Star.
London, England, 1830-06-14 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE 12.
CONST V. HARRIS.—JUDOMEN't.—The LORD CHANCEL-
Lon, on coming into Court this morning, gave judgment in the
:shove case.

The question was, whether Mr. Robertson, who was appointed
by this Court receiver to Covent-Garden Theatre, was entitled
to 2:101. a.ycar, for certain duties he performed, in addition to
the 4001. a-year the Master had allowed him in his character as
Treasurer ?

His LORDSHIP, after detailing the facts at considerable length,
stated it as his opinion that Mr. Robertson had shown by his own
ecmiluct that lie had considered the 4001 a-year was intended to be
an entire substitute for the 2501. a-year he had previously received.
His lordship, however, thought he might be entitled to some remu-
neration for his services as box-book keeper, housekeeper, &c. for
it appeared the Master, in considering what his salary should be,
had not taken these offices into his consideration. His Lordship
was therefore of opinion that Mr. Robertson was only entitled
to 4001. a-year as receiver, without prejudice to any claims he
might be advised to make in his other characters as box-book
keeper and house-keeper.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 12.
Bur. L. v. Pa ICE.—The plaint iffis a surveyor. The defendant is the
landlady of the Key Hotel, Chandos-street. The Key Hotel being re-
qii ired to be taken down for the Charing.cross improvements, the de.
ter.dant unplowed the plaintiff professionally to attend to her In-
terests in the valuation of the premises, and entered into a written
contract to pay him 2 per cent. on the amount she should obtain
as compensation for the premises. The plaintiff valued the pro-
perty, and gave his professional attention in a manner that was not
objected to. The premises were valued at 4,0001. but it appeared
after the valuation, that owing to some Incumbrances affecting the
premises the defendant could not make a good title, in consequence
of which she was not paid the purchase-money, and she refused to
pay the plaintiff for his services. The plaintiff brought his action
to recover the amount of his commission. The defence made for
tile defendant was, that hot having obtained the purchase-money
she was not bound to pay the commission.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, before whom .he cause was tried, non-
suited the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Jtnirrs now moved for a rule to show cause why
the non'uit should not be set aside ; and argued that the terms of
the contract meant the establishment of the Plaintiff's right to re-
ceive a certain sum, at which her interest in the premises should be
valued, and could not be understood to bar the Plaintiff; by defects
in title, of which no Intimation had been given to him, and which it
depended on the Defendant herself to remove, but over which he
could exercise no power.
The COURT granted the rule to show cause.
CONSISTORY COURT, JUNE 12.
M'DONALD v. M'DONALD.—The Court gave judgment in this
case, which was a suit promoted by the wife against her husband,
Captain 1114 Donald, for adultery.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said the parties had been married in 1816, and
cohabited together till 1828, except on occasions when Captain
M 'Donald was on his duty. In 1828 the husband proceeded to
India, and on his return contracted an intimacy with Anna Patter.
son, and the adulterous intercourse was continued after his return to
this country. Dr. Lushington said the facts were dearly established,
and pronounced for the separation.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jaya 12.
THREE OF THE CREDITORS OF THE MESSRS. CRAM.
lIERS.—Mr. HUTCHESON applied to the Court on the part
of three of the creditors of the Messrs. Chambers, late bankers in
Bond-street, for a rule to show cause why the proceedings in an
action brought against them by Mr. Chambers the elder should not
be stayed. The ground of action was a breach of the covenants in a
deed of trust and management, executed by most of the creditors ;
and the reason alleged for this application to stay the proceedings
was the same as that stated by the Attorney General the day before,
vit. that the Mal of the case of Bernssconi and Farebrother would
decide all these cases—Rule granted.
REX v. DUKE Or BEAUFORT.—The defendant was ruled to
make a return to a writ, as lord of the manor or liberty of Gore, at a
time when there was no bailiff of the franchise, he who had before
held that office being dead, and no successor appointed. The Duke
of Beaufort sent the rule to his law agent, and took no other step.
A rule was then obtained to show cause why a distringas should
riot issue ; and for cause it was shown that the defendant had ap-
pointed a person of the name of Thomas to be bailiff; and that he
was the proper person to make the return.
Lord TENTERDEN thought it best to make the rule absolute,
as his Grace might make a return either personally or through
the medium of Thomas; and either way the return might answer
the purpose of the particular case, without mooting the point as to
which was the proper officer to make the return.—ltule absolute.
Lord TENTERDEN intimated that the London and Middlesex
new trials would be taken on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday.
JUNE 8.

Sittings at Nisi Prins, beforeCordTENTEaDzw and Common

Juries.

her."

BREACH Or PROIIIIIE 0; iIIRRIAGE.-TONEN V. HUME.
—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that this WSS an action for
breach of promise of marriage, brought by the plaintiff, Elizabeth
Jones, against the defendant, John Hume, who was a carpenter,
builder, and ur.dertaker, and possessed of considerable income. In
the year 182 S, the plaintiff's mother, with the plaintiff and h‘r
skter, took up their abode as lodgers at the defendant's house, in
Si. Ann's-lane, Aldersgate-street, and they continued to reside there
till the house was pulled down, in the autumn of last year. Afttr
tiny had been there a short time the defendant expressed an attach.
mutt for the plaintiff, who was the eldest daughter of Airs. Jones.
On hie return home in an evening he used to visit the family in'

their apartments, and partake of their little enjoyments; and he
frequently took occasion to commend the plaintiff and her sister for
I their industry, by which they were enabled to support themselves
' creditably, and contribute to the support of their aged mother. The
affection he had conceived for the plaintiff became manifest to the
mother, and after a short time he opened his mind to her, stating
how very uncomfortable he was in continuing a widower, and ex-
pressing his wish to marry the plaintiff. While continuing his at-
tentions to the young woman an event happened which had proved
very disastrous to her. The defendant on coming home one even-
ing, having ascertained that the mother and sister were from home,
introduced himself into the presence of the plaintiff, and under pre-
tence of a passion which he said he could not resist, conducted him-
self with great rudeness and violence towards her. The plaintiff
firmly resisted his attack, and by great exertion succeeded in pre-
serving her honour ; but her health, which was before delicate, had
suffered so much from this conduct, that from that time to the pre.
sent she had been disabled from obtaining her livelihood, as RiIC had
before done. For some time after this rude attack sic was seriously
ill, and was for several days confined to her bed. During her ill.
ness, the defendant expressed his regret for his conduct, and renew.
ing his protestations of affection for her, said he would make amends
for the conduct of which he had been guilty, by making her his
wife. His attentions to her were continued as before for some
time, but no definite time was fixed for the marriage ; and ulti-
mately, on being sproken to by the mother, he refused to fulfil his
engagement.
The plaintiff's sister, who had lately married a person of the name
of Hunter, deposed to most of the facts stated by the learned Coun-
sel. Her father, she said, died about 26 years ago, when she and
her sister, the plaintiff; were very young. The plaintiff wa. now 29
years of age. The defendant first made her an offer of marriage
when she and her mother had been in his house about five months.
He said he was tired of living a single life. The plaintiff and her-
self (witness) were child-bed linen workers. The plaintiff was quick
and clever at the business, and used to earn a guinea a week--some-
times more. She was seriously ill after the defendant's ill-usage of
her, and did not expect to live. Her neck and arms were hurt, and
she was bad in the head in consequence of the violence used. Dur-
ing her illness the defendant conducted himself very kindly towards
her—sent her oranges and biscuits, expressed his regret for what he
bad done, and said he would make her amends by marrying her.
Cross-examined by Mr. Denman—May I ask whether your
marriage with Mr. Hunter was in consequence of an advertisement ?
Witness—Oh, no; I never looked out for advertisements of that
sort ?
Mr. DixstaxPerhaps you put an advertisement in ?
Witness—No; I could get a husband without advertising.—
(Laughter.)
The witness stated, in answer to further questions, that she knew
a Frenchwoman of the name of Rubastine, but denied that she (Ma-
dame Rubastine) ever wrote love letters, or any other letters for her
sister (the plaintiff) or herself.
Mr. DENMAN—Mr. Hume is a very jocular good-natured man,
I believe?

Witness—Tea; perhaps too much so.
Mr. Dzwx.or—Do you mean that he sometimes takes a glass too
much ?

Witness—No; I mean that he is too jocular.
Mr. Dnltsuss—Have you not seen him come home in an even.
in g rather merry, from having had a little too much liquor.
Witness--Yes, 1 may have seen him so, just as I may have seen
you, or any other gentleman.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. DENMAN—He was, I believe, particularly attentive to your
sister at those times when he was elevated ?
Witness--Yes; but more attentive when he was sober.
Mr. DExmAx.—Now did you never see hint do any gallant
thing to your sister—such as a salute ?
Witness—Oh, yes ; that was common. I should think he would
have been a very curious sort of a lover if he did not do that.—
(Much laughter.)
Mr. Dzstauw.--Have the goodness to look round and see if you
can discover Mr. Hume in Court.

Witness—There he is—(pointing to an old bald-headed man with
spectacles, who was sitting immediately under Mr. Denman.)
Mr. DENNAN-..11l that him ?

Witness—Yea-40mi laughter.)
The old man immediately stood up and exhibited hiniself to the
lury. He appeared to be at least 60 years of age. He was very ill
ooking, of dark complexion, with a flat face and shabbily dres•ed.
His appearance excited much laughter.
The plaintiff's mother was the next witness. She corroborated
the testimony of the sister. The defendant, she said, appeared very
fond of the plaintiff. He used sometimes to put his hand on her
shoulder, and sometimes on her knee. On one occasion, when mar.
riage was spoken of, he said, with an oath, that they could do with.
out parson or clerk—to which the plaintiff replied, that "she had
begun upon honour, and should continue so."
On her cross-examination the witness said that her daughter, the
plaintiff, was " a virtuous character, and would not agree to the
defendant's terms, and that was the reason why he broke off with

Mr. DEW MAW, for the defendant, said, the Jury would soon be
convinced that his client had made no promise of marriage. Ile was,
it appeared, a gentleman of rather a jocular turn of mind, and being
more merry at night after he had been drinking than he was in the
morning when he was sober, he had led the young woman to believe
that he was in love with her.

Several witnesses were then called for the defence, among them
were a Mr. Wheatley, a watch and clock maker of Hammersmith,
and a Mr. Cousins, a builder at Kensington, who both deposed to
their hearing him refuse to marry the plaintiff:
Isaac Stone, one of the defendant's apprentices, whose time ex.
pired about three years ago, stated, that defendant used to come
home every two or three nights in the week drunk—beastly drunk.
The plaintiff was with him at all times of the night. Witness saw
this old man taking such liberties as he (witness) should not take
himself. The plaintiff never resented the defendant's conduct. She
was always with him ; and when he was out, she was frequently
coming down stairs to see if he had returned.
Mary Ann Hubastine, a sedate-looking Frenchwoman, stated that
she got her living by working at her needle, and writing letters for
ladies and gentlemen. She knew the plaintiff, and had done work
and writing for her.
Mr. Ds/maw—What did she ever desire you to do ?—She em-
ployed me to write to a gentleman of the name of Marsh.
What was the subject ?—The subject was love--disappointed
love. On that occasion she made me write as if she had poisoned
herself.

Was she 'present at the time you wrote?—Yes ; she was sitting
by me. She produced a bottle of laudanum which she had
purchased.
Did you write to any other gentlemen for her ?-- To Mr. Holt and
another gentleman. I don't know who any of the gentlemen were :
one was in the china line.

Any other gentlemen ?--1 wrote once to Mr. Hume for her.
That I believe was about a year and a half ago.
Did you ever write for her sister ?—Yea ; her sister once called on
me, and I wrote for her.

Cross-examined by the Avroawatr.GEwEaat—What is your
business ?—Writing and working at my needle.
Do you tell fortunes P—No, Sir; but I have told my own bad
enough.
On what subjects do you write P—On any subject that my pen Is
called for.

Love letters, 1 suppose ?—No ; not those in particular.
But your forte Is more in that way I suppose ?—No, Sir, I write
on any subject.
Do you write for gentlemen as well as ladies ?—Yes, if they will
employ me.
Do gentlemen often come to you ?—They do.
Do you write for them on subjects of an amatory natute ?
I very often write for them on subjects of business, as well as of
pleasure.
I wish to know your charge for a letter ?—A shilling for an Eng-
lish letter ; Is. 6d. for a French one ; and 2s. for an Italian.—
(Laughter.)
Is this the first time you have been examined as a witness P—l
was never in a court of justice until now ; and I never before took
an oath in my life.
Mr. DzxstAx—Did the plaintiff, Miss Jones, employ you to
write her letters in English, French, or Italian ?—in English.
A woman, named Martha Kirby, stated that the plaintiff gave
directions to Madame Itubaqine to write sonic of the lettets at her
(witness's) house. Two of them were written to the defendant.
Ann Fitton, who had been in the defendant's service, stated, that
she once heard the plaintiff ask the defendant whether he intended
to marry her ? and he replied that he was too old for a wife. The
witness heard the plaintiff say that if she could get her bread as she
used to do, she never would look at the defendant, but that she
wished him to marry her as be had a good home.
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL then replied, and the Jury, after
consulting for a short time, found for the plaintiff—Damages, one
hundred and fifty pounds.
StittßEY SESSIONS, JUNE 12.

Sarah Arnold was indicted on the oath of Richard Arnold (her
husband) charged with violently assaulting and ill treating his in.
Pant son (by a former wife) on the 4th day of June inst. The pri.
loner pleaded guilty, and also prayed, in mitigation of punish-
ment, that she was quick with child.
The CHAIRMAN regretted her accouchtment was so near, and
sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned in the common county jail
for three calendar months.

John Ncoensan, the younger, was indicted for stealing from the
person of Joseph Sears (a seaman) four 51. (notes, two sovereigns,
and 'tome silver, his property. The poor Jack Tar stated that on
the 20th of April last, he arrived at Portsmouth, in his Alaiesty's
ship Spartan, from a foreign station. On the Zild he was paid off.
Witness was a native of Maidstone, and was desirous of xisitlng
his relatives at that place. The moment be came on shore, he en.

gaged a berth on bawd a fly van for London, and strived as far as
Guildford, where be stopped and took some refreshment—the van
got under wails, sod Lk poor Jack behind. For the purpose of
overtaking it be took a port-chase, but on thejeusney be fell asleep,
and on awaking found the prisoner by his side. Witness put his
hand in his pockets and found that all his mosey was gone: he
instantly taxed the prisoner with the robbery. Witness received,
when he sou paid off, four five-pound notes and four sovereigns.
Thomu Morris, the post-boy, said the prisoner asked for a ride,
and got into the chaise. Two persona from Guildford produced
two five-pound notes received from the planer, who was indebted
to them. They gave the change to the prisoner, after deducting
the amount of their debts. In their cross.examination by the
Court, they said the prisoner bad been many months out of employ,
and during that time bad no visible means of supporting himself.
The Jury instantly found the prisoner Guilty, and the Chairman
sentenced him to seven years vsasportstion. The sailor said be
had lost all he had in the world. The Court allowed the poor tar
his expenses.