The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY,
The. LORD Cus.xcr.t.Lon, recurring to the case of " Tur-
ner and Turner," which has been long before the Court, ob-
served that there seemed to him to be something particularly
hard in it ; and he would therefore put a question to Mr. Beanies,
who bad enlightened the public upon the subject of costs, to
know if there was any case in which a legatee or executor
suing for himself and all other legatees, or a petitioning creditor
seektng to recover for himself and all the other creditors, had
been allowed costs, in default of smuts to satisfy the expense of
proceeding, from the other legatees or the other creditors Y
Mr. Dram ES, having taken time to make research, now In.
formed the Court that he could find nu such case. _

'The LonD CHANCELLOR thou ht. it would be a most
discouraging thing. to executors and petitioning creditors, if it
could be established that the other creditors to the estate were
not liable in their proportions. At any. rate, it was a point
which ought speedily to be determined by some rule of Court.

DEER r.WAIIT).

Mr. Susnwrt T. said, that Mr. Serjeant liortiriquet had re-
quested him to inform the Court, that since the time when he
had the honour to address his Lordship upon the construction
put upon a marriage legitimate for all purposes whatooever
by the Old law, he had found another book, in which the
exposition WAS, if possible, more clear than any which he had
quoted. It was u book written about 1632, entitled The Wo-
man's Lawyer, supposed to hare been the work of Justice
Lawrence, and the extract to which he referred was to be
found at page 116, as follows soon as a man and woman
allrere
bkewnitn.iaenidn
cofamstmlionn parlance
coltjaget et colssortes, yoke-fel-
low, together in bands of wedlocke, they
low, that in an even participation must take all fortunes equally.
Yet
law permits not so great an interealluin betwixt them as
society, which must always consist of two or more : rather it
affirms them to be una carp, regarded to many intents merely
as one individual substance. Sec. 1. book 3.—When and husv
stone Barron and Rename are said to, he one person. If Titus
and Sempronia, by words de prosents,ut n lawful consent con.
tract marriage, they are man and wife before Clod. But they
cannot doe all that married couple* may; ,y et know my
possumus pod de jure possumns—hut they may (saith
Parkins) infeatfe cute another; for they are not yet una persona
idniethbeefeoyreeolflutipietialaiswc.elelbfriattfedal,l
hotet, which is no more but be-
t that the woman chance to
trothed, shall not hare her g,,ods unless it be. by her last will
and testament—which she might, withoutcravmg licence of any
Ludy, have ordained according to her pleaaure. It' a man
affianced to Sempronia, know her 'carnally:, infeoffe her of a
came of land, and then marry her in in facie tecksisr, the old
world would have judged this froffenicat voul,coening ;0,04,
datam a catualens copniam; but f,l tl?la day 1115 good enough.
Public celebration' therefore, according to law, is that which
muketh man and wife. In plain view of law—ronseasits non
concubitus faitnuttrina mile miorn. lint one e keepeth out an-
other, and a firm betrothing forbitideth any stew contract; yet
they which dare play man and wife only m the view of heaven
and closet Or conecienec, let them he advised bow they shall
take advantages the
-dvantagei or emoluments of marriage in, conscience
or in heaven; for on earth, it the priest see no celebrated mar.

riage, the judge with no legiimate issue, nor the law any rea.
sonable or constituted dower."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 22.
POOR RELIEF.
THE KING V. ANTHONY COLLINS.
Mr. SCARLETT resumed his argument, adjourned front
Wednesday, on the important question raised an this case—
whether overseers are justified in affording relief to the able.
bodied poor in money ? He took a view of the Statutes which
had passed subsequently to the Act of Elizabeth, and contend.
ed that they all sheered the design of the Legislature to be, that
the only relief to he dispensed to the poor who are able to work
should be by the provision of labour.
Mr. EAGLE followed on the same aide.
Mr. Coorstn, in reply, observed that the case did not state
that the overseers had not attempted to obtain work for the
paupers previously to affording them relief; and that if any
doubt existed as to the fact, the case should be sent back to the
Sessions. It could not be insisted that the overseers were bound
to find productive labour.
Mr. Justice BEST-.-I cannot call that labour totally unpro-
ductive which prevents a man able to work from being idle.
%Ir. Justice BAYLEY—IR the parish where I live, an over.
seer found a hundred applications a-day for relief; he set the
applicants to pound oyster.shelis, and soon diminished their
number.
The LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE suggested, that in many part Of
the country the poor might be beneficially employed in keeping
the hedges clear of weeds—a practice which it was welt known
tended to prevent weeds from springing up among the corn.
After some further discussion respecting the allegations in the
case, it was agreed that it should be sent back to be restated, so
as to contain an SCCOUIIt of the endeavours, if any, made by the
overseers to provide work for the poor.
Mr! Justice BAYLEY expressed his hope that this discussion
would rouse overseers to exert themselves in this important
part of their duty; and meet at least once a month for the pur-
Eose, according to the wholesome provision of the statute of
lizabeth, which, he feared, was too much neglected.
The case being thus disposed of for the present,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, I wish that the Court
may not be misunderstood in respect to any thing which has
passed in this discussion. As this case is a most important one,
and will probably agitate the public mind, and as I have ob.
served that the proceedings of this Court arc often greatly
stated by those who report them for the instruction of the pub..
lie, I wish it to be most distinctly understood that this Court
has given no opinion that able-bodied men, willing to work,
but not able to procure it, are not entitled to relief. All the
Court says is this—that it is the imperative duty of overseers
and churchwardens to use all their endeavours to procure em.
ployment for the poor; and this, principally, for the sake of
the poor themselves, to whom it is of the highest importance
that they should receive money for labour, and not for idleness,
Let the case go back again, then, to the Sessions, and let the
justices inform us what endeavours they have made to obtain
work for the poor.
Mr. Justice BEST.—I beg to add, " out of the parish as well
as in it.
The Lotto CHIEF JUSTICE.—What attempts they have
made in any place. It may be that they have done nothing ;
but, like too many others, have sat down in despair, instead of
putting their shoulder to the wheel, and trying what might, be
effected.
Mr. Juseice BAYLEY.—There are many ways in which the
poor may be profitably employed, as levelling hills and improv
tog roads.—Here the subject was dropped.

GAMBLING IN THE KING'S BENCH PRISON.
IN THE MAl"l'Elt OD STEVICNS AND orettEus.
Ten persons, tolerably well dressed, made their appearance
on the floor of the Court, to answer a complaint of Mr. Jones,
the Marshall. They answered, as well as we could collect, to
the names of James Stevens, Edward Corbett, James Neuclier,
John Bentley, Robert Augustus Kingston, John Jacobs,
Charles Godshall, Pegs Atkinson, Win. Wells, and James
Bentley.
The affidavit of the Marshall and three of his officers was
read. Mr. Jones stated, that having reason given hint to be.
litre that hazard was played till late hour* within the prison,
in the rooms of James Stevens, he sent to that place between
one end two o'clock in the morning °fiche 17th instant. The
officers, when they reached the door, beard a rattling of dice,
and, on entering, saw the party, which consisted of the ten pri.
Boners, serambling for the money an the table, and attempting
to get the apparatus of play out of right. The_Marshal believed
play had been carried on for tome weeks In the same room.
The COMMON SERJEANT, on behalf of Charles Godshall
and five others, stated that his client Godshall had been dis.
charged from the prison since the discovery; that he had an
affidavit with respect to him and the others, but refrained from
using it, and threw them on the mercy of the Court.
Mi. A rrttnEws, for Kingston and Jacobs, said that they had
only been a fortnight in the prison, and that therefore they
could not have been long in the habit of violating the regula-
tion respecting play ; indeed, they were on this occasion acci.
dental visitors to Stevens.

CHITTY, for SteV'ens and Bendy, said he had an Oil-
davit which he would refrain from using; his clients expressed
their sorrow for their offence, and were willing, if the Court
forbore to inflict punishment on diem, to enter into a rule not
again to be guilty of similar conduct, which would subject
them at once to an att,tiliment if they should break it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he appeared for the Mar-
shal, who had thought it his duty to bring these individuals
before the Court, but who did not press for any judgment upon
them with the exception of Stevens. Against hint he prayed
that he might be removed to the county gaol, or confined in
the strong room of the King's Bench prison. The Learned
Solicitor cited authorities to show that the Court, in their dis-
cretion, might adopt either mode of punishment.
Mr. CHITTY then put in the affidavit of Stevens, in which
he swore that he did not keep a common gaming table; that
that the same parties had never met at the rooms before : and
that there was no gaming when the officers entered the room.
The CO11110)/ SEaJEANT said, he trusted his clients would
have the full benefit of this atildavit.—(A laugh.)
The Loan JUSTICE said the attidavit was matti.
featly evasive • It might be true in words, and yet the whole
charge perfectly unanswered.
Thcdudges then consulted for a few minutes, after which
The Loan Curler dueller said, it is sow a long time
since any practice of this kind has been brought betbre the
Court, and therefore we hope it has only been maim.
menced lately.. In this hope we now show a leniency which
will not be repeated; for the practice of gaming In the prison
shall be put down if it can be by the power of the Court.—
The case of Stevens seems :bus very ditTerent indeed from that
of the others; and therefore as to him we order that he be con..
tined alone in the strong room of the King's Bench prison for
one month ; as to the others who tire still in prison, we timely
direct that the Mu-shall allow to none of them the benefit of tire
rules for one month ; and as to Charles Godshall, who has ob-
tained his discharge, that he enter into his own recognizance in
401. to be of goad behaviour for six months. The parties then
retired.—The Court rose at half-past one.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 22.
Mr. Justice PARE sat this morning at Nisi Prim in the
Guildhall, London. There were only two causes in the list
They were undefended, and of ono interest. The Learned
Judge afterwards proceeded to Westminster, where the Court
►at in bunco.

COPLAND V. POWZLL.
This was an action against the Sherif of Kent for an mess
sive levy under a writ of levari,faelas. At the trial (before the
Lord Met Baron) it was contended for the defendant that he
was entitled to notice (traction, under the Cid of (ito. IIL, and
Ottat ucts relating to the assessed taxes, as being employed in
" levying assessing, and collecting," such taxes. The Learn-
ed Judge on that occasion over-ruled she objection, but gave
defendant leave to move to enter a nonsuit, should. the. Court
differ from his decision on the point of law. A rule .was after,
wards obtained to show cause why a mimic ihould not be en-
tered. The case was considered by the Court and this Morn.
ing Mr. Justice Pang gave judgment in it. a observed, that
the Court. entirely concurred with the Learned Judge who tried
the cause. They were of opinion that it was not intended to
include Sheriffs in the provisions ofthe acts mentioned, which
were expressly confined to infeaior officers. This was accord-
ing to the rule mentioned by Lord Coke, in a ease in which the
Court held that the words, Deans and others having epiritual
pronecion" in a particular. statute, was not intended to Include
Bishops ; for it was held that if it was Intended to include
Bishops, they would have been expressly mentioned, as being
the superiors.—The rule must therefore be discharaed.

IMITH 1.4 CARPENTER.
In this case, Ml', SerjVant VAUGHAN moved for a rak to
shew cause ly an annuity granted by the defendant in this

PRICE SE VEISTPXSp E

.405 -r a
cue should not bout aside. It bad. -bean granted c ititCOngilie
1 ration of a sum of 1,0011. The grounds of the application
were, that the whole of the consideration inentiOned In the.)ne..
modal bad not been received ; .that. theitvitatiss.:sznamed • in the
memorial had not been proper 4.described,. and that!tlie plaintiff
bad resorted to another security.
The COURT said, that the application couldriot be sustailitvi
on the last point, but granted:the rule.on the twe others.'
The other motions. were of r.o interest.

ARCHES' COURT, Nov. 22.
TthiNER AND TURNER.
Dr. LUMIINGTOW prayed that the libel in this etseenAght
he admitted—(Foe the substance of this libel, see Tun SUN of
the 17th inst.)
•
•
Dr. ADAMS felt it to be his duty to oppose its admission._. suit hail been already correctly described to the" Court as
one of separation, by reason of cruelty, fens heel, hoerd, and
mutual cohabitation ; for though the .libel'did not contain An
actual prayer for separation, that was the l:ain't to whinh the
whole of the plea obviously tended.. Now, althciogb when such
circumstances did act: 1r as rendered it really necessary that the
aid of this court shoull be mot ted toe.that.tualioateasetif
mestic matters', 'which was so N ur qua
.the pence of,itrivete
familits,eoulti not be it voided—yet the aid of thie-Chtirtatita not
to be resorted to, unless the facts pleaded set, up a eitssivhich,
if proved, would of necessity shew that the party propellent could
not continue to live with her husband tu b larAy to lwr
health and person. Short of that 'moue rf no Mete would
make out such a case of rcevitia lks would entitle a party to pray
for the remedy of separation. The Learned t.anerieel then atat-
od in succession the charges contained in 6e several artichni
of the libel. The fifth article was that on Which th.i whole of
the rest must stand : if that did not ,avail the paieyproponent
none of the others would. It alleged that on a dsy
nappening
in the month of December, 1819, when Lady Heim Alma* was
"Seven months advanced in her pregnancy (wall her first Sir Gregory Osborne Page Turner rose from Lit eeitt etiddeoto
in violent passion, and struck his with, the said Lily Tuenee,
with considerable violence about the head, fece, and sock...._
Now, if this charge was true, or assuming it to be so, for the
mere purpose of debating it—here was certainly a •verrunjus,
tifiable act, as almost all acts done in a passine were. But it
would not scent to have been attended with any (ail conse-
quences. It was a perfectly solitary act ; and ties peitien lived
together nearly 3 years after the transaction e Lot nothing of
the kind was stated to have taken place after wards. Lady Turner
herself proved to be pregnant several times subsequeetly.; as,
indeed, was mentioned in the plea. The blow itElf was not even
stated to have been struck with the clinched fist ; no. extreme
violence was imputed, and no indications of it rem:tined upon
her face or person, as was frequently pleaded in such cases.
Front the subsequent cohabitation, and the other circumstances
to which he had adverted, :he Court could not suppose that this
incident, therefore, unjustifiable as it might he, amounted to
cruelty. In these matters, "condonation" wesnever lightly or
rashly to be supposed 33 against the wife ; but ',etch an impu-
tation would always apply, on the contraty, with one: 1i more
strictness to the husband : yet it could never be permitted
that a lady should cherish any alleged violence of this kind for
abuut three years, in order to be then brought. to merket on tile
first favourable, opportunity, as against her hushatel. The
separation, in the present case, turned out to be entirely un-
connected with this allegation of cruelty, and was on her part
quite voluntary; therefore, however little the act might
be to be justified, the separation wits not to be attributed
to that in any way. The Leemed Counsel proceeded
to object to this libel in tom, but he bud many observe.
tions to make on it ; end on the Gth article he would oluterve,
that it was quite irrelevaet ; for the question before the Court
was, its to whether Sir G. P. Turner had been guilty of cruelty
to his wife, and not to his It ith's mother. The 6th article plead-
ed that lie had left his wife without the necessary funds fir de-
' fraying housekeeping expteiee„, &c., and that nee evening in
Jan. lttal, her mteher, .'Ur,,.Gertrude Bayfield, earnestly
replotted that he would supple Lady Turner with some money-
-Now the Court would observe ill all the subsequent articlee
that this was the gravamen oi' Lady Turner's complaint. It
was quite evident, throughout, that the dispute was about
money, and that the mother had been in this way repeatedly
interfering on the subject. Here was a Lady residing with
her husband, a person of fortune and condition, In his town
house ; and though it could trot be denied that it was quite ne-
cessary to provide for the exponces of that holm) and that to
neglec: it was most indiscreet and careless, nofittng was said
of the Lady's inability to provide whatever site wanted on his
credit. But the subject matter of her whole complaint scented
to be, that the disbursement of monies was not entrusted to
her. The 7th article was more distinct and important- It re-
lined to the appointment by Sir Gregory Page Purser, of one
Kirby to be his agent; to the visit paid by Sir Gregory and his
Lady to Worthing; taut to the fact of lately Turner's being
there left with her family without any pecuniary supply what.
ever. Here neither this circumstance, nor the execution rob-
seetently put into the house by creditors, proved ageinst the hos-
baud more thence trente mrelessness t they by nomeansamoubted
to cruelty. As to the statement in titt fith article, that althotegh
this lady conducted her house affeirs with the utmost prudence
and economy; yet Sir Gregory oleic the whole management of
them out of her hands, leaving her no money whatever ; why,
the husband must always be the best, if. not the only, judger
upon that question of prudent management. Thie motet was
quite irrelevant. It was further pleaded, that while uhe was
thus deprived, Sir Gregory continued to purchase' antiques,
pictures, and other wetly articles of that kind, to gratify his
own taste and inclinations. Why, by law, the hoehenti had
the power of the purse; if he chose to gratify his taste in
this way, his large fortune and hie station molly pave hint
an ample title to do tot ; anti if he preferred, Mewed of layinghis bills, to go upon credit with his tradextnen, there could be
no netensity for this lady to be supplied with the motley neces-
sary for those disbursements. It was charged, moreover, that
one evening in 3atmery, 11121, shortly after Sir Gregory had
purchased a large quantity of play-bills nettle sale of the late
John Philip Kernble's effects. for which be had 14;41 a large
suns of motley, Mrs. Hayfield, Lady Tuner's stouter, spoke
of it to him in the mildest warmer, regretting his tooling peid
so large a sum of money for such a ourpoottoat a time when he
had eilvanced so hurls to his lady for matters of indispensehlo
tweets:icy in his family. Hers the Court would observe the ea-,
Creme indiscretion of such languagt• in the mother on Lally Tor.
her; for what did this attack on.'Sia Gregery, described, in.
deed, as a remonstrance, but in the mildest rammer, annum t to e
Why, it was it rcionnstraoce, not no
~mach about whet Sir
Gregory did not do In the house, is abontwhat hotted thought,
proper to do out of it. In conseqoettee of thtsb otaervetioes of
Mrs. Hayfield, Gregeoy (the plea ;ailed) vieletitly ecashed
her tuteltsvarci ; 'and of such art act he (Dr. Adams) would only
say, it could riot be shewn to. be cruelty to the daughter. 'The
Learned Counsel having 'discussed the renutirdng enlace of
this libel, saitim" I otoect, Sir, to this plea in tole,. on account
of Its general insufficiency, anti the irrelevancy of most of the
mutter* pleaded ; not doubting, however, at all; that Sir qte-
litany rage Turner can enswer to every prat of them most ta;ie—
factorily, if he should be plated by the Court under the, e.iceP4-
city of answering them; but that' is a neceetity Whieto I think
,
the Court will not put hint under, unlessit sheuld eee that
the articles ciliate against him such facts AA, if pioVeti, wotlid
amount to a CAM of cruelty, I eularnit That the oy do ant, anti
that this allegation ought to be rejected,"
Dr. PtinLiatoar. follewed on the. WYK
,
Dr. Ltt Int wo TON COnternitd, that the keW4" alit tots.
levant to the case set up; and , dint one. fee7sTeltnr,`,lv '44" Sir Gregory on one oecasion,atruck. hisalatt44;e7feeee,ton
the fete andneck, he oho:reeds ," that. thivaethannot only 'had
admitted of no 1)411416010, in WOO ,Oltwthliis tank, his eitarae-
he forgotten on this occasion thealueiettoftieeriteteee withatuetit, and hie station, but that he had SO far, iwber, his wee ter as a man, that he would cosoleecentl, arose nee,
seven months advanced in etregnaney,.-tota pcielog, y
The Learned Cottitttel, together with. Ite
argued that the libel ought to be admitted....
piving judgment,
Sir Joule' Nienot. *XS an the Pointem.beth ewe, woe,. when, observing the counsel and proctors, the d"ixicm of
this
qtese ttit°tlttie(titlhere'adhtenimnitsihdtartittbei,o:vnearytuttlfittabriPerteytlilniiteei.,cilfitet:tenemgliaitetrte:e:rott,:lttl:of; being most anxious
Making of some *micelle arrangere
court.
p
the: give counsel on both re ADAXS WAN V,Otat 'tali!
N sm.i.
sides credit, and cepa credit, forut con sh
ftestdbie
0447"recos
arrange this unfortunate natter; b
wen not very eanguine. - eeedieel
The sentence was poitponetlan • e, to the
admission
of the libel.
:61161,4 ; ail the Court ad-
A cause of little public intereet
loomed At about 3 o'clock.