The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-02 00:00:00

MARRYING WITH WARDS Or THE COURT.

- •
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that at the last sitting of
the Court, his Lordship had made an order that a young gen-
tleman (Mr. Bennett), who had marled a Ward of the Court
without the consent of, her guardians, should appeaf in court
wan of this day and deliver up the infant. He was authorised to say,•
that the father of the young gentleman, who was a
for-
tune, was willing to make any pecuniary arrangements which
might be considered necessary by the Court,
Mr. HART was instructed by the friends of the infant to say,
that they did not intend to press any thing against the young
gentleman, who was a person of unexceptionable character.—
Affidavits of the facts had been filed, which would be given to
his Lordship:
The Lord CHANCELLOR took the affidavits which were
handed to him, and said lie would make such an order as the
circumstances of the case appeared to require. •

LEES V. AINSWORTH.
Mr. WINGFIELD said he was instructed to make an appli-
cation for the comminvent of the defendant for having marned
a ward of the Court, knowing her to be so at the time he mar-
ried
her. The bill was tiled in September, at which time the
marriage took place. Affidavits had been filed, in which it
was sworn that the defendant meditated the leaving of the
country. The Learned Counsel was proceeding to state the
circumstances of the case, when
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, " Can I commit any man
_without giving him an opportunity of being bend ?"
Mr. WINGFIELD.-1 think there are instances of commit-
ments when it was sworn that an individual tneditated leaving
the country.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—I may make an order to re-
strain him from taking the infant with him. There will be no

great harm if he do leave the kingdom, provided 'we keep her
here.
Mr. PEPYS.—I am afraid, my Lord, that the order to re-
strain would be inoperative; he will he gone to-morrow.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—I cannot help it. I will grant
an order to restrain the defendant and all other persons from
taking the infant out of the kingdom.
Mr. WINGFIELD.—WiII your Lordship order the infant to
attend.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Yes, 1 will direct that the ser-
vice of my minutes shall be agood service, and that the de.
fendant shall bring the ward into Court to-morrow. If you can
find any proper person to take care of her, I will make an order
that forthwith, upon the service of my minutes, the defendant
shall deliver her up. Either you or Mr. Pepys can take her.
,Mr.-WINGFtELD.—Let Mr. Pepys have her, my Lord, he
is the junior Counsel.—The order was then issued.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 1.

KING AND ANOTHER V. WILLIAMSON AND ANOTHER.

This action was brought to recover damages sustained by the
negligence of-the defendants, Mr. Williamspn apd Mr. Clapton
his builder, in not duly supporting an arch of the plaintiff's cel-
lar, while they pulled down an adjoining wall, in consequence
of which the arch fell in and destroyed a large quantity of wine.
It appeaTed that. the plaintiffs were wine-merchants, in Pud-
ding-lane, whose premises adjoined those of the defendant Wil.
liamson. In the °nurse of some improvements performed for Mr.
Williamson by Mr. Clapton, the wall in question, which formed
part of'the support of Messrs. King's cellar, 3V3S removed with-
out any means being taken to prevent mischief; or any notice to
the plaintiffs. At the same time, a heap of •bricks was laid in
the yard above ; and the pressure being thus increased, while
the support was diminished, the arch, .which seemed nearly
coeval with the fire of London, gave way, And entirely spoiled
54 dozen of wine in its fall. For this injury the plaintiffnow-
,iought compensation, contending that it was the duty of the
defendants, especially in so populous a neighbourhood, to have
.bored the earth on each side, so as to ascertain that they would
not injure the property of others by their proceedings:-
On the part of the defendants it was contended, that they
ought not to be supposed cognizant of all the vaults in the
neighbourhood, and that Messrs. King. must have known the
danger, because there was a window in the counting-house
commanding a view of the yard where the work was chiefly
conducted. _ _ _

To this it was replied, that in a situation like that of Pud-
ding-lane, where, as stated by one of the witnesses, there was
scarcely six feet of solid earth, but near the whole space was
occupied beneath the ground by vaults, the defendants had rea-
sonable ground to surmise that they were near some cavity
which their works might injure; and if Messrs. King were
aware of the alterations in progress, they might also fairly con-

fide in the defendant fox taking proper measures to avert mis-
chief from others. _ _

The LORD CUTE? JUSTICE left it to the Jury to say whe-
ther the defendants had not sufficient reason from the circum-
stances to place them on their guard as to their proceedings ;
because, if so, they were clearly liable for the damage which
had arisen from their want of care.

The Jury found t verdict for the plaintiEs=the damages to
settled out of Court. • •

NANSE AND ANOTHER V. TURNER, BAIT.

This was an action by the executors of the late Mr. Crean,
the keeper of the Star and Garter inn, at Richmond, to recover
a sum of 550/. amount of a bill incurred'by Lady Turner and
her family and servants, at the testator's house.
Mr. MARRYATT, Mr: WILTON, and Mr. GEORGE were

'fqr. the plaintiff, and the Comarox SERJEANT and Mr.
STAMCIE were for the defendant.
By the will of the late Mr. Crean, he directed his business to
be carried on by the plaintiff's, as his executors, who were to al-
low his widow an annuity, and permit her to remain in the
house to assist in earring on the business of the tavern. From
June to November last, both months inclusive, Lady Turner
(who was stated to lui've lived generally apart from her husband)
and servants took up their abode at the Star and Garter, having
horses and carriages kept during that time. For half the time
she was there a bill was sent to the defendant, who by letter
sent, desiring time to examine the amount. When Lady Tur-
ner went away, another bill was sent to the defendant, for the
remainder of the time. A letter was afterwards sent to Mrs.
Crean, by the defendant, informing her that he had some re-
marks to make upon the bill. The next proceeding was the
arrest of the defendant, for the whole amount of the bill.
The cook employed at the Star and Garter proved the enter-
tainments which were provided for Lady Turner, during the
time she was there. She generally hail fish, soup, and other
delicacies, for dinner. Always four or five dishes. In general
the dinners were very expensive.
Mrs. Crean was called, to prove the manner in which the bill
Was incurred. She had an annuity, and had no other interest
in the concern, which was carried on by the plaintiffs, as her
husband's executors. Her name was over the door during the
time the defendant's bill was contracted, but she had no other
interest in the business than as above stated.

-----
The defence set up was, that Mrs. Crean managed the busi-
ness of the inn ostensibly on ,her own account, and therefore
ought to have been made plaintifron the record ; but - •
The CHIEF JUSTICE overruled the objection, and the Jury
found for the plaintiff.—Damages to be settled out of Court.