The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-30 00:00:00

KIMBEESLY V. JENNINGS AND YEO.

Sir W. flonNE appeared to support one of two demur-
rers to the bill in this case, which prayed an injunction re-
straining the defendants from commencing, or continuing in
business either on their own account or in partnership with
any other persons at Birmingham during the remainder of
an unexpired term of six years.
Mr. JACOB appeared in support of the second demurrer.
His HONOUR allowed the demurrer with costs.

KING'S BENCH.-FRIDAY.

THE KING V. HAYWOOD.

r. SIDNEY TAYLOR moved that the rule in this case,
whi,..n was a rule for a criminal information against the de-
fendant for publishing a libel on Lieutenant-Colonel Blen-
nerhasset Fairman, might be made absolute. He under-
stood that no cause was to be shown.
The COURT thought that the case had better stand over
for a short time.

At a later period of the day, Mr, AUSTIN (with whom
was Mr. C. BuLLEe) stated that full affidavits had been
prepared to show cause against this rule, but that the Court
would not now be called on to hear the matter, as Mr. Hay-
wood had died last Tuesday. The rule, therefore, would
drops as of course.

THE CUSTOM-HOUSE ILOBBERV.--THE KING V. SULLIVAN

AND OTHERS.

Mr. CLARKSON moved for a rule to show cause why a
writ of • certiorari should not issue, directed to the Mars-

trates of Lambeth-street office, commanding them to trans-
mit to this Court the depositions taken in this case, and
why a habeas corpuS should not issue to bring up the bodies
of the defendants, with the cause of their detention, and
why service of the rule on the attorney for the prosecution
should not be deemed good service.
The COURT granted the rule as prayed.
THE KING V. HENRIETTA GREENHILI;.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in the early part of the
morning, applied to have this case tak.cu in the course of '
the day. He said that notice had been given to the defen-
dants that the Court would this day be moved to make the
rule absolute, and. he now moved accordingly.
Sir W. FOLLETT had not been aware till now that the
case was to be brought on to-day, and he was not at that
moment prepared to enter into the discussion.
The COURT @aid that it might be postponed for an hour
or two, in order to enable Sir W. Follett to prepare himself.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in a subsequent part of the
day, showed cause against the rule obtained in this case by
the defendant. This was a rule to set aside an order of
Mr. Justice Patteson, by which the defendant was directed
to deliver up to her husband the custody of their three
children. Instead of obeying that order, which had been
made after consideration, and after full hearing of the case
by the Learned Judge, this rule was obtained, and all the
facts connected with the case were then stated by his
Learned Friend, Mr. Sergeant Wilde, who applied for and
obtained the rule.: 'When the time came to discuss the
rule, the discussion was postponed, in the hope that an
amicable arrangement might be made between the parties,
on the understanding that the husband should have access
to the children at all reasonable times. That understand-
ing, however, had not been acted on • and though the hus-
band's authority had been but usurped by his wife, she had
e thought fit to deny him access to his children.
Sir W. FOLLETT, in support of the rule, offered, on
behalf of his client, to renew the proposal made to submit
the whole matter in difference to a gentleman at the Bar.
The offer was declined.
Sir W. FOLLETT then went into a full statement of the
facts of the case, after which he proceeded to argue that
Mrs. Greenhill was justified in refusing Mr. Greenhill ascess
to the children.
Lord DENMAN said, all the authorities showed that un-
less gross misconduct was proved against the father be was
the person entitled to the custody of his children. Mis-
conduct of the sort thus required had not been proved
; against the father in the present case. He must say that,
looking at the particular facts, he considered the removal of
the children from the husband's house at Weymouth to be
in point of law, a surreptitious proceeding. In his opinion
the rule must be discharged.

THE KING V. HENRIETTA GREENHILL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then applied that the rule
which he had obtained for an attachment for contempt, for
not delivering up the children according to Mr. Justice
Patteson's order, might be made absolute.
The COURT granted the application.