The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, May 4.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took appeals to-day, none of
which possessed any points of interest, except to the parties
concerned.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT May 4.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir JAMES WIGRA3I.)
His Honour, having disposed of the unopposed petitions
and short causes set down in the paper, proceeded to hear a
cause of Little v. Greville, a case which has often been before
the Court, and which now came before it on further directions
and costs.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH, May 4.
(Sittings in Banco.)
PARTRIDGE V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND.

The plaintiff, Partridge, had given to a broker named
Wakefield, a power of attorney to receive his dividends ;
according to the custom of the Bank they delivered to Wake-
field on the 6th April certain dividend warrants for the re-
ceipt of Partridge's dividends. These warrants became pay-
able on the Bth according to custom. On the 7th, Wake-
field lodged these dividend warrants with Ladbrokes, the
bankers, as a security. Wakefield failed on the 7th, and
Ladbroke claimed a lien upon these. dividend warrants, and
refused to deliver them to Partridge, who brought his action
against the Bank of England. The case was tried at Guild-
ball, before Lord Denman, and the Jury found for plaintiff.
A motion was made for a new trial, and the point for the
decision of the Court was, whether dividend warrants deli-
vered under these circumstances could be considered as nego-
tiable instruments. The case came on this morning, and the
arguments were entirely of a technical character.

BAIL COURT, May 4.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
THE QUEEN V. THE CHURCHWARDENS OF BANGOR.
On a former occasion Mr. Jervis, Q.C., had applied to this
Court for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not
issue, directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish
of Bangor, requiring them to pay a sum of 2001. and upwards,
the cost of a survey of the parish made by a Mr. Philips of
Coventry, by direction of the guardians of the poor, acting
under the authority of the Poor-law Commissioners. The
application was made under the 6th and 7th William IV.,
c. 96, s. 3, which empowers the Commissioners of the poor-
law to direct the parochial officers to make a rate, or other
provision, for the purposes of paying the costs, or any portion
of the costs, of any survey they may have directed to be
made. Mr. Jervis mentioned the subject again to-day, and
argued it at some length ; but the discussion was of a 'wholly
technical character. Ultimately ➢ir. Justice Coleridge di-
rected that a mandamus should issue.
THE LORD MAYOR'S COURT.

Mr. ANDERSON moved fora rule to show cause why a
mandamus should not issue directed to the Lord Mayor
and Corporation of the City of London requiring them to
admit Mr. D. W. Wire, an attorney, in the Lord Mayor's
Court, he being already admitted an attorney of a superior
Court. The application was exactly similar to the one made
yesterday on behalf of Mr. W. H. Ashurst, and his Lord-
ship immediately granted the application.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 4.
(Sittings in Banco.)
No ease of the least interest came before this Court this
morning. The arguments in the case of Davis v. Lowndes
were resumed, but they were altogether of a dry legal
description.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 4.

(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court took the special paper to-day.
CATHERWOOD V. CASLON.

This case, which stood over for argument from the last
special paper day, was resumed, at the sitting of the Court.
It was an action for criminal conversation, which had been
tried before Lord Abinger in Hilary Term, 1842, when a
verdict was had for the plaintiff. The lady is the daughter
of Mr. Abbott, the English consul at Beyrout, in
Syria, and was married to the plaintiff at that place,
in the presence of her father and several friends, by an
American missionary. The defendant is the son of the
well-known type-founder, and became acquainted with the
plaintiff's wife at the house of the plaintiff's mother. An
intimacy sprung up between the parties, which led to the
subject of the action at law. A question as to the legality
of the plaintiff's marriage with the lady had been raised, inas-
much as it had been alleged on the part of the defendant,
that the American missionary who had celebrated the mar-
riage was not in holy orders. The point was reserved for
argument, and _ , _ _ _ _ _

Mr. 13AitsTow was now heard on the part of the plaintiff.
The Learned Gentleman admitted for the purpose of his argu-
ment, that the missionary was not in holy orders, and then
contended that the marriage might not be held to be valid as
against a claimant in right, yet it was so as against a wrong
doer.
Mr. OGLE was heard on the other side.
The Court took time to consider the case.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, May 4.
(Sittings at Nisi Peius.)
PRICE V, LUND.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for certain injuries sustained by a phaeton, belonging to the
plaintiff, who is a clergyman, which he contended was caused
by a cart, driven carelessly and negligently on the 6th of May,
1843, by the defendant, who was a baker, but is now confined
in Whitecross-street Prison. The accident occurred on the
road leading to Finchley-common, in the vicinity of which
the plaintiff resides. The defence set up was that the plaintiff
was driving on the wrong side of the road. This view of the
case was supported by the testimony of five witnesses, whilst
one stated that the defendant was driving on the right side.
The damage was stated not to exceed 31.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COIVSISTORY COURT, May 4.
LORD DYSART V. LADY DYSART.

This case came on for hearing on Saturday, before
Dr. Lushington, and the arguments, no doubt, must
occupy some days longer. Lord Dysart sues his wife
for restitution of conjugal rights. Lady Dysart pleads
cruelty in many forms as a reason why she ought not to
be compelled to return to cohabitation. The libels on
both sides are voluminous, and set forth the complaints
of the several parties. They were married in 1819, and
lived together, with intermissions, until 1837. The elle
gations of Lady Dysart plead a variety of circumstances
in proof of cruelty; that though at first the husband had
3,000/. a year, and when he came to his title 30,0001. a
year, he lived in a manner not suited to their rank ; that
his residences, in more than one instance, were almost
without furniture ; that in one house there was
no bedstead, her Ladyship being compelled to
sleep upon a mattress upon the floor. The pro-
visions were served out by his Lordship, and the
Earl and a boy servant had on various occa-
sions, washed the clothes. There were many items, such
as these; and in some cases extreme violence is asserted
to have been used by his Lordship towards his wife. In
replication, Lord Dysart denies those charges, and asserts
that he was anxious for retirement, that the conduct of his
wife had compelled him occasionally to restrain her, and
t hat the evidence in support of the charges was sustained
principally by one witness. The Counsel for Lord Dy-
sart had not yet been heard; but, in opening, they stated
that the husband was compelled to adopt the course he
!tad done in order to protect himself from debts con-
tracted by the wife. During the whole of the day the
junior counsel was heard for her Ladyship against being
compelled to return to cohabitation, and the evidence of
the witness in support of her suit was commented upon
at very considerable length, and with a small portion of
acrimony. In consequence of the length to which the
case is likely to extend, and as the other side has not
yet been heard, the charges against Lord Dysart being
all denied, time must be given for the case to proceed to
its termination.