The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-05 00:00:00

, ~
i ...1•.• ; Y , r -
. ,•, - ••'• - * • • -•': '
•
. ''F'4'.
_
• •
( '.'.
/ -„11•'*:•••••••••••:, , • -.'•-. ..'•• , ~, '. .
••••",'4l,'• '‘`,•' • ..7","
i',.., IA:
k • 474., t •,..t. ~ \ i
, ~ *-, I :,. -
,
--.-----,-----....: ' ~
• -r- 1 -,„*.,
1,::'.. ;.',L / •••;•:,T (...,...
C_ :1..'
- ••••,::

27.

PRICE 7D.

LAW INTELLIGENOE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 4

LEE V. JACOB AND ANOTHER.
In this case the Injunction was dissolved.

DRAYCOT AND ARCHER.

In this cause, which was argued some months '
ago before the late Vice-Chancellor, his Honour
proceeded to give judgment. The cause of dis-
pute was, whether an agreement to the following
effect was valid :—A father settled upon his daughter
and her husband an annuity of 501. a year, upon con-
dition that, if they separated, the husband should
allow his wife an annuity. of 501. a year. The prin-
cipal objection raised against the performance of
this agreement was, that it was against the policy of
marriage.
.The VICE-CHANCELLOR, however, decided that he
was bound to admit the agreement. The objection
that it was against the policy of marriage did not in-
fluence him. A valuable consideration was given
for the annuity, and therefore be must consider it
valid.

IN RE RIO DE LA PLATA ASSOCIATION.

This was an application on the part of Sir John
Harington, Sir George Duckett, and Barber Beau-
mont, members of the Rio-de-la-Plata Association,
that they might be allowed to pay the sum of 9,000/.
into Court. It appeared that a lady with an ex-
traordinary and a lon name, had agreed to sell to
the Association a portion of land consisting of 75
square leagues.' On the 31st of March, 1825, an
agreement was entered into between this lady and
the Association, through her agent in London, who,
as we understood his mime, was called Josephe
Auguste de la Zaure,—that this portion of land
should be sold to the Association for the sum of
36,0001., which was to be paid in payments of
9,000/. The first payment was to be laid out in
Exchequer Bills, and vested in the joint names of
the parties. Before the Ist of November, 1826, the
Association was to pay another sum of 9,0001., the
second instalment, and the lady was to take the Ex-
chequer Bills, together with the 9,000/., on the con-
dition of her making out a good title to the property
for sale, and conveying the same to them. Under the
faith of this agreement the Association sent out
settlers; but a difference having arisen as to the
title, the agent of the lady, in London (with whom the
Association had also covenanted to purchase land)
agreed to forego his engagement, and to cancel the
former agreement, and make a new one to the effect
that, upon the condition of the sum of 9,0001. being
paid down immediately, the fourth part, or the land
in question, -should be immediately conveyed, with a
good title, to the Association. The lady, however,
refused to accede to this agreement as soon as she
heard of it, and turned the settlers off the land, de-
claring that she was ready to make a good title un-
der the original agreement, and insisting upon the
performance of that agreement.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR could not make the or-
der for the payment of the money into court. From
the evidence before him, there was a Clear agree-
ment to purchase, which agreement had not been
fulfilled. The motion, therefore, must be refused
with costs.

THE ASSIGNEIICOF FAUNTLERoy V. THE AIIICAISLE IN

SURAI,TCZ CONIPANT.

Mr. CoE moved that the sum of 6,0001., due upon
a policy upon the life of the late Mr. Fauntleroy,
might be paid into court.
Mr. Sxißßow wished the payment to be delayed
until the Lord Chancellor had decided the question
-before him whether the assignees were entitled to
this money. .

The VICE-CIIANCELLOR said it was a motion of
coursei be paid into and the money must Court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER, DEC. 4,

DAVID DOWSETT, AN INFANT, BT JOHN DOWSETT,

lIIS FATIIER V. KELLY.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE (with whom was Mr. TAL-
FOURD) stated the case. The action was brought
by the infant plaintiff, a child under ten years pf age,
to recover compensation in damages for the very
severe injury he had received, in consequence of the
negligent driving of the defendant.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH said, it appeared to him
that the accident arose from neglect, therefore
the plaintiff was entitled to recover; but for what
amount it would be for the Jury to say.
The Jury, after having deliberated for some time,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 50s.

COURT OF CONDELEGATES, DEC. 4.
HENLEY AND DUDDERIDGE V. MORRISSON.
This was an appeal from the Admiralty Court, in
a suit respecting a mariner's wages. It came before
this Court on a prayer of the appellant's counsel for
the admission of the libel, which was opposed by the
Counsel for the respondent, the mariner.
The COURT inquired whether it was within the
scope of their Lordships' authority to hear and decide
a question as to the admissibility of a libel, without the
opinion of the common law Judges in the commission.
The Counsel on both sides were unacquainted
with any such precedent.
Much discussion ensued between Dr..DODSON and
Dr. JESSE ADDAMS, the Counsel for the parties, and
the Court, on this point.
The COURT finally declined making a precedent,
and determined that the question must be heard and
decided before the whole commission.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, pre. 4.
GREEN 2% BURGESS.
plaintiffT h eAiTvaTsoßaNgiElsdrreGr EaNlE,dßAfLramstae.tmedaitihiufaeturer, and
the defendant was a gentleman of great respecta-
bility,s case. The
who for many years had acted as attorney. to
the late
characteroat of his
theconnection
withpresent
cause of action arose. Mr. Shc:idan had a picture
of his first wife, Miss Linley, executed by Sir
Joshua Reynolds. Wishing to have a copy of it, he
tha Mr.
distinguishedSherid an. Itwas
sent it, without a frame, to Sir W. Beechey to get
copied; but for some reason or other he never de-
manded its return, but allowed both the original and
the copy to remain on Sir W. Beechey's hands,
Mr. Sheridan having married a second wife, was
perhaps not so anxious to retain a memorial of his
first wife as he previously had been; but his friend
(Mr. Burgess) was not quite so lukewarm on the
subject. Having heard, after Mr. Sheridan's death,
that the original picture of Mrs. Sheridan by Sir
Joshua Reynolds, and also a copy of it, were in the
possession of Sir W. Beechey, he proposed to that
artist that he should take them, informing him that
lie had formerly had a promise of them from Mr.
Sheridan, and had expected to have received them
as a bequest by Mr. Sheridan's will. On receiving
an
Sir indemnity\v. Beechey
fo givingpai.ted up‘i
titlhebootliginpailctuproerstrati to,
the price of the copy from Mr. Burgess, and also ,
that gentleman. Sir W. Beechey had, however,
framed the original picture whilst in his possession ;
and it was therefore necessary to make some arrange-
ment respecting the value of the frame. Mr. Burgess
in consequence said to Sir W. Beechey, " Send your.
gilder to me, and I will order him to make for any
of your pictures a frame equal in value to that which
lam taking from you." Sir W. Beechey assented
to this proposal, and some time afterwards sent the
present plaintiff, Mr. Green, to the present defend-
ant, Mr. Burgess, to receive orders for a picture-
frame valued at 15 guineas. Mr. Burgess gave Mr.
Green the:necessary orders, and in pursuance of
them a picture-frame was delivered at Sir William
Beechey's. When the day of payment came, Mr.