The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-28 00:00:00

SIR GREGORY' PAGE

The SOLICIT on-GENERAL rose to present a pctitioit fr6rn.
the mother of ,Sir.. Gregory Page Turner, praving; that she and
Mr. Baron, who married the sister of Sir P. fl:lirneronight
. be app.olitted committees of the lunatic.
thatthey were not next of kin to. Sir
G. P.' Turner. . • -
The Sor.rcyrort-GnNERAI. was not aware that the petition
would be opposed, and, with his Lordship's permission, he
would resume it on Thursday. • . •
Thc LORD CIIANCI;LLo# on'terea the petition to stand over
to Thursdiy.niorning. •

COURT 'OF KING'S. BENCH JAN 97
. • •
THE REV. T. GEE V. THURLOIY,
This was-an action' of debt on an annuity deed, dated the 6th
February, 1817, between the defendant of the first part, his *ifs,
of the second part, and the plaintiff as trustee for the latte'reof
the third part, whereby, after reciting that the defendant and
bis wife, in,conseiptence of unhappy differences; had separated,
;by deed ; the defendant had covenanted -absolutely to pay her
an anntiity,of 801. for life, , The declaration alleged that 201.
for one quarter Of 'such annuity, WaS in arrear.. The 'defendant
by his plea craved Dyer of arid set nut :the annuity:deed, and'
then mid-red, that after the'execution of the deed of separation
his wife has instituted a suit in the COnSistory Court for resti-
tution.oleonjugal rights, in which• Suit the defendant alleged
that his wife had_ been guilty of adultery., -and that the Cousis-
tory- Court had decreed a divorce from -bed and board, in _con-.
..Sequence of various acts of adultery committed on the part of
the wife. '• this plea there.was a demurrer; and joinder. in
demurrer. „The objection to the plea was, that the'covenant to
, • pay, the annuity was absolute and:unconditional, and that the
facts alleged therein afforded nolegal answer to, the action.' In
'ftubstance, the question for-the opinion of the-Court was, whe-
. ther,,after husband and Wife have 'agreed_ to a separation, 'and
the . former .covenants by deed to allow ,the hitter a .separate
maintenance for life at all events, the deed beromes void, in
consequence of adultery committed on the part of the wife ?
Mr. Ciirrzy, in support of the deinurrer to the plea, con-
trnded, that 'as the defendant had absolutely covenanted at all
events.to pay the annuity during his wife'e life, adultery 'on
iter part (supposing the crime-to be sufficiently manifest) was
no to, an action by the wife's Trustee in a Court of Law.
Mr. PATTESON, in SUpport• of, the plea, insisted--tirSt, that
the attempt on the part of the wife to seek a restitution of con- I
k-1 bal rights,, was an answer tothe. action : second,- that the acts
of adultery, proved against the'wife.by the Decree -of the Con-
sii
separation, which was the consideration,
the husband from all liability.; and
'third,
of the annuity deed, was void. in point of law, 'being contrary to
, general policy; . • . _
3itradiT tl' Cat!tutrhte. ddiesecdhar ofge
.I%IT.A7',IIITTY. w.as not heard in reply. . , ,
The.CovitT, acting. upon decisions inthe Equity, Rcclesia§-
: tical, and Common Law Court's for the last 150 years, said, they
felt themselves- bound to held that a deed, of separation execot
ed in parsuance of a previous agreement betw'cen linsbana and
*it'd wliereki4t4 covenented to liye .se narately,,, Aas nOt void
fiMentret Of AW..Whatret- opinion might 'be
_entertained is,
to tlierbircy of such separations (although they were by no
mean. inclined to, think such deeds were contrary to sound
policy in catnap enAes),.and therefore they determined that the
4 deed in question ',light be enforced in a Court of Law. - Con--
sidering then, that 4 deed of separation bet Ween matt and wife
was 'not Void upon general. principles, they were of 'opinion,
that as the defendant had; in'. this instance, covenanted also-
lately, and without any.qualification, to pay the plaintiff the
annuity in question, as trustee, for the wife, ad.ultery.on the 'part
of the latter wa no answer' to the aetion. That supposing adule
eery to, be an answer to it, still the plea on the record not hav-
ing -alleged in Point of fact that the wife had committed adul-
tery, it, ould have been defective in point of fortn::—.la4rnent.
for the
calint,lNG rriase.
n •e.
-
-s.--WlLL.ales. L TAYOR..4 •
This was an action to recover 'back money won at play..:At,
'the trial-before the' Lord Chief justice, .at the.,sliddlesegk
tings after last Terrn, the plaintiff had a verdict fOr 1701. being,
the amount or the single stun lost, although, by the statute of
Anne, he was entitled to recover four tirnes the amount.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for a rule to shetvi
cause why the.verdict.for the plaintiff should, not,he set aside,
and a new trial granted, on two grounds ; first, that the Jury had
I been misdirected by the Learned Judge as to the amountof their
'verdict; and second, that the verdict was against the weight Of
'evidence in the cause. As to the first point, the Jury had asiied,
whether by law they could 'give the plaintiff* a verdict for more
than the single sum alleged- to have been lost at play, and the
Learned Judge told them that they were at liberty, if they be-
lieved the plaintiff's witness, to give any sum they thought
proper. Then, as to the second point, the only witness for the
plaintiff was the person who was supposed to have. loSt the
money at the defendant's gaming-house; but a host of wit.,
nesses have been examined, for the purpose of contradicting
him, and shewing that he was a person in indigent circum-
, stances, and never had money to the amount supposed t. have
been lost ; the Learned Attorney-General therefore urged, first,
that if the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict at all, the -sum
should have been 6801., and desired, that at, all events the ver-
dict should have been the other way, consistently with the evi-
dence adduced on the part of the defendant.
The COURT, however, were of opinion ; first, that it was
competent for 'the Jury.to give the plairtiff such damages as
they thought proper ; and second, that the whole of the evi..
deuce being for their peculiar consideration, their verdict ought
not to be disturbed.—Rule refused.
. SKIN wrn. v. TUCBER.—This was an action on the 65 Geo. 3.
c. 137, s. d, for supplying coals for the workhouse of a parish
in which the defendant was overseer of the poor. It appeared
at the trial before the Lord Chief Justice at the Sittings after
last Term,. that the coals in question had been indirectly sup-
plied by the defendant in the narne.of his brother-in-law, and
as he did not distinctly appear to have derived any profit from
the transaction, the question was whether he Was 'liable to the
penalties of the statute. The Learned Judge ruled that he was
not, and under his Lordship's directions the defendant had a
verdict.
Mr. GURNEY now moved for a new trial, on the ground of
misdirection, and contended, that as the defendant had indi-
rectly supplied the coals, lie was within the policy of the sta-
tute, although there was no distinct proof that the supply was
for his own profit.
The COURT thought the case deserved farther consideration,
and therefore granted a Rule Nisi.