The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Arum: 15.
TURTLE V. WALLIS.

This was an action for a breach of an agreement under
which the defendant undertook to :tipple-etch a life.likeness
of the Rev. Dr. Dillon, at a price to he named by the
defendant, the plaintiff undertaking to procure a sitting
from the Rev. Doctor, the work to be sent home io three
weeks. The Lord Chief Baron nonsuited the plaintiff at
the trial, on the ground that the agreement was void, be-
cause of the vagueness of the price.
Mr. PLATT now contended that the nonsuit was right, not
only on that ground, but also because the agreement
proved was different from that in the record. In the latter
there was not a word about the sitting of Dr. Dillon.
Mr. CROWDRR, in support of his role for a new trial,
contended that the latter point was not made at the trial,
and even were it so, there was nothing to show that
it was any part of the contract—it might have
been a mere promise on the part cf Turtle to
asiiit his then friend Mr. Wallis. With respect to
the first poin, the defendant had sent home the
etching, but not in time; however, he had brought his
action and had actually got 261. si. for his labour. He
thought the whole question was one for the consideration
of the Jury.
The COURT were of opinion that the rule ought to be
discharged upon the latter ground. They were clearly of
opinion that the sitting of Dr. Dillon formed a part, and
an essential part of the agreement. —Rule discharged.

SHERIFFS' COURT, T fIUBSDA l', APRIL 15.
(Before Mr. Under sheriff BURCIIELL.)
CELII. CON. CLEGG V. WADE
This was an action for criminal conversation with the
plaintiff's wife.
The plaintiff was the son of a gentleman of fortune,
residing in Cheshire. The parties were married in 1835,
but the match was not approved of by the plaintiff's fa-
mily. Af:er the marriage the plaintiff and his wife re-
sided at Torquay, but in 1840 they came to London,
and Mrs. Glegg resided at a boarding-house in
Claremont-square, Pcntonville. In the beginning
of January the defendant was residing at the house,
but no suspicion was excited, although the plaintiff was
then on a visit to his family. On the 26,h of January
Mrs. Glegg left, saying she was going into the country for
a few days, and the same afternoon Mr. Wade also left,
and did not return. Mrs. Glegg came back in a week,
and Mr. Glegg soon after called, and they went down to
Torquay. It was, however, discovered that Mrs. Clegg,
when she absented herself for a week, had been Lying
with Sir. Wade at the French Horn Inn at Wandsworth.
Mrs. Glegg is about 40 or 45, Mr. Glegg about 27. Mr.
Wade is 22 or 23. Mr. Wade had a situation at a
chemist's, but he had left it. Mrs. Clegg, paid a guinea
a week for her board and lodging. Latterly Mr. Glegg
called every day.
The UNDER-SHERIFF havipg summed up the evidence,
The Jury, without hesitation, gave a verdict for the
plaintiff.—Damages one farthing.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, APRIL 15

"THE WATERFORD ARMS

Jane Edwards, a young woman, applied to be dis-
charged. She was supported by Mr. Woodroffc.
The insolvent had kept the Waterford Arms, in the
Haymarket, which had been called the Turk's llead.
There were some curious statements in her schedule. The
insolvent ascribed her insolvency to various causes—the in-
sufficiency of her profits, the breakage of her property, and
not being able to get in her debts. There was an item of
601. as a loss for th.e breakage of glass and the damage of
furniture. Several debts were claimed from gentlemen
for wine and money lent, and in the list appeared the name
of Lord Waldcgrave as a debtor for 481. 1 Os. for " wine
and money advanced." His Lordship was inserted as a
good debtor.
The insolvent was asked a few questions by Mr. Com-
missioner BOWEN.
It appeared that she left in November the Waterford
Arms, where she paid 1301. 10!1. a year as rent. A dis-
tress was put in, but a gentleman of fortune came forward
and paid the money.
Mr. Commissioner BowEN asked her who now kept the
house ?—The insolvent said she did not know.
The Court adjourned the case to perfect some services
of notices on creditors.
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.