libel ? Now
it had been contended that the society was hardly in act
before the Court ; inasmuch as their messuage, in virtue of
which they claimed, was extra-parochial ; that the descrip-
tion of that messuage was not so clear as to admit but that.
meaning, as in the course of the argument had pretty clearly
been • showin. The Learned -Judge, after citing the stat. 16
Jac.. 2 Boll's Abridgment, f. 24.: Braddyn's Work ;
7 Roll's Abridgement, p. 250; Popham ; -and 'several decided
causes in the Terms' Reports, was of opinion that the libel might
be admitted, subject only to those alterations in regard to local
description which had been suggested by the Counsel at the
opening of the Court,
,apd this admission expressly reserving
the legal question as to the validity of the Society's claim.

THE MOST NOBLE TAX MARQUIS OF IVF.STMEATH AGAINST

THE MARCHIONESS OF WESTMEATH.

Dr.-SW.II3EIr. stated that this suit was originally commenced
by the Marquis of Westmeath against his Marchioness, in a
cause of restimtion of conjugal rights pronitzted by his Lordship.
On the part of the Marchioness, an allegation was row prlired,
alleging certain charges of adultery as against the Marquis.
Dr. JENEIt, who appeared 'for his Lordship, said, he
should ()Wet to the 2d, 3d, Bth,.9th.llth, 13th,18th, 19th, and
22d articles of, this allegation, which consisted of no less than
33. In the commencement of the cause, a libel had been given
in on the part of his Lordship, to which an allegation of 29 arti-
cles was ()tiered by her Ladyship, pleading cruelty on his- side
by way of answer. That was admitted, ar (I the answers of his
Lordship were brought in. Upon these followed the present
allegation, containing charges of adulterous connexion between
the Marquis and five several females. The stilt was now, there-
fore, commuted-into one of separation and divorce, by reason of
ctuelty and adultery, and the Marquis had, in' fact, become the;
party proceeded against. The 2d and 3d articles charged generally,
that some time in the year IPI7, the Marquis formed an adul-
terous intercourse with Sarah, otherwise Jane, Smith, then liv-
ing as servant with his aunt, the Countess of Olengall; and
several times in the years 1817 and 1818 did with 'her commit
adultery." Now, this was. much too vague and indefinite.—
Specific dates and places ought to be pleaded. The Learned
Counsel took the same objection to the allegations touching the
Marquis's illicit intercourse with Catherine Flynn, of Mullin-
gar, and with three other females.
Dr. Puns MORE followed on the same side.
Dr. 'SWADEY and Dr. LUSIIING'ION contended for the ge-
neral admissibility of the allegation, and agreed to furnish,
where practicable, the names, dates, and places, at present de-
ficient in the various articles.
The JUDGE, subject' to the future making of such altera-
tions before a Surrogate, or before himselr in chambers, admit-
ted this allegation.

PALACE COURT, DEC. S.
A DISSEMBLING LOVER:—CLARKS T. (LASSIE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a young lady,

against the defendant, a young Man; to recover the sum of 19s.
for goods bought by the plaintiff,- and delivered. to the de-
fendant on her account.
The defendant !prying intimated his with to get married to
her, after a courtship of some months standing, she was in-
duced to purchase furniture and. proper- necessaries' for going
into housekeeping, and she accompanied his mother to an
auction to make 'those purchases ; the mother bid for half a
dozen of chairs, and being the highest bidder, they were
knocked down to her ; the plaintiff paid 19s„ the sum for
which they were bought. - The chairs were sent home •to,the
mother, in expectation that her son would marry the plaintiff,
but he formed an acquaintance with another lady,. and :got
married to her, leaving the plaintiff in sad despair and disap-
pointment. She then had no other alternative than to sue for
the money she advanced, of which this claim fonned onl- a
small portion.
Evidence being produced to prove the facts set forth in
declaration, the Learned Judge summed up, observing tha.
the defendant acted so far honourably as to suEr judgment to
go by default.
The Jury unanimously found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, 19s.

OLD BAILEY, DEC. 6.

BIGAMY.

John Geynor was indicted for feloniously marrying with
Phcebe-Launing, his former wife, Lydia Seotehman, being alive.

Sarah Scotchman deposed, that she knew the,p4soner, and
was present at his marriage to her sister Lydia Scotchman, at.
Marylebone Church, in 1814. The prisoner lived with her
sister for some tinie afterwards, but not regularly, as he waa i►r
service, and she went out to nurse. The result of their coha-
•bitation was four children. Her sister was still alive, and was
then in Court.

Phoebe lianning deposed, that she was married on the 16th
of October, 1818, at St. James's Church, Westminster, to the
prisoner, who lived with her for 12 or 14 months.
• Michael .Morris a police-officer, who had had the prisoner is
custody, stated, that he bad-attended at the two churches where
the prisoner had been married, and had examined the registers
thereof. He then produced the copies of both, and swore to
their correctness. _ _ _

These copies were then put in and read. The prisoner made
no defence, but threw himself on the mercy of the Court and
Jury. --

_
Being asked if he had any witnesses to call to character, he
replied that he had- been a servant in two or three families,
whose names he mentioned, and had sent for the heads of them
to speak in his behalf. He did not know whether they were in
attendance or not. •

The crier called their names, but nobody answered.
Mr. Barron GARIIONT summed up the case, and the Jury
immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. Baron GAnnow—This is a crying offence, and one
which the Court must take every opportunity in its power of
punishing severely. A set of men get acquainted with young
women, marry them, live with them for a short period, and then
ruin them anti all their prospects by leaving them when they
have a family of young children to support. They then pay
their addresses again to the first engaging young woman they
meet, and conclude by plunging her into the same distress in
which they have left their former victim. The law upon this
crime has been lately much improved by the wisdom of the
Legislature, and we are now empowered to visit it with the
punishment of transportation. I am going to make a memoran-
dum to inflict it in this case._

• The prisoner in this case was a coarse heavy-looking man.—
The woman, Phoebe Lanning, whom he had trepanned into
marriage•with 'him, was crying bitterly all the time she was
giving her evidense.