The Sun.
London, England, 1802-05-26 00:00:00

MAY 25.

the County of Southampton, at the town of Ham-
bleton,.in that County, where the. Jury found a
verdia for the Plaintiff, with 5001. damages: The
Defendant, he -said, was stated in the affidavit to
be a journeyman Carpenter, and therefore, the da.
!triages were;. in this case, excessive. He said he
did not wish to press the Court tO examine too
curiously into the amount of damages in an action
.of this sort, but still, they ought to bear some
proportion to the ability of the party to pay them
where there was no criminality in the Defendant's
condua: here it was quite impossible for the party to
pay this sum offlioney, and-therefore-he trusted the
Court would set this ii;quiition,:aside,'and order an.
other -to he taken. 'He_ applied. for this rule
.upon
another ground; natnely;-- that ;improper evidence
was received and laid before -the Jury—that of
hearsay evidence. He said 'a school-master was
examined, who said it was rePorted, generally, that
the Defendant bad accumulated a. good deal of mo-
ney : that he had' come up to London, and. had mar-.
ried.a widow with a great deal of money : that the
schoolmaster had the care of the children, but he
gave no proof of the vtealth of the Defendant, it
being only hearsay. Upon these 'grounds he trusted
the court would gram .a Rule to chew Cause.
M ustice GltosE asked Whether there was any
complma of the misdiretlion of the Sheriff? or any
objeaion made at the time the_inquisitiot: was taken
to the reception of the evidenco
Mr. ERSKINE said; there was no complaint of
that sort, for no Counsel attended on behalf of the
Defendant. That the Under-Sheriff expresseii
opinion to the Jury, chat 50i. would be,-sideient;
and that on the veidia being "givers for s°ol. die
Sheriff shook his head, but Mr.;Eitsk g-e sa.id, the
misfortune was, that he did not shake any thing out
of it in due time.

Mr. Justice GliosE asked, if there was any. evi-
dence of Seduction of the ,Plaintiff, or any !natter of
that sort ?

Mr. ERSKINE said, there was not ;, but that the
case was a mere simple Breach of Promise.
The Cotfrt said, that upon the ground, of exces.
sive.damages, and the. reception of improper evi-
dence,
...a Rule should be taken to shew
,Cause.—
Rule granted.

SCAMBLER c;7.i.WILkINSON.

This cause came on originally before Lord KEN-
YON, in the shape of a demilrrer toPleaclings in pro.:
hibition. It arose out of the follow i fads : A Mrs.
Pearce was entitled by articles with her husband, to
make a Will notwithstanding her coverture ; she ac-
cordingly made such Will, but surviving her husband,
she could of course have made a Will as a femme Sale.
She did nor, however, make any, further Will, nor did
she revoke that which she had made during her cover_
here. The question was, .whether such Will remaining
unrevoked, could he considered as her Will; after she
.became a femme sde, or whether she was to be con-
sidered as having died intestate ? Her Executors at
first took out a limited probate ; but afterwards con-
ceiving themselves. entitled to a general one, they
applied for it. Others of her kin insisting, that pro-
perty which accrued to her after the death orher
husband, could not, pass by a Will made during his
life-time, objeted to it, and applied to "tote the King's
Bench fur a Writ of .Prohibition. Lord .KENYON
thought the case involved so much, of ecclesiastical
jurisdiCtion, that he expressed his wish to hear the
opinion of Civilians upon it. Accordingly this day
Dr. LAWRENCE was heard on behalf of the Plaintiff
in prohibition, and Dr. SIVAISY on behalf of the De-
fendant.
Aftei the Learned Civilians had finished their ;Ir_
gu►nents, the Court said as it was a new cese, they
should take time to consider

IttNNEXIEL v. 3t:itOFTON,

This was a question also arisirsg. out of a Will,
It was, whether a subsequent marriage vlula,b con-
sidered as a revocation of a Will, when tile Tesia-
c
tor had in conversation stated, that he -considered
he had made provision for his wife and children by
the Will as it stood 3

Mr. BARROW argued, that as marriage was but
a circumstance which implied a revocation of a
Bachelor's Will, that circumstance might be re.
butted by other circumstances, which went to shew
that be had no such intention. , This was laid dOwp
by Lord IVIArtsrtELD, in the Case of Lancaster v.
Lancaster, in which'he said that every thing might
Ire given in evidence to shew the intention of the
=Testator.

After Mr. SMITH had argued on the other side,
the Court direCted it to stand over for further con-
sideration. •

•Motions were made, and Rules granted, for In-
formations, in the nature of Quo Warranto, calling
on several persons in the County of the 'Borough of
Carmarthen, to shew by what authority they claim
to be Burgesses of the said Borough. Other Mo-
tions were made to the same purpose, but which
were refused, there being no sufficient grounds 'for
them.