The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-27 00:00:00

BOLAND V. lIARSW.

Mr. Pares stated that in this ease the question was, whether a
debt due by the house of Marsh and Son, navy agents to the late
banking establishment of Marsh foul Feuntleroy, was the separate
debt of the father, or the joint debt of him and the son. An issue
was directed, with the view of ascertaining the fact. The Learned
Gentleman said, that the special pleader was apprehensive that at
the trial at law a new question, not mooted before his Honour,
might be raised, namely, whether there did in reality exist such a
partnership as that of Marsh and son, navy agents. To meet
this difficulty, the special pleader suggested that the issue might
be so shaped as to Assume the existence of the partnership.
The Learned Gentleman was also anxious that the trial of the
issue should take place in London, as the question was one purely
snercantile, and of course most likely to meet a just decision at the
hands of a London Jury,
Air. MET opposed the application, and stated that the ,Bank-
ing Establishment always considered the elder Mr. Marsh to be
alone liable to them. The object of the present application was to
get rid of the declarations Which were repeatedly made by the
Banking partner* to that effect. The true question to he decided
was, whether at the time of issuing the Commission. the firm
trading under the name of " Marsh and SOU" was indebted to the
Banking Establishment. It was quite another question whether
the eon should be liable for this debt in case it existed.
The VICE CHANCILLOII refused the application, observing, that
the peculiar connexion existing between the father and son did not
mix in the issue. The real tpaestion _ was, ,as M. Hart had put
was determined that the trial should take place in London.
THE CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL P. THE 'MERSEY AND IRIVELL
• •
TlA:vtaiartaN•
In this ease, Which was an application for an injunction on the
part of the Corporation of Liverpool, to restrain the Mersey and
Irwell Navigation Company from proceeding with erecting jetties
and other works between a place called Halton Point and the basin
of the Mersey and Irwell Canal, and from making embankments
on the Liverpool side of the jetty,
Mr. Hume and Mr. Rotten were heard in support, and Mr.
HART against the injunction prayed on kiaturdey.
Mr. SitAnivam.proeeeded on the same side this morning, and
had not concluded when the Court rose.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH....(Tnts Itsv.)
We regret to state that the Lord Chief Justice has not as yet
sufliciently recovered to be able to attend in Court.

THE KING v. RICHARDS.
A rule having been obtained in this term, calling on the de-
fendant to show cause why criminal information should not be
filed against him for having published a libel on Mr. Easthope,
M.P.- for St. Alban'a, in the Aye newspaper, of which the de.
fendant is proprietor, Mr. Denman appeared to-day to oppose the
rule. lie observed, that as soon as the defendant had discovered
his mistake respecting the payment of the dividends which formed
the subject matter of the libel, he voluntarily published in the
Age a paragraph, entirely exculpating Mr. Eastbope from being
influenced by any unworthy motives in his conduct on that ocaa►-
sion. The defendant deeply regretted having given publicity
to any thing derogatory to the character of Mr. Easthope ; and
with respect to that part of the libel which stated that
the prosecutor had a quarrel with a Jew, by whom he had been
insulted with impunity, and there were some grounds for it; (for
the prosecutor himself did not deny that the report respecting the
dividends produced some altercation between himself and the Jew
alluded to David Solomon) the defendant had done all in his
power to correct any evil impression which his publication might
have made respecting Mr. Easthope, and has made an affidavit,
denying having been influenced by any malice towards him ; but
that the reason why he gave publicity to the information from a
correspondent, now complained of, was that, he considered Mr.
Easthope a public man, and that aninutdversions on his public con-
duct were allowable. fie now expreased his regret at what bad
taken place. Under all these circumstances, he hoped the prose-
cutor would not press the Twitter further.
The. Count asked Mr. Scarktt if, after this, he would persist
in his rule? . -
Mr. SCARLET? replied in the affirmative, and the rule Wll,l
made absolute..

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS--(Tilts I)AY.)
HILL V. MARSHALL.

This action was instituted at the plaintiff's instance for payment
of 117/. ; it was tried at Norwich before the Lord Chief Justice
Best, who this day read his notes of the evidence, which was to the
following effect :—The first witness called was clerk and brother-
in-law of the defendant ; be deposed that, in the defendant's ab-
sence abroad, the plaintiff bought from witness, as acting
for his master, and received delivery of, a quantity of silk, to
the extent of 49b1., which were raid by the plaintiff; but
shortly afterwards he (the plaintiff) complained to witness
that part of the silk did not suit him, and returned part
of it, to the value of 1171„ which witness agreed to sell for him,
but refused to be responsible for the debt. Plaintiff; however,
urged him, and promised him a commission for selling it op his
own responsibility, which witness still refused to do. Witness
then sold it to one Etheridge, and gave him a bill of parcels
along with it, in Marsball'a UM, and, 49 he consitivred Etheridge
a man of credit; he took his bike for it. Etheridge soon
afterwards stopped payment. Defendant Avu not a silk factor,
but a merchant ;it was usual for agents to sell good, ip rown
name though acting for other..
Etheridge was then examined, and tie} that he granted his
bill to Marshall for the silk; that the bill of parcels was in Mar-
shall's name ; that he conceived be dealt exclusively with Marshall,
having eothing whatever to do with the plaintiff. Etheridge,
however, concurred with the preceding witness as to the custom
of agents selling goods for others in their tiwn name.
The Curti, Juirrics this day observed, that at the trial remade
strong remarks upou the evidence, and recommended to, the Jury.
to find for the defendant ;
the,fury, however, who seemed to be
acquainted with all the partiest to his Lordship's surprise, found
for the plaintiff.
• Mr. Sergeant VanCittas was for the plaintik and contended
that the verdict was justified by the evidence, and might not to be
distueb‘d, particilarly as the only, wi*netta who favoured the de-
fendant was his brother-in-law, and that his evidence sbotad be
received 'with considerable allowance. Besides the Jury, who
knew all the. parties, must have been better judges,

The CHIEP Jut Tier--/ am afraid that in these 'mall juridic•
tions juries know too much.

Mr. Serjeant VAtionals was then about to proceed, when in
tempted by the Chief Justicet who stated that after considering
the evidence, he was so firmly convinced that the Jury did not
sufficiently examine into the matter, or weigh the evidence, that
he would recommend to the parties to refer to a qualified person,
to examine the books of the parties which could alone decide the
matter.

Mr. Sergeant Wayr, for the defendant, had no objection to
his Lordship's proposal, and Mn/ Sergeant Vaughan requested
delay till he should have an opportunity of seeing his client, to
whom be would recommend the measure.
The Counr granted the delay, and thus allowed the matter to
rast for the present, but on the understanding that if the parties
should not agree to a reference, a new trial should be granted upon
the defendant paying the previous expenced.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—(Tms DAY.)
THE KING V. rzTo. '

Mr. CLamor, in following the Attorney-General id reply, ob-
served, that the question lay in a very narrow compass, namely,
whether the issue found for the Crown was immaterial or not.—
The Attorney-General had shewn a breach of:coatract. The de-
fendant's Counsel pleaded as if the contractor was an injured man.
But when a building cost such an immense sum, and in the course
of eight years falls down, the Crown has a right to inquire into
it. It seemed very strange that he should think himself injured
when only called upon to account for the non-performance of a
contract which he had bound himself to perform, and that, on no
stronger grounds than having followed the directions of Mr. Laing,
the architect, who, in fact, was not authorized to give any di-
rections at all. Mr. scarlett had remarked, that he hoped
his client would not be entrapped by any form of law.
Now, it seemed by the view which he (Mr. Clarke) had
taken of it, that if there was any entrapping,, it was on the part
of Mr. Peto. Mr. Denman had said that he could not build a
house upon a bed of sand, and felt it his duty, as an honest man,
to inform the Commissioners of the fact ; and that he did so by
informing the surveyor. In answer to that it is only necessary
to say, that the surveyor had no power to make alterations. It
has been hinted that there was a collusion ; then it was not shown
that a collusion did not exist between the contractor and the
surveyor. The Commissioners had the power to omit any motile
or other part of the building specified, and Mr. Peto was to be
paid for the materials he had provided ; but there was not a word
by which any man could think that the architect had the power
of ordering either variations or additions in the manner in which
the work should be done. The clerk bad the power of
rejecting the materials, but had no power of making any
alterations. In allusion to the piling, the inefficacy of which,
he observed, caused the building to fall, he was to drive
the piling not less than two feet into the stratum of gravel.
Of the existence of this gravel there is some doubt; but even sup-
posing it was not there, then it became the duty of Mr. Peto to
have apprised the Commissioners, and not to have followed the
directions of the surveyor. A. man if employed to build a house,
which house falls down in two years, is not to answer that be
followed the directions of the employer's surveyor, between whom
and the contractors a collusion might very easily exist. lle had
contracted to build the house, and if the directions of the sur-
veyor were not sufficient, the contractor was alone responsible for
the failure of his work. With regard to the filling up of the span-
drels, the bond required that they were to be filled up with solid
brickwork, but they were filled up with stones and rubbish, and
grouted in with mortar, but which was finished so as to have the
appearance of solid brickwork. This, it appeared, was done
by the direction of the surveyor. It might undoubtedly
be very well to look at, but experience proved that it was insult_
dent for the purpose, and the difference in expence was between
20001. and 80001. in favour of the contractor. Now here might
be a collusion to some purpose, and he did not hesitate to say, that
if a Contractor knew that he was doing wrong, and the Surveyor
did not give notice of it to the Commissioners, it would be gross
fraud on both sides.

Mr. Mat...rox and Mr. Pato; as followed on the same side.
The Chief Baron ALMA ?AIM R. observed, in giving his judg-
ment, that it was evident the intention of the instrument was never
to give so great a power to the surveyor as to destroy the effect of
the bond, which would have been the ease by the showing of the
defendant, and stated his opinion that the Crown was entitled to
a verdict, in which opinion Baron Graham concurred.—Judgment
for the Crown.

CONSISTORY COURT.—(itus DAL)
UTHICIL V. UTIMR.

This was a suit promoted by the husband for a divorce, upon
the ground of adultery.
The libel stated, that Charles 11. Miter, intermarried with
Mary Arm Coleman, at the Church of St. George's, Hanover.
oiltinre, in October, 1819, and lived in Leicester-street, telemeter.
square, from that period until 1823. For some yeses they lived
upon terms of uninterrupted cordiality, and had several children.
Previous to the year 1828, however, Mrs. Uther contracted
habit. of intoxication, which destroyed the domestic happiness of
her husband ; and, finally obliged him to separate from her. Be
engaged a mutual friend, however, to look after, and place her in
the care of some respectable persons, anti allowed her a small
weekly stipend for her support. Quarrelling with the persons in
Whose hands she was placed, she moved to the house of a person
named Spencer, where she resided for a year, and when in the
bilge conducted herself with propriety ; hut having got the habit
of remaining out until very late hours at night, the people refused
to accommodate her any longer. From this period, it appeared
that she indulged in abandoned habits without the slightest con.
trout. She lodged successively in Charlton4triet, on the Hamp-
stead Read, in Little Titchfield-street, and Charles-street, near
the Middlesex Hospital. In all these lodgings, she stated
that she was a married woman separated from her hus-
band, but that he occasionally visited and slept with her.
A young man, named Headly, was in the habit of visiting her.
Ile usually came in the evening, and remained until next,morn.
ing. Mrs. Uther treated him as her husband, and from the
terms of intimacy on which they lived, there could be no doubt
that an adulterous intercourse was carried on. In July, 192 b,
Mrs. Uther was delivered of a female child, which she herself de.
claret! was the produce of her connection with !leerily. It was
further stated, that the infant died a few days after her birth,
and that Mr. Headly paid the funeral expences. The husband
was a manufactrirer of percussion guns, and allowed the wife U.
per week from the time of their separation.
Dr. J.Xtitiftf. said he appeared for Mr. Uther, and conceived
that the acts of adultery had been so fully made oat that it was
unnecessary for him to trouble the Court with any lengthened ar-
guments. There could be no question ae to the identity of the
parties, and still leas that the husband had'conducted himself at all
times towards this unfortunate woman with the greatest kindness
and consideration.

Dr. Lusitugarma said he appeared as Counsel for Mrs. tither,
but, after looking through the libel, and the evidence in support
of it, he was compelled to admit, that there did not seem to be
any eircutruitances in the ease which would warrant him in calling
upon the Court to refuse the relief prayed for.
Sir Cuaisvorunt: ROM ?NOM bald there could bens doubt upon
the fact that adultery had been committed. Indeed the animas,
although they contained something like an attempt at justification
did not deny the fact. The only question calling for the consi-
deration of the Court arose out of the circumstance that a separa,
tion had taken place, precious to the Aged adultery. It was true
separation was unbar to adultery, but yet the Court always inter..
fered reluctantly in sueh cases. : In the present case, however,
there was no imputation upon the husband. Mrs. tither had con-
tracted habits irreconcileable with domestic comfort or With a
husband's security, and he was justified in putting her away, that
her bad example might not contaminate the minds of her children
subsequent to the separation, however, as well as before, it ap.
peered that he bad treated her with unremitting Wildness and con-
sideration,
and avoided every thing which might he supposed to
drive a woman to act improperly; He even held out the pro.;
spect of again receiving her to his society, upon eondition of ber
abandoning her vicious habits. tinder all the circumstances, Mr.'
Uther's conduct was most correct, and he appeared to have been
innocently placed in a situation which should render him an object`
of. general commiseration. There was no reason, therefore, 'for
delaying the relieferbieh he prayed for, and the Court had nothing'
to do but pronounce for the diriwee.—Divorce granted.