The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 11.
(Sittings in London at Nisi Prius, before the LORD
CHIEF JusTwE and a Special Jury.)
THE FISHMONGERS' COMPANY V. ROBINSON AND OTHERS.
This was an action for the penalty upon a deed
of contract for the drainage of lands belonging to
the plaintiffs, adjoining the sea-lake called the Lough
Foyle, in the north of Ireland.
file cause was tried before, and the plaintiff.; obtained
a verdict with Is. damages, the effect being to enable
them to enforce the contract and recover costs.
The defendant since obtained a rule for this new trial,
which will occupy at least another day.
Mr. M. D. Hill, Mr. Sergeant Channel], and Mr.
Bovile appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Sergeant Tal-
fourd, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Mr. Ser-
geant Byles, and Mr. Hindmarsh, for the defendants.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec.ll.
(Sittings in Guildhall at Nisi Prius, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a Common Jury.)
GOODWIN V. COLLINS.

This was an action of assumpsit for a breach of con-
tract, the declaration alleging that the plaintiff's wife
kept a school, at which the defendant formerly had two
children, but he subsequently took them away without
giving the usual quarter's notice, which formed the
breach of contract. The defendant had pleaded the ge-
neral issue, and that the plaintiff was not ready and
willing to proceed with the schooling of the two children.
Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ser-
geant Gazelee for the defendant.
Mr. JA DIES stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff was
a merchant's clerk, and he sought by the present action to
recover 131.25. 6d. for a breach of contract of the usual and
ordinary character. The plaintiff some short time ago
married a lady named Hogg, who for some years pre-
viously bad kept a school at Belgrave Lodge, Merton
place, Turnham-green. At Easter, 1842, the defendant,
who was a gentleman of considerable property residing
at Sunbury, placed two of his daughters, together with
a young lady named Matthews, at Miss Hogg's school.
The children remained at school till the Christmas of
1844, when they went home for the usual vacation. In
the following January, however, only one of them re-
turned, and the consequence was, that the plaintiff, who
was now married to Miss Hogg, wrote a letter to the
defendant, complaining that he had neglected to give the
usual quarter's notice of his intention to remove his
daughter from the school, and intimating that either the
notice or the quarter's schooling money would be in-
sisted upon. The defendant refused to give either, and
the present action was brought in consequence of that
refusal. The contract alleged to have been broken was
contained in Miss Hogg's prospectus, which stated that
there was no entrance fees required on entering the
school, but it was expected that parents would give a
quarter's notice before they removed their children from
the establishment.
Miss Hogg, the plaintiff's sister-in-law, was called
to prove the facts stated by the Learned Counsel. She
said she was one of the teachers of the establishment,
and could state positively that it was an invariable cus-
tom to give a quarter's notice before any of th• scholars
were removed from the academy. The defendant was
made aware of this custom at the time his children en-
tered the school, and it was upon these terms that her
sister consented to undertake their tuition.
The witness was cross-examined at some length oy
Mr. Sergeant Gazelee, with the view of showing that
the system of education pursued at the plaintiff's school
was both defective and immoral. She admitted having
read a sermon produced by the Learned Sergeant in the
presence of one of the defendant's daughters and a
junior tutor of the academy, a young lady between 14
and 15 years of age, and said she saw nothing objec-
tionable in it.
Mr. JAMES said he was sorry to interrupt his Learned
Friend, but really he could not for the life of him see
what this sermon had to do with the case.
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE insisted that it had every-
thing to do with the case, for he intended to read it for
the purpose of showing that the plaintiff's wife was un-
willing to teach the defendant's children in the ordinary
and proper way. His Learned Friend had mis-
taken the defendant's plea. It was not that
the plaintiff's wife was unwilling to take
back the children, but that she was unwilling to teach
them with propriety and decorum. The Learned Ser-
geant then read the objectionable sermon, amidst the
laughter of a crowded Court. It was the copy or note
of a sermon purporting to have been preached by the
Rev. C— C—, who took his text from the 29th
chaps of Genesis, the 10th verse:—" And Jacob kissed
Rachel." The sermon opened by asserting that it was a
universal practice amongst the ancients to indulge in
the practice of kissing, and declaring that the practice
was strongly recommended by the Scriptures. It was
honourable to the present age that this example of the
ancients was enthusiastically and strictly followed, and
the preacher proposed to take upon himself the task of
considering, first, the meaning of the term " kissing ;
secondly, • the important duty of kissing ; and thirdly,
to represent or describe the pleasure attendant upon
the performance of the duty of kissing. The sermon
then proceeded to contend that kissing was not to be
taken in the ordinary acceptation of the term, as mean-
ing a simple salute or smacking of the lips, but it was
used in the text as intending to convey, and did in fact
invariably convey, the idea of embracing. The ser•
mon extended to a great length in this strain of argu-
ment, and after dwelling upon the pleasures derivable
from the practice of kissing or embracing, wound up with
a general recommendation that it was a duty incumbent
upon every lady never to lose an opportunity for in-
dulging in the practice of kissing. The witness said she
allowed one of the defendant's daughters to copy this ser-
mon and take it home with her.

The LORD CHIEF BARON—WouId it not have been
better had the defendant taken his daughter from the
school on the first receipt of this letter ?
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE—So he did, my Lord, and
this is our answer to the action. The children never
returned after this sermon went home.

Mr. JAMES—I doubt that. You admit that one of
them did return at all events. Now, Miss Hogg, when
did this effusion go home to Mr. Collins ? Witness—l
think it was before Christmas, 1844.
Mr. JAMES—When was it written ? Witness—At
the end of 1844.
Mr. JAMES—Were you the author of the sermon ?
Witness—No, it was given to me by my brother-in-law.
Mr. JAMES—The plaintiff ? Witness—Nos another
brother-in-law.