The Sun.
London, England, 1818-05-11 00:00:00

lIEBDOMAD.A.RY.

21fonqap,---Whit Monday. The whole of this week was never
made an entire Festival like that of Easter, but this and
the following day is observed in the same manner as those
days in the Easter week, and for the same reasons. Holiday
at the Bank,Sonth Sea House,EXeliequer, and India House
Tuesday—Whit Tuesday.' Sun rises.at a quarter after four ;
sets a quarter before eight. Holiday at the Bank, South
Sea House, Exchequer, and India House.
frednesday—Ember Week. This and the %.svo sneeteding
days are observed as Fasts and days of Humiliation and
Supplication, for ablessing on the work of Ordination of
a Priestsnd Deacons, which is usually on the next Sunday
folioningsueh• Fasts.
Thursd4—Cham hers died, 174 d. • Moon shines fill day-light.
Friday—Jupiter rises at half-past eleven at.nght.
Sr',,,,ldy—Mary Qocca of Scuts ticti to England for precc,
bon) InB,

LAW INTEUIdENCg.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, SATURDAY.

LIABILITY OF -A HUSBAND TO SUPPORT HIS %mg..

LADY PERRO►T V. FAIINWO:ITH.

• This vis an action of assunrp.sit, brought by
Lady Margaret Jelnima Perrot agaiuSt the .de-
fendant, for the support and maintenance of his

Mr.,CLARK Ft addressed the Jury, and stated the
circumstances under which the action was brought.
The plaintiff, Lady Perrot, he said, was the widow
of a Baronet of very small fortune, and was un-
der the necessity, from her own distressed situa-
tion, to bring this action aeainst ihe hoshand of
one of her daughters, for expenses to which she
had beet) ;um for the maintenance and lodging of
that daughter. %Viten the.defetidant married_ his.
wife, which was some time back was a gene-
ral merchant,
,lining in repute, and supportmg a
respectable estahlishntent ; he had since become a
bankrupt. Subsequent to this inkfortune, he hail
-again got into business, and was now carrying on
the trade of a wine-merchant. For'ressons which
it was impossible satisfactorily to explain, he had
-refused to maintain his•wife, who" was in conse-
quence obliged to resot t (0 her mother for a-
; any! ?or expenses incurred in this way, the
mother now sought, as she, was entiAeci, to do,
cumpensation from the bands of the-Jory..

• After sever►rl witnesses were examined for the
Mr. DAuNCEY addressed the Jury, and -stated
that besides the defendant's aver3ion to his wife'ti
performing on the stage (which she was in the
habit of doing under the name of Miss Fit zhenry),
the Lady hr►<t been guil!y of infidelity, which tact
comidetely exonerated the defendant.

SeY, ral witnesses were called to substantiate the
alleged fact of infidelity, but their evidence re-
ceived no credit,

Chief Baron RICHARDS summed 'up the evidence
to the Jury, commenting upon the testimony
.of
each witness with his accostotited clearness-and
ability. In conclusion, he left -the Jury to say
,‘ Idyll set of witnesses they believed. If they be-
tirved those for the defendant, then they would
find their verdict accordingly; but if, on the con-
trary, they thought tnore Weight, was attached to
those called for the plaiwifi, then they %con ic! find
a verdict for such a stun as they thought the
Pliiintitl entitled to.- li was a serious question,
jnv,dving ctuisequences of great importance to the
parties ; and if the defendant's witnesses were not
believed, then a verdict must be given for the

The Jury, after a sbort consideration, foiml a
ver►lict for the plaintiff, of wo guitieas per week
for fifty-two weeks, or for 1091. 4s. Cot 403.

tinshand and wife were in Court (luting
niost of the. proceedings. LI:1y Perrot , was also

COCRT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 9.

LIGHTFOOT U. CRFED.

This .was ah action of considerable intetest to
stoclideahrs. It was a case of as-sompsit, in which
the Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of 4.51
which it was alleged had been paid away to the
defendant's use.' question bad been tried at
the sittings in London, alter the last Hilary Term,
when, under the nit ection of Mr. Justice Dallas,
the Jury (Ound'a verdict for the plaintiff, subject
to a point of law. In the. course of the present
Term„ Mr. Sergeant Hullork obtained a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be.set
aside upon certain points, namely, that the matter
arose out of a gambling tra:lsaction ; and;next', that
the sum alledged to have been paid by the plain-
tiff to the defendant's use had, Out been done,
either directly or impliedil, by the authority`of
the former.'

the, rule Mr. Sergeant VATIGIIAti now;
exhibited cause, and briefly detailed the circntn-
stances of the ease. . 'rite plaintiff,. on the 23d of
October last, called npon the deft ottani , and re-
quested to purchase from him 3,000/, 3 Fier ceitt;
consols, at the tnatket price of the day, The de-
fendant agreed, and the.transfer was to take place
on the 30th of the month. The defendant, it ap-
peared, at the time was actually possessed of stock
to the amount in question, although it had been
entered in the name of Mescrs. Martin and
hi's haulters•. It appeared further, however, that on
the Sallie day he had sold two other parcels id lA:e
stock other individuals for the same amount, and:
had thus contracted epgag'enteuts.for 6000/. more
than was bona fide in-his possession. The Leal tied
Counsel (1-lullock) argued upon the fact that it was
a gaming and not a fair transaction. This rbjection;
however, could not be maintained, inasmuch as it
could not he ascertained Whether the sale made to
the plaintiff .had
,been antecedent to, or had -pre-
ceded, the other sale. The great objection, lioW-
ever, arose front another part of the case. From
the notes of the original trial, it appeared that on
the ZOth of ()Molter the plaintiff callud. upon Mr.
Bailer, the broker of the defendant, to have the
stock duly transferred, in ptirsuance of the con-
tract: The broker proceeded tO effect. this ; hut
it so happened that on the very day a considerable
rise'had taken place in the,3 per cent.consols,,anl.
it was found ;upon investigation that the sum
transferred, as before stated, WAS minus 451. The
plaintiff, to obviate this difficulty, paid the defi-
ciency, and thus made up the net sum for which
he contracted. with the defendant, relying upon
,he latter to make good the snot; the defendant,
however, did-not yield compliance, and hence the
present proceeding:prose.
Mr. Sergeant HoLLocK, argued strenuously that
the defendant had not given his authority, either
directly or indirectly, to the plaintiff to pay away
the sum stated for his use.

Atter considerable argument, the Court declar-
ed their ol►inion to be, that the consent of the
defendant, either expessed- or. • implied, should
have been given as to, the payment money •ou
this account; and that such admission not having
been made, a verdict of nonsuit must be entered.
—Entered accordingly.

On Thursday last, a fine 'sturgeon was cangla
in tire river joist below New Lock, Maidstone ;: it,
ineasoitd six feet six inches, and weighed nearly
100itis,