The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT-o'ms DAY.)

CLASSINGTON V. TNIVALTEE AND OTHERS.
Mr. KNIGHT said he had a motion to make in this caul., and
although Mr. Agar, who was engaged on the other side, was not
present, he would mention the nature of his application, with the
view of taking the opinion of the Court as to the validity of an
objection which he understood his Learned Friend meant to urge.
The bill was filed against Mizaars. Thwaites, Hurketone, and
Bytield, and the motion which he intended to submit was, for the
production of certain books and papers, admitted by the defend-
ants' answers to he in their hands. Since the notice of motion
had been given Byfield died, and, the Learned Gentleman wished
to know from his Honour whether, under such circumstances, the
motion could be made, or whether it would be necesaary to filia
bill of revivor ?

The Vice-Citawczt.con said, he could not entertain a motion
in a *Mt that had abated ; a bill Of revivor must be filed.

AOBINA V. FINNEy AND MCDCLIES.
The facts of this case are alresdy before the public.
His Hownytt to-day refused to grant the injunction prayed for
by the plaintiff, on the grounds that the laWexpencee already
incurred were owing to the conduct of Robins, who had even ap-
plied to have the, action at law tried before a special jury ; and
because the defence of the action having been undertaken by
Hedges was a sufficient indemnity to Robins.
rtocrrow V. RICE AND °TREAS. ASSIGNEES OF PING, A

BANKRUPT.
In this case a bill was filed, praying that the defendants may be
compelled to elect whether they would take or reject a lease of cer-
tain premises at Battersea, and that they may, in the mean time,
be restrained from pulling down or selling certain copper stills and
other fixtures on the said premises.
The bill charged, that a person named Flockton, whose repre-
sentative the plaintiff is, had been, until the time of his decease in
1818, a partner with King in a turpentine manufactory, at Bat-
tersea. The partnership account, remained: unsettled until 1853,
'Oita ASisvir".!4 so take ioe44o6tynkiurdia. ti lames. and

aura of 1600/.; which appeared to be- on tie— to him. mKing became
bankrupt in February, 1826, and *defendants svere chosen his
assignees ; they had never since declired their intention as to
taking or rejecting the lease, but had given notice that they would
pull down and dispose of the Axtures, on the ground that the
property in them belonged to the bankrupt. The legal estate
being in the banktilpt's hands, the plaintiffs were unable otherwise
to interfere than-by applying for an injunction.
The VICS.CIIANCIMOR—Take the injunction.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL.—(Tnts DA )
MARSH V. RLANCHARD.
This was an action brought for the sum of 32/. ch. Gil. being
the amount of a bill of exchange of which the plaintiff was drawer
and the defendant acceptor. The defendant was a performer in
Drury-lane theatre, and it appearing in evidence that the plain-
tiff owed a considerable sum to the defendant at the period that
the bill was drawn, the Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
There was no cause of public interest tried in this Court dur-
ing the morning.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
The Court was occupied this morning in the trial of cause's of
nu public interest.

COURT OF EXCIIEQUER—(THIs DAY.)
v. BRUMMELL.
gentleman behind the bar stated that he was on the part of
the defendant instructed to consent to a decree in favour of the
plaintiff for en account against the defendant, with costs.
Decree for the plaintiff with costs made.

ARCHES COURT.7—(Tnes Dar.)
WESTIMATH V. WXSTAINATH. •
Ac the sitting of the Court this day, Dr. Jenner, the leading
Counsel for the Marquis of Westmeath, proceeded to reply to the
arguments of Drs. Lualtington and Addems.
Dr. JaNNER said, that before he entered into the particultis
of the case, it was his duty to advert to a principle which had
.been alluded to at the other side. :Ilia Learned Friends seemed
to argue, that although the Court should decline to grant the di-
vorce prayed for by Lady Weatmenth, it was not bound to compel
the parties to return to cohabitation ; but he thought the Court
would find there wee no precedent for such a case. The Canon
Lew upon which the cacophony of marriage was founded, knew of
no intermediate state between separation and cohabitation; and
1w submitted, that if the Court was astiefied that the charges of
cruelty and adultery were unfutinchal there was no alternative, the
parties must return to cohabitatiort44
Sir J. iitcuoLL asked whet)* there was any precedent,
where a suit was commenced for a restitution of conjugal rights,
which was met by a charge of cruelty or adultery, and the Court
simply dismissed the parties ? -

•
obENNICIL had warched but could find no such
precedent.

Dr. J. Aorisms pointed out the cue of Ingleield v. Inglefield,
in which the adultery was not proved ; but it appeared that Mrs.
.100149 and entered some inde-
celringtlehfealindizdituieictewd herself
ithabery
black
cirkwryant.
, In that case, Captain
Inglefieltra Counsetargued, that though the Court should rause
the divorce, it ought not to compel Captain Inglefirld to return
to cohabit with rich a warn an• The Court, however, declined
conceding to the arguments, though they certainly were very
strong.
Sir .1. Mellott said he remembered the edit alluded to, but in
that ease the Court was impressed with the idea that the wife was
innocent, and under that impression recommended Capt. Ingle-
field, in the most feeling manner, to take hack Mrs. Inglefiehlas
an innocent woman.

:it
levy
wits n
Dr. ienost
u sspor
resumed.apti
b):
any Hevio!deended that the charge of adul
nes which could be considered
as throwing an imputation upon Lord Westmeath. The whole
case then turned upon the question, whether Lady Westmeath
was justified in withdrawing herself from the protection of her
husband, from the apprehension of Personal danger arising from
the alleged instances of Lord Weettneath's cruelty. it did not
appear that Lady Westmeath evinced any agitation or uneasiness
of naiad which would prove that she suffered under the apprehen-
sion of personal danger. Whenever Lord Westmeath was absent
from home, Lady Westmeath wrote in the most affectionate manner,
expressing her anxiety for her husband's early return. This did
not seem like a person suffering under the apprehension of personal
danger. Lady Westrneatlea letters pTVed, beyond all.doitht, that
the parties lived generally in the most cordial manner, and that
they only quarrelled when Lord, Weetmeath's illegitimate children
were referred to, or when Lady Westmeath suffered privations from
the narrowness of fortune, by which the partite were- mutdally
Acted. It wee true that several acts of personal violence

were alleged to have been committed by Lord West.
meath, bat he contended that all those acts were either con-
tradicted, orexplained away. That there had been much irritation
between the parties was unfortunately too true; but without
troubling the. Court, by entering into a defence of every particu-
lar act of cruelty alleged to have been committed by Lord West-
nieath, he contended that 'there had been a condonation of those
acts. The Court therefore, he submitted, was bonnd to dismiss
Lady Westmeath, and as matter of course, to confirm the decree
of the Court below, without considering what might be the con.
sequences of the parties returning to cohabitation, or whether
Lord Westmeath would enforce the decree. With these points he
submitted that the Court had nothing to do, and therefore left
the cue with great confidence, to its decision.
Dr. PHILLIMORE, at the same side, observed, that every en-
deavour had been made to engage the feelings of the Court on the
part of Lady Westmeath ; but he contended, that the party for
whoni be appeared wan as well entitled to the sympathy of the
Court. His client's case was that of 14 husband, whose character
in society was attempted to be lowered by the vilest aspersions
thrown on him by his wife. Lady Westmeath'srank was referred
to; but Lard Westmeath had claims as strong on that ground.
Hs-believed 'Lord Westrneath's family had been ennobled before
Lady Westmeath's family were even thought of; but, without
troubling the Court with such considerations, which were altogether
irrelevant, he contended that the Court had a paramount duty to
perform, in which it could only be guided by the legal evidence
brought before it. In conclusion, he submitted that the Court
was bound to pronounce againd the divorce, and to confirm the
decree of the Court below.

Sir J. NICIIOLL intimated his intention of giving judgment
early in the next term.—The Court then adjourned.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT-...(Tars DAY.T
George Henry Nightingale was opposed by a creditor named
Eccles, on a bill for 401. The insolvent admitted that ,he eh-.
sconded in order to avoid paying the bill, but that the furniture
was his mother's, who, with him had accepted the bill, butivigt
was not to be found.
Mr. Cooxi, for the insolvent, submitted, that no part of the
Act, purvented a man from leaving his house to avoid a creditor
whom he could not pay.
The Counz believed no fraudulent intention had. been made
out, and adjourned the insolvent generally, to give in account of
his stock.