The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-06 00:00:00

some part of the settlement proposed by the Master, because the
settlement seemed to have been drawn on the principle on which
such settlements were drawn where the parties had acted in con-
tempt of the Court. Whe❑ parties acted properly, the disposition
of the Court was, in making these settlements, to leave to the par-
ties the power of testifying their satisfaction of each other's conduct
throughout life, by having a future power, in part, of disposing of
their property in a way that might be considered best.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
MITCHELL V. RE3INANT.

I❑ this case an application was made on the part of a purchaser,
under the decree of the Court, praying that it be referred to the
Master, to inquire what damage had been done to the premises in
question, in the interval between the purchaSe and the delivery of
the possession of them to the applicant.
Mr. Rosa appeared in support of the application, he stated,
that when the matter was last before the Court, His Honour di-
rected that the purchaser should proceed by action at law, and it
having then been presented to His Honour, that the alleged
devastation had been committed before the execution of the
deed of conveyance of the premises to the purchaser, al-
though after the terms of the sale had been finally
arranged, his Honour directed that the deed in question should
he antedated ; with the view of meeting that objection Mr. Rose
was now instructed to say, that the measure recommended by his
Honour could not be resorted to with success, as the tenant of
the premises would be at liberty to give evidence in a Court
of Law of the antedating of the deed, in order to chew that
the purchaser had no legal right to the premises when
the alleged damage was done to them. So that the
purchaser on going to trial, would have on the one hand the con-
solation of his Honour's opinion in his favour; but on the other
hand he would have the certainty of being nonsuited : under
these circumstances, he was again under the necessity of renewing
his original application; an application, which he (Mr. Rose) did
all in his power to discountenance, as he always did, and would con
ti nue to discourage any proceedings in the Court of Chancery founded
upon an alleged injury to the extent crf fifteertpotreds, for the loss here
complained of did not exceed that sum. His client was, how-
ever, of a different opinion ; he felt that his rights had beed out-
raged, and to obtain redress he was ready to encounter the over-
whelming expenses of a Chancery suit.
The VICE CHANCELLOU said, that the mere reference to the
Master would exhaust a much larger sum than the loss complained
of. If no other mode, however, of obtaining relief, presented itself,
the Court must feel it its duty to yield justice to the•purehaser,
even at that expense. It had been represented to his Honour,
that the tenant could give evidence in a Court of Law, that the
deed of conveyance had been antedated, and thereby subject the
purchaser to a nonsuit.--A very easy remedy, however, was to
he found for this difficulty. " Let the purchaser (said his Honour)
be at liberty, in any action brought for this alleged damage, to use
the name of the vendor upon indemnifying the vendor against the
costs of such aetion."

COURT OF KING'S BENCII.
VIE WAKEFIELD&

A writ of certiorari having been obtained last week,' for re-
moving the venue in this case, from the County of Lincaster into
the Court of King's Bench,
Mr. Sergeant CROSS moved this day for a rule to show
cause why the indictment should not be referred back

to the County of Lancaster, to be there tried at the next
Assizes. This indictment for misdemeanour, was preferred
against two persons who were bound to appear at the last Assizes,
on which occasion one of the defendants was allowed to traverse
his trial until the next Assizes, the other was bound to take his

trial then, but he absconded, and forfeited his recognizances.
Matters remained In this state until the 2d of the present
month, when one of the defendants, Edward Gibbon Wake-
field applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari, to re-
move the indictment out of the county of Lancaster into
this Court, whereby one of the defendants has entered into
recognizances.

Mr. Justice BAILEY.—Have they not both entered into re-
cognisances.

Mr. Sergeant CROBB.—No, my Lord, Mr. William Wakefield
has not appeared in this Court, nor has he entered into any re-
cognizances. The writ of certiorari was applied for on two
grounds ; the first was, that it-was a fit subject on which to take
the united opinion of their Lordships; the other, that it was with
a view of having the trial removed to a neighbouring county,
it being alleged that it was impossible for the defend-
ants to obtain an impartial trial in the county of Lan-
caster, on account of the prejudice which prevailed there
against them. The grounds alleged for this prejudice were
two paragraphs which were published in the Macclesfield Courier,
(a paper of extensive circulation in the county of Lancaster) re-
flecting on the conduct and character of On defendants and their

Mr. Justice BAILEY—Does their affidavit state by whom the
Macclesfield Courier is published.
Mr. Sergeant CROSS—It does, bet that can have no effect on
a Jury. The only cause from which they apprehend prejudice is
the extensive circulation of that paper ; but it was a sufficient
answer to that, that no more than forty numbers of that journal
were sent into the county of Lancaster, among a very extensive
population, and that the two paragraph; complained of were
copied and published in every paper in the kingdom, so that the
prejudice derived from leading them may be as prevalent in
every other county in this kindom as in Lancaster. The Learned
Sergeant observed, that if their Lordships did not grant the pre-
sent application, the consequence would be a delay which might
prove an obstruction and a final prostration of public justice. By
granting this application, the defendants could be tried in two
months, and one of them would be there in person to satisfy the
judgment of the Court. If the case went down to trial, as it
now stood, the defendants need not be present ; and he had an
affidavit on behalf of the prosecution, which stated that it would
not be safe to go to trial, unless the defendants were present.
Mr. Justice BAILEY—Your motion is only for one indictment-
Mr. Sergeant CROSS-The application for the writ of certio•
rari was founded on the affidavits of Mrs. Frances Wakefield and
Mr. Edward Gibbon Wakefield. The two affidavits are sub-
stantially the same, and vary only in the names--they were both
bound to appear. My application is, therefore, to have both
indictments referred.—Rule granted.

HINDLICT V. THE MARQUIS OP WESTMEATH.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff for the sum of
52/. 195., being the amount of goods with which he supplied
Lady Westmeath about seven years ago, while she lived separate
from ber husband. It came on for trial some time ago, when it was
referred to an arbitrator, who decided in the defendant's favour.
The plaintiff subsequently applied to this Court to set aside the
award when it was agreed to make it a subject of a special case.
It accordingly came on, and was argued by Counsel this day.
The Couar were unanimously of opinion that the decision of
the arbitrators should be confirmed, and a verdict entered for the
defendant ; a husband was not by law liable for debts which his
wife contracted while she lived separate from him unless
the separation was by his consent. The arbitrator has, in
this case, found that Lady 'Westmeath had lived separate
from her husband at the period in which she contracted
this debt, contrary to his wishes. When a husband drives
his wife away, he gives her personal credit, but when she goes of
her own accord, whoever trusts her, does-it at his own peril. It
appears that there were two deeds of separation between Lord
and Lady Westmeath, the one made in 1817, the other in 1818 ;
but it also appears, that they both lived together and had a matri-
monial connection, at the periods when the deeds were dated, and
for some time subsequently, for Lady Westmeath brought forth a
son to Lord Westmeath, about 12 months after. By virtue of
the deeds, Lord W. was bound to give 1,8001. a-year to trustees
for the use of Lady W., whenever a separation should take place ;
the Court were of opinion that both the deeds were invalid, in as
much as Lady Westmeath lived with her husband at the time,
and be consequently should be liable for any debts which she con-
tracted, while by the deeds he was obliged to pay 1,3001. a-year
to the trustees for her use, which would be inconsistent with
justice; before a person gave credit to another man's wife, he
should see the deeds of separation ; the proper persons to sue in
such a case would be the trustees to the deed, who are bound to
recover from the husband the sum he undertakes to pay for his
wife. Under all these circumstances the Marquis of Westmeath
was not liable for the present debt, nor were the trustees named
in the deeds, which were not valid; therefore Lady Westmeath
was the proper person to sue.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
The Court was occupied, this morning, in hearing causes of no
general interest.