The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

ROLLS COURT.
The Master of the Rolls sat in Chancery-lane
to-day.

DAUBENEY V. DAUBENI3Y.

This case came before the Court upon two peti-
tions. The short facts from the statements of Coun-
sel, and the affidavits, were as follows :—The two
plaintiffs were the infant children of the defendant,.
who was the son of Archdeacon Charles Dau-•
beney, who formerly resided at Bath. By the will of
the Archdeacon, 15,0001. were left upon trust for'
these children, and certain provisions were made for
the father. Since the death of the Archdeacon,
which took place in August, 1825, the defendant
had taken a female into his service with whom he
cohabited, and had a child. Afterwards the defend
ant married this young woman, with whom, and
their father, the infant plaintiffs were now
Colonel Daubeney, a relation of the defendant, and.
a gentleman of the name of Savage, were the
trustees under the Archdeacon's will, and they con-.
sidered they should not be doing their duty towards the
Court or the children, if they suffered them to reside'
with their father and his present wife. Under thesecir-
cumstances they presented their petitions, praying for
a reference to the Master for the appointment of a
proper person to have the care of the children, and'
for a scheme as to the course to be pursued in their
future maintenance. The father also presented a
petition in the usual form for maintenance.
Mr. PEPYS and Mr. COOPER appeared on the part
of the trustees, and Mr. BARBER for the father.
The MASTER of the ROLLS wished to know upon
what ground it was contended the Court had juris-
diction ?

Mr. PEPYS submitted, that the testator having
given directions to the trustees, they were entitled
to ask the opinion of the Court as to what course
they should adopt.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLS, after some consider-
able discussion observed, that he should certainly
make no such order as was prayed for, as far as it
went to the appointment of a proper person to have
the care of the children. The only ground of
complaint was, that the defendant had had an im-
proper intercourse with a female whom he afterwards
married. There was no allegation whatever of mis-
conduct on her part since her marriage; but, on the
contrary, it seemed to have been extremely praise-
worthy, and the children were very much attached
to her. With respect to the latter part of the
prayer, his Honour considered it extremely proper, as
the Court would always take care to have the pro-
perty of infants applied properly. The Court, there-
fore, granted the prayer of the petition, except so
far as it went to the appointment of proper persons
to have the care and management of the children.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

NEW CLAIM OF TOLLS FROM STAGE COACHES.-

HOPKINS V. THOROGOOD.

This was an action by the lessees of the tolls of
the Mile-end, Stratford, and Stamford toll-gates, to
recover from a coach-proprietor the sum of SI. 3s. 6d.
under an Act passed in 1823. The question turned
on the construction of the above Act.

Lord TENTERDEN considered that this being a
question of law (most of the facts being admitted),
it would be desirable to have the opinion of more
Judges than one.
The defendant then submitted to a verdict for the
amount claimed, subject to the opinion of a full
Court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SPIERS AND ANOTHER.

This was an information filed by the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL to recover the amount of duties on three
bales of silk. The defendants were agents of Lord
Granville, during the time his Lordship was Am-
bassador at Paris. Amongst some of the goods
received by the defendants were, three bales marked
" Furniture," and the name of Lord Granville upon
them. They of course were privileged from paying
duty, but it was afterwards discovered that they
contained silk. This action was therefore brought
to obtain the duty and penalties.
Verdict for the Crown for amount sought to be
recovered.

The case occupied the Court till two o'clock.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS—(THIS DAY.)
These Sessions commenced this morning before
FRANCIS CONST, Esq., Chairman, and a full Bench
of Magistrates.
Samuel Watts, Joseph Trimbey, and John Par-
tridge, three watchmen, were indicted for assaulting
and imprisoning, without a legal warrant, John
Wright, one of the Bow-street patrol.
Mr. ALLEY, for the prosecution, said this was a
case of considerable importance, as it went to show
the characters of some of those persons appointed
to keep the peace and protect the property of the
public. The conduct of watchmen had lately
become so bad in some of the parishes, that
Sir Richard Binrie considered it necessary to
appoint a number of officers to perambulate
the streets for the purpose of seeing they
executed their duty. The prosecutor was one
of those thus appointed. On the 25th of April he
was standing in Bond-street, between twelve and
one o'clock at night, talking to a friend, when a
gentleman came up and said he had been robbed by
a woman of three sovereigns, who had gone into a
notorious house in one of the courts leading out of
that street. The prosecutor directly went to that
house, rapped at the door, and demanded admission,
when the defendant Trimbey came up and threatened
to take him to the watch-house. He immediately
sprung his rattle, arid the other defendants came up.
The prosecutor remonstrated with them, but to no
purpose. They dragged him to the watch-house,
and charged him with disorderly conduct. He also
pressed a charge of assault against the defendants,
but their charge was taken. He subsequently pre-
ferred this indictment.

John Wright, the prosecutor, deposed to the facts
stated by Mr. Alley, and added he was well known
to all the defendants.

Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—Hare you not
been at least ten times in the watch-house charged
with different offences?

Witness (with much warmth)--No; I never
was charged by any one beside the defendants.
Mr. PHILLIPS—Pray be careful. We have wit-
nesses here that cannot err, namely, the watch-house
books. The Learned Counsel then enumerated
nine or ten different charges, amongst which was
one for stealing a watchman's lantern, and another
of the prosecutor assaulting his father. When the
witness was pressed for an answer, whether or not
he was so charged, he replied, " Perhaps I may ;
but it being three or four years since, I cannot re-
collect." He, however, recollected being held to
bail for assaulting a watchman in the execution of
his duty, and on another occasion for a riot with
several prostitutes.
Mr. PHILLIPS—Very well, so much for your
character.
Several other witnesses deposed to the facts of
the prosecutor being sober, and the assault commit-
ted by the defendants.
The Jury found the defendants Guilty, and the
Chairman sentenced them to pay a fine of 31. each.

THE MARCHIONESS OF LONDONDERRY'S
PARTY.—On Tuesday a dinner and evening party were
given by the Marquis and Marchioness of LONDONDERRY
at their villa, Rose Bank, near Hammersmith, to about
one hundred of the Nobility. A large marquee was fixed
on the lawn in rear of the mansion, and within a few
feet of the margin of the river Thames.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

BATH AND BRISTOL RACES.

WEDNESDAY, JULY B.—The Soritersetshire Stakes of 25
sovs. each, 15 ft. and only five if declared to Mr. Wea-
therby, on or before the Ist of June, with 100 cove.
added from the Racing Fund. The owner of the second
horse to receive 50 cove. eut of the Stakes. Two miles
and a distance.
Mr. Fitzgerald named Rasselas, 4 yrs S. Man 1
Mr. I. Day's Liston, aged
Nine others started but were not placed—very fine race.
A 50 sovs. Plate given by the Members for the County,
for three and four-year-olds. Heats, two miles.
Mr. Scott's br. h. by Reveller, 4 yrs C. Day 1 1
Mr. I. Day's b. f. by Oiseau, 3 yrs G. Randall 3 2
Mr. Howe's br. f. by Whalebone, 3 yrs... A. Pavis 2 0
Severely contested race.