The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGINCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
JIID©MENY•~IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD DAVIS, A

surrosen LUNATIC.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on taking his seat, delivered
tulgment in this matter to the following effect :
In this ease of Edward Davis, which was heard before
tne the other day at my house, I expressed, at that time,
Thy wish, and from the moment I heard the case up to the
present moment I have been desirous, if possible, to
avoid the necessity of issuing a Commission, on ac-
count of the great inconvenience that will result from it
in the particular business in which Mr. Edward Davis is
e;°ll!°Yed and also the great expcnce that must attend
the Inquiry, consequent on the issuing of such a commis-
:lnn. I was desirous that the Lustiness if possible should
on carried on under the superintendenoe of Mrs. Byewater,
Mother of Mr. Edward Davis, and that some arrange-
Inept Should be made for the comfort of Mr. Davis, in
"ter that the suggestions of the medical men, at least
"tot of the medical men, should be carried into effect.
ti.t is with grdat regret I find those suggestions
ye not been acceded to by the parties. It is necessary
therefores for me, upon the affidavits before me, to decide
whetter or not a commission ought to issue. I have read
the affidavits with attention, and upon the facts they dis-
%lose, and upon the medical evidence given in those affi-
davits, I think I have no alternative but to direct a com-
luiujon to issue. I don't at all pretend to say what will be
the result of the viva voce evidence upon the facts on which
t°7 ituignsent is formed ; but I think I should incur
it_N".".7 heavy responsibility, and expose Mr. Edward Davis
so very great danger (on the evidence before me), if I
sire_re not to grant a commission. I beg leave at the same
to luggest, though I don't mean for a moment to say
that,a what Mr. Edward Davis feels is well founded, yet I
tink, from the circumstances that have occurred) it will
"m every much to keep up his irritation and excitement
If should be continued in the place where he now is,
which should be avoided, and therefore I think it gill be
14.°Per to prepare another place for his accommodation.
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, who appeared for Mrs.
137exyater, said the last observation should be attended to.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was for Mr. Edw. Davis,
and submitted that as the enquiry could not be entered
'Von Without his client having the means of defending him-
self, and as there was a cash balance of 8001. in his
libelhands, those who represented him should be at
4iberty to resort to that fund.
114 LORDSHIP considered this reasonable, but hoped it
be
Would not be drawn upon to an extent beyond what should
found to be absolutely necessary.
Sir Cna.atas WETHERELL was aware that there might
be many Cases in which this might be proper, but be he-
lievell there was no authority to show, that the Court
could in point of jurisdiction make an order for the dis-
posal of such a fund in this way.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—One of two circumstances
must he established : either it will turn cut that W. Ed-
ward Davis is of sound mind, or that he is not; if he is,
then the fund will he entirely at his own dispo-al; if he is
not, the
Court, which will have to deal with it, will
sanction its outlay in this way.
,__This seemed to satisfy all parties, and the commission
'vs* ordered to issue.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
The Court was occupied till we left with hearing Pleas
a'l4
410 accounts Demurrers, involvint, principally questions of practice,
totally devoid of any public interest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
"lat. CO}
• IN lIIGH LIFF. -LORD BRANDON V. LORD

Th. ItT:LBOURNE.
" ", being fixed to cme on this morning, the
I
Court taw,
a prett well filled beforoe the usual hour of sitting.
a£Tnc Counaely retained for the plaintiff were Mr. Goa-
Ilnot•crrast, Mr. Poaaocr, Mr. C. Pitman's,
Gad Mr. Cor SON ; and fir the defendant, the ATTORNEY-
"itAL) s Mr. PLATT, and 3lr. AL-
Thenal,eox . 11.1.1A31.
Special Jury having been sworn,
Arr• t% C. Pitman's opened the pleadings:
' GIJANZT stated to the Jury that flat was an action
)3. the plaintiff, Robert William Lord Brandon, to re-
Foyer from the defendant, Lord Melbourne, compensation
dennages for criminal conversation with his wife. The
Ilartarit!ant pleaded " Not Guilty." The plaintiff married
then he was the Rev. Mr. Crosbie, azabeth Laeouche,
l''ho was aso most highly connected. They lived happily
together, and Lord and Lady Brandon had a daughter
jaaeithin three years after their marriage, who would now
tin to regret the loss of a mother, whom he had no
()tan ahe had now loiit from her misconduct. In the
3.ear 1823, the Rev. Mr. Crosbie had been presented with
it!weZlntl?le living in the county of Killarney in Ireland, and
ii,lLn
sHuoc'eg in Dublin. He then first became acquainted
tot Lamb, the present defendant, who had
peen ceeded to his title. The Hon. Mr. Lamb bad
'Ppointed Seatarr to the Lieutenant of Ire-
and, when he was introduced to Lor Ilan Lady Brandon,
i.,„4" continued to visit them on terms of the greatest hal-
CY. It was necessary for him (Mr. G.) to observe,
IQ the plaintiff was not a yonng man, in fact he was
r'!" the age of sixty. At that time his health was so bail
that it became necessary for him to leave Dublin, and he
/vita induced to come to England, and repair to Harrow-
Rate' and the baths at Buxton. He afterwards retuaned
roe,l? *ins and subsequently went to France, where he
itne Drted a letter which induced him to think that an
oPer intimacy existed between the defendant and Lady
t He returned, and her guilt was unfortunately
-gu
"TParent, as she suddenly quitted Dublin with her
a t. Her unfortunate husband was for a long time
w:B44nranger to her place of concealment, although, as he
to daughter from her care, he made
ever , . reserve their
kin} 'squirt'. At last, however, Lord Brandon ascer-
r ed that her Ladyship had arrived in Londan, and had
is pa 'edgings, first in Northumberland-street, afterwards
honz-dsrlianient-'street, and subsequently in the. neighbour-
-6f St. John's Wood, where she was living under an
thnned name ; and when the agent of his Lordship, who
thate reeovererl possession of his daughter, informed him
01: en doubt could be entertained of a criminal inter-
rae haying existed between them. Lord Melbourne had
ueen coming out of the house as late, 1;e believed, as
ree o'clock in the morning, and he should be able to
'l"rova hie having taken a hackney-coach, and ether means,
'),;°4l oleservation. At his Lordship's time of life and
;„-"'llnitY a divorce would be of very little consequence,
„),r-t ha felt it his duty to bring this action to clear up his
n character, and to show to the world char he had not Rlake
at the crime with which he now ged the de-
Illet• The Learned Counsel then called—
• hir• Magrath, who produced an extract of the mar-
tt cf Lord and Lady Brandon, which took place
th "othfarnham on the 3d May, 1815. Witness knew
e Revs Mr. Croshie, since Lord Brandon, and also Eliza-
Latouche, since Lady Brandon. First became ac-
taftl4eaid with them in 1822. Lord Brandon was very
‘4 ".I!ton•ate to Lady Brandon, but the latter did not seem
aetionate towards her husband as he was to her.
4 .74a-examined by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Had
know that Lord Brandon was turned of 58. Did not
beca-sionbe„ age of Lady Brandon. Had dined with them
NIA, any since 1822. Lord Brandon was not much in
Had known him, however, to stay there as long
I:o%;‘,',ek at a time. Continued to visit Lord Brandon,
absent net Ladyship, till 1826. Had known him to be
1,1: occasionally two or three months from Dublin.
tioo
of Learned Counsel deferred a further cross-examina-
into this witness, as lie did not, he said, wish to enter
TlPl:tticulars if they were uncalled for
wasalleYs Edward Moore, a nephew of Lord Brandon—
till Ithent et his marriage, and was with him frequently
irony 23* They appeared to live together with great bar-
Reect k Lord Brandon treated Lady Brandon with
in pit:tedoese. He bought her a house, and furnished it,
inen awilliam '
.aquare Dublin, and even went beyond his
taatir.El2 to "nipport her in an establishment worthy of their

tnrCrienrge Latouche, Lady Brandon's brother—Knew
thp. Lrandon intimately. They appeared to live toge-
,Ld'
1828. very good terms. Lady Brandon left Dublin in
sh er°%/4-exarnisied by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL7WIien
left Dublin, a member of her family accompanied her.
kb'e went to the house of her sister. She left from the
rtPrehea'ion that her daughter would be taken from her.
:‘‘74% arranged that witness should follow her, and that
11:it.nather brother should accompan her to England. Her
biiedr'' imaband C t Haiton,y was living near Ton-
dge tr'heraepshaenremained two or three months.
thil not know that she was under apprehensions of her
d being taame.
ken from her. She came to England under
n
t
I Sc.aser.zyr also deferred a further cross.examina-
an of this witness.
„LIP-Award INlacue had been in the service of Lord Bran-
,l; Went into his service in March, 1827,
_aiiinrir of 1827 witness knew Mr. Lamb, who dined
that
Lord in Dublin. In
and Lady Brandon frequently. In the autumn
'Ait year his Lordship had a paralytic attack ; he came
11 "gland and went to Harrowgate and Buxton baths;4:ftervrards went to Bath. He returned to Dublin in
10 1828. Ills Lordship then went to the baths of
46e, in France; he returned from there about March

last. WaneSs Went with a police officer to tate Latly
Brandon; found her resid;ng near St. John's Wood, with
her daughter ; that was on the 9 h of April last; her
daughter was then tak!ri from her.
Cross-examined—Loud Brandon left Dublin in No-
vember, 1827. He stopped at Dublin about sve or six
weeks after he had been to England, and before he went
to France. Her Ladyship was lift in the town house,
Dublin. Many other persons dined with his Lordship
as well as Mr. Lamb ; they kept the best company. They
received a good deal of company in the evening. Was
present when the young lady was taken away. The po-
lice officer had a pi-tol. His Lordship had a cottage on
the Lakes of Killarney, which was about two or three
hours ride front Castle. bland, where his glebe and pas-
turage were.

John Ambrose Wilkinson, husband to Mrs. Cardin, the
dress-maker of King-street, Soho, recollected a holy named
St. John being a customer in last November. She
was recommended by Mrs. Mirr, who keeps a house acid
lets lodgings in Northumberland-street. Had seen her
(Mrs. St. John's) servant, a foreigner, her name was
Rosaline. Did not know if she was in England at present.
Enquiry WJS made after Mrs. St. John after she left Mrs.
Marr's. Heard of her again in December or January last,
when she was living in Parliament-street, No. 21. Lost
sight of her again. She owed witness a bill, and he
afterwards found her in April at St. John's Wood-grove.
Mrs. St. John, he had heard since, is Lady Brandon.
Never saw her hut once, and that was as she was step-
ping out of a carriage in Northumberland-street.
Lord TENTERDEN—C4II somebody will prove some-
thing.—(A laugh.)
Mrs. Struthers lived at 28, Parliament-street; did so
in 1828 ; recollected Mrs. St. John coming in the latter
end of November 1828, and lodging with her; she had
a French maid whose name was Rosaline ;- she stopped
there ten weeks and a few days ; did not know where she
went to afterwards ; few persons visited her, but there
were inure than one came; there were two or three gen-
tlemen, but her own maid attended to the'door, and wit-
ness did not see much of them ; did not know Lord Mel-
bourne, or Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald, the Knight of Kerry.
Cross-examined—Ladies might have called, but not as
witness knew of.

Emma Marr, lived in Northumberland-street, and let
lodgings; Mrs. St. John came to lodge with her in the au-
tumn of 1828 ; she had a young lady and her maid with
her ; she stopped there two months and a half. Two
gentlemen called, one was a Mr. Dickenson, and the other
she did not know, he was a middle sized man, his name
was Lord Melbourne or Lord Mellyborough. A livery
servant brought some pine apples for Mrs. St. John, and
he himself came and stopped from eight o'clock to eleven ;
he said that the lady expected him, and the French ser-
vant showed him up stairs.
Lord THNTERDEN—CaI! any body else, will you, Mr.
Gurney.

William Hall war, in April last, a hackney-coachman,
and took up two gentlemen in Belgrave-square ; one gen-
tleman wore a cloak ; the other got out in Albemarle--
street; drove the first to Lisson-grove, when he got out,
and told witness to stop; he stopped, and the gent/eman
returned, and told him to drive to a house with white 01-
lais at Whitehall ; he then knorked at the door, and told
the servant to pay witness; the house in Lord Melbourne's.
Joseph Ealing was a hackney-coachman in April last,
and took a gentleman from St. James's street to Lisson-
grove, and stopped there fur him ; he came to him again
at Indf-past one, and witness then drove him to Melbourne
House ; he was a short gentleman.
Lord TENTEIMEN-You must bring it nearer than this;
you have not taken him to the lady's house yet.

Sir J. SCA IMETT—If there is any suspicion it must at-
tach to the short gentleman.—(Laughter.)
Joseph Mills, another hackney-coachman, took up a
gentleman who came out of Melbourne House. Did not
take much notice of him, but took him to Lisson Grove,
where he waited two hours till twelve o'clock, and then
brought the gentleman back to Melbourne House. Did
not see what house he went into at Lisson Grove, as he
got out and left witness in the road.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Lord TENTEUDEN-Call the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
GRINDALL V. LAWSON.
This was an action of trover brought by the plaintiff to
recover possession of a certain quantity of goods.
Mr. Serjeant Arinitrws was stating the cue to the
Jurv, when Mr. Serjeant WILDE, on behalf of the defen-
dant, said he was willing to refer the matters in dispute to
a gentleman of the bar, which was agreed to. A verdict
was in consequence returned for the plaintiff, with SOU
damages, subject to a reference.