The Sun.
London, England, 1807-06-13 00:00:00

BEVERLEY RACES, JuNr 9.

A Sweepstakes of zoo.. each for Syr olds.—One Mile and a
Half (8 Subscribers).
Mr. Garforth's b. c. by Beningbrough, out of Caroline
Mr. Savile's b. c. by Sir Solomon
Mr. Hudson's b.,c. by Beningbrough .
JUNE ro.
• The Gold Cup —4 mile Heat.
Mr. Watts's c. Integrity, brother to Truth
Mr. I3ethell's. b. c. by Beningbrough
Mr. Gartorth'i ch. f. by Hyacinth
Mr. Watts's b. c. by Beningbrough

• 4

A pair of horses and their driver, who had Im-
prudently taken them too far in the Thames, near
Standgate, to wash, were drifted off into the stream
on Wednesday, afternoon, and under the middle
arch of- Westminster. Bridge got enveloped in the
eddy, .and were all three drowned. The horses be-
longed to a stable-keeper at Lainbeth.

1.0;

cOuRT OF 'WI I\!G'l 13EiCtf, [us* 12;

WELSPORT) V. TODD.

ihe,diSciission of this case occupied nearly the
k.xiliole morning. It carne before the qi)urt upon a
verdia; fOund it the SOmersetshlre Assizes ;
and the questioh was, whether the Plaintii'f., 'as ren-
. ter of the Post Horse Duty for the City of Bath, was
etititled to recover from the Defendant, A stable-
' keeper a sum of money in respe& Of such duty.
'The special verdi& stated the fa& of a horse being
hired by a Mr. Langley, from the Defendant, to go
from Bath to Henton Brewet, and a similar transae-
Aion between the Defendant and a person of the
name of Corringtoit,
nreSpecling a horse to go froM
Bath to Bradford. With respe& to the former, the
special verdi& was' insufficient, and the case was
therefore argued upon the. latter hiring. The AT,-
TORNEY-GENERAL argued from the Statutes of the
25th Geo. 111. c. st. and the 44th Geo. 111. c. 98.
that the duty was payable, as a letting of a horse to
travel post by the mile or stage. Mr. PULLER sup-
ported the contrary position, on the principle laid
down by Lord Kenyon, in the King v. Swift. Their
Lordships deferred giving judgment until they should
have examined the two Acts of Parliament conne&-
ed with this-question.

THE KING V. RICHARD:WATSON.f

• We noticed this case in our Paper of Saturday, the
6th inst. as an application at the suit of General
Gwynne, tbr a criminal infiomation against the De-
fendant, late a Major in the 17th Regiment of
Light Dragoons, for-endeavouring, by most gross and
improper' demeanour, to provoke the Prosecutor to
fight a-duel.
• Mc. G.utaow this day moved to make the rule
absolute on an ,affidavit of personal service upon the
`Defendant, to which no resistance was made.—Rule
•

MONTETEO V. DE TASTET AND CO.

The Plaintiff is a merchant at Lisbon, the Defend-
ants are merchants in London. This was an adion
set-down for trial before Lord ELLENBOROUGH, at the
Sittings after last Term ; but, before ithad arrived
at its Conclusion, it was referred to Mr. Geo. Ward,
one of the Special Jury, to settle matters in difference
between the parties in this cause. It was an aalion
brought by the Plaintiff to recover from the Defend-
ant a large sum of • moner, alledged to have been
lost by the inattention of the latter. It appeared
that the Piaintiff had consigned to the Defendants a
large quantity of cottons to be disposed of in this
country; but that they delayed making a sale. of
them,,contrary to the diredtions they teceived, until
the price was so low that a loss of upwards of 'pool.
was sustained. A verdi& was taken for the Plaintiff
to the full extent, subject to be reduCed by the Arbi-
trator: Mr. Ward made his arbitrament, and de-
cided that the Plaintiff should receive from the De-
fendants the sum of 4601. only,,and that the verdid
should be reduced to that sum. This award Mr.
GA'RROW, on behalf of the Plaintiff, had applied to
set aside, on the ground that the Arbitrator had ex-
ceeded This authority; tor that the only question
referred to him was, the- difference of price at
four different periods, when the cotton was.in the
Defendants' hands, and the price at the time it was
aatially sold.
Mr, TOPEiNG opposed this Rule, and said that
the Arbitrator; had only examined that evidence
which was produced-on the trial. It was.obje&ed
that Mr. Ward had taken into his consideration the
general nature of the transaction, and had read the
whole correspondence between the parties, in order
•to form his judgment. This proceeding was nothing
More than was necessary and proper,,itbr that cor-.
respondence had been employed at the trial to spew
the difference in price, the dire& obje& of Mr.
Ward's inquiry.

On the recommendation 'of the Court, it was
agreed to refer back the quegtion to one of the Gen-
tiernen.on the pannel. .

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NNE 12.

MENDE/ V. MARTIN.

This was an a6tion .to recover from the. De=
fondant a sum of 341. Cs. being the amount, of board
and' lodging, for one year and a quarter, for the De-
fendarit's- wife, at the rate of half a guinea per
week. Both parties in this cause were Jews.
The Plaintiff founded his claim upon his reception
of the Defendant's wife, who was separated from
him, and destitute of all means of support.; and the
Defendancresisted the demand, upon a, plea that
his wife had eloped from his house without just
cause.

From the faas stated in evidence, however, it ap-
peared, that .the Defendant .was one of those gallant
gay Lotharios, who had no very stria regard to the
conjugal vow ; and that, in consequence of repeated
instances of his .infidelity, and frequent bickering-s
arising therefrom, the husband and wife had sepa-
rated. Through the interference of their respetive
friend's, however, they were again reconciled. But
this re,union was of short continuance ; for the
Defendant again lapsed into his former frailties, and
in a way so flagrant, that his wife was at length
provoked to quit his mansion,and to seek an asylum
and consolation amongst her friends in some distant
quarter of the kingdom. In the commencement of
Oe.:tober 1804, therefore, she packed up such por-
tion of her furniture as she conceived to be vested in
her, and remOved with it to the house of a neighbour,
named Walsh, in Smock-alley, Pettycoat-Jane. She
.thether husband next day, and acquainted him with
her determination to abandon him, and to remove
to Lynn, in Norfolk, and there to set up some busi-
ness for her own support. The husband, however,
endeavoured to dissuade her from leaving him ;
adding, that if she did so against his consent, he.was
no longer her husband. She, however, persisted ;'
took leave of her mother and mother-in-law, and set
out for Lynn in the Fly waggon but not having
succeeded in her speculations 'there, after some time
she returned to London, and took refuge in the fa-
n-illy of: the Plaintiff; where she continued to board
and_ lodge for a year, and a quarter. It also was
proved, that •the Defendant had made. a proposal
to her to alloW her half-a-guinea a week for her
support.

Sir JAMES MANSFIELD made a few observations
upon the evidence, and referred the case to the Jury,
who instantly found a verdid for the Plaintiff.

COURT OF CHANCERY, juNE Ez.

TOMKINS V. SM JOHN LETHBRIDGE.' ,
The Plaintiff in this case tired his bill against the

ntiendent, 'on an Ec "i l'";d •t On ptayiri .to
11t y.o. emp ,
be decreed to possessionllie- of onernole..ty of ite
Matiort of Thregenhauit and Bottela, in the 'court--
tleS. of SomerSet and CornWalt-l'as.lielrat law, ex
Pirteinaterna, to Treville Cross, of the city of Exe-;
ter, deceased. This Treville Cross, it appeared,
was a man of weak Understanding', and possessed
of large estate's, in fee and otherwiSe, in the Several
counties of Somerset, Devon, and Corn Wall ; but,
unfortunately, for him, he Was involved, by mis-
management and folly, in debt, in the year 1737,
and was committed to St. Thomas's', a prison near
Exeter, where he Was left and negleded until the
Aet of Iniolvency passed in the 16th of George IL
had relieved him, upon assigning all his estates and
effeds to one John Cross, a creditor .of
Prim, of Exeter, Attorney, who had a concern with
this affair, and took advantage 'of the weakness of
Mr. Cross, and obtained a deed pole from him of
the property, subject to a mortgage of 28001. 'Da-
niel Prim died in 1162, and John Prim administered
.to him. The Defendant, about 30 years ago, treat-
ed with JOhn Prim fora purchase of the two manors
abOve-named, and procured himself to he appointed,
by 'the Court of Common Pleas, Assignee to Mr.
Cross, and has ever since received the rents and
profits of the estates, subjed to the interest of the
:an]: without having discharged the trust under
the Insolvent Ad. The Plaintiff prayed for an ac-
count against Sir John, charging that the debt had
been many years since, both principal and interest,
discharged by the issues and profits of the lands, and
demanded a re-conveyance, as also an inspedion of
the several title deeds. . Sit John, by his answer,
adruitted almost all. the charges of the Plointiff's
bill, and put him on the proof of his belt ship, ex
parte materna, to Treville' Cross. The pedigree
being very long, and a chasm appearing therein, -by
the destrudion ofo.ne 'whole book of registers, much
ingenuity was displayed in supplyini; this defed ;
and in establishing Monumental i:iEleription3 and
other documents in the place thereof, it was offered
to prove an inscription from a tonab,•stone by oral
evidence in Court.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, thatihe stone might
as well he proved by the body laid under it as by such
e‘iidence ; it must be proved only by an. interroga-
ic:ry. It happened that the witness, who compared
the copy the original, had been on some ac-
count,committed !to priion, and could not be ex.-
amined on the Commission. There was read, what
the CHANCELLOR and Bar were merry at, a Cor
nish Epitaph, stating, that ode of the Plaintiff's
ancestors had reared a monument to perpetuate
the names and farniiy of all hi* ancestors—bat be-
ginning with the name of his son, and calling him
grandson of the erector's father; from whence the
CHANCELLOR supposed, that 'by the Cornish lan-
guage ancestors did mean descendants. Notwith-
standing misfortunes and length of time,' the Plain-
tiff made out a strong and clear prima facie easel
I,4liieb; on the return of the -usual issue in such
CISCS direCred, is likely to put the Plaintiff into
possession of a fine estate. The issue, as expea-
ed to be a long one, was direded to the Common
Pleas.