The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE:

COURT OF_ CH A NCSJI V, Nov., 8. -
PROTECTION OF INFANTS —MOORE, v. FITZGIBBON.
Mr. HoustE resumed the argument on this case. He said
that it was the boldest and most singular petition ever preSent-
ed to this or any other En.glish Court. It was a claim to obtain
Something in equity, the foundation for Which claim was laid
in a violation of 'morals and of law. .1 man. had his marriage
bed defiled by another, and the adolterass and her paramour
claimed to have the guardian Ship of his children against his ob-
vious, natural, and legal right, because they, the offenders of tiw
law and the cause of his most grievous injuries, were ready to
swear, with the most indecent assurance, that not lie: but time
adulterer, the violator of his bed, the deStroyer of his family peace,
was the natural father of the children. Surely there never bad
been so gross an affront offered to a Court of Justice, as this
claim 'from parties sa circumstanced,' against a man whO had
committed no offence, wha had forfeited no legal -rights-, whose '
condition of parent was left ,untouched by the, Act of
Parlia-
ment which released him from his unworthy 'Wife. He cx,
_patiat'ed with warmth upon the coarse and offensive nature of
the affidavits, which went to establish the; facts of the immerea,
tion of time ofspring by the adulteress, and of the eon ,:rf.ction said
by one noble and reverend deponent (Lord Brandon) to remain
updn the .mind of the.real father'that such was the case. -That
noble and reverend person. had described time mind of the, plain:
tiff to be full of vengeance-and animosity against the Children,
and detailed various modes. of crueltyv. by which he intended to
depress them, and to debase their education. To all this he
offered the full and unequivocal denial of Mr. Moore, who
swore, on fheother hand, that he felt indinant at the insinua-
tion urged by Lord Brandon that the.children were not
He positively denied any intention of coereing or injuringthent.;
and to prove the contrary showed Lord Brandon his will bearibg
a codicil for settling upon the boy, and expressed to
that very witness the tenderest feelings of affection towards the
children.
Mr: StIADWECL; Mr. HEaltm,.and Mr. SIJODEN followed
On the,same side. .
The LORD CIIANCELLOB, among many observations which
he dropped occasionally upon the power of the jurisdiction, said
that nothing but,in extreme case wouldallow the Court-to take
away the children from the exercise of the paternaLautimori.tx_
such as gross immorality, the danger of a settled provision .
being destroyed, or in cases where the father or.parents with
drew the children from a settlement and tutelage to .which.tbey •
had deliberately assented 'for the-sake of benefitting
the chilcL.
His' Lordship also observed,: that as pecuniary- settlements
would not be 4 sufficient reason of itself to induce the Court to
take away from the.father the rights of parental authority, so,
in this particular case, the contrition of time settlement seemed to-
be such, that if the Court should grant ,the
.present
it would be in the power of the guardians to put an -end to the
settlement in the next hour; if they thought tit. His Lordship
severely reprehended time anegationsovhich went to prove the
illegitimacy of the children. ;Ha cotild:utmit no evidence from
any side in support of it:propOsitiOn so improper; and if the
prayer of the bill depended, upon 'that Circumstance,. whether
proved or not, it ought net to beentevairmed for. one instant._
Mr. TitEsitiv.E diiposed the motion.; The:claini of the pe-
tition was one Of the most'ekitatirdinary nature:' jt acthally
attempted to establish the...diCer- epee IRtween the c,nita.4le and
legal parentage. The-Klicifor-Creneral claimed for Mr: Fitz-
gibbon that he should lie considered the eqUitable father of the
children of Mr. Msdtte, who was their legal father, and to esta-
-blish- this point they wished to make . his Lordship this new,
monstrous, most unhe-ard-of head in equity. 'Let the Court
reflect for a moment what would flow from the precedent. A
lady of various taste Might elope from her husband, and steal
'away the children, as Mrs. Moore hid done. Then there might
Come half -a dolen stout Irish gentlemen of her' acquaintance,
and distract the jurisdiction with the several claims of file Fitz_
gibbons, .Fitzgeralds, O'Shaunesseyst O'Brallaghins, and other
soft-sounding names, to be considered as the father in equity;
What rule could determi, such a plea? -Must they take the
affidavit of the mother? They must; there could be no other
competent witness.
The' Soiierrort-GEstkit' At 'asked =V- his 'Learned Friend
would consent to decide the question by time affidavit of the
mother.

•
The LORD CIIANCELLORYour business is not to decide,
111 r. Treslove, so that you need not answer that question. I
take the liberty to say, that I will not decide the question upon,
that atildavit.

PRICE SEVENPENCE.

. •
TUE. KING V. QED. AND JOIIN. LIARR/SON..
Thim wai a criminal irifiirrnatinn in the nature of a quo -Iy-er-
rant', against the defemtants; for having exercised the ofEccs-df
Mak& and SherifFof the city of Chester.. The cause was trif'd
at.the last Assi;es, at Shrewsbury, before Mr. Baron Garrow

a role, calling !von the
and;rt
.T verdictAtN lwrNf,b
this (Tar; then Cwn.
Crown shew cause why the verdict should ,not be set aside
•and a new trial had. The. Learned Counsel in support of 14s
motion stated; that the piincip'al cpiest::n in the cause was—
whether the-election of the defendants had-been according to the
ancient and immemorial custom of the borough, and detailed the
evidence adducetion the part of the defendants, to shew that
the election was'aceording to inimemorial custom. The Learned
CounSel who Conducted the case on.belfalf of the Crown, hav-
ing commented upon the evidence for the defendants, said,
that he should be obliged, if the Jury should be of
_opinion
with him, that :.the election of 11layorwas not according to
immemorial custom, the Jury -would say so to him. The
Jury (it being -very far advanced in the day) immediate
said, that they were of opinion the verdict ought to be found
for the Crown, and a verdict was found accordingly. Now,. be
would submit to their Lordships, that .as several issues were
joined, the' Learned Judge ought to have* submitttd to the-
Juries the several issues so joined, instead of having Lift it to
-tbe•Jury. to say whether the issue so joined were correct.
CttlEF ..1-usyrct —Did 111 r. Baron" Garrow tell the Jury-
what his opinion was ?
illr. TAUNTON-I`o, my Lord. . .•
• .
.After some consultation their /,Mciships granted a rule fio
ahew cause.

•
THE RING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF COLONEL riTz--
, .11.ARDINGE BERKELEY, V. BRYANT AND ANOTHER.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved for a rule calling on the printer
and publisher of a newspaper, called " Common Scnse, or the
Weekly Globe," to show cause why a criminal infortratien
should not be exhibited against them for a libel. Ile made
this application at the instance of Colonel Fitzhardinge Berke-
ley, claiming the title or Earl of Berkeley, Colonel of the Smith
Gloucestershire Militia, and one of His -llajest}'s Justices of
the „Peace for the county of Gloucester. The libel of which
Colonel Berkeley complained appeared in the newspaper
of the 23d of October, and was headed " Miss Foot. ' It
stated that an unmanly ruffian had secreted himself in Miss
Foote's chamber in her hotel at Edinburgh, for an unworthy
purpose; that an alarm was given after Miss Foote had re-
tired to rest, and that the ruffian had escaped, but there was.a
clue by which he might be discovered; and added, «A private
correspondent informs us, that thi yruffian was Col.
Berkeley, in the disguise of a gentleman." Now Colonel
Berkeley swore, in his affidavit, that be bad not been in Edin-
burgh for four years ; that he never had secreted himself in the
lady's chamber; and that the whole statement, as applicd
him, was entirely groundless.—Tbe COURT granted a rule Istr.
show cause.

Mr. TrtEsnovE said that his Learned Friend ought to have
put the question to the Court, and not to him. He would not 1 • • trouble his Lordship by enlarging on so indecent a claim. As i COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 8.
to the facts in evidence; be • wished the Colin to olise, that SIR WILLIAM CLAYTON, BART. V. unowN, ESQ. ext
all the proof of the intentions of malice of the father was. con- ,
WIFE. •
. .
fined to the affidavit of the Reverend and Noble Lord Brandon, !
which he commissioned his- agent, Mr.
Mr. Sergeant Vaucaraer stated, that this was an action q
and he was left in the lurch by Colonel Fitzgibtion, who would : •
a contract. The plaintiff, Sir William Clayton, had a houk
by no means swear that he believed in the statements of the
Johnson, to let for him. The Baronet at this time resided in
Noble Priest, Mr. Moore directly swore to .the contrary; :o in Gloucesteteplace,
guineas per week.
Oxfordshire, and the agent, in December, 1824, let the: house
that the allegations of the Reverend Nobleman, or the Noble
Churchman, being unsupported before, were now completely
upon agreement to ills III`Dougall;. the wife of Admired
contradicted, and must be thrown overboard as totally worth-
less and untrue. Heetivore that Mr. Moore expressed himself
The servents of Mrs. 1111Dougall took possession of the-house
111Wougall, for the term of one month at ten
anxious to arinoyette-eldest child; three yearn old 1 How -an-
and put in part of the luggage, but the next day they coin-
my ? The Noble Clergyman did not explain.. Was it by
taking away his rattle, or breaking his go-cart, .or letting hint plained that the house was uninhabitable, being both damp and
dirty, and so forth. Mrs. .M‘Dougall and another lady {her
tumble down stairs ?- He had sworn enough, however ; for he
friend) inspected ate house; anti the consequence was, that eke
had sworn that in his belief the life of the child would be in
danger refused to go into it. Mrs. M'Dougall afterwards married Mr.
from Mr. Moore-ein other words for the inference
could not be evaded, that Alr.. Moore would contrive to murder , Brown.
the child. Such-a petition, so supported, ought not to be en-
Mr. Johnson, the agent 6f Sir William Clayton, proved the
terteined for a, -moment, and _he hoped his - Lordship Air. Sergeant WILDE, on the part of the .defendant, con-
its dismissal the heaviest costs.—Reply to-morrow. would contract for one month at ten guineas per month.
make the presenting of it a negative example by decreeing with
, tended that the contract was not binding, because the hotise
-
was totally uninhabitable. To prove this he called two wit-
• ncsse;, the footman and lady's-maid of Mrs. Brown, who both h
said that the house was exceedingly damp and dirty, and had
spoiled their blankets, &c.
Mr. sergeant Vauoftax, in. reply, cautioned the Jury.to
beware of the statement of servants, who were in most cases
More difficult to please than their masters and mistresses'. The
house was•ho more damp than the nature of the season, which
they all recollected was very wet, - had occasioned. But the
proverbial fastidiousness of -servants, especially where their
immediate interests were concerned, as in this case. was the
sole cause of Ales. Brown's objection to reside in the house.
Mts. Brown (Macdougall) was at that time living in a gay
and fashionable hotel, where her servants were living like
" fighting-cocks," and where, Instead of waiting upon her,
they were waited upon themselves by the servants of the hotel,
so that they enjoyed not only the great pleasure of being treated
like ladies and gentlemen, but the additional felicity of being
made love to, which was of the utmost importance to them in
their representation of " High life below ttairs."—(l,augh-
ter.)--Taking all this into consideration, it was nothing strange
that they should be loth to quit their " gay abode,' with all
its enjoyments, for the damp and dirty house which their ser-
vile fancies had conjured up, and. of which they had used their
powers of persuasion to convince their mistress. No doult
Betty, the lady's maid, conceiving a natural 'abhorrence at the
house for more things than its imputed damp and dirty .c.oncii-
tion, would tell John, the footman, that her ladyship had a
great horror of bugs ; and in order to prolong their gay career
at the hotel, she would tell him that it was indispensable they
should inform their mistress that they had seen a bug in the
house " Seen one bug," said Johnny, " why, I will swear that
I saw one hundred-1 whole swarm of them, creeping about the
-walls."—(Laughter.)--" That will just do;" said the sensitive
Betty ; " keep to that, for my lady hates bugs so, you can't
think."—(Roars of laughter.) • :..
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, observing, that
there was a specific agreement that the lady should take the
house for one month certain at ten .guineas per week.
The Jury, after some consultation, finind a verdict for.the
plairitiffeeDatnages, 421.

VICE-CH.ANCEI4.I.O.R'S COURT, Nov. 8.
ASHBY v. SHIPLEY AND OTHEBS..
It appeared from the:pleadings, and: the statements of Mr.
HART, Mr. AGAR, and Mr. PARKE, for the plaintiff; and the
SOLICITOR.-GtxtRAL, Mr. TIERNEY, and Mr. TEMPLE,
for the defendants, that this was a long and complicated case
in which a question -of priority was involved among several
holders .of securities on the estate of the We Colonel Shipley.
The present bill was filed by the plaintiff; who had 'purchased,
in 1811, an annuity of 550 t. a year, secured. by lease held by
Colonel Shipley from the Bishop of St. Asaph; with a view of
arranging these various claims and locating the priority cf the
respective parties. - In 1803 the then Bishop .of St. .Asanh
granted to Colonel Shipley. a lease of tithes for twenty-one
years on lands in the county of Radndr. In 1806 Col. Shipley
granted to a Mrs. nate three annifities, 'all of which were
secured on these tithes-and land. .In 1808 another annuity was
granted to the same party, and Mr. Ashby received the origi-
nal lease, as trustee on her behalf. • Colonel Shipley Obtained,
.in 1809, a renewal of the tithes, for a further term of twenty-
one years, and sold to .the plaintiff an annuity of r,501. for
6,050/. ; and. at that time the annuities held by Mrs. Blake
were called in and paid off. Colonel Shipley, soon after these
trahsactions, went to the Continent, and died there.
The defendants urged that the plail; tiflnever gave a valuable
consideration for hri annuity, but that it was giVen for money
lest at play by Col.. Shipley. A variety of other annuities were
alsoset up, in which Dean Shipley had an interest, and Sir W. W.
Wynne, as trustee ta.the wife of Col. Shipley.
The V oE-Cit Aar ci.mr.oit thought it the more Prudent course
to refer. the case y) the Master, to inquire into the nature of the
several claims, and also what proceedings had taken place upon
the deed of 1811.

On the conclusion of this case, the list of causes were called
over by the Registrar, but none of the Counselor Solicitors en-
gaged in them were. in attendance, with the exception of Mr.
Pemberton, who.cornplained • that though he was retained in a
cause his brief had not been delivered to hiin.
The VICE-C‘IiNCELLOR then directed the otter' to give
notice in the. other Court that he would strike out every cause
to which there was no appearance.
On the officer's return the list was again read over, but
neither Counsel nor Solicitor appearing,' his Honour directed
the causes to be erased from the paper, accompanying his order
with these words.—" I am very sorry for it, as it is a great pre..
judice to the suitors whose causes arc to be set dOwn again. It
is the fault altogether of Solicitors as I see there 'are no briefi
delivered." The court rose at 2 o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, N0v..8.
LATIMER BATSON.,
? . •
This was an action of trover brought by,the Plaintiff., who is
a wine merchant at Oxford, to recover from.the defendaat, who
was High SlieriiVof the county, the valiAeof goods seized,by him
under a writ offieri facios, at the suit of William Neate v. !di
Grace the Duke of Marlborough. The cause was tried before
Air. Baron (farrow at the last Assizes for Oxford, whin it ap.
pearetilhat in ;he.months of September and October 1424, Mr.
Rietiardson, a credliOr of the. Duke Of.lllailborough, seized the

HORRIBLE MURDER.—A horrible evesit,whith
recalls the cruse of Papavoine, tias opt-unid to
shock every feeling of morality and humanity.
.A• cook, named llenriette Corinier,i2i2 y ears of
age, ha's murdered, K ittiOLit any op/parent cause or
a' girl yet in her infancy, the dituhter of
a fruiterer in the rue de laTepiniere. The de-
tails of the rriorder.are too horrible for publica-
tion. Henriette Cormier has declared herst;lf
pregnant, and pre.tends to Frave longed to commit
a murder. She was takcti to the Prefectaie.—
(Cunstilaticomet.)

goods in question at Blenheim, under a writ offieri "Briar, for"
pwilaiiicnhtitf::,hpenlaitnootiffk
die sum of 8,1001., and executed bills of sale to the .present
plaintiff in consideration of two sums of 7001. and I,BOW. The
went into the house and stayed in possession.of the good,(or
I:ersms7tstiedn. hoif's t
Gracehetoodhs abv:ve thehis us s2re:4-:;4': lie):
'Month of March 1826, when the defendant made the levywhic',
was the subject of the action. At the trial the Learned ,G)unsel
fOr the defendant contended that the-possession of the goods 4
the plaintiff was not such a pesSession as would by law pieclude.
a :Other; creditor of his Grace from seizing the goods, but die'
Learned Judge directed the Jury to find a verdict for site
plaintiff if they should be of opinion that the assignment of the
goods by Richardson to the plaintiff was a bona fide assignment,
*forTaluable consideration, .and the Jury accordinglyfirundia
verdict for the plaintiff; the amount of damages to be settled
out of Court.
Mr. .lEnvis this day moved for a rule, calling upon tie
plaivitiff to show cause. why the verdict.shnuld not be set aside,
and a nonsuit entered, on the ground of misdirection by. tbf•
Learned Judge. In support of his motion the Learned Counsel.
cited the cases.-of " Wonder v. Smith,"-Ist Taunton, 333.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Was it notorious in the neighbour-
hood of IVoodsiock.that the goods were taken, in execution ? ,
Mr. JEntris;--It Certainly appeared at the- trial, that the
'seizure bY ltiChaiii6on was well known in • the neighbourhood,
hat the assignment by Richardson to the plaintiff was net
Matter of notoriety.
Their Lordships' were unanimously of opinion, that the di-
rection-of. the Learned Judge was correct, and, therefore, re--
fued to grant the Tule. •