The Sun.
London, England, 1804-02-16 00:00:00

settled all their differences, and that the Plaintiff'
had said so.

The CHIEF jusTicE cautioned the Learned
Counsel as to giving in this receipt ; he was aware
it wculd he a publication of, it whatever might be
its imperfection.

Mr. MAR RYAT thought it Would be available to
his Client, and therefore gave it in.
Two Witnesses were examined, who said : the
first, that about. a year and a half ago he heard the
Plaintiff say they had nearly made it up. The
second, that about a year ago he heard the Plaintiff
say he was. glad it was made up as nearly as it was.

The CHIEF JUSTICE told the Jury he did not
think there was any occasion to hear the reply in
this case. . They had been told that this Aaion"
should have been far 201. only, since that was the
sum the Defendant had been called upon to pay.-.--
His',LOrdship thought otherwise, and that he ought
to,pay the whole Sol. since he had received that sum
for entering into a cdritraa which he had not ex-
ecated, although he might have avoided the tylible
by paying the zol, when called upon. There Was
nothing specific in the evidence of the ttvci Wit-
nesses, who said they heard a conversation, the one
ayear and a half, and the other a year ago; besides
the receipt was subjea to suspicion ; but although
the words " and all detnands"•.were in it, and had
been in it, when the Plaintiff* signed it, he shout
have,held, from the context of it, that it referred-
only to the business specifically mentioned in it.—
Aa to the copy which the. Defendant had made of
the receipt, perhaps in the contemplation of destroy-
ing the original, he might have set up the copy in
support of his case at law, and be secure from all
danger on account of the original ; but that
,was a
mistake. He knew a case where a man indiaed for•
a Forgery had.contrived to destroy the instrument
lie was indiled for forging, and he was so foolish as
to think that-he could not be .conviaed because the
forged instrument was not given in evidence ; but
lie learnt the contrary, for Mr. Justice BULLER
held that.he-should be ttied upon the copy : it was
true .the case. afterwards Went off upon another
point, hat there was no doubt of the law as laid
down by the Learned Judge, in this case, and there-
fore the Defendant should correa his law as well as
his morality, if he had any ideas of that kind.
• Vetdia for the Plaintiff—damages 801.
Mr. GARRoW then said, that after. the public
warning he gave, if this receipt was produced, he
thought it his duty to move that this receipt be
impounded with the Officer of the Court—which
his Lordship ordered accordingly..

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, F.
LORD ELLENBORQUGH'S ACT FOR PREVENTING

VEXATIOUS ARRESTS•

LAIT SEAL.

'We have alreadY stated that this was an Anion
brought by the Plaintiff, a Carpenter in the Coun.
try, to recover from the Defendant, the son of a re-
speaable Shopkeeper in London, and who had im-
providently been ledi into a marriage; at the age of
17, with the Plaintiff's daughter, then his fsther's
servant, and eight years older than himself; the sum
of 6il. as the board of the Plaintiff's own daugh-
ter, while she remained' in his house; supplying to
him the place of a servant, while her husband aaed
as a Guinea Pig aboard of an East Indiaman.—The
Jury gave Is. damages..
Mr. Serjeant BEST had applied for a rule to shew
cause why, under the provisions of the Statute of
the 43d of the King, chap. 46, sea. 3, introduced
by Lord Ellenborough, for the purpose of prevent-
ing vexatious arrests, the Defendant should not, in
this case, be found entitled to his costs, he having
been arrested for 611. and the Jury having found
damages against him to the extent only of is...
. Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD sheaved cause 'against
the Rule, and contended that the Aft did not apply
to the present case.
The Court were of opinion that the present case
came.Compleiely under the Aft of Parliament.
The Rule made absolute.

Lord ALvAruj.i.having suggested a doubt as to
how the costs were to he recovered, this being the
first case urrer the Statute,
„.
Mr. Serjeant BEST said that he was satisfied that
he could recover them under the order of Court in
the present Rule.

CONSISTORY COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS.

FRIDAY FEB. Jo.

LINGHAM V. LINCHAM.

This was a case of divorce, or separation from board
and mntual cohabitation, .by reason of adultery, pro-
moted by Wm.: Lingliain, Of Great Tower street,
against E. Lingham, his wife. It appeared from the
libel exhibited•in the cause,. that in July t 802, Mrs.
Lingham eloped with Mr. Joseph Hunt, Wine and
Brandy Merchant, residing in the same street ; that
they proceeded from thence to a livery-stables, there
hired a post-chaise, and arrived at an inn in Barnet
about one o'clock in the rnornirg, where they order.
ed supper and a bed to be got ready, and slept ;there
all night. In support of these faCts the depositions
of several Witnesses were read, as was likewise the
Verdi& of sOOO% dainages obtained in the Court of
Zing's Bench by Mr. Linghim against Mr. Hunt.
The Court after hearing the Counsel on. both
sides, were clearly of opinion that there:was sta-
cient. and. satisfadory proof to pronounce a sentence
9i:separation, and accordingly decreed the same.