The Sun.
London, England, 1822-01-30 00:00:00

LAW INT ELLIG ENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN-.. 29.
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
DnEwE v. CROUCH.
Mr. SHADWELL said it was necessary for him to make an
application to his Lordship, in consequence of a female ward 'of
the Court having been clandestinely married. The name of the
ward was Miss Drewe, and since the month 'of Dec. 1020, up to
the 20th inst. the young lady, who was only 13 years of age,
had resided. with her aunt Mrs. Byefield, .In Old Compton_
street, Soho. On the morning of the 20th of the present month
Miss Drewe left her aunt's house before any of the family had
risen, and without the knowledge of any person. Mrs. Byefield
made every inquiry to ascertain whither her niece had gene; but
without success. On the following day, the 21st, Mrs.l3yefield
became apprehensive that Miss Drewe had eloped in order to
gefrharned; anti she therefore caused-notices to be served on
.the churches in the neighbourhood that her niece was a Ward
of Chancery. On the same day the buSband of Mrs. Byefleld
received the following note, which bore no signature :—"•Sir,
fearing, that an, accidental circumstance may have prevented
the delivery of a note from your niece to yourself or Mrs.
Byefieldo beg to assure you that she is in perfect health
and spiritt, and .that. you may expect to see or hear from her
on' Wednesday or Thursday next, and trust that matters will
prihe satisfactory to.all parties." On the Wednesday following,
the 23d, a person calling herself Mrs. Turner, called on Mrs.
Byefield, -and informed that lady that her neice was married
to her son, Mr. Wm. Turner. of Cullum-street, Tenehurch-
street. The marriage, Mrs. Turner stated, had ta.!:en place on
the-Clay-on which the infant had eloped. - Mrs. Turner, upon
being qnestioned, did not deny that she and her faMily, (of
whom her son John, and ber grand-daughter Elizabeth) were
privy to, and had assisted at, the marriage of William Turner
and Miss Drewe, knew the latter to be a Ward of the Court.
Under those circumstances the Learned Counsel prayed that
his Lordship veoplti order Mrs. Turner, her-two sons, and her
grand-daughter, to attend in Court to, answer for the contempt
of which they had been guilty.
- • The Loan CHANCELLOR. directed the parties named by Mr.
Shadwell to attend in Court on Fridayinorning next.

COURT OF KTNO'S BENCH, JAN. 29.
COY V. TROY.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 9991. drawn at.
sixtyp~one.days' sight, by Roche and Co. of Cork, on the de.:
fondant in London. The bill was regularly left for acceptance
by the holder (the plaintiff) at the cleEndant's counting-house,
hut was net called for till three days afterwards, when it was
given back by the defendant, with his acceptance thereon dated
on the day the bill was left, but which acceptance he had sub-
sequently erased, in consequence of some change of circum-.
stances. The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff, subject
to the opinion of ;the Court on the question, whether, in point
()flaw, this was a valid acceptance.
TY argued at considerable 'length in support of
the-doctrine, that the acceptance being once made by the drawee,-
could not afterwards be revoked by him, and cited in support
of his: position the cases of Bentinck v. Dorrien, and Fernandez
v. 'Wynn, decided by Lord Ellenborough at Nisi Prins. Ile
also quoted the opinion of ,Monsietir Pardessus, a modern
French writer on commercial rights, as favouring the doctrine
for which lie contended.

Mr. PENMAN was about to rise on behalf of the defendant,
but was stopped by
'Che.Couwr, who were unanimously of opinion that judg-
ment must be for the defendant. In questions of this ximl,
the opinions of foreign courts, or learned foreign writers was
entitled to great attention ; but it would be found, on referring
to the next sentence of Pardessus' work, quoted by Mr. Chitty,
that he spoke of a bill which had been negotiated, and that he
agreed with the learned Potter, and with the law, as now laid
down by the Court, in cases where, as here, the acceptance had
been cancelled before the bill went out of the drawee's posses.
sion.—.Tudgnient for the defendant.
MANCHESTER 'MEETING.
REDFORD VERSUS BIRLT:Y AND OTHERS.

This was an action against the defendants, Members of the
Manchester Yeomanry, for an assault committed on the plaintiff
at the Manchester Meeting, in August 1819.
Mr. LI TTLEDALE now moved, on behalf of the defendants,
for r. rule, calling upon the plaintiff's attorney to give up the

plaintiff's plate of abode, on an Mt:avit tl:;at they ivicf toel
unable to find it, and that the plaintiff's at:ozney had refuse'
to give it.
The Uouc,T, under the circumstances stand, granted-ilt*
•,