Star.
London, England, 1808-06-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING's.BENCH, !UNE 4.

GUI V. MATTHVV.

The Plaintiff is the widow of an who lost his
life at the battle of Trafalgar. The Defendant was
formerly •an officer in the Somerset Militia. This ac-
tion was brought to recover, to the amount of 3201.
received b the Defimdant to the use of the Plaintiff.
After a stiort disclosure of the facts of tht• case by
Mr. Gannow,
Mrs. EleAnor Grey deposed, that the Defendant
had received 2501. from Colonel Herries, paid from
the Patriotic Fund, for the Plaintiff, and also 701. from
Messrs. Ross and Ogilvie, agents to the husband of
the Plaintiff. •

On her cross-examination, she said, that she liied
with the Defendant, and passed by his-name for six
years ; that her husband was alive, and was a brother
officer with the Defendant in the Somerset Militia ;
and that she had abandoned .Mr. Matthew, as he had
made an attempt upon her life.
Mr. PARK said, that he never -would treat persons
who were living in open adultery with the same r.-
spect he would others who came with a- pure moral
character before the Court. He said that his instruc-
tions supplied him with a clear
,ground of defence.—
Notwithstanding the Plaintilf knew of the irregular
connection of the Defendant and the witness, she, sus-
taining the reputable character of an officer's widow,
had condescended to become part of the same family
for sir months. During that time, the embarrassed
sate of the affairs of the Defendant made it necessary
fir him to quit Harley.street, where he resided ; and
on his so doing, in re-payment for the money he had
received for kccount of Mrs. Guin, he executed a bill
of sale in favour of the Plaintiff of all the valuable
furniture and plate in that establishment. He should
put in the bill of sale, accompanied by such, proof as
would satisfy the Jury. •
Mr. Burket being called, produced the bill of sale,
with an inventory, signed by the Plaintiff ; but Mrs.
Eleanor Giry being re-examined by his Lordship, it
appeared that the upholsterer had seised all the fur-
niture and valuables, and :that the Plaintiff had re-
ceived no -benefit from jhaElastrkiment, which wits
only prepared as an expedient to protect the efFeits
from the other &editors of the Defendant.—Verdict
for the Plaintiff. 3201.
, •

POOLE. If. :111i0Clitio

This was an action for damages ; the Defendant
having run a wheel-barrow over the foot of the child
of the Plaintiff, in consequence of which, a violent
swelling and inflammation ensued, which terminated
in an abscess; of which the child languished and died.
Before the case proceeded to aierdict, the matter was
referred to arbitration.

COURT OF COMM* P 1133, TUNE 4
NEEDHAM AND =IT D. CLAY AND OTHERS,

The Plaintiffs are brewers at Tottenham : the De
fendants are Directors of the Albion Fire and Life
Office ; and were subscribers to a policy granted by
that Office, for the insurance of the Plaintiffs. The
action was to recover 20981. Ss. the alledged amount
of a damage by fire, sustained by the Plaintiffs in No-
vember last. The Office, from the information of
the officers of Excise, and from other circumstances,
considered the•claim to be much beyond the amount
of the loss. The Jury were of the same opinion, and
' gave a verdict for 17391. 13s. 6d. being a deduction
of 3581. 9s. 6d. froth the sum claimed.