The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-08 00:00:00

No. 10,970.

LITERATURE.

ionsuit should not be set aside, and a verdict en-
tered for the plaintiffs.—Rule granted.

BOYLE FARM.-A POEM.

THE KING V. TILE REV. JAMES ROBERTS.

The splendours, gaiety, fashion, and so forth,
of Boyle Farm, " live in this poet's numbers one
day more." He has voluntarily stepped forward
as the laureate of that very delectable scene of
amusement and perfect ton, which not quite six
moons since set all the world—that is to say, the
west end of London, in extacies. " Aut pro-
desse volunt, aut deleetare porter," says some
old writer, 'our present poet blends the two,
amusement with instruction ; amusement in the
pleasant but feeble way in which he has treated
his subject, and instruction in the highly accept-
able information that Lord A—y's (we presume
Alvanley's) face is remarkable forits eminent dis-
play of virtue and good humour. Independently
of these twin attractions, Boyle Farm possesses
the rate merit of being written by a person who
really was there ; to this the Editor of the Li-
terary Gazette has indirectly pledged himself,
there is therefore no doubt on the subject.

Mr. GOUult.Tßti moved for a rule, calling upon
the defendant, who is a Justice of the Peace for the
county of Warwick, to show cause why a criminal
information should not be filed against him for hav-
ing oppressively, corruptly, and unlawfully, exer-
cised his authority of a Magistrate.
About seven o'clock in the evening of the 31st of
August, the prosecutor, a man in a humble station
in life, was apprehended upon two warrants granted
against him by the defendant. The warrants di-
rected the constable therein named to bring the body
of Mason before the defendant, to answer two
charges preferred against him by two persons named
Joyce and King—namely, that the prosecutor's dog
had killed some turkies, the property of Joyce and
King. The prosecutor was kept in custody all night,
and on the following morning he was taken to the
defendant's house at: Hartsbill, where he saw the
defendant, who told, him that he must pay forth-
with to Joyce and 'King the sum of 31. 12s. for the
turkies which his dog had killed. Mason said that
he knew nothing about the transaction, and that tie
should not pay the money unless Joyce and King
would produce the. turkies and witnesses to prove
that his dog bad killed them. The defendant then
took the depositions of Joyce and King, and of
King's daughter; but in neither of those depositions
was it stated that Mason was present when his dog
killed the turkies,and he in his affidavit stated positively
that he did not know his dog had killed the turkies,
that he was not present when they were killed,
and that he was not in any way privy to the trans-
action. The depositions having been signed, the
defendant threatened to send Mason to gaol if lie
could not find sureties for his appearance at the
Sessions ; and Mason having tendered sureties, his
reeognizances to the amount of 201., and two
sureties in 10/. each, were entered into for his ;ap-
pearance to answer those charges at the sessions
Mason asked the defendant to. give him in writing a
statement of the charges preferred against him; but
the defendant refused to do so, and said, " You will
not want it, you will make it up before the sessions.
I shall take the recognizances in my pocket to War-
wick." Mason asked the defendant if there was
any thing to be paid, and the . defendant replied,
" Yes, eight shillings." Mason said, " That is too
much—will not 4s. be enough ?" To which the
defendant replied, " Bs. is the money, and I shall
take nothing less." Mason then paid the defendant
es., and the complainants, Joyce and King, paidhim
17s. There was no clerk in the room, not., did the
defendant say that the money which he demanded,
and which lie actually put into his pocket, was for
clerk's fees. The charges having been thus dis-
posed of, Mr. Roberts told Mason that an informa-
tion had been lodged against him, by King, under
the statute of Anne, for keeping a lurcher (the dog
in question), and employing to kill and destroy
game. A person named Ball was then examined
in support of the information, and he stated that he
believed the dog was a lurcher, and that he could
bring forward a man who could swear that he had
seerohe dog run after a hare. Upon this
.evidence
the defendant convicted Mason. He (Mr.. Goul•
burn) had . the affidavit of the man who bi ed the
dog, and he swore distinctly that the dog was not a
lurcher, and that the sire was a terrier and the
mother a turnspit.—(A laugh.)—He had also the
affidavit of

Lord TENTERDEN—You have stated enough.
• -- -
Take a rule.

HARPUIL r. LUFFKIN7.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
is a farmer in Essei, to recover.from the defendant,
who is, also,a farmer, in that county, compensation'in
damages for the loss of the services of his (plaintiff's)
daughter, whom the defendant had seduced and got
with child. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice
Gaselee at the last assizes at Chelmsford, when it
appeared that the plaintiff's daughter was a married
woman, the mother of three children, and was at the
time of seduction living separate from her hus-
band in the house of her father, to whom she acted
in the capacity of servant. The Learned Judge in-
summing up told the Jury that in his opinion the
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, and the Jury ac-
cordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
101.

Mr. JEssoPP this day moved for a rule, calling
upon the plaintiff to show 'cause why the verdict,
should not be set aside and a nonsuit .entered. He
submitted that the plaintiff could not maintain this
action, inasmuch as• the plaintiff's daughter being a
,married woman, the relation of master and servant
could not .subsist between her and hei father. The
Learned Counsel, in support of his motion, relied
upon the case of
." Irwin v. Dearman," 11 :East,
page. 23.
Lord TENTERDEN.—Did it appear that the plain-
tiff paid wages to his daughter?
Mr. JESSOPP.—Yes, my Lord.
Mr. Justice BATLEY.—Did she do any acts of
service for her father ?
Mr. JESSOPP.—Yes, my Lord.
Their Lordships ha% ing consulted together far a
short time,
Lord TENTERDEN.—The only question here is, is
this action maintainable ? There are many cases in
which married women are actually hired as servants
at.stated wages, with the consent of their husbands.
The relation of master and servant may certainly
'subsist between a married woman and her father,
subject, however, to be put an end to by the hus-
band wheneVer he should think fit, because the con-
tract entered into by -the wife is not binding upon
the husband ; and I think it is not competent for a
third party, a wrong-doer, to say that the relation of
master and servant, which in this case existed in
fact, cannot exist in law.—Rwle refused.

TABBY V. BARLOW.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a little
girl about nine years of age, to recover from the de-
fendant compensation in damages for the injury sus-
tained by the plaintiff, in consequence of the defen-
dant having instituted a malicious prosecution
against the plaintiff, upon a charge of stealing some
ducks, the property of the plaintiff. The cause was
tried at the last assizes for Stafford, before Mr.
Baron Vaughan, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff—Damages 1001.
Mr. TALFOURD this day moved for a rule calling
upon the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside, and a new trial had. He
submitted that the Learned Judge had improperly
received evidence of the defendant's conduct towards
the brother of the plaintiff. This Court had also
granted a criminal information against the defendant
for the conduct which was the foundation of this
action, and there could be no doubt that, if, when
this
Naour,
sbtroit"ght, an application had been
made would order the proceedings
action
to
thin
Cv
to be stayed.

T
Mr. Justice' BAUM .—No, that does not follow ;
the Court would probably have, if such an applica-
tion had been made, compelled the plaintiff to make
an election between the criminal and the civil pro-
ceeding. It does not appear that the rule for a cri-
minal information has been followed up by a pro-
secution.

Mr.TALFOURD submitted that the plaintiff, by in-
stituting the criminal proceeding, had waved her
right of bringing an action pending such criminal
proceeding.
Their Lordships having consulteditogether for a
short time,

Lord TENTERDEIio-I am not prepared w say

14N
•
- io4
-!, -dk°
•Awilorc`
*lc", • 1:-% 0 ,
11:1 41)( Atti, '
it
• ,
:a o,l_ -ffor
,ltOtarienti.l,l.4" 1 3111

HENRY HUNT.

PAUL V. WESTON.

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 8, 18'

that the evidence was improperly received ; one piece
of evidence went to show what the conduct of th(
defendant was, and .that his object was to make tht
children say that they were encouraged by their pa-
rents to stear the ducks. With respect to the
;mount of damages, I admit that that is a questiof,
for the consideration of the Court ; but ought we,
when we feel satisfied that the defendant has been
guilty of gross misconduct, to disturb this verdict,
and to send the parties to a new trial, because tht
Jury has given rather larger damages than we pro-
bably would have given, if we were to assess the da-
miges? I think we ought not to do so.—Rnie re-
fused.

The Court having gone through the bar with mo-
tions, Lord TENTERDEN asked if Mr. Hunt, who
wished yesterday to make some motion, was in at-
tendance, as the Court was then ready to hear him :
one of the officers replied, that Mr. Hunt was not
in Court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7
(Sittings in Banco.)
BLACKBURN V. BLACKBURN.

This was an 'action of libel, which was tried be-
fore Mr. Justice Gaselee and a Special Jury, during
ate late Sittings-Ist , was'aileged- that
the libel initited:fdrgery and fraud to the plaintiff,
who was a Dissenting Minister, and after a very
great detail of evidence, the Learned Judge left the
ease to the Jury upon two points—first, whether
they believed the libel tended to impute forgery and
fraud,; and secondly, whether the defendant bad
been actuated by any express malice. The Jury
were of opinion that it did impute forgery, but that
there was no express malice, finding a verdict for the
plaintiff for 50/.
Mr. Sergeant CROSS now moved for a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be entered
up for the plaintiff on the special pleas, and for the
defendant on the general issue, and that the da-
mages should be set aside, or a new trial granted,
upon the ground that the Jury's having found no
express malice, was, in fact, an acquittal, and the
verdict should have been for the defendant. •

After a short deliberation, the Court granted a
rule to show cause.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 7
THE KING V. PETO.

An application for an injunction in this case, on
the part of the defendant, was postponed, on the
motion of Mr. BICKERSTETII, Sir C. WETHERELL
offering no opposition, to the first day of next term.

Mr. SIMPKINSON made an application in this case,
complaining of the conduct of Mr. Jones, an attor-
ney, residing in Shropshire, under the following
circumstances :—lt having become necessary to
prove the will of the late Mr. Henry B. Weston,
to which Mr. Jones was one 'of the witnesses,
that gentleman was written to by the defendant's
attorney, to know when it would suit his convenience
to come, to town for the purpose of being examined.
—Mr. 'Junes replied,- that any day in the following
week would suit his" convenience, and• he wished' to
pay a visit to his brother in London about that time.
—ln consequence, however, of the Circuit taking
place at that time, Mr. Jones's journey to I.ondon
then. would be of no avail, and consequently a
commission was taken out to examine him in the
country. With this measure; however,' Mr. Jones
was dissatisfied; he said, that he had been unhand-
sugssaly:Aseatad,:And....whesi. waited. on 71464 to be
examined anywhere but in London. Havit* sub-
sequently come to London, and it being supposed
he was about to go on the Continent, his examina-
tion was taken here ; and the present application was
now made, that he might be ordered to pay the costs
of the commission which his contumacy had render-
ed unavailing, and also of this application.
The COURT was of opinion, that as Mr. Jones
had declined to be examined only on the ground of
his having, been unhandsomely treated, and not be-
cause)te hid not been summoned, &c., he could not
now avail himself of .such objections, as an excuse
for ,his contumacious conduct. They therefore or-
dered him to pay the costs:of the commission, and.
of this application.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 7.

' CONSTABLE V. EMANUEL AND ANOTHER.

The testator in this case, Mr. Edward Emanuel,
died at Paris on the 18th of March, 1825, a ba-
chelor, aged 26. He left a will iii his own hand-
writing, dated the 6th 'of July, 1821, just prior to
his departure from England, by which he bequeathed
legacies of 13,000/. to his brothers and sisters, con-
stituting his brother, Henry Emanuel, still a minor,
residuary legatee. A legacy of 2,000/. was also left
to Mr. Robert Constable, who attended the tes-
tator as his travelling tutor. Probate of the will,
and- of a codicil executed shortly before the tes-
tator's death,. was granted in July, 1825, to Mr.
Constable and Mr. Samuel Stiebel, who were co-
executors with Mr. - Stiebel and Mr. Henry
Emanuel, the residuary legatee. At this time the
existence of a still later testamentary paper was not
known. In November, 1823, a bill was filed in
Chancery by Mr. Joel Emanuel, the father
and guardian of the residuary legatee, with the
view of invalidating the legacy of '2,000/. left to
Mr. Constable, on the ground that he was an
attesting witness to the instrument. The Court of
Chancery decided, however, upon the principle laid
down by this Court in the case of "Brett r. Brett,"
that the property being personal, the legacy was not
void under the statute. Subsequent to the filing of
the bill, a paper was alleged to have been discovered
by 'Air,Constable, in a book belonging to the tes-
tator, which had been executed a few days before
his death (which was occasioned by an act dsuicide),
and which directed his tutor to pay sundry debts,
including one of 35/. to himself, and recognized the
legacy of 2,0001. The decision of the Court of
Chancery had rendered the evidence of this paper
pperfluous in regard to the legacy, and the only ob-
ject of the present suit to decide the validity of the
last codicil, was to sanction the claim or 35/., and to
decide the question of costs.
Dr. LUSHINGTON and Dr. JEssr, ADDAMS, for Mr.
Constable, contended that the paper was intended to
operate as a codicil, and was a valid instrument.
Dr. JENNER and 1)r. PICKARD, for Mr. Joel
Emanuel, argued that the circumstances of the case,
and the evidence on both sides, threw a strong
suspicion of forgery upon the paper.
The COURT pronounced for the codicil, and di-
rected the costs of all parties to be paid out of the
estate.

. ROYAL ACCOUCHEMENT.—Her Majesty
the Lioness at the Tower, has given birth to three young
Princes. The answer to all enquirers yesterday was, that
the Royal infants were as well as could be expected.

GENEALOGY.—A gentleman married a lady,
whose brother afterwards married her husband's daughter
by a former wife. Each party soon had a child, the for-
mer a daughter, the latter a son. Ergo—The first-men-
tioned lady is mother to her brother, sister to her daugh-
ter, and grand-mother to her nephew ; her little daughter
is niece to her sister, aunt to her cousin, and sister to her
uncle. The young man is brother to his father and mo-
ther, son to his sister, uncle to his daughter, and brother
to his niece. His wife is sister to her father and mother,
daughter to her sister, niece to her hushai:, and aunt to
her sister ; her little boy is. grandson to his aunt, nephew
to the lady, and cousin to his aunt,t be little girl.

•• .

PR ICE ID.