The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-05 00:00:00

TAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. 4.
STOLEN MARRIAGE.—( Further Account.)
Mr. HART.—Your Lordship may remember that I applied
to you before the last vacation, for an order to a clergyman is
Wales, and others to appear before the Court, that they may ac-
count for contempt of Court and breach of a previous order of
the Court, inhibiting the solemnization of marriage and inter-
course of a certain party with the ward in question. The facts
were these, my Lord :—The infant is a young lady, whose
mind certainly appears to have outgrown her person ; her
mental maturity seems to be quite premature. She was doily.,
ciled in a respectable familrof the name of Byers, for the pur-,
pose of receiving a proper education. She arrived at her 14th
year; a beneficed clergyman, Mr. John James, lived in the
neighbourhood ; his daughter frequented the same school ;
his younger brother, Mr. James James, visited there, became
acquainted with the ward, and after some time they thought
proper to elope, and get married by a Welch clergyman, Mr.
Evans. It appeared that the Rev Mr. John James had lent
his horse to his younger brother on the occasion of his elop-
ment. My instructions on my former application were, that he
and the Welch clergyman had knowingly and willingly con-
spired and assisted in bringing about the marriage. lam
happy now, my Lord, to say that neither of the gentlemen have
acted culpable or improperly. Mr John James has made art
affidavit, in which he swears that he certainly did Lend his horse
to his brother on that occasion, but without knowledge of the
use to which it was to be applied—that he was previously in the
habit of assisting his younger brother with money and other
matters—that he met the parties on their way, remonstrated with
them on the impropriety of their conduct, and requested the
young lady to return to her school. She, .however, with a per-
emptoriness not, I hope, very common among young ladies of
her age, declared her positive determination to'proc,eed on her"
hopeful journey. I have also an affidavit of Mr. John James's`
daughter, her school-fellow, who left it with the parties ; but,
as she swears, without a knowledge of their intention of eloping.
They met her father on the road, who took her away from them,;
and after that period she had no communication with them
whatever. The Rev. Mr. Evans swears that the young lady was-
represented to him as of the age of 18 years; that they requested'
him to publish the bans of their marriage; that he did publish
the bans of marriage on three several times, with the usual pub-
lic ceremonies, and joined the parties in marriage according to
the established regular rites of the church. The witnesses to"
the marriage also stated, that they had no previous knowledge
or concerted connexion with the parties ; one was the clerk, and
the others, persons who happened through accident, to be in the
church at the moment of solemnization. Under these circum.
stances I am happy to remove unmerited inculpation from the
parties to whom I alluded. The husband, in order to escape
the power of the Court, left the kingdom and went to France,,
where he now is : the wife is at present domiciled with het
guardian. My present application to your Lordship is for re.
ference to the Master, to ascertain what sum is sufficient for
the separate maintenance of the lady. This sum is to be paid
out of 12,000 L, her property, now lying in the hands of the,
Court.

The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Was not the ward's mother
present, and consenting to the marriage ?
Mr. HART.—My Lord, no; she has no legal mother: this
ward is illegitimate.

The Lair) CHANCELLOR.—I have no objection to grant
her a separate maintenance, but in such a manner that her hus-
band shall have no controul over it.
Mr. HART.—I have also to apply for an order to the hut..
band to appear before your Lordship on a certain day. He U
at present out of the kingdom, through the notion, that by re-
maining out of the jurisdiction of the Court until his wife shall
be 21 years old, he may, after that time,. return, secure &ors
any punishment for his contempt of Court. This is a groat
mistake : however long he may remain away, whenever lig
comes back he will be liable to any punishment which the Court
may think just to inflict on him : it is better he should ram*
as soon as convenient, and try whether, by making a propr
settlement on his wife, he can appease the justice of the Cowl.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—'rake an order for his appe*-
ance on the second day of next term.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 4.
AMBROGETTI V. WATERS.
The COMMON SELMAN T moved for a rule to abew calla
why an attorney of the Court should not pay back to Ambit,—
gettt, one of the dancers at the Opera, a sum of money whit
had been received for the purpose of proceeding against IVr•
Waters to outlawry, but which had not been applied to tilt
purpose. It was stated that Ambrogetti, upon inquiry, foqd
that the Attorney had done no more for his money than merdy
filing an affidavit.—The Court granted a rule to shew cause.
Dir. SCARLETT moved for a Mandamus to compel the MA.
gistrates of Durham to hear the appeal of a gentleman named
Pemberton, which they had rejected. The application arose our
of proceedings under an act of the 49th of the late King, for
repairing the harbour of Sunderland.—Rule to shew mac
granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 4.
HOLMES V. MERTON.
This was a motion for a rule to discharge the defendant Kit
of custody, on the ground that the suit had abated by the death
of the original plaintiff. It appeared from the affidavits, that
the plaintiff having commenced an action against the defendant,
have been obliged by him to carry the cause down for trial te
the Assizes, where he obtained a verdict. After the trial the
defendant gave the plaintiff notice that be intended to apply to,
the Insolvent Debtors' Court for his discharge under the Act;
but the plaintiff dying in some time after, the present motion,
was made on the grounds above stated.
Lord Chief Justice GurronD said, that it had formerly
been the practice of the Courts of King's Bench and Common.
Pleas to discharge piisonera, unless the plaintiff followed up
his proceedings regularly, although the defendant had gives)
notice that he should take the benefit of the Insolvent Act..--
But that practice was altered in both Courts by a rule of
Michaelmas Term, 1. Geo. IV., by which rule the plaintiff wins
not obliged to proceed after receiving such a notice. With re-
spect to the argument that in the present case the suit had abated
by the death of the plaintiff, it was not well founded; for the pre-
sent plaintiffs had not suffered the suit to abate, they having sued
out letters of administration to the original plaintiff's estate,
and thereby placed themselves in his situation. As, therefore,
he would not have been bound to incur further unnecessary ex-
pence, neither were they ; and, upon the whole, his Lordship
was of opinion that the rule which he had before referred to ap-
plied to the present case; and that the motion ought therefore
to be refused.
The other Learned Judges having concurred in this opinion,
the motion was refused.

PREROGATIVE COURT, FEB. 4.
DOKER V. GOFF.
In this case, John Goff, a peace-officer, belonging to the
office in the Borough of Southwark, had made a will, dated
October 28, 1821, by which he had left the whole of his pro-
perty to Elizabeth S. Doker (a woman with whom he cohabited,
both in England and Amsterdam.) It appeared that he had
gone to the latter place on account of an arrest with which he
was threatened. He had a wife and family, whom he has utterly
excluded from his will ; and a great deal of evfdence'has beers
obtained, in their behalf, with a view of invalidating the paper
set up.

Sir..; OHS Ntc nom,. said, that however inofficious the paper
might be in its dispositions, however immoral the motives that
dictated it, and however repugnant it might be to the feelings;
of the Court to pronounce for a testament made under such cir-
cumstances; still, if in point of law and of fact this was the
true act of the deceased at the time it purported to have been
made, and if no act of his had since revoked it. the Court was
under the necessity of pronouncing for it. Upon the whole
view of the case, the Court, both in point of law, and upon its
own conviction, was bound to pronounce, although reluctantly,
for the paper propounded.
ROBSON, FORMERLY PATTLE, AND WAKEFIELD,
AGAINST ROCHE AND OTHERS.
This great testamentary cause, involving property to a vast
amount both in England and in China, was partially openea
to-day. The reading of the evidence alone will occupy th.•
Court a day or two.

COAL-MARKET, FEB. 4.
Ships at Market. Ships sold
55 Newcastle - - 0 - Od to --3
7 Sunderland - - 0 - to —2 Od