The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-13 00:00:00

certificate of the Judge, that there was a sufficient cause of acticu,
the Lord Chief Justice certified.

WYNNK V. JACKSON. •
This was an action brought to recover from the defendant the
sum of 421. lOs., which the plaintiff gave him under the follow
in, circumstances :—ln July last the defendant made a bet of
121. 10s. that he would hop 63 yards in 19 hops, within three
trials ; but not being able to stake the money himself, the plain-
tiff, on his account, gave him that sum to put down. In a short ' -
time after he proposed to do the same thing, within two
trials, on which a bet of 30/. was made, and staked by the
plaintiff on similar conditions, which were reduced to writing.
The defendant made one effort to perform the feat, but it proved
unsuccessful, and he declined to attempt it a second time; but
he kept the two bets to himself, which the plaintiff now sought
to recover.

The paper containing the conditions on which the money had
been given was handed in, but it not being stamped,
The LORD CHIEF Jusrics decided that it could not be admit-
ted in evidence. The plaintiff was therefore nonsnited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Middlesex Sittings after Term, before the LOAD CHIEF Jusuez.

raumn v. HARRISON.

This was an action'On7bond for ......r annum, granted by
the defendant, described therein as Thomas Harrison, the lounger;
of the Tavistock Hotel, Covent Garden, to the plaintiff, Matafr
Harrison, who lived under his protection for a considerable time
Mr. Sergea.►t PEAKE, in a very pathetic address, stated the
case. The plaintiff had the misfortune of being seduced by the
defendant, and lived with him for some time ; but repenting of
their connection, the defendant determined to put an end to it,
and gave her the present bond, to afford her the means of subsist-
ence and reformation.

The bond was then put in and read. •
Mr. Sergeant VA uGmArr, for the defendant, had a very different
case to lay before the Jury. lie should prove that the plaintiff
was merely a girl of the town, and he asserted that the bond was
viven as a consideration for the parties future cohabitation.
Two witnesses were then called, who proved that the parties
lived together subsequently to the date of the bond, but that aboil
after the defendant went to the country.
The CHIEF JUSTICE then addressed the Jury, and Laid, that. if
they thought the bond was given for the plaintiff's maidtainancep
on the understanding that the parties were to separate, theft they:-
should And for the plaintiff; but that if, on the other hand, ettey.
were satisfied it was given as a consideration for the continuation
of the connection, it was their duty to find for the defendant. •
After a few minutes consideration, the Jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff.

ROLLS COURT. •
His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS sat at nine o'cloek this
morning, for the hearing of Petitions.
FREEMAN V. FREEMAN.
This case came before the Court upon the Petition of Sir •
Compton Doniville, as trustee to a marriage settlement between -
Mr. Keelinge Freeman and Miss Domville. The Petition prayed
that the Master should be ordered to inquire into .the sums due
under the settlement by the accumulation of 13,3361. Conseii- •
dated Bank Annuities.
Mr. SUCDEN appeared to support the petition. -
Messrs. SHADWELL and MORN appeared fur different pa-rtiet.', -
interested, and insisted that it was contrary to the rule of the
court to allow any legatee or annuitant interest upon interest.; •
upon a sum which was not ordered to be set aside separately. To
allow dividends upon dividends from the death of Mr. K. Free-
man, which was what was desired in the present case, was only
to allow the annuitant compound interest, which they submitted
the Court was bound not to do.
His HONOUR was of opinion that the propriety of the order
prayed for by the petitioner depended entirely upon the terms of
the settlement; he should therefore read the settlement, and give
his opinion at the sitting of the Court to-morrow.