The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-09 00:00:00

LAST INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dic. H.
Soon after 10 o'clock the LORD CHANCELLOR arrived, but
so much afflicted with the gout that it was with much difficulty
he walked into his private room, where he was employed until
we left the Court in hearing a matter of lunaey, in the pre•
sence of the parties interested only.

COURT OF !ONO'S BENCH, Ds°. 8.
This day the Sittings for London were resumed before the
Loan CmEr JUSTICE and Common Juries.

THE COMPANY OF TOBACCO-PIPE-MAKERS V. BUR-

COYNE.

This was an action by the Company of Tobacco-pipe-
makers, to recover penalties from the defendant, under a bye..
law, made in pursuance of their charter. It appeared that the
Company, under a charter granted in the time of George 11.,
were empowered to make bye-laws, regulating their trade all
over the kingdom, subject to the approbation of the Lord Chan-
cellor, the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bepch, and the
Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. They accord-
ingly made bye-laws, by which all persons carrying on the
trade were required to attend the Court on summons, take
an oath, and pay 61., and were subject to certain penalties on
refusal. The defendant, who had carried on business as a
tobacco-pipe-maker in IVindmill-street, Westminster, for nine
years, was summoned, but refused to take the oath or pay the
tine.
A verdict was taken for the plaintiff's for two penalties of 40s.
each, subject to the opinion of the Court on a special case, as
to the validity of the charter, the obligation of the bye.law,
and a question of variance between the bye-law and the record.

DIXON v. COLE.

This WAS an action by Mr. Dixon, a horse-dealer, to recover
the amount of a.bill of .exchange for 2(d. of which he was en-
dorsee. The defence was usury ; and it was proved that Mr.
Peacock, a servant of Mr. Dixon, discounted the bill for Si. and
afterwards endorsed it to his master. The bill had been several
times renewed, on nearly similar terms.
The Loan CuiEr-JusTics left the Jury to decide whether
this transaction, unquestionably, usurious, was within the
knowledge of Mr. Dixon. The Jury found a verdict for the
defendant.

RAYMOND v. ARCIIRR.

This action was brought by Alr. Itapmond, a tradesman in
Stamford, to recover twelve guineas, for a quarter's rent of a
shop In that place let by him to the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant in March took the shop of the
plaintiff for the purpose ofdisplaying his goods for sale at Stain•
ford fair, but undman agreement determinable at a month's
notice, and payment of arrears. Mr. Archer, however, did not
long use the shop, although he gave no notice to quit ; and in
April, a dispute having amen as to the terms, he accompanied
the plaintiffto Mr. Thom son's office, at Stamford, in order to
inspect the agreement. On the paper being produced, he took
it, declared it was not what he had signed, tore it in pieces,
and threw them on the fire. Mr. Thompson turned him out of
his office, and afterwards collected the scattered papers, arrang-
ed them, and pasted them together. It was proved that the
plaintiff did not resume possession of the premises ; but he
brought this action for four weeks' rent, which was settled, and
now brought this action for subsequent arrears.
Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, called witnesses to proye
that Mr. Archer sent the key back by the coach ; and argued,
that as the plaintiff had nut returned it, his conduct was evi.
dence of a waver of the contract for notice. The witnesses did
not, however, conclusively establish that the key was re.
ceived, and
The Lona CHIEF JUSTICE intimated an opinion, that if
such proof had been complete, it would not have entitled the
defendant to a verdict ; but expressed a hope that some arrange-
ment would be made to prevent a third action.
The Jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages 121.125.:'

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, rise. 8.
TAYLOR. ANT) ANOTHER V. SINGLE.

Mr. Barber Beaumont was the actual defendant in this cause
and the matter of action wns an alledged injury done to cer-
tain premises at Mile-end, whereby the reversionary interest of
the plaintiffs was prejudiced.
The Learned Judge suggested the propriety of referring the
case to arbitration, considering the difficulty of establishing
satisfactory.evidence in a Court of Law, with respect to sll the
the intricacies of local situation.

The plaintiff's Solicitor still persisted in his deterthination to
proceed ; and the cause was ordered to stand over till to-morrow
morning, in consequence of the great number of witnesses that
must be examined on both sides.

SCHOLEY v. GOODMAN".

This case has been before the Court for some time, and the
merits of it have recently come before the public.
It was an action to recover from the defendant a sum be.
141. and 151. laid out by the plaintiff on account of the
defendant's wife.

Mr. Sergeant Pr t.r., in opening the case for the plaintiff,
said, that in consequence of some differences between Goodman
and his wife, they bad agreed to live apart from each other, he
agreeing to allow her twelve shillings a week as alimony, and
a deed of separation to that effect was drawn up. The plaintiff,
who was the wife's father, was appointed trustee. Ile under-
stood that two modes of defence would be resorted to on the
present occasion. The first was to raise a question as to how
far a deell of separation between husband and wife was at all
binding; and the second was, that the wife had committed
adultery, and had therefore forfeited all claims on her husband.
With respect to the latter, he apprehended it was no defence
whatever ; for if a man chose to live separate from his wife,
and she ehose to commit adultery, it was no answer to the de-
mend of a third person who had supported her, unless that third
person was aware of the fact of her having so misconducted her-
self. if, however, the third party was conscious of it, then he
could not bring an action to recover on the part of the wife ;
for a husband who was justified in turning his wife out of doors,
could not a fortiori be called upon to pay for her. But in the
present instance it could not be shewn that the adultery had
been committed with the knowledge of the plaintiff, and it would
be very hard if he was not to be repaid the money ha had ad-
vanced as trustee under the deed.

John Powell examined—Knows the defendant, but not the
plaintiff'. Was present when Mr. Bezant, an attorney, called
on the defendant for money. Mr. Bezant said he was employ-
ed to recover it; the amount was between 101. and 121. The
application was made on the fith September, 1822. The attor-
ney advised Goodman to pay the money and avoid a law-suit;
but he answered that sooner than pay another farthing, he and
his children would go to the workhouse.
By the CounT—Mr. Bezant applied tar the money as-being
due on account of Goodman's wife. Goodman admitted hay-
ing.already paid 101.
13),111r. &tient PELL—The reason Goodman gave for not:
paying the money was, that his wife was living in adultery with
another man.

Cross-examined—Goodman admitted having paid IW., but
refused to pay any wore, u his wife was living with another.
man. I don't know that the name of the adulterer is Pitt. I
.never saw the man-in my life.
The deed of separation between Goodman and his wtfe was
here
_read. _ _

iottliBtringfield, the uncle of Goodman's wife,
.stated that
Goodman t►me to him in June, 1822, .and asked his advice'
eespecting the stipulated payment to his wife. 11e wished to.
know whether he should continue paying or not, as her father:
.atulµ►rne person with hint had been applying to him. Witness
.advised him by all WAILS to pay the moneyond avoid trouble.
Goodman aid It-would be better to do so, and that he would'
send it by the boy. lie afterwards said he would bring W

Cross-examined.—Witriess was appointed to receive the
mow. 4 person named Smedley had received it previously.
This was the case on the part of the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant ,VAICCItiaN, as Counsel on the other side,
asked if the Court would deckle the case on the deed of sepa.
ration ?

Mr. Justice Ilunitounti said he should have no hesitation
to do so, as he considered it a valid instrument.

Mr. Serjeant %TAW:IO*N then addressed the Jury for the
defendant. flc considered the question as to whether such
instruments were valid, a most important one, us itinvolved
considerations of the greatest.moment with regard to the Dubuc
at large. His client was a very poor man, and not able to
carry his case up to the Route of Lords; but the opinion of
the Learned Judges *maid be taken on' the points, and it liar
to be. hoped the result would be hit favour. The Leurnea

Serjeant then submitted, that there was a solid bar to this
action, in the fact of adultery on the part of the wife. Nothing
could be more cruel than that a husband should continue mak-
ing a weekly allowance to a wife who was living in open adul-
tery, and might foist a spurious offspring upon hint. It ap-
reared, that after the first separation several temporary recon-
ciliationatook place between the parties, and that circumstance
alone was quite sufficient to render the deed of separation null
and void.

Mr. Justice BUR4OUGH—I think that adultery cannot be
pleaded in defence to this action.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN—Very well, my Lord, I must
submit.

Mr. Serjeant PEEL—Very well; the defence to the ,action
falls to the ground.
After some other observations between the Counsel on both
sides, the Court allowed evidence to be adduced of the reconci-
liation between the parties, to see. how far it went to nullify
the previous deed of separation.
Elizabeth Goodman, the daughter of the defendant, stated,
after the separation, her mother came to the house the night
after Twelfth NiBht, in January 1822. It was in the evening,
about half-past six o'clock ;it was before the supper hour, and
witness's mother laid the cloth, and sat 'at the table. Wit-
ness's father was at home at the time. 'Witness's father and
mother appeared very " comfortable" together. They slept
together that night, but her mother went away next morning.
She came again on the Saturday night, and went away on the
Sunday morning. She also came again the Saturday follow.
ing, and staid till Monday, and then went away as before.
She came repeatedly afterwards.
James Goodman, the nephew of the defendant corroborated
the testimony of the last witness, as did also another witness,
who stated that on the first night the wife came to the house,
he saw the panics shake hands together ; upon which the
witness said, " I am glad to seeyou .so comfortable once more,
and we'll now drink success to the second wedding."—(A.
laugh.)
Mr. Serjeant PELL replied, and maintained that the evi-
dence of the witness Stringfield was conclusive on the point, as
it showed that Goodman had acknowledged his liability under
the deed of separation.
Mr: Justice BURHOUGH summed up the evidence, and the
Jury, under the direction of the Learned Judge found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 10/. •

LEVI v. EDWARDS.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated this was an action to recover
compensation in damages for a wanton and unprovoked as-
sault, comntitted by the defendant on the plaintiff on the 25th
August, 1822. The plaintiff was a respectable man attached
to the Neapolitan legation, and the defendant was a paper.
monger, and also a constable, belonging to the parish of
Virliftechapel. On the day in question, which was Sunday,
the plaintiff was walking with a friend across Stepney Fields
when they observed a squabble between two boys.. The de-
fendant rushed in and seized one of them, placing a pair of
handcuffs on him at the same time. The plaintiff seeing this,
remonstrated in civil terms with the defendant on the se-,
verity as well as illegality of such treatment ; but the other
became outrageously Indignant at his interference imme-
diately collared him, and- having struck him with a cane,
marched him along like a common thief to the watch.
house, followed by an immense mob. He was next day
brought to the police-office,' but the Magistrate considered the
charge to be altogether without foundation.—The Learned
Serjeant submitted, that if the defendant had in reality any
' authority as a police officer, he ought to exercise it in a much
less violent way, and not offer injurtes and insults to respectable
people, who knew how to conduct themselves.
George Dennis examined.-1 am an attorney of the Court of
King's Bench. The present transaction occurred on Sunday,
August 25,1822. It occurred in Stepney-Fields. I was going
across the Fields at the time. There was a crowd of boys col.
lected. I saw some persons whom I took to be officers. I
saw the defendant with a boy in custody. I saw Mr. Levi
walking with a friend. I saw him leave his friend and walk
up to the officer. The boy was handcuffed. Levi said to
Ldwards, " you have no right to handcuff the boy, Edwards."
He spoke In a very mild manner. Edwards then turned round,
seized the plaintiff, and said, " you shall go to the watch-
house too." I saw Edwards take up his stick, and place him-
self in a striking attitude. Edwards wanted to take me to the
watch-house also, but did not strike me.
Cross-examined.--I live at No. 4, Brighton-place, Hackney-
road, and am an attorney, but not engaged in this cause. I
saw no provocation that could justify the conduct of the defend.
ant. There might be 200 persons in the field-at the time. I
heard no noise, and saw no fighting.
Re-examined.--The bay, who was handcuffed, appeared
about fourteen years of age.
William Kell stated, that lie was present on the day in
question. There were some boys fighting before Mr. Levi
came up. The officer twilled in upon the boys and hand-
cuffed ono of them. The plaintiff then said, " Edwards,, you
know me, and you have no business to go beyond your duty,
in handcuffing the boy." The defendant upon thisiaid, " Ili
by the collar,
Ihavel) d d
ra youg
gue
p
d felon. The defendant raised up his cane, and Levi put up his
titirni"toanthdeirnwa'atctiahtoeulyse :laessedifilliime was a common
arm to defend himself, and the cane dropped in the mean time.
Cross-examined.--Witness considered the defendant to have
been an officer from the authority, with which he acted ; was
quite sure that Levi never held the coy of any of the boys who
were fighting. Witness is a retired licensed victualler, living
on his property.
James Pawsey, a stock-broker, corroborated the evidence of
the last witness, and stated in addition that he saw the defend.
ant strike the plaintiff twice on the arm, and that the cane fell
out of the defendant's hand with the force of the blow. The
plaintiffgave no provocation to Edivards. Mr. Levi is a Navy
Agent, and a respectable person.
Another witness gave evidence to the same effect.
Alexander Levi, the brother of the plaintiff, was next called,
and stated that the charge made against the plaintiff by the de-
fendant, appeared so groundless to the Magistrate that he re-
fused to entertain it.

Mr. Serjeant PELL, for the defendant, first took a legal ob-
jection to the serving of the writ as irregular, and then said
that the next point for the Court to consider was; whether such
an assemblage as that represented in the evidence, was, not con-
trary to the Act for preventing Disorderly Meetings on Sundays,
during the hours of Divine Service.

Mr. Justice Buntouan 'said it did not appear that the
plaintiff had taken any part in the disorderly proceedings.

Mr. Serjeant PELL submitted that he had interfered with
the defendant in the discharge of his duty.

Mr. Justice Buanouctu observed that no evidence had been
adduced to show that the plaintiffbad acted in a riotous manner.
Mr. Se!jeant PELL then addressed the Jury, and said he
should-bring evidence to chew that the plaintiff had taken an
active part in the disorderly conduct of the boys.
Thomas Weston, Headborough of Whitechapel parish,
stated that he saw a crowd of-persons in Stepney-fields, on the
day in question, and that he •liesiteted to go among them, they
being so numerous. However, witness and Edwards milled
in among them. Witness pursued one of the boys several
yards, and took him amidst great shouting and confusion.--
The boy was stripped, and all over blood and dirt. Levi tame
up, and hustled against witneas, saying " Let the boy go ; the
oilier boy is let off' by Edwards." Levi was in the ring
among the boys, and witness was surprised to see so respect-
able a looking man there. The boy was notrhandeuffed at first;
and when witness saw Edwards, he told him that a person,
whom he afterwards understood to be Levi, wanted .to rescue
the boy from him. Witness and Edwards were then going
to hand Cuff the ahoy, but Levi rushed in to prevent them,
and took a stick by force out of Edward's hand. Levi
'still stood in the way, and would not leave it till at last he was
tAken to. the watch-house. The boy was locked up-at the
wateh-hquae, and Levi's brother forced his ,way in, threatening
an action, and saying he was an attorney. Witness answered—,
" I want no Jew attorney."
Cross-examined—Levi insulted witness as well &ibis brother
officers, and the charge was given at the watch-house to that'
effect.. Witness was ordered out of the room during theexa-
ruination before the Magistrates, and was never called h after.
wards.
Joseph Crabtree deposed to the same effect as the last
witness.
John Wells, a bricklayer, living at Mile End, represented
the plaintiff as having taken an active part in the fight be-
tween the boys, calling. out to have a ring made,, and holding
the coat of one of 'them. Witness heard the constable, Ed-
wards; remonstrate with the plaintiff' on the impropriety of his
conduct.
gtrieant
of length,
the
.fury
Cross-examined—Witness was once a constable. but is not
:sioiniarl.V'serjeant VAIIGRAN replied
now in that situation. Has worked with Edwards occa-
Mr. Justiee B u *no u C atano
which--
afle
to
the merits of the evidence. H called the tte
Verdict for the plaintilf—Darnages, 40s.

PREROGATIVE COURT, DEC. 8.
In this Court only one cause Am heard today; that of
"Sells, by:their guardian, against Sells; the particularsof which
will be reported when the argument shall be completed.

DEmPsTlitt, the trum who swallowed the knife,
is better than he was last week : he does not
such paia.--(Carlisle Patriot.)

LONDON MARKETS.

PRICE OF BREAD.
The pi ice of 16e 41b. Lnaf is stated at 9d. by the fult.prised
bakers. There are others of the trade who sell how
penny to three halfpence below that rate.

IMPORTATIONS OF GIiAIN LAST WEEE.•
English. It isb•-• FormaWheat - ..--,
Barley - .......
Malt
Ryes -
---- • .......
Beans . 443 ---.....---
Peas
Tares - --"'
Rapeseed .
----.—....
Mustard
Seeds 209
Flour
Blank - --""
,_
Linseed — .•--_

SEEDS, Dec. a.
Old Engjish Clover, 511 s 54675 s—fine, —s—new, 6e57111141
Ditto (Freign) 345 4es 72s—fine, 60.745 78s new,76110
Whiteditto 62s 38s 72s—fine, 801 905 90
Trefoil .. per cwt.. 16s 43s —s—new 10$ 166 441 per cat.
Ribgrass ... 2Bs 346—new, 40$ 426
Carraway Seeds
Coriander do 16514 s—fine, 136
Tares per bushel..
St. Foin 3os to 33s—fine —r per qt.
Rye-Grass... .. 16s to 44s—fine, 30s 33s —Ol P.lO4lF'
Canary per qr 46; 606 to Us Od peril'',
White Mustard Seed lOs to 10s6d
Brown ditto 96 les 14s Od
Winter Tares —s to —6 oil —s per qr.
Rape Seed .. l6l lus—ncw, 251 461 Os per 1.11/t.:
New Turnip Seeds lOl to 155 Od pr. bush.
Linseed —s—fine, —s .-4 par ti„,
Nt.II:IIATE AND LEADENHALI. AlAtthlsTs, Dec; l'
By the Carcase.
Beef 46 Oil to 3s Od I Veal 4* 83 to 41 If
Mutton ..... is 4d to 3s 4d I Pork 46 4d to 41 lle
Lausb, Os Od to 06 Od.
_...... .--

ST. J AMES'sliitym I
0. Hay 31 be Od to 51 15s ad Clorcr, 41 Os Od to 6105 Od
New Hay of us Od to of Os Od Straw li 101 6d to el et Oil
SMITHFIELD.
Old Hay ... 41 104 t/d to 51 Os Od--Average, v
41 155 na,
Straw
Clover II 16s Od to 41 Os Od--Average, II 100 Cd
51 101 Od to 61 Os 00---Average, SI 155
WI-11'1E1' EIA PEI.. Od
Hay
11 4.o3ododtotoslollooes Odd--__teerrnasgre: 40i, 141:
to:
New ditto O4
Straw - Od
C10ver...." 41 8s ad to 61 ios od-AveraKey Si fvl

Nitta. 1J!• HOPS. per Cwt., Dec. 8.
Gnowrss, 1883.
Kent Pockets 91 os to lot 10s to 13101
East Kent, Canterbury 131 18s to 1810 s
Sussex Pockets 81 es to 91 9s to 10101
Essex Pockets 91 os to 101 ;us to ►4l 01
Farnha►u, fine, 161 161 to tot Os—Second, 111 0, to 161
Kent Bugs, 81 8s to 101 101 to 141
Sussex Bags, 71 7s to 81 8s to 101 lOs
Essex Bags, 81 as to 91 156 to tot los

- ~...orup....
UAW tituBs.
Best Heifers & Steers, per st. Ordinary .... is ed to it La
Ss 241 to Ss 41: Market Calf .. each.. st Od
Middlings 4s 10d to ss rid Lambs.... Os Osl tabs"
SHEEP SKINS.
Polled
Downs
.1 Lambs Os od t
—po 0"-

PRICE OF LEATHER.
Butts, 50 to 581bs each per lb 24d t• 1
Ditto, Sti to 661bs each
Dressing Hides lBd to in
Coach Hides
Crop Hides, 35 to 401 ha for cutting 194 t° 2°
Ditto .... 45 to .501bs
Calf Skins.. St; to 401bs
Ditto 50 to 70Ibs Q3d to lid
Ditto 7O to bulbs sad to
18d t° t
lei
w" Small Seals (Greenland) Bd
Large ditto
Tf6ll to 17anned Horse Hides
Spanish Horse Hides
14.
.--..;....01••••••••••

PRICES OF TALLOW, AO,
Town 'Follow 41s Od —a Od
YelloW limpet& as* ad nd
White ditto .. —* od —;* th!
Soap ditto.... Stis Od Od
Melting Stuff 32s Oil —s od
Ditto Rough.. 2ls Od Od
PRICE OF CANDLES, FRW
Price of Candles, per dozer
ed per dozen allowr

.. b.
...
...
... •
.. .
. ....
..
................

m TALLOW CUANDLXO
it, Bs fid —Moulds, tos od.
rd fur ready monql---_.