The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-14 00:00:00

COOL V. LEONARD AND ANOTHER.

This was a case tried at the last Gloucestershire Assizes, the
oircurnstances of which were rather novel and peculiar, and were
these—the plaintiff was a foreigner, whose profession was that of
travelling throughout the kingdom, exhibiting a dromedary and
some monkies. In pursuance of his calling, in the town
of Stroud, he seemed to have given offence to some of those moral
and purity protectors, usually known by the name of " Charlies"
or watchmen, who thought the town of Stroud ought not to
have such visitors as those of dromedaries and monkies, conse-
quently it was deeermined, by one of those interfering gentry,
and also a person calling himself b, police-officer, to . remove this
foreigner and his animals. They went to where they were, drag_
ged out the plaintiff from where he was, struck and threw him
down, opened a shed, at five o'clock in the afternoon, where the
animals were, took them out, and walked them out of the town.
An action was brought by the plaintiff for a trespass and an as-
sault, which was tried before Mr. Justice Burroughs, and
he was of opinion that the defendants ought to' have
had notice of the action, under what was called the " Stroud
Act of Parliament ;" and he, therefore, directed the Jury to
nonsuit the plaintiff. It now came on to be argued upon
the
question why that verdict should not he set aside and a new trial
had. After it was fully argued, the Court declared their opinion
to be, that there was no pretence for nonsuiting the plaintiff. The
Actct ;
of
and
the ParliamentiartrNelreVsd
onthereferable to this ease was, the part
that provided for the appointment and duties of watchmen.—
Watching, Lighting, Paving, &c.
A
It had been contended that they had thus interfered to remove
a nuisance; but it did not appear to the Court, from the
evidence given on the trial, that the dromedary, &c. had been
a nuisance even in the day-time, by having collected a crowd of
persons or otherwise, when alone, under any pretence, the animals
could have been removed on the ground of nuisance. A watchman
had no right to interfere, until he went on duty, during the hours
at night • no ground whatever, could he open a shed, in the
, • on
due execution of his duty, and take out the animals as had been
done. There was no pretence here for saying that either the
defendants or the persons who had appointed them to do this
act, could have supposed that they were authorised to do it, and
therefore the Court set the nonsuit aside.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS.
EASTWICR V. THORNTON.
This was an action brought to recover from the defendant the
cum of 64/. 1 s., a which 601. were for his passage from China
to this country, and 4/. Is. for goods sold to him during the
"Yage. It appeared that the plaintiff was Captain of the

ship Asia, the defendant had also been the captain of a ship
which traded in the Indies. Both parties met at Canton, in
China, at a period when the plaintiff was about to sail
for this country, and on learning that the defendant was reduced
in his circumstances, and wished to come to England, he pro-
posed to take him for 601. being half the usual fare, and accord-
ingly landed him at Portsmouth, and he, plaintiff, set sail thence
to Hamburgh and his ship was lost in the passage. He made se-
veral applications subsequently to the defendant for the amount
here sought, who always promised, but still failed to pay it.—
The passage of the defendant, and his several promises to pay the
601. having been proved, the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages, 601.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, (GUILDHALL.)
THOUR.T V. GREAVES.
The Court was occupied the whole of the morning in trying
this case, which was for the balance due on a contract between
the parties. The trial was not finished when we went to press.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. LONG.

The. Court was occupied during the whole of the morning inlear-
ing this case, which was not concluded when we went to press. The
history of the case was, that a party of the Preventive service, on
the Southampton coast, had fallen in with a smuggler in Oct. last,
which after they had hooked, they had parted from, and lost sight of;
subsequently, the Adelaide was seized, on the supposition that she
was the smack ; but the captain had claimed her, on the ground
that she was not the vessel, and the question to-day for the jury
was whether the Adelaide was the smack ?

CONSISTORY COURT.
(Before Sir C. RoniNsoN.)
' WEBB V. WEBB.

This was a suit for a divorce by reason of adultery.

Dr. Lusffrnorox appeared for Mr. Webb, who, he stated,
was an attorney, residing at Bath.• The parties married in the
year 1802, and the alleged adulterous intercourse was stated to have
taken place in August and September, 1825, when Mr. Webb
was at the sea-side, whither he went in consequence of the illness
of one of his children. During his absence, it was pleaded that
Mrs. Webb admitted the frequent visits of Mr. Hooper and Mr.
Smallcomb, and that an adulterous intercourse was carried on be-
tween those two persons and Mrs. Webb. Upon Mr. Webb's re-
turn to Bath in the month of November, 1825, he found prepara-
tions made in the drawing-room for the entertainment of visitors.
and entertaining some suspicion, he searched the house, and dis-
covered Messrs. Hooper and Smallcomb, in the female servants'
apartment. After this discovery Mrs. Webb withdrew herself
from her husband's house, and the parties ceased to cohabit.
The acts of adultery were clearly set forth in the libel, and some
witnesses had been examined in support of it. On the part of
Mrs. Webb, a responsive allegation was given in, which the
Learned Counsel contended, was filled with matter totally irre-
levant, and which ought to be excluded. It set forth
that Mr. Hooper and Mr. Smallcomb, the persons named
in the libel were in the habit of frequenting Mr. Webb's
house for the purpose of carrying on a clandestine
intercourse with the female servants, one of whom was subse-
quently delivered of an illegitimate child. It also stated Mr.
Webb had recovered damages to the amount of 1001. from Messrs.
Hooper and Smallcomb for the loss he had sustained, in conse-
quence of the seduction and subsequent confinement of this ser-
vant. The Learned Counsel argued that those circumstances
were quite immaterial, as were the declarations alleged to have been
made by Mr. Webb after the separation. He was stated to
have said, that he would keep his wife without money,
to drive her into the streets, and that as she was a pretty
woman she would be sure to pick up somebody. Nov
this might be highly improper of Mr. Webb, but it had nothing
to do with the guilt or innocence of his wife.

Dr. JENNEic on behalf of Mrs. Webb, contended that the cir-
cumstances pleaded in the responsive allegation were most impor-
Aant.. If it were proved that the servant had carried on an inter-
course with Messrs. Hooper and Smallcomb, it would discredit
her testimony against Mrs. Webb, as it might be inferred that she
would charge that lady, to throw the disgrace off herself.
Dr. LusniNcroN trusted his Learned Friend did not mean to
contend that a slip like that would discredit the testimony of any
servant, or it was to be feared that there could not be a competent
witness found in all Bath.

Sir C. ROBIN Sox thonght the responsive allegation must be ad-
mitted, but that some of the articles might he struck out, and others
abridged. He therefore ordered the allegation to he reformed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY).

QUEEN-SQUARE.

HORRID DEPRAVITY—ROBBING PARENTS.—SamueI Stonc,
a youth about 15 years of age, was charged by his father with
divers acts of robbing, and Phillip Gorinan, a dealer in marine
stores, was also charged with purchasing the said property, well
knowing it to have been stolen.
The prisoners were both fully committed for trial, and the
parents of the youth bound over to prosecute.

LONDON SESSIONS.—(Tms DAY.)

Before the LORD MAYOR, Aldermen, Sheriffs, &c.

MATRIMONIAL FRACAS.--Jahn Carpenter, pastry-cook, of
57, Fleet-street, was indicted by his wife, Ann, for having on the
24th of last December violently assaulted her.
This case has been often before the public. The happy pair
came together by an advertisement, consequently the match was
rather made in public than in heaven. But three short weeks,
however, elapsed before their squabbles became as public as their
courtship, and continued with becoming regularity almost every
day np to the above day.
Mrs. Ann Carpenter, therefore, now appeared in propria per-
sona, against her lawful spouse, and deposed with true connubial
warmth, that on the 24th of December he had threatened at din-
ner to go to America, as it was love that would drive him there.
Mrs. Carpenter, on this occasion, behaved with great modesty and
meekness. She believed that Mr. Carpenter alluded to another
lady, who had some time before favoured him with a young Carpen-
ter. He then gave her a slap on the mouth, and continued beating
hertill 7 o'clock in the evening,bywhich time she had received a severe
black eye, had lost a tooth, and could eat nothing but spoon-victuals
for three weeks. She had not taken any thing to comfort herself
before dinner, nor used the least bad language; might have taken
one glass of gin and a little porter or so, but had not given her
husband any provocation; he first struck her in the presence of
the family, which consisted Jf 7 of Mr. C.'s children by a former
wife, and one by complainant. During the whole evidence Mrs. C.
evinced the most vitlent symptoms ofwarmth,and interrupted the evi-
dence almost every minute, and was not restrained till after a
severe remonstrance from the Court. On the other side several
witnesses proved that Mrs. C. bad, taken two- glasses of gin, be-
sides porter, before dinner ; that she had gone to bed drank after
dinner ; and that before the marks of violence were seen on her face,
she bad taken a chair and smashed 8 panes of glass in the shop win-
dow. The blow itself was stated by the defendant to have been receiv-
ed by the prosecutrix in falling, when drunk, on the bar of a shut-
ter. During the trial, a very novel sort of stage effect was intro-
duced by Mr. C. The child of the loving pair was banded over to him,
and with the most nurse-like assiduity he drew from his
pocket a phial of milk, and almost choked it witli the ai li-
cation : attended of course by the compassion of the
itwhole
court. After a long trial the defendant wets fotmdi
"guilty,"
and sentenced to two months' imprisonment in GI
Compter, and to find securities to keep
wife for two years.
the peace Muardß his

LENT ASSIZES.
HOME CIRCUIT.
Before Chief Baron ALEXANDER and Mr. JUStiCO LITILEDALE.
Hertfordshire--Wednesday, March 7, at Hertfore!.
Essex—Monday, March 12, at Cheltusford.
Kent—Monday, March 19, at Maidstone.
Sussex—Monday, March 26, at Horsham.
Surrey—Monday, April 2, at Kingston-upon-Than es;

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.
Before Mr. Justice BAYLEY and Air. Baron Hut,Locr.
Durham—Wednesday, February 28, at Durham.
Westmoreland—Friday, March 2, at Appleby.
Cumberland—Monday, March h, at Carlisle.
Northumberland—Tuesday, March 6, at Newcastle.
Lancashire—Saturday, March 10, at Lancaster.
Yorkshire—Saturday, March 24, at York.
City of York—Same day, at the Guildhall of ditto.