Star.
London, England, 1830-07-19 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

COURT (W KING'S BENCH, JULY 17.

BARER V. WATFORD —Thia anti an action brought by the
nl.tintlff, who is an eminent chart and map maker, against the de-
fendant for having pirated a map of the county of Cambridge. It
Appeared that ftorn 1754 until 1821 there had been no new maps
made of the county of Cambric= and its vicinity. In the above
year a very magnificent map of Cambridge appeared, compiled and
published by the plaintiff: The map met with extraordinary suc-
cess, and it remained the only improved map until 18311, when *
map bn a much smaller scale appeared of the county, but with this
addition, taking in twenty-five miles round Cambridge, and come-
ourntly a part of seven counties. In the finftsmap which was
published there were the following errors—at the edge of a
river stands what was called Papsworth Park • this error also
found its way into the defendant's map. In describing the situa-
tion and boundary of the Isle of Ely, errors appeared in the large
map, and the same fault was in the latter map. In the plaintiffs
work a road was described as not being a turnpike road, when it was
one ; this also appeared in the other production. A gate was made
to exist in each which was not found on the road described ; there
were also errors in the great turnpike-road from Potsworth to Ely,
on each of the maps, and when the first map was made on surfer+
ng the county, no notice was taken of an excavation, because it bad
not been done ; although the pirated map was not published snail se-
veral years after, the same error was not rectified. In other pat"
of the smaller map there were additions and mile Blonds Endo wilt&
did not exist in the large map, and some of those error. whisk woe
described in each of the maps were to be found in the anlossamalt
maps published several years since...-Mr. Campbell aithilad die
Jury for the defendant, and contended that the maw alp was
not a copy or a piracy of the production of the plaintiff, and that
his client had made the survey of the county, assisted flow.the
older maps, which were published long before that of the plain-
tiff's work. Lord TENTEIDENSUITHNed up. Th(fie = after a
few minutes consultation, found a verdict for the t.
CONSISTORY COURT—SATURDAY.
DIVORCE ON AOCOUNT OF INCEST AND ADULTRIT.

C 171110116 CASE—MURTON v. Tuavorr—This was a ink pro-
moted by Mrs. Turton, daughter of General Brown, against her
husband, Mr. Turton, a barrister, fora divoroe, on the ground of
adultery and incest with her own sister, Miss Adeline Brown The
cue has excited much attention, and has been argued at considerable
length. The details we recently published. The Court gave Judg-
ment to day.
JUDGMENT.--DT. LTYSIMICITON observed, with reference to the
charge of adultery and incest, that the Counsel for Mr. Torten had
not denied the charge. The single question was, had Mrs Tartan
connived at the adultery. There was no one circumstance, however,
which imputed connivance to Mrs. T. although it had been said
there were sufficient reasons for suspicion. It appeared that Mrs.
T. on going to India, had agreed to forgive the past, and Miss
Brown subsequently joined them, and Mrs. T. ought then to have
resented the insult, and have separated from him. But this was a
case of no ordinary character, and he (Dr. L.) hoped it would never
be of frequent recurrence. Mrs. Turton had been placed in a peen-
liar situation. If she had separated from her husband at first, she
would have produced the exposure of her own parents and the dis-
grace of her own sister. She was without advice and under the in-
fluence of her husband, and throughout the painful occurrence bad
never shown any disregard of her own honour. The Court thought
that when such intercourse took place between persons so nearly
connected in blood, the justice of the case required that the wife
should be removed from a husband who had so repeatedly sinned
against her.—Divorce allowed.
THE LAST NEW MARRIAGE ACT.

WILTSHIRE V. ELIZABETH PRINCE, TALSELT CALLING
HERSELF WILTSHIRE.
This was a suit promoted by the father of a minor, Mr. Henry
John Wiltshire, to annul a marriage between the latter and a ser-
vant maid of the promoter's, who was stated to be thirty years of
age. The young woman had declared that she could not live with-
out marrying her young master, and it was contended that by • his
arts she had induced him, when nineteen years of age, and without
the knowledge of his parents, to put up the banns of marriage at St.
Bride's Church, in the name of Wiltshire, leaving Ottt Henry,
for the purpose of eluding detection. It was proved that the mar-
riage was solemnized, afterwards consummated at the Stroud Hotel.
Dr. DODSON offered no opposition on the part of the wife, end
the Court said it was the first time it had been called upon tit decide
on the 22d Section of the New Marriage Act, which provided that
when banns were not duly published, the marriage should be de-
clared null and void. The facts had been fully proved, and the Court
declared the marriage to be null and void.
WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.—Jusx 17.
John King, the proprietor of the Westminster pit, was indicted
by the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, for
the said pit, it being a common nuisance. Messrs. Phillips
Barry attended to support the information, and Mr. Criswell
appeared for the prisoner.
James Youins proved that a badger was kept there for the pur-
pose of being drawn by dogs, and that a bear was regularly baited
twice a week ' • also, dogs were pitted against each other to fight,
and that such was the nuisance to the neighbourhood from the,
yells of the animals and the shouts of the spectators, that many
persons had left their houses.
Joseph Shaw proved that, on the days appointed for fighting,
the concourse of dogs with chains is such, that it was rendered un-
safe for persons to pass through Duck-lane.
After a few words in mitigation from the counsel, the Court
charged the jury, and observed that such nuisances were no longer
to be tolerated. The jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty,
and the Court sentenced him to three months hard labour in the
house of correction.

D. Gompertz, Esq. the hon. secretary to the society, recom-
mended the prisoner to the lenient consideation of the Court, which
the Chairman said should have due attention at a future sitting.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JULY 17.

Harrison Flether, a clerk in the General Post-office, came up on
his petition to be heard.
An opposition had been entered on the book of the court against
the insolvent, but Mr. Nrcnou.s, the counsel for the opposing
creditor, said his client would be content with the assigneeship,
without pressing for a remand, provided the insolvent would give
up a portion of his salary for the benefit of his creditors.
The CHIEF Commisstowzn—lnsolvent, I perceive your income
is 901. a:year ; now what portion can you spare in liquidation of
your debts ?
Insolvent—lt is subject t o deductions, and I cannot spare uny,
part. I have lived rigidly, and cannot keep out of debt.
The Cams' Consussrowza—What family have you ?
Insolvent.-1 have a wife, no family ; yet I find my income in-
sufficient. _

The CHIMP Comxisatowza.—Sir, there are many families lie.
ing on considerably less funds. Let 10L a year be set apart fee the
purpose, and the Court appoints your client, Mr. Nicholls, to be the
assignee for carrying the same into effect. The insolvent, upon his
undertaking to pay 101. a year, was declared entitled to the bendt of
the act, and ordered to be discharged.
George Robinson, a jolly-looks fellow, fellow, was opposed by Mr.
WOODILOTTZ, on behalf of a Mr. Pratt.

Mr. CooKE appeared for the insolvent.
Mr. WoonaorrE.—You have been cook to a noble lord? (We
did not catch the name.)
insolvent.--Yes, Sir.
Mr. Coor---With good capon lined. (Laughter.)
From the further examination of the insolvent it appeared that he
had been formerly arrested, when he called his Bred tors together,
and made an assignment for their benefit, subsequent to which his
brother had purchased from him some duplicates.
The Ceizr CONXIIIIIIONER directed that the sum of 261. 161.
the value of the duplicate property, should be paid into court, and
that the discharge be stayed until the order of the Court was com-
plied with.
The insolvent said he had no doubt his brother would pay the
amount immediately.
George Houghton was by Mr. COOKE for Blain.
Hunter and Son and Messrs."l:Cresder and Co.

The examination was chiefly directed to the establishing of the
detaining creditor's debt, and the case was ultimately ordered to
stand over sine die, to produce the detaining creditors.
The key. Francis Woodcock came up to be heard. He was not
opposed. The rev. gentleman looked extremely Al, and the Court,
on being prayed to allow his discharge on the same day, complied
with the request of the rev. applicant.

TUE DUKE OF WELLINGTON ROUTED IST A WA-
FEaLoo Alay..—After the funeral ceremonies at St. George's
Chapel the Duke of Wellington would have returned to London
but his Majesty having desired the Noble Duke to meet him at th;
Castle at ten o'clock on Friday.morning, his Grace retired to Lady
Maryborough's seat at Fern-hill, in the Forest, for the night. The
next morning the Noble Duke came to the Cutle some time before
the hour appointed ; and, as the king had not arrived, his Grace
strolled into the Home Park, unattended, and dressed in his plain
black frock coat, which, together with his bat, was somewhat of the
dustiest ; when suddenly, as the Noble Duke was contemplatively
pacing the green sward near Hernes oak, the 'keeps of the lodge
at Waterloo gate rushed from hi. wicket, and bawled out to him—
" Hallos—you Sir !—keep off the grass !"—The Noble Duke looked
round ; and. seeing that there was no person on the grass but him.
sag, he instantly obeyed the peremptory order of the lodge-keeper,
and quietly betook himself to the common gravel walk. It is al,
most unnecessary to say that the lodge keeper did not recognise Ms
Grace ; or that, when he was informed thereof, he repented of whit
he had done.