The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-29 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.

-
His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS was occupied till
our reporter left with the part.heard case of Malcolm v. Taylor,
h possessed
no point of interest, except to the partie.
concerned.whic

VICE. CHANCELLOR' S COURT.
SHIRLEY v. EARL FERRERS.

In this case it will be recollected some time ago an application
was made by Mr. Knight on behalf of the plaintiff for a seques-
tration against Earl Ferrers, and the committal of a gentleman,
named Davy, the steward of his Lordship, for a breach 'of an
injunction, which restrained the Earl from cutting down timber
on his estate at Stanton Harrold. At the time of making the
application, Mr. Wakefield, who appeared for Earl Ferrets, ob-
jected to the hearing of the motion, on the ground that affi-
davits hail been made which his clierie had not seen, and which
it was necessary for him to answer. His Honour the Vice-Chan-
cellor then directed the motion to stand over in order to afford the
Earl an opportunity ofanswering the affidavits, but placed his Lord-
ship under terms not to proceed with the cutting of timber until
after the motion had been heard. Earl Ferrers, considering him-
self entitled to cut down timber, in the mean time appealed from
the decision of his Honour to the Lord Chancellor, who thought
that his Lordship ought not to be placed under such terms.
Mr. KNIGHT this morning renewed his motion for
the sequestration and committal, Earl Ferrets having answered
the affidavits. The course pursued by the Earl had been ex-
tremely improper, for he had not only cut down treees, which
had been planted and left standing for ornament and shelter, but
young oaks which had not half arrived at maturity, by which
great loss would accrue to his clients, who were entitled to the
property in reversion, and the rules of good husbandry had been
most grosly violated.
Mr. KINDERSLEY followed on the same side. •

Mr. WAKEFIELD, on behalf of Earl Ferrers, denied in foto
cutting down timber which had been left standing for ornament,
Lord Ferrers having only cut down such trees as were standing
in hedge rows, and those which, according to good husbandry
and management, ought to have been cut, and, therefore,
the only question for the consideration of the Court was whether
by so doing, a breach of the injunction (which was in the com-
mon terms risking waste) had been committed, which the
Learned Counsel confidently submitted there had not. Thirteen
experienced men had positively sworn that the trees cut by the
Earl were of spontaneous growth, and not planted for ornament
or shelter.

KNIGHT replied.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR considered that the whole ques-
tion for the decision of the Court was a question of fact, whether
upon the affidavits, it clearly appeared there had been a breach
of the injunction by either cutting timber left standing for orna-
ments, or such as was improper to be cut. That there
had beep such a breach the Court could not entertain a
doubt, fbr the" very explanation given by the Counsel for
Earl Ferrers clearly chewed the timber cut had been left standing
for ornament. Such being the case, his Honour felt bound to
grant the motion, ordering a sequestration to issue against
Earl Ferrers and the committal of Mr. Davey.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Mr. Justice PATTERSON sat in the city this morning, but
nothing of importance had occurred up to the time of our going
to press.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
GRIM. CON.—HAbIBRIDGE v. CRAWLEY.

This cause, which excited so much interest in the sporting
circles, came on for trial this morning, and the Court was
crowded in the extreme. It was an action brought by Thomas
Hambridge, a hair-dresser, residing near the Blue-coat School,
against Peter Crawley, the well known pugilist, and landlord of
the Queen's Arms and French Horn public house, in Duke-
street, West-Smithfieldt to recover compensation in damages for
the seduction of the plaintiff's wife.
Mr. Serjeant STORKS stated the case for the plaintiff.
James Sorrell examined—l have know the plaintiff and his
wife for many years, and lodged in their house in Long-lane,
Smithfield, for a considerable time. The plaintiff kept a barber's
shop there for a number of years, but now he lives in Blue-court
buildings, Little Britain. During the time he had been ac-
quainted with the plaintiff and his wife he never knew them to
quarrel ; they always seemed to live on the most friendly terms
with each other.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ferjeant WILDE—The plaintiff kept
a shaving shop, and he often went there to be shaved. He had
missed Mrs. Hambridge from her home for some time, but he
never could tell where she was ; whether she was absent for one,
two, or five years lie could not tell. He lodged with Hambridge
when the lady first came home ; never learned from him (Ham.
bridge) that he had met her in the street for the first time. Never
heard him mention her before he brought her home. Had never
seen her in the street himself; had known her to be absent from
her husband twice. Cannot tell whether she was in the habit of
coming backwards and forwards after she had so absented herself.
After he ceased to lodge at Hambridge's house he went
to reside in King-street, Cloth.fair. He was 'in the habit
of calling on the plaintiff; at his house in Blue-coat-buildings, to
be shaved, but never saw Mrs. Hambridge with black eyes.
Don't know where she went to live during her absence from
home. Understood she went to live with her mother.

Mr: Serjeant WILDE-7-Mother who ?.--(Laughter.)
Witness—Mother who her own mother, I never heard she
had but one.--(Laughter)
James Graham—Knew the plaintiff and his wife, and had been
in the habit of going•to their louse on business. He had always
seen theta very friendly, as much as man and wife usually are.
Never saw them fighting.
Cross-examined by Mr. CHARLES PHILLIPS--.Had
been in the habit of going there to do the plumbing work,
and to repair the broken windows. Did not know how
they were broken—they were often broken, and he sometimes
called eight or ten times a month to mend them. Had never seen
him give her a black eye, being always attending to his business.
He had never dined or taken tea with them to his knowledge.
George Jones examined—He was waiter to the defendant,who
was the proprietor of the public-house called the Queen's-
Head and French Horn, in Duke-street, West-Smithfield. In
October, 1830, he recollected Mrs. Crawley going out of town
for the benefit of her health, and Mr.Crawley remained at home.
During Mrs. Crawley's absence, he saw Mrs. Hambridge with
Mr. Crawley in his bedroom ; he had not seen them exactly to-
gether more than once. Had known them to be together in the
bed-room in the evening, and he had, by the defendant's direc-
tions, fastened them in the bed-room, and was desired by his
master to say, if Mr. Hambridge should come and ask for him,
that he was not at home.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant WILDE—He had lived with
Peter Crawley for about fifteen months. Knew Mrs. Hambridge
very well. He was charged with having robbed the bar, but
falsely; an old woman servant was also charged with him. Since
he has left Mr. Crawley's service Ms. Hambridge has been very
kind to him, and had lately furnished him with support, but will
swear he had never given him money ; but if he wanted any
thing, Mr. H. was never against giving it to him. Will swear
he had never given him victuals or clothes. He had given him
a coat once, it was the coat he had on ; the whole of the clothes
he had on were given him by Mr. Hambridge.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE—How can you, man, reconcile your-
self? You have already sworn that he had never supported you
or had given you clothes, and now you swear directly contrary.
How do you account for such gross prevarication ?--Witness
made no answer.
Mr. Serjeant WILDS--Now tell me if he never plied you
with gin till you have been drunk ? Witness—He never made
me drunk in his presence.
Did you never tell a person, named Stone, that Hambridge
had made you drunk, and then introduced you to his lawyer ?
Witness—Not that I know of.
(Here the witness from previous indisposition became so
affected that he was obliged to be led out of the box.)
Martha Brophey examined by Mr. PAYNE—She lived servant
for about five months with the defendant. She knew Mrs. Ham-
bridge by sight. Recollected Mr. Crawley going out of town
and during her absence she saw Mrs. Hambridge in the house
for a fortnight upon the stretch. She came very often during
that time ; she came three or four times a-day. Had seen them
at supper in the kitchen about ten o'clock at night. They con-
ducted themselves werry improperly. Never saw them act
as man and wife. They did not conduct themselves
decently, so she dismissed herself. She had heard improper
conversations between them in Mr. Crawley's bed-room, and
heard Mrs. Hambridge say she had come to him on account
of her husband beating her, and that she was afraid to go home.
On one occasion she saw her in her master's bed-room on the
bed fainting, and her master was attending to her. At the
supper she dismissed herself from the kitchen, because she did
not think it proper to remain—she left them there and went to
bed, and fell asleep ; shortly after she was awoke by Mrs. Ham-
bridge, who gave her a glass of gin, not to say any thing about
what she had seen.
Cross-examined by Mr. C. PHILLIPS--She could not exactly
recollect when the supper took place, it had slipped her memory.
She slipped the gin down her throat, and slept the better for it.
Had never seen Mr. Crawley and Mrs. Hambridge in an impro-
per condition. hambridge had behaved very kind to her, and
had lent her money, but he did not till she had told him all
about his wife. She did tell him all all about it, and he lent her
a shilling.
Thomas Bates—Had known the plaintiff twelve or fourteen
years. Has been in the habit of calling on him since he was
married, and thought his wife and him lived together very com-
fortably. Was superintendant of the nightly watch. Has seen
Mrs. H. in the company of prostitutes at night. She was
brought to the watch-house last December on some charge.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE addressed the Jury for the defendant,
after which

The Learned Judge was beginning to sum up, when he was
interrupted by the Jury, who said they were perfectly satisfied,
and immediately found a verdict for the defendant.
Serjeant STORKS applied to be nonsuited, which was
accordingly done,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

BLACKETT v. THE ROYAL. EXCHANGE INSURANCE

—...—... .......
COMPANY.
lilr. MAULE opened the case. This was an action brought
by Mr. John Blackett against the Royal Exchange Insurance
Company, upon a policy of insurance upon the ship Thames, to
recover the sum of 212/.
Mr; Serjeant SPANKIE stated that the plaintiff had insured
the ship Thames with the defendants in December, 1827, for the
sums of 3,0001. and 1,00(11., the value of the ship being 6,0001.
She sailed on her voyage in k'ebruary, 1828, to Calcutta, and in
her progress encountered very heavy gales of wind. On the
13th of June a boat that had been slung over the larboard
quarter was washed awn ; and in Augcst, in proceeding up the
river ijoegbiy, the vesse../wa.s twice stranded. l'he damage thus
dOne, mel‘tding the loss of the boat, the expencet of survey, pro-
test, &c. amounted to 212/. which was claimed of the defend-
ants. The Jury might be aware that the policies entered into
with the Royal Exchange Assurance Company, contained a
clause, that should the damage not amount to 3 per cent,
on the amount of the policy, the insurers were not answer-.
able ; the object 'of that clause heieg tp, Kcve.ut any Very
iiiilifli; d..l4agi: from ocitig tile. subject' Of Vivestiption. The
fedi cigesiiijn itftbis 'case Wouldbe,whethe,r the damage amounted
to above i per tient., for if it were not, the defendants cer-
tainlyy would not be liable. On the part of the defendants t
had been 'admitte i that the boat was lost, that the vessel was
stranded, that they bad insured the vessel out and
shoman ?
for tills,
and that the amount sought to be recovered. was V...t_oilia
proper, provided it should be held that they were 11abi, . "
be contended that the defendants 'flue *not liabla
boat pecaii,,,e it vas Cot iniierly' stowed; via,.
tbut he (Mr. Ser.
slung in an imprOper Place, over the quarter ; ,
leant Spankie) would prove that 'that was the most proper and
vessels going to the
most ushal place to fasten boats on board veesns it liad been
the ve4sel; with
vered by the terms of the policy, which ensured,c4.
O. defelidantS
her tackle, &c., against the perils 0 A.,lt .00
i boat, which was
wndld, he iickgstootl, neXt object that' *
ng of the
valued at Dilly 1%, Was loStat' cub le, a
d, the owners were not en-
Last Indies ; if it were not so, he would contend that it was co.
vessel took place at a subsequent r
that by tart erm, Of tiie
loss to 3 per cent. and upwards; in ' ant ctf
t tneu it ti.t*oek ~ ierwise
policy one individualdam . age inus a. , i (lion , . .
i ' 'Tfiat propos was in his (Mr.
the defeodants were ,l •
"Col'abesurd,•for the vessel was insuied out
Serjeant Spankie's) 01). 1- . • y amounted to more than three per
and home, and if the whole injury
tour The Jury must observe, that upon
titled to put the whole damage together, in order to make up the
cent. the insurers were liable.
the whole of the datnage rather
of the boat, 16/. Would Loicueld most probably turn, for the y,aiut,
this subject the question