The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-11 00:00:00

FEMALE SUITOR.

A very old lady, apparently reduced in circumstances, took a
seat on the Bench, between his Lordship and the bar,.appropriated
for solicitors and others having business, at the sitting of the
Court, and after several attempts succeeded in getting a petition
handed across the table to his Lordship by his attendants ; his
Lordship opened it, and told the lady he should take it horns with
him and read it at his leisure.

The Court proceeded on the Bankrupt List, to-day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.--(Tans DAY.)

DARKER V. DARKER.

A motion was made this morning by Mr. Heald, on behalf of
certain infants, that a su►n of 421.1. part of the personal estate of
a testator, should be paid into this Court. The learned gentle-
man expressed his anxiety for the immediate decision of the Court
as a similar suit had been commenced in the Coma of Exchequer,
ut that very moment. A motion to the same effect was being
made before the Barons that the sum in question should
be paid into that Court.
A long and angry discussion ensued between Mr. HEALD and
Mr. WILLIS, in support of the application, and Mr. AUAK and
Mr. KNIGHT, in opposition to it.
Whilst Mr. HEALD was addressing the Court, it was intimated
to him, that the application to the Court of Exchequer bad just
been granted, the Learned Gentleman having remarked, with con-
siderable warmth, on the proceedings before the Barons, which he
described as a mere trick.

His Hoxoua observed, that as the suit had been brought re-
gularly into this Court, and as due notice of the present motion
had been given to the parties, he would entertain it without re-
ference to any proceedings elsewhere. His Honour granted the
motion, with costs.

THE CORONATION DECORATIONS.
FELLOWS V. LORD GWYDIK AND ANOTHER.

TMs case, which was yesterday in part beard, arose out of the
following circumstances:— _ _ _

Shortly after the coronation of his present :Majesty, Lord
Gwyder sold to the plaintiff, Mr. Fellows, forlooo/., all the lead,
iron, and fittings up, used at Westminster Hall during that
ceremony, to all which his Lordship, as Deputy Lord
High Chamberlain, was entitled. The plaintiff resold this
property to a Mr. Page for the stun of fifteen hundred gui-
neas, and it was arranged that Mr. Page should hand over the
.1,000/. to Lord Gwyder for the plaintiff, and then give to the
plaintiff a bill for 675/. which was the profit to be realized by the
sale. Page took possession of all the articles, and subsequently
removed them, 'but imagining that all the decorations used
at the Coronation bad not been delivered up to him, refused
to perform his part of the contract, on the ground that he
had been imposed on and defrauded by the plaintiff; under these
circumstances the plaintiff filed a bill against the defendants, pray-
ing that they Might be compelled to fulfil the contract. It ap-
peared that Page had himself sold to several persons the decora-
tions iu question, and since lodged the proceeds in Court to await
its judgment.
Mr. Maass appeared in support of the bill, and stated that the
agreement between the plaintiff and Page was worded so as to
guard against the possibility of a doubt as to the articles sold,
for it expressly set forth that the articles then standing in West-
minster Hall were alone the object of the sale, and these, accor-
ding to the evidence, were delivered up to Page. The Learned
Counsel further contended, that as Page, by the removal of all
the fittings up, rendered it impossible for the plaintiff to submit
the question to a jury, he was especially entitled to the interfe-
rence of this Court.

The arguments had not concluded when we went to press.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. BROUGHAM moved fora writ of mandamus to compel a
person named Trayman, who had filled the office of Mayor in the
Borough of Tregony, last year, to deliver up to the newly elected
Mayor the insignia of that office, with other property belonging to
the Corporation, which he had refused to give up though regularly
required so to do.
Mr. Justice BAILIY—You may take a rule to 'hew cause.
1./ACHY V. WJNC. •

This was an action of trespass, tried at the last Assizes for
Suffolk. The plaintiff was the servant of Henry Ilunbury, and
attended on his behalf, to collect a share of the Tythe
of corn, at a farm where the defendant had also attended
to receive a share. The division was made by sheaf's ; both par-
ties happened to fancy a particular sheaf, and endeavoured to lay
hold of it simultaneously; but. the, aintiff laid his band on it
first, and the defendant succeeded in wresting it from him, in
consequence of which the plaintiff brought his action, and was
nonsuited, on the ground that he had not such a possession as
would entitle him to bring an action.
Mr. F.auLa moved this day for a rule to show cause why the
nonsuit should not be set aside, on the ground that it ought to be
left to the Jury whether or not be had actual possession at the
time. _ _

The Con 11T were unanimously of opinion, that this being a
question of possession merely, and not of right, the plaintiff had
not such possession u would entitle him to an action ; lie was
only endeavouring to get possession, and the defendant prevented
him by taking possession himself.--Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—(Tms DAY.)
(Before Lord Chief Justice EStiT.)
COLLINS V. NOLDINC.
Mr. Joshua EVANS opened the pleadings.
price
possessof aulpaestefnutrnfoisrbe:ricbeyr
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated the case. This was an action
sieftc'endant's order, for a coach then
certain
for the recovery of 291. being the
spilaieineiestiffo,fwehoaochri:auxiews,ololnktnhoewd
making for him.
Taylor proved that the 'plaiutiff's clerk, who witness believed
was now dead, was in the habit'of entering orders in a Look ; wit-
ness was then requested to read the order, to which
Mr. Sergeant WILDS objected, on the ground that it could nut
be received.
Mr. Evart contended, that as the clerk who wrote it was dead
it ought to be received, and referred to similar cases where such
evidence was admitted.
Mr. Sergeant Witnt said he would perhaps put an end to this
discussion, by ascertaining the fact as to the clerk's death.
Taylor cross-examined by Mr. WlLD=—Heard from some of
Tell's relations that he was dead, but did not know it himself.
The CHM' .11/STICY then said,, that the death must be Vita'
Welled before the entry could be received.
Richard Tyrel, wachmAktri secured inders frijil the

defendant to maim a coach for him, and agreed for Q4O/. as the
price; there was nothing said about axles by the defendant ; some
time after Mr. Collins's clerk called upon witness and said, that
his master had received orders from the defendant to send to wit 7
nese patent axles for his, defendant's, coach ; witness accordingly
received them and put them on the coach ; when the defendant
took delivery of it he paid the 2401.
Cross-examined by Mr. WiLne—The 2401. would cover the
whole, including a common axle ; did not tell the defendant when
he received the money, that he would be called upon for payment
of the axles besides ; did not order the axles from the plaintiff;
had frequently ordered axles of the kind from him, but not in this
instance. Wines* saw defendant several times afterwards, but
never had any conversation with him about them.
By the Cow:LT—When he furnished a coach with patent axle-
trees, the axletrees should be paid for extra. .
Mr. WILDE then addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
stated, that this was a gross attempt, on the part of the plaintiff,
to impose upon his client, who was a most respectable gentleman.
The latter ordered a coach from the plaintiff, which was accord-
ingly furnished and paid for. He expected he would get it com-
plete at the contract price, and never dreamt of being called upon
for an extra sum for the patent axles, which are now quite common.
As well might a person, who ordered any articles from au uphol-
sterer, be called upon by the draper, and all the other tradesmen
whose goods might be employed in the workmanship of any
article. The learned sergeant was sure that it would appear so
absurd to the Jury, that they would find no difficulty in finding
for his client. _ _

Tyrel was re-examined by the COURT.—Was quite po-
sitive that he did not order the patent axles, and never
heard a word about them, till' the plaintiff's clerk called ;
the price of a common axle is 4/. 10s. and the additional trou-
ble in fixing a patent axle, to fixing a common one, would cost
within Ss. of the difference between their price.
The CH M JUSTICE then briefly summed up, and the Jury,
without hesitation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff of 29!.

ARCHES' COURT—(Tins DAY.)
(Before Sir JOHN NWHOLL.)
GRAHAM V. GRAHAM.

Dr. Lusuzwuvow stated that this was a suit promoted by a Mr.
Barron Graham against his wife for a divorce, by reason of adul-
tery by her committed. As the case had already been fully be.
fore the Court, he should simply call attention to the leading facts.
It appeared that Mr. Graham was horn in Scotland, and that his
profession was that of a portrait painter. In 1816, he married
Caroline Despeigh, then a widow, with whom he continued to
reside until 1817, when becoming straightened in circumstances,
he went to Bombay, were he remained until 1820: He then
returned to England, but from, that period quitted the
society of his wife, in consequence of some information which
he received to the effect that his wife during his absence in
the East Indies, had been unfaithful to his bed. Though separated
from Mrs. Graham, however, he allowed her a liberal mainte-
nance, when his confined circumstances were considered. He
allowed her lbs. a week, at a time when it appeared his own
earnings did not exceed 80s. With this allowance Mrs. Graham
appeared perfectly satisfied, and Mr. Graham, after the separation,
retired to Scotland. In the meanwhile his wife went to reside at
Somerset- lace, Albany-road, Walworth, and it was charged
that in fie years 1823 and 1824, while residing there, she
carried on an adulterous intercourse wttli a Mr. Rigley.
The facts were clearly proved by three witnesses named
Leger, Saunders, and Leynes. Leger's testimony put the fact of
the adultery beyond all question, for he proved, that Mrs. Graham
lived with Mr. Rigley as if he was her husband, and that he had
heard her and Mr. Rigley conversing together in their bed room
after midnight. Mr. Graham had brought an action against
Rigley in the Court of King's Bench, and, as might be supposed,
in consequence of the adultery being committed after a separation
had taken place, he only recovered one shilling damages. Indeed
it was only lately that any damages were recovered in the Court
of King's Bench, when it was proved that the parties were sepa.
rated when the adultery was committed. The late Lord Kenyon held
that a husband was not entitled to any damages for adultery when he
voluntarily separated himself from his wife. On the part of Mrs.
Graham two witnesses were examined, but their evidence went to
strengthen the allegations proving the act of adultery, for one of
the witnesses stated, that Mrs. Graham told her she had taken
the house at Wahworth to accommodate Mr. Rigley, and the other
witness proved that Mrs. Graham went by the name of Rigley.
Under all these circumstances, he had only to submit that the
Court ought to pronounce for the divorce.
• Dr. JENNIR said he appeared for Mrs. Graham. He did not
mean to contend that the evidence produced discredited the sup-
position that Mrs. Graham lived upon terms of the closest inti-
macy with Mr. Rigley, but he thought that the witnesses-in sup-
port of the libel were mistaken in several most important facts.
Mrs. Graham might have taken the name of Rigley to protect
herself from insult, hut it was not at all clear that she lived with
Mr. Higley upon the terms of husband and wife. The Court
were so fully in possession of all the circumstances that he would
not trespass upon its attention longer, and should bow respectfully
to any decision which should be pronounced.
Sir JOHN itemor.r. said, he had carefully examined all the
documents and exhibits, and had no doubt that the libel was
fully proved, and that Mr. Graham was entitled to the reparation
for which he prayed. The Court therefore pronounced for the
divorce.—The Court then adjourned.