The Sun.
London, England, 1824-12-04 00:00:00

LAW I NTELLIG ENCE.

•
COURT OF CHANCERY, DEcratnEtt 3.
• OPERA-110179E-IF:imits
The Lone CIIANCEI.Loit said, that he had read Over the
two deeds-.-one binding the Marquis.of -Hertford with some
other Noblemen and Gentlemen,. as sureties for the rent under
:the lease; the other, in which Messrs. Chippindale and Yußop
were bound for nil tie other covenants in the contract between
Ebers and 'Denali, and in which the former Indenture oflease
.was recited. • Upon this last decd, though the indenture
of lease, or subtlemise was mentioned, yet there was nothing
specific to'sbow that Messrs. Chittpindale 'and t
Lordship, after theme:in
:Oleo were to
be bound equally. with the sureties. for' the payment of rent.;—
clairelnul whatever which
tpehertliairstonftbteuntliounieellisd,ecetlotlitlidlisnd
pooling
bound the Marquis of Hertford anti the other sureties for the
rent to the fulfilment of chose other covenants in the contract
for which Mem& Chippindale and Yallop were separately
bound. He bet.
Ted 31r. Hart to him the favour to read
over the deeds'once more, and point out to the Court, if pos-
sible, any one expression which,required that the house 4101114
be kept open at all, or any which would justify the (Joint in
appointing a manager on the motion of Mi. EherP, without.
the acquiescence or the suretiesi either those for the re6tl or
those for the separate covenants: How were they to bind
the sureties beyond the terms which thi. suretieilhemselves
had subscribed anti were ready to ack"o •
”letige• ? This being
so; it' he were to be pressed for his .opinion upon the legal effect
of granting the present motion, with regard to those sureties,
he must plainly declare that he thought ttir gian dug of it con-
trary to their will would. have the elect of releasing them
front' their responsi bll(ty. Mr. Mos had taken suificieut Pre-
cautions, in the deeds to secure the fulfilment of the covenants,

Sittings ut Nisi Prins, befiere the Lord Chief Justice BEST
and a Common Jury. •
lIADELIFVEyt lIATWEL
This was an action for trespass, committed by tho defendant
in having stopped up a sewcir, of which the pleintiif had before
enjoyed thetise,
STltit opened the case: Mr. Scrjeant VAUGHAN
stated it to the jury.
la the course of the case (otherwise uninteresting, except to
the parties), the plaintiff wanted to account for tin:non-produc-
tion, as witnesses, of two persons, a 'bricklayer and carpenter,
who had been employed by him in the construction of a par-
ticular work. lie called a person to prove' that these two men
were dead ; and it turned out that they were the two unfortunate
individuals (Francis and Honey) who were shot at the Queen's
funeral.
The Jury, after bearing the evidence on both sides, returned
a verdict fir the plaintiff Damages, Is. This verdict to be
subject to the Opinion of the Court above, on a particular point
to be reserved at the trial.
.This Was the only case tried today. It was the last of the
common jury causes. The Court rose at two o'clock. .

CONSISTORY COURT? Pgc. 3.
THE MARQUIS 011, WESTSIEATII. 'AGAINST TIIE MAR-

thisn
cause; at: za°4lEi
thesalt
under very special 'circumstances. It should be pri.mised ;that
this suit was brought by 3ion wa+ to_day made 11ourtchletioefieuirs,
to compel a restitution of conjugal rights; her ladyship living
sometime since separated herself from his society. To thatsuit,
which was instituted hi Easter Term, '14121, her Ladyship has
Wired two defences in the way of bar; the first being.compria.
ed in allegation, dated November, Mil, Wherein certain, acts
of cruelty are pleaded as against his Lordship thp second
being supplied in another allegation, also given in on par be.
half, dated the 27th of'Neivember, Ithtl, and charging bini. with '
having, Since their marriage, 'committed an, adultery with One
Ann Connell, otherwise Keogh; and other pertains. In 'Feb.
1824, Lord WestMeath 'furnished a very long allegation reispon.
sive to these charges, and pleading, among other matters, that
Lady Westmeath bad given tiertain instructions to a solicitor,
Mr. Bernard 31aguiree,, to. endeavour to procure evidence in.
order to substtuniate a charge of adultery against his Lordship ;
anti that Maguire had, accordingly, employed several persons
upon the genie object - the exhibits annexed to this allegation,
(dated the 20th of February,.lB24o which exhibits were marked
A, D, 1), E, F, and being• the correspondence that had
taken Place between some of the parties to employed.
This day Drs. JEwtttt
uninlondPaintlaLtyalvltlimE
byade ed Itihtee..l3uidogset
that Nub lieletivlie".:%iltairbqeieseoufse(Vti''estineath, to comply with the request
therein contained, This affidavit was read by the Learned.
Counsel; anti, in addition to the preceding matters, set forth, •
that his Lordship had preferred a bill of indictment in Dublin;
againit 'Anne Gannell, otherwise Keogh, John Alimaglin,
Edward Denndtti and Patrick Merley ; also against
•M‘Kenzie and Bernard Maguire, "for a conspiracy to support
the charge of adultery," afleged by the Marchioness against.
the Marquis, by corrupt means and false oaths ; that this.
hilt bad beets found' by the grand Jury t. and that. the indict.'
ment would be tried in the Court of King's Bench, Dublin, on
that the seven exhibits,next ;sow:hnetrateflteered Intuernundit'le deto,r,unn"dtbiy44lylienl.
attnierielxstetol rtojlainituaalrlyegation, might be delivered out of the registry,.
anti attended with in Dublin, en the day of such trial, when it
would he necessary for this Court's officer to produce them.
• Drs; litrstimyrom $, on behalf of the Mar-
chioness of Westmeath, prayed' time Court to :eject this applian-