The Sun.
London, England, 1823-07-30 00:00:00

LAW INTEL LIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 29.
BEER v. WARD.
Mr. HART shortly renewed his motion, agreeably to the
suggestion of the Court at the last hearing, for putting the
heir-at-law in this long contested case in possession.
Mr. 'WETHERELL opposed the motion, chiefly on the
ground that notice of a motion for a new trial had been given
on account of a misdirection of the Judge who tried the
last issue, in his exposition of the law of marriage as it
existed previous to.• the celebrated Marriage Act brought in
by Lord Hardwicke in 1754. It appeared from the short-
hand writer's notes of the charge, that the Chief Justice had in-
structed the jury, that before that period the law of England
was in the same state with respect to marriages, as the law of
Scotland is at present, and that then it was not necessary to
have a marriage canonically solemnized—that it need not be
solemnized in a church, nor was the presence of a clergyman
necessary. The avowal of .the parties that they were man and
wife, together with known cohabitation, were at that time, ac-
cording to the assertion of the Learned Chief Justice, full and
legal proofs of a marriage. This, he (the Learned Counsel)
maintained, was not the law of England, nor ever had been at
any time since the reign of Edward IV., to go no farther back.
It had been ruled over and over again, that lay ministers of
congregations could not solemnize a valid marriage; and there
was a case decided by the Delegates as long ago as the reign
of Queen Anne (" Haydon v. Gould," Salkeld, 119), in
which .a marriage was declared void because it was not so-
leinnized by a clergyman. There was another case in the year
books of.E:tward IV., which affirmed the same thing. He ad-
mitted that the place of solemnization was of no importance
under the old law.; but the presence of the clergyman could
not be dispensed. with. He hoped, therefore, that the Court
would. not presume a marriage as to which no evidence had
been tendered either of place or canonical celebration, as the
court of common law had done—and that too upon a construc-
tion of law which was entirely new—when that was the very
question upon which depended the claims of either party, as to
which of them was the right heir-at-law.
.Mr. SIIADWELL, Mr. Holm, and 31r. PENN followed
on the same side.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that when the motion was
made to him the other day, he had thought that as there was
now a verdict given for each party, he might have been allowed
to consider the. case, as if one verdict- had nullified the other.--
Further. consideration had convinced him that that opinion was
untenable. The case originally arose in proceedings in lunacy.
He had never ceased to regret that h had not in those proceed.
ings adopted the course which had-been usually taken, and,
acting as the King's Commissioner in lunacy, and not as Lord
Chancellor, put that party in posSession of the estate whom all
parties then represented as the heir-at-law. Had he done so,
a great , part of the subsequent difficulties would have been
avoided; and the party next claiming to be heir-at-law must
have filed his bill in equity with a view to gaining the posses-
sion of his right against the party admitted to possession as the
heir-at-law acknowledged by all parties at the time of find-
ing the lunacy.. As the case stood, Mr. Ward had been
appointed Committee to the estate under thS lunacy, and
having raised his claiin to the estate after that appointment,
.had endeavoured, no doubt with the advice of his legal friends,
and perhap% not very improperly, to keep possession on his
own accbunt. Now it was very material to consider whether,
If Mr. Ward had claimed as heir-at-law at the finding of the lu.
nacy, the Court would not have thought of some other assign-
ment of the Cummitteeship. An issue, however, was sent to the
Court Of,Common Pleas to try the right of Mr. Ward as heir-at.
law. Had he been engaged on the trial, he would not have di.
rected much attention to the first marriage, but he would have
done what he could to identify those who were parties to the
solemnizing of the second marriage. With respect to the con-
duct of Chief Justice Dallas, he had before expressed his opi-
nion that that Learned Judge had tried the issue with very
great ability ; he would now say that he did not know of any
trial which had ever been conducted with greater ability. Still,
reviewing the whole proceedings before that trial and upon
it, he did feel that there were observations with respect to
both parties, whiCh ought to have been made to the Jury,
and which had' not been made ; and above all, that there
was evidence shut out from the consideration of the cause
Which he himself, sitting in equity, felt to be indispensable
to" a just deCision. He had therefore directed a new trial,
which took place in the Court of King's Bench, and as the
first verdict had gone hit favour of the right of Mr. Ward,
the second established the contested legitimacy of him who
had been first of all adniitted on all sides to be heft-at-law.
He had hoped, as he had before stated; that this opposition of
the Verdicts inigititt have the effect of replacing him in that
ghsc
vietitn ittaria
inay
alleged
considerableollrsnl 0
cesao'
giiwroenendiawdener: hxnanoi
,nne;
3sioitt stooderincan liosucares
go:ou:c:Iyl
e.y a?
lot
of
uufol
miscarriage
ought to
oiawt;lma
dtovl when,t.theeie,roanorynveofe,were
relatione
paen retga sth.h proceedings
to
T.
thot Khr n
emse og admittedr
.or'ns..t
f
s
is
the charge of the Learned Chief Justice of the King's
Beocli. Now it was' utterly impossible that he could
know what
,had taken lilac° before that Learned Judge ex-
cept from a copy of the notes approved by the Learned
Judge himself. The first verdict had been set aside, upon a
positive knowledge infparted to the Court of the proceedings
on the trial. The Court had yet no information of a proper
kind as to the last trial. It was therefore impossible for the
Court, with such knowledge as it now possessed, to determine
that the verdict on the first issue was confounded by the verdict
on the second issue. From all these circumstances which were
circumstances arising in the proceedings in equity, and not in
the proceedings' in lunacy, he felt that he could not grant the
motion in the present instance, for putting the heir at law in
possession, and that the motion for the new trial must, in any
case, be first argued ; and he appointed the second day of sit-
tings after the coming vacation for that purpose.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Juz.v 29.
His HONOUR this morning commenced hearing bankrupt
Witipps,:having disposed of the list of cause petitions.
EX4AIITE BUXTON, IN THE MATTER OF THOMPSON.
'This was a petition on the part of several creditors under the
commission of bankruptcy, praying that the assignee might be
ordered to make gooc the loss upon a sale of a reversionary
interest. It appeared that a reversion had been put up to
iamuscitgionnee, afnord
,10had be h
oboliut
dit
eighttit
ob I+3o
o thew hsioclhicthitoerrefroerrs
itohne
rested, and the property fell into immediate possession. In
this improved state of the property, it was again put up for
sale, but instead of producing an increased price, it was sold
for, the diminished value of •510/. The petitioners, therefore,
prayed that the assignee might be directed to make good the
loss upon the sale.
Mr. BELL, on the part of the assignee, stated that the re-
versionary interest had been bought in by the solicitor rather
than that it should be purchased by a person just discharged
under the Insolvent Act; but this step was not taken without
the consent of the creditors. Since the purchase of the rever-
sion, as was well known, landed property had been greatly
depreciated in value, and the inevitable consequence had been,
that a considerable loss had been sustained. In this case,
however, the assent of the creditors had been first obtained.
Mr. Ksnoirr, in support of the petition, observed, that no
regular meeting of the creditors hail been called to inform them
of the fact. Ile referred to a lately decided ease' ex-parte
Lewis, to show that an assignee, if he bids sale of the
hankrupt's effects, bids entirely at his own peril.
he VICE-CitANCELLon was perfectly aware of the case
alluded to? and admitted that it was true as a general rule,
that an assignee bids at his own peril ; in this case, however, it
appeared that the assent of the creditors was obtained, and
that the bidding was made' under peculiar circumstances.._
Petition dismissed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JULY 29.
Richard Rogers Worthington Beard was opposed by Mr.
Por.r.cic Jr, on behalf of Messrs. Webb and Co. and a 11r. Tie-
kel. The insolvent, who was dressed in a sporting frock, stated
that he bad kept the White Hart Inn at Gravesend. His
wife had owned a house in the county of Kent, which she
sold for 2001. In 1812, he borrowed 500/. of a Mr. Ashford,
which, however, he was obliged to pay the next year. He did
so by means of the 2001. for which his wife bad sold her house,
and 3001. which he borrowed of his mother-in-law, and for
which he gave her a bill of sale. Having represented to
him that she had lost this bill of sale, he gave her a warrant
of attorney last April, on which she entered up judgment,
and sold his property under execution. The proceeds, how-
ever, were insufficient to pay off the whole of her demand.
He had previously agreed to sell his house to another person'
who deposited 100/. with him for the purchase, but he atter-
wards preferred forfeiting the 190/. to taking the house. The
insolvent spent this 1001. Ile,had never represented that be
had an estate in Shropshire, or that his dogs were worth 1001.
There was a room in his house where he kept his bridle and
saddle, and other appointments. He was a member of the
Kentish cavalry, bat had had no horse for the last two 'years.
There might have been one or two articles of plate in his pos.
session, but he had no spoons for the last year and a half,
except, perhaps, three or tour. When Lord Darnley and the
troop dined at his house in January last, the plate tor the oc-
casion was borrowed all over the neighbourhood.
J. L. Webb was then sworn, and stated that he was a wine-
merchant. Ile had known the insolvent for several. years. Ile
had remained in his debt for three or four years, in the course
of which time, when he (Mr. Webb) was pressing him for pay-
ment, the insolvent told him that he had an estate in Shrop-
shire, to which he intended to remove. He also said that -bis

dogs were worth 1001. He (Mr. Webb) had neither given him
further credit, or been very urgent with him for payment, for
about three years and a half, until January last, when the In-
solvent came to him and said that Lord Darnley's troop ware
to dine together, and offered him the dinner if he could pro-
cure wine. He therefore requested Mr. Webb to befriend hitn
once snore. Mr. Webb, after first declining to trust him again,
was at length prevailed upon by his entreaties to let him have
311. worth of wine, upon his solemn promise to pay him out of
the proceeds of the dinner, for which he.expected to be paid in
3 days. When Mr. Webb applied for payment in a week after.
the insolvent said that a delay had taken place in consequence
of a claim of 51. for glasses which had been broken. Wheat
Mr. Webb subsequently wrote to him for payment, the insol-
vent had not thought proper even to answer his letter. Under
these circumstances, he immediately commenced proceeding's
against him.
The insolvent, on his re-examination by his own Counsel
(Mr. HEATH), swore that the whole cost of the dinner was but
421.. which he was only paid in two months afterwards, in
small suqu ms of 51. and 7/. at a time ; each sergeant paying for
his own sad.
The COURT observed, that had the insolvent received the
full charge for the dinner in one sum, and not handed over to
'Mr. Webb the price of his wine inunediately, they would have
visited him with very severe animadversion ; but the manner
in which it had been paid to him gave a different complexion
to this part of the case. With respect to other parts of the case,
the Court thought it was one of souse suspicion, ancf which well
warranted them in exercising their discretion, undCr the ltith section of the Act. They therefore ordered him to be remanded.
for six months, and confined within the walls of the prison.

From the LONDON GAZETTE, Judy

Whitehall, Alp 20, 1823.
The King has been pleased to present *the Rev. John Law,
Batchelor of Arts, to the Vicarage of Broad Worthy, otherwise-
Bradfonlisworthy, with the Chapel of St. Pancras, in the minty
of Devon and the diocese of Exeter, void by the death of the
Rev. John Darke.

BA P TS.
J. L. Clark, Honiton, saNKßddler, tUo surrender Aug.. 7,8, Sept. 9, at the Black Lion Inn, Honiton. Solicitor, Mr. Luxmore,
Red Lion-square.
R. Simpson, Watling-street, warehouseman, Aug. 9,.19,.
Sept. 9, at the Bankrupt's Court, Basinghall-street. Solicitor,
Mr. Bolton, Austin-friars.
T. W. Baker, Foley-street, Foley-place, tallow-chandler,
Aug. 2,9, Sept. 9, at the Bankrupts' Court, Solicitor,Basinghall-street-
Mr. Mayhew, Chancery_lane.
W. olroyd, Leadenhall-street, machine-maker, Aug. 5,9,
Sept. 9, at the Bankrupts Court, Basingliall-street. Solicitor,.
Mr. Farris, Surrey-street, Strand.
J. Righton, Bristol, haberdasher, Aug. 14, 15, Sept. 9, at
the Bummer Tavern, Bristol. Solicitors, -Messrs. Clarke.
Richards, and :Metcalf, Chancery_lane:
J. Warr, W. Davies, and T. Matthews, Tipton, Stafford..
shire, ironmasters, Aug. 12, 13, Sept. 9, at the Otorge Hotel.
Walsall. Solicitors, Messrs. Turner and Hutchinson, Blooms.
bury-square.

DIVIDENDS.
Aug. 5, H. Carter, RatcliffThighwayl linen-draper—Aug. 9
W. Turner, Layton, Essex, dealer in horses--:Aug. 19, J.
Edwards, Gough-square, Fleet-street, furrier—Aug. 26, J. B.
Player and J. been, Bristol, bottle liquor-merchants.—Aug. 19,
W. Greig, City-road, upholstorer—Aug. 25, (3. Deeding,
fellmonger—Aug. 19, J. Douglass, D. and W. Russell,
Flee.t-street, drapers--Aug.l9,.A. hite. A ldermanbury, factor
—A ug. 22, J. Large, ilUden.bradley, 'Wiltshire, banker—A ug.
19, S. Corvine, Barbican 'pawn.broker—.Aug. 19, J. P. Hillary,
Marl--lane, wine-merchant—Aug. 19, 8. 'Wagstaff and T.
Baylis, Kidderminster, carpet-manufacturers—Aug. 9, J.
Dicics,London-street, Tottenham.court-road, carpenter—Aug.
9, I'. Wood, Kingston, Surrey, gardener—Aug. 19, J. CL
Young, Shiplake, Oxfordshire, merchant—Aug. 21, J. 0.-
Spring, Comngsby, draper—Aug. 20, T. O. Warwick and J.
Aldred, Rotherham, orkshire, chymists —Sept. 5, S. Wal..
ton, Nantwich, linen.draper—Sept. 4, W. Tomlinson, jun.,
Nantwich, money-scrivener—Aug. 23, A. Drakeford, Coles-
hill, Warwickshire, butcher—Aug. 30, J. Turnbull, .J. Forbes,
R. A. Crawford, and D. Skene, Broad.street, merchants.

CERTIFICATES, AUG. 19.
E. Corbett, Liverpool, common-brewer—S. Hodgson, Dover.
street, Piccadilly, hoteLkeeper—H. Haffner, Cannon-street„
St. George's, carpenter—Vl'. Allan, Seething-lane, Tower-
street, ale-dealer—Smallwood, Drayton in Hales, banker.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. A. & R. V. Yates and G. L. Cox, Liverpool, iron-dealers
--J. A. and R. V. Yates and J. Priestley, Liverpool, brokers
.—J. Renshaw and L. Rostron, Manchester, cotton-manufac-
turers—T. anti J. Cuff; Bath, grocers—M. Little, A. M'Ghie
and G. Knox, Blackburn,, diapers—J. Barker, J. Ward, and
T. Cooper, Lightmoor, Shropshire, iron-manufacturers; so
far as regards T. Cooper—J. Paull and J. Ilitchins, Tavistock,
Devonshire, glass4ealers—J. Taylor and S. Cooke, Salford,
timber tuerchants—J. and If. Coilison, Lyncombe . and IVid-
combe, Somersetshire, Thames-street, ham-factors-11. Ray-
ner and R. Scott, Wakefield, woolstaplers—'W. Francis, S.
Smith, J. J. Dearman, and W. Brunton, Birmingham, iron-
founders—J. Griffin, ‘i'alsall, and C. Cooper, sen., Langley,
lime-masters—H. hleux, 'l'. S. Benson, F. T. Young, and R.
Latham, Tottenham-court-road, brewers.

A SENSIBLE OLD BACHELOR rich old
fellow being asked why lie did not marry, replied, " Because I
have no inclination for old women, and young women have no
inclination for me."

CURE OF RIJEUM%IISM.—A rerne4y for rheu-
matism has been introduced in this country by Air. Churchhili.
It is termed acupuncturation, and consists in cautiously in.
serting needles to given depth, into those muscular parts which
are the seat of disease. It is said his Majesty consulted his
physician on the propriety of adopting it in his own case. It
appears also that Lady Burrell, daughter of the Earl or Egre-
mont, witnessed its usefulness; and, as it is represented as
producing no pain, determined on having a needle introduced-
into her own person to ascertain the fact, previously to recom-
mending it to her father. The result was confirmatory of the
assertioq, The Earl had tried every remedy which could be.
suggested, without experiencing any relief. He, therefore;
submitted to an introduction of the needle, and in a few
minutes was completely cured, and next day was able to gop
out shooting.

• COURSE OF EXCHANGE, July 'l9.
A mete, dart
Ditto, at Sight
. :233: 6:2289 81
5°9521 : till:Ili:U:1j! e
Rotterdam
Antwerp •
Hanihttrgh
Altona
Paris, 3 Day's sight
Ditto
Mourdeattx, ditto
Frankfort on the Main
Madrid
Cadiz ..
ailboa 364
iittretisi
Barcelona - '
gesille
.Gibraltar
Leghorn
Get..a ...........;y -Venice, Ital. Liv 2B 10 •
Malta 45 ---Naples...... .. . • 39
Palermo .
Lisbon
52
Oporto
52
RioJsusiro ....... . AS
Ortbiiii .... 9} ..Cork yi pet Cent.