Star.
London, England, 1830-12-01 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. IL
His Honour the Vzcz-Creancat.Loa sat at Liman's Inn In Bank.
ruptcy to-day.

SPECIAL INJUNCTION.
SPEAD V. YEATMEAD.

Mr. PAYNTZR, at the suing of the Court, applied foe a special in-
junction to restrain the ddendant from collecting in, any of the partner-
ship debts, or otherwise interfering in the concerns d the partnership.
From the statements of the learned counsel, it appeared that the Oain-
tiff and defendant had been in partnership together as wine-mats,
and a few months ago they had mutually agreed to dissolve partner-
ship. At this time a sum of 1,8001. was due to the plaintiff individually
from the partnership, and It was agreed between the plaintiff and de-
fendant that a deed should be prepared, the purport of which was to sti-
pulate that the 1.8001. should be paid to the plaintiff in preference to
any other payments, out of tbe partnership funds. This deed was ac-
cordingly prepared, but the defendant refused to aigo it, and proceeded
to collect in the partnership debts, on which account he had received
various large sums.
The VICE CHANCELLOR considered that a sufficiently strong CUR
had been made out, and granted the injunction.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 30.
(Sittings at the Nisi Prius before Lord Tsarina:sax.)
WILSON V. SMITH.

This was an action brought to recover the value of a chaldron of
cosh. supplied to the defendant's wife.
Mr. GURNEY stated the case to the Jury, and said, that this action
was brought to recover a small sum of money for cosh supplied to the
defendant's wife. Mr. Smith chose to defend this action • and be
(Mr. (1.) should therefore enter into the details. Mr. Carmichael
Smith had formerly held a very lucrative office in the Exchequer, and
had since retired upon an allowance. In the year 1822, he married this
lady, to whom the goods were supplied. They continued to live toge-
ther until 1823, when she was compelled to leave him, through the ill
usage she received. She again returned to him in 1824, when he
again ill-treated her, coafined her in a mad-house for a few
da, and she again left his house at the end of the same year.
The gross ill usage this lady received was quite sufficient to make her
leave her home. Her husband frequently kicked her deprived her ofl
food, and placed the servant at the table, and she had instituted a suit
in the Commons in the early part of the year 1828. The defendant had
aired her 1001. a year, if she would retire to America, her native
country, but as she had declined this he was liable to pay any reason-
able debts which she might contract.
Mr. Carmichael Smith, the defendant, then stood up, and said, I
believe my Lord, in some cases the defendant is allowed to address
the Cain pre to any witnesses being called ; now, 1 should like
just to make some observations upon the speech of the Learned Counsel,
as I conceive—

Lord TENTERDSW stopped the defendant, and told him he could
not allow him to address the Cowl.
Joseph Thacker—ln the year 1828 1 was canna to the plaintiff.
He lived in Southmoiton-street. In March of that year 1 delivered a
chaldron of coals to Mrs. Smith, No. 45, Upper Berkeley-street. The
price was 83s. or 841.
John Connor, applied to Lord Tenterden to protect him fmm
the violence of the defendant. His Lordship assured the witness that
there was no fear of the defendant committing any violence in the Court.
In the year 1824, I was in the service of blr. Carmichael Smith. I
went into his service in January. He then lived in Sloane.street, (Mrs.
Smith lived in the house, but she had been away) and a housekeeper,
named Judy Neele, and a young woman called Betsey. Mrs. Smith
slept with bee husband for the first three nights that I was there, but
they quarrelled and separated their beds. Mr. Smith afterwards slept
in the back parlour. I used to go to him about nine o'clock in the
morning, and usually found Mrs. Neele there. She never was
there when he was out of bed. I recollect going into the room
once when I was spM. Mrs. Neele ailW out, " Don't
come in, John, I will bring Master's things out, myself."—
A sheet time afterwards she did bring them out. Mrs. Node kept the
keys, and was, in fact, mistress. I was ordered not to let any body in
or out of the house without Mrs. Neck's Remember, in
March of the year I went there, a lady She saw Mrs. Smith,
because she went down stairs whilst die lady was at the door. Mrs.
Neele was very angry. When Mr. Smith cams hems, he was very
much enraged ; but Ibegged his pardon, end he then went up stairs
and knocked his wife down, and shut the door in bathe& I have often
heard Mn. Node call Mrs. Smith a in the presence of the
defendant. Have frequently heard Mr. Smith order his wife out of the
room. Have seen bruises on her arms; Mrs. Smith said they were
occasioned by pinches and blows given her by her husband. Have
beard Mr. Smith desire the servant only to give his wife an inch of
candle. She had a fire in her room only sometimes. Have known Mrs.
Neck in Dir. Smith's bedroom an hour at a time. I went into Mr.
Smith's room one morning, and found Mrs. Wale on the top of the bed.
I left Mrs. Smith in the house, but know that she left a short time af.
terwards. This witness then detailed a series of W mar committed on
Mrs. Smith by her husband.
Lord TeNTESDIN.—Have you any questions to put to the witness?
Defendant.—A great many.
Lord TIXTEIRDEN.OO on, then.
Defendant—l will presently, but I must arrange my papers; my
attorney ought to have been here ; but he has not come although I have
sent twice for him.
Lord TIIXTERDIN—Then you must go yourself.
Defendant to witness—What religion are you ?
Witness—Roman Catholic.

Defendant... Did not I, after my wife returned home, treat her with
great kindness and attention ?—Yes, for three days.
Defendant—Not for three weeks ? Didn't I drive her out and walk
out with bee for three weeks P.—No ; only three days.
Defendant—Hare you seen me strike my wife ?—Yes.
Defendant—Did I ever tell you I was mad ?—Yes.
Defendant—Did you ever see Mn. Neele in my room ?—Yes.
Defendsnt—These proceedings have killed Mrs. Neele.
Witness—lt was whisky killed her (roars of laughter).
Defendant—Did you ever say, if you had such a wife you would
either end her or mend her ?—Never.

The rest of the evidence was of too indecent a nature to publish, and
the whole of it was irrelevant to the question in dispute.
Walter, a watchman in the parish of St. Luke, Chelsea, spoke to
a disturbance which he had witnessed in the house of the defendant.
Upon hearing a loud noise he went into the house, and found the de-
fendant with a pistol, and Mrs. Smith on the floor. The witness pre-
vailed upon her to leave the house.
The defence was, that at the time Mrs. Smith was supplied with the
coals, she was receiving alimony, according to the decision of the Con-
aistorial Court.

__Mr. Gurney said he could prove the cause between the defendant and
his wife had been moved into the Arches Court, and from that moment
the allotment of alimony ceased.
Lord TEXTERDEY held that the payment of money might have
been a continuation of the order of the Consistorisl Court: and as
it had been proved that the wife of the defendant did receive alimony,
the action could not be sustained.

The plaintiff was nonsuited.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. SO.
(Sittings after Michaelmas Term, before the Loan Cutter Jurricir.)
_ _

HANNAY V. SOLTIIY.

This was an action brought to recover compensation for false
imprisonment. It appeared that the plaintiff, who is a pedlar, had
entered the premises of the defendant, whose dog ran barking at him,
which he struck with so much violence, that it appeared dead, and has
remained deaf and blind ever since. The detendant requested the
plaintiff to accompany him in his pony chaise, which the plaintiff as-
sented to. The Magistrate recommended him to make the defendant
some compensation. to which the plaintiff agreed, and left his peek until
he should return and redeem it ; instead of doing which, however, he
brought the present action fur remuneration for the time which was oc-
cupied in going before the Magistrate.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE appeared for the defendant, and argued that
the plaintiff was using the animal cruelly and maliciously, and on that
ground the defendant was justified, according to the Act of Parliament,
in taking him before a Magistrate without a warrant.
Mr. Sergeant TADDT referred to the Act of Parliament, and held
that, as particular animals were specified, and dogs not being mentioned,
it could not be made to apply to the present case.
Tile LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left it to the Jury to my whether the
plaintiff went of his own accord before the Magistrate, and whether the
Injury committed by him on. the dog was justifiable for his own pro-
tection. If a person committed an injury, be being immediately pur-
sued and followed up, may be said to be found committing the injury,
and may be arrested without a warrant.
Verdict for the plaintiff —Damages 101.
SECONDAKIEW OFFICE--Cossunit-oTazzr.
OF PROMISE OF itAinanor.

I RUSSELL V. WADE.—The following cam, which was trial before
Mr. Potter, excited a great deal of interest. It was upon a writ of in.
I quirt' for the as-essment of damages for a Breach of Promise of Mee.
nage. The damages were laid at 1000 pounds.
• Mr. Ogle, as solicitor to the plaintiff, also acted as Counsel, and Mr.
C. Philips was Conned for the defendant.
Mr. OOL I stated the case for his Client. She was the daughter of a
respectable woman, who kept a lodging.hotuseoin which the Mendota
a patina, resided. From vie moment the thiendant entered the horoil,l

entered the house, an intimacy commenced between him and the youag
Lady, and they soon became pledged to each other as man and wife.
The plaintiff appeared to be most sincere in his attachment, and that
the young Lady was sincere, and had the most unbounded reli-
ance upon his honour, was unfortunately poved by the result of the
intercourse. The defendant had, or pretended to have, a curious fancy
about him with respect to issue. He seemed determined not to marry
any girl until he ascertained whether she was likely to have children or
not, and the proposal of an experiment wee accepted. The matter was
decided in the alkalise. The young lady's conduct, in this
bad for authority the ancient and weU-known practice which shale=
in Wales; but the defendant, although he admired the Welch custom
="to the indissoluble tie, was satisfied with the trial he had
married the daughter of nether lady, to whom he became a
lodger. The plaintiff's feelings upon this occasion were tortured in the
extreme. She had always borne the most excellent and irreproachable
character, sad was now the mother of a child, of which the defendant
was the father; and which, Instead of proving a source of unalloyed
itplitera and comfort, reflected disgrace upon the unfortunate young
kre. Hannah Russell, mother to the plaintiff; knew defendant about
six years ; he had 11, a week as journeyman to a Mr. Lushy Law, a
r2seiter, and also did business for himself. He came to lodge in her
and an intimacy at once 'prang up between him and her daugh-
ter. n March 1828, found that her daughter was pregnant, and was
told by her that defendant was the father. Defendant discontinued his
attentions a month afterwards, and had since married the daughter of
another landlady. Witness's daughter was confined on the Bth of Oc-
tober, 1828, had suffered greatly in her health in consequence of this
cruel treatment, had always maintained an irreproachable characteriand
was greatly attached to the defendant. She had never been flighty or
guilty of levity.
Mr. Ogle asked witness whether her daughter had aot lost an advan-
tageous offer b this calamity P Yea, (said the witness,) a Mr. Bacon
would hays paid his addresses.

Mr. Pim-Live objected to the question, as well as to many others,
which Mr. Ogle, from a want of experience, asked, in opposition to all
the rules of evidence.

The witness, upon her crospexaminatka, stated, that when the
plaintiff lodged in her house, he was a journeyman painter, and that he
was paid by the week.
Mr. PHILLIPS—When did your daughter tell you that he intended
to marry her ? After I investigated the affair of her being in the
family.way.
Were you present when the defendant told your daughter why he
would not marry her? No.
Did she not swear the child to him before the parish officers ?—Yes ;
I wu unable to keep the child, and be paid three shillings and sixpence
a week for its suppott. My daughter never made any claim upon him
for money to my knowledge. I lave that confidence in her to believe
that she would have communicated it to me if she had made any claim.

Take care, my good woman, what you say. Did you ever see a let.
ter in which she asked him for 60L?—Never.

What t not that ktter ? (handing a letter to her.)
Witness looked at the letter, and; after a little hesitation, she.admit-
ted it was in her daughter's writing. She also said, upon be!
by the Learned Counsel, that she meant she never heard of a Wartritshet:it
came to a settlement. The defendant had paid 51. for her daughter's
confinement, and 21. for things for the baby, independently of the weekly
allowance.

Miss Elisabeth Russell. sister to the plaintiff, stated that the de-
fendant came to reside at bee mother's house in 1824 or 1828. She
had bawd him say that he could earn iL a day. After he had desetted
her sister, witness asked him his reason for doing so, and he said
he had no reason. lie never said anything to the disparagement of
her sister on the occasion. He mentimed that he had VOL in a
savings' bank. Witness never saw her sister allow any one to take
improper liberties with her. When she charged the defendant with
being the father, he said he was very sorry, but he would not come
to any agreement. (A laugh.)
This witness was cross-examined upon some minor points, and it
appeared that she had said a great deal upon mere hearsay.
Ooxx then examined witnesses to prove, amongst other things,
that the defendant was owner of a house of considerable value,and failing
in that object, he stood forward himself as a witness, very much to the
astonishment of Mr. Phillips.

Mr. Ogle deposed that the defendant, three or four days ag ,
offered him 401. in settlement of the action. The offer was uncond.
tionaL Defendant said that the circumstances were very bad for him,
that he knew be behaved very ill to the young woman, that be had pro.
raised her marriage and not performed his pianist, for he fancied she
had been guilty of levity; that he wished to settle the action, but his
eircumstancee were indifferent ; and that be would give 401. together
with costs. Witness would not agree to the proposal. Defendant then
said be would take the benefit oldie Insolvent Act. Witness told him
be undeestood that be had a house worth a ososiderable sum, to which
be replied that it was worth 0001. but that it was mortgaged for 0001

Cross.alamined.—.Pray have you kept anything back in kindness to
the defendant ? Mr. Ogle.—Nothing, upon my Namur.

Did you teU him that you would use every word of this pdvate cam.
muniastion against him !—No ; I did not.

As you come forward youneU in such s manner, your object is, I
suppose, to enhance the d,amagss P—l most undoubtedly wish to en.
hence the damages.

Pray, is it your custom to get information from parties for the pur.
pose of giving evidence against them ?—No ; I should scorn to do soy.
thing of the kind.
Olt ! then it was because you failed in the evidense you produced,
that you offered your own ?—Certainly it was.
Mr. Punates..--Upon my word, you have distinguished yourself as
attorney, counsel, and witness: (laughter.)
Mr. Ogle complained of want of courtesy upon the part of Mr.
Phillips.
In the course of the cross-examination, which was excessively erten,
but upon points of no public interest,

Mr. Nature asked the witness whether he did not know that, in
the Secondaries' Court, ifs farthing damages were given, the defendant
would have to pay the costs ? Mr. Ogle replied that he really did not
know the fact. He had never once considered it. He must have read
and beard of it 500,000 times, but he really never gave it a thought.
Mr. Ogle's clerk was also examined, but nothing was elicited.
Mr. Nature then made a most able address to the Jury. He
looked upon the ease as a lesson to men on the confidence they reposed
in others ; but be bogged to be considered as totally excepting the general
practitioners in the law from the rule he wished to lay down. An attor-
ney had thought proper to undertake a cause in three different char-
acters, and had also the mock-modesty, after having determined to
try the experiment of a display in those distinct /*made% to
claim the indulgence of the Court to his inexperience. Indulgence he
certainly needed, for never had been 'famed so erroneous an estimate
of the duties of any one of the charaiters he had stepped forward to
perform. Had thete ever before appeared an instance in which a geo-
des= of the law, finding that his witnesses were unable to prove all he
wanted to prove, stepped into the box to fill up the defect himself ? To
be sure, he had tried his clerk first, and that- clerk had brought to
mind the story of Tim Flanagan, who happied to be clerk to an
Irish attorney, the terror of the poor; a man who charged
Bs. Bd. for a Wok, and raised his price for a word in proportion..
In drawing up his briefs, that worthy limb of the law regularly ap.
pended snots bene, " If the above is not enough, call my clerk Tim
Flanagan :^ (loud laughter.) But the Tim Flanagan of this case had
more conscience, and did not succeed in supplying the deficiency.
He left it for his master, who had heard and raid of a thing 500,000
times without knowing anything about it, to do that.—(Laughter.)—
Hr. Phillips said he would put it to the whole of the profeasion,whether
an attorney in such a situation as that which Mr. Ore stood in towards
the defendant, ought not, when an ignorant man app itd to him to settle
an action. to have cautioned that man as to the communication he was
about to make, and to tell him to consult his own legal adviser as to the
propriety of offering a comprotnise. In fact, there had been exhibited
upon the occasion a violation of confidence as an attorney, a gross nits.
take of business as an advocate. and a arrange propping-up ofa bad case
as a witness. The learned counsel then proceeded to comment in a very
powerful manner upon the we itself. The young lady had, he said, been
represented as a paragon of purity and virtue before her fall. Certainly,
I Lucretia was but a fool to bee. She had proved her claim to the reputation
which had been given to bar by the witnesses in the fullest manner, by
trying the experiment as to the chances of those domestic comforts which
some parents considered indispensable. But it was rather unfair to the
honest Welsh women, to say that they were in the habit of setting the
example to young Ladies who kindly allowed the consummation to
take place before the ceremony. No, no, the praeice alluded to, and
which existed perhaps a couple of hundred years ago in Wales, two.
taped no such leseoln.el‘/The oung Welshman was put to bed on the
handling occasion up in a perfectly harmless condition.
There amid be no upon the virtue of the female candidate
fee matehnony. But far different was the ease in the present instance.
Miss IL weld not stomach the bundling, and she insisted that Mr. Wade
should dispense with the inannbrance before the experiment was
tried (bud [slighter} It was not to be supposed that a young lady who
had consented to be so very kind. and who had regularly made a ecu-
niary claim for the favour she bad granted, weed feel very acutely the
loss she had sustained ; and it was to be hoped that the jury would
takes proper measure of the whole trausaction.
POTTS', in eummit up, stated that there was 00 impeachment
of lily._ogies credibility, although he certainly should have warned
the defendant of his intention to take advantage of the calumnies.
Lion made to him.
The Jury amused the damages at 101.
It is but justice to the young gentleman who appealed as' atasenlyi
counsel. and witness, to sate that he exerted himself with UNINIONniaI
activity to serve his client ; but the experintent was spoken of Ity,patorl
ral of die prof assay as a meet dimiteybus obit, piftlailarly in appeal.
don to the learned mindsotaa on the iintglitle, who Beastly diritiml
leave him a leg to eland upon.