Star.
London, England, 1824-07-01 00:00:00

CONSISTORY COURT OF ROCHESTER; JUNE (29.

LINES
ON vinTING THE INFANT SCHOOL AT WALTHANSTOW.

BY A LADY.

Bast thou not seen the fairest bud decay,
Canker'd at heart by some insidious worm ?
Ere its young leaves could open to the day
The rail enter'd its soft infant germ;
Ohl bad that bud been warch'd with tender elre,
It now bad shed its fragrance through the air

This glowing reach, rich with autumnal dyes,
Had never %weird so large, and grown so fair,
But that it grew beneath a master's eyes,
Who watch'd its infant state with anxious care;
• Wbo cruslid, ere they could enter, all that swarm
Of insect foes, that sought its youth to harm !
And shall the human blossonis of that plant,
•
Fraught with immortal essence, gifts divine,
Shall it the hand of friendly culture want?
Shall it beneath unwholesome m:ldew pine?
Ols! shall ten thousand passions, each a worm,
Enter unnoticed mares soft infant germ?
Forbid it, linavr.x! sweet buds of human Sower! •
A thousand hands are stretch'd to guard, to save,
Your infant minds from foul example's pow'r,
From swarms of hellish fiends that round you rave,
Seeking an inlet to that sacred cell,
Where heavenly Love, and Peace benign should dwell !
Blest be their noble purpose! blest be those
. Who have receiv'd a mission from above,
Like WILSON, to protect the human rose,
And water it hem founts of holy love !
Oh! may that Fount of Love, at Walthanistow,
Spread like the Nile, and over England flow! 1101%

I.llo' REPORT.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JUNE3o.
SHACKELL V. MACAULAY.

The plaintiff is the pi inter and publisher of the
weekly paper the John Bull. The defendant is a mem-
ber of a Society for the Abolition of Slavery. The
plaintiff had published several articles in his newspaper
which the defendant contended reflected on his cha-
racter, and were gross and injurious libels. Two in
particular were complained of—one published on Oc-
tober 26, 1623, and the other on November the 9th of
the same year; two distinct actions were in consequence
brought against him to be tried in a Court of Law.—
Shackell had put in a plea of justification that what he
had asserted was true, and applied to the Court for a bill
to issue a commission for the purpose of taking evidence
in foreign countries.
Mr. PUTS, on the part of Mr. Macaulay, objected
to this, and put in a demurrer on the ground that one
commission could not be issued for two distinct actions.
One part of the evidence must be obtained in Africa.
another in America, or in some other part of the world,
and nothing could be more inconvenient and unjust than
to allow one commission to comprehend all these. The
evidence in one instance might arrive in two months—
the others perhaps not in twelve; and it would be un-
just to allow any publication of the evidence, or one of
the actions to take place, before all the evidence for
both could be brought. This, it is probable, the plain-
tiff bad in view to serve his own purposes. He there-
fore objected to this bill, and brought forward an in-
stance of a decree in this Court which. applied precisely
to this case—that of Thorpe v. Macaulay.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared for Shackell, and
stated that this was a very stn ange instance of demurrer.
The defendant had chosen to make two actions, and
therefore contended that one commission could not boo
issued. The actions were precisely the same, and there
was nothing to prevent them from being tried as one;
similar instances took place daily in common law, where
various facts were allowed to be classed in one action,
and certaialy a Court of Equity will not act otherwise.
—lt was the fault of the defendant that there were
two actions.—Several other arguments were brought
forward for the plaintiff, the principal of which was,
that commissions of a similar kind were frequently
issued in underwriting cases.
The Vice-Cnallortu.ort delivered his opinion at some
length, and concluded by stating that one bill of com-
mission for taking evidence on two distinct cases could
not be issued ; and as two commissions would be inju-
plaintiff at law, tious to the he confirmed the demurrer.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 3
itAnN v. CORBETT.

.This was an argument railed on a special case, arising
oat of an action upon a policy of insurance, effected on
a ship bound from London to Maracaibo. The action
was tried at Guildhall. Mr. Serjeant BosANUUET argued
the points on a former day in favour of the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Serjeant VAtionas was heard this morning
for the Underwriters.
The Cll lEF JusTics, at the conclusion of Mr. Ser-
jeant Vaughan's argument, intimated to Mr. Serjeant
Bosanquet that he need not trouble himself to reply,
and proceeded to give his opinion. His Lordship had
no doubt at first that this was a total loss within the
terms of the policy ; but he had afterwards in some de-
glee changed his opiaion ; he had now, however,
brought himself back to his original opinion. The facts
were very short. The declination stated that the ship
wm lost by the perils of the sea; she seas bound from
the port of London to Maracaibo, with liberty to touch
at the West Indies, and the plaintiff had a bona fide in-
surable interest in her; the wss wwratited by the un-
derwriters against every peril but capture or seizure.—
The question then was, whether she was lost by the
perils of the sea, or by capture or seizure? She arrived
at the Gulf of Maracaibo at midnight on the 1 i th, and
she was then about 20 miles from Maracaibo, which
vas her destination, and about nine miles from Port
St. Carlo, a military station. It appeared that she
drifted on the sands, and was lost by the peril of the
sea. His brother Vaughan had referred to several
cases, and particularly to an opinion of Mr. Justice
Bayley ; but this case rested upon different grounds
from the case cited. In looking at the facts of this case
it was found that the ship was totally lost ; and the
goods, though not lost, were taken possession of by an
enemy. Now when were the goods lost to the owners?
He was of opinion that they were so lost when the ship
was lost. If the Underwriters were not liable for the
loss of goods by capture or seizure by an enemy, they
could not expect them to be preset ved by an enemy.—
Herethere was no person near the ship to give assistance
at the dale -she stranded, and the goods wele lost as,
soon as the ship was in that situation. The moment the'
ship became irremovable the goods were lost, and the
policy attached. In this case them was not a previous
partial loss, but a piovious total loss; not a depreciation
of ship and cargo, but a destruction. In his opinion,
therefore. the plitintiff was entitled to recover.
Mr. Justice PA arc agreed with the Chief Justice;
Mr. JusfiCe BURROUGH concurred with the other
Leittned,Judges.—Judgment for the plaintiff.

JOHN NOAKES V. ROSA, OTHERWISE ROSETTA MILWARD,
FALSELY CALLING HERSELF NOAKES.
This Was a suit instituted by a Gentleman of consi-
derable fortune, named Noakes, against his wile, to ob-
tain a nullity of marriage.
Drs. ADAMS and STODDART were Counsel fur Mr.
Noakes, who is a Solicitor' in Staples Inn, and Drs. Lusn-
INGTON and DODSON, for the Lady.
The suit was instituted by Mr. Noakes, on the ground
of the incapacity of the Lady to contract the man iage
with him, she being previously married to a Gentleman
named Luke James Milward, who was alive at the time
the man iage ceremony between her and Mr. Noakes was
solemnised. The facts of the case, as elicited during
the bearing of the cause, were these:
In 1822, the Lady was introduced to Mr. Noakes as a
single woman, he was captivated with her charm, and
agreed to marry her. On some account or other the
parties took a trip to Gretna, and there they were bound
in Hymen's fetters, by a blacksmith Parson, named
David Long; on the 4th of October; 1522. The evi-
deuce to prove the marriage, and the identity of the
parties, was very weak. The only person who spoke to
these facts was the post-boy who drove them Isom
Carlisle to Dumfries, and there was something very
ambiguous about his swealing. The evidence of the
marriage of the lady to Mr. Luke James Milward, in
1821, and of that gentleman being alive in 18.25, was
completely established.
Dr. ADAMS argued that proof of the identity of the
parties was made out, and that the Court could not
hesitate to grant Mr. Noakes the relief he prated fur,
as it was clearly shewn that the lady was not a single
woman, as she professed to be, at the time of her con-
traction or profanation of marriage with Mr. Noakes in
Scotland, in 1822; but that she was then a married
woman, her marriage with Mr. Milward having been
solemnized at Islington Church in 1821, and he being
alive in 1823, and at the present moment, for aught he
(Dr. Adams) knew.
Dr. STODDART, on the same side, used similar argu-
ments, and adverted to the case of the Duke of Sussex
as a parallel case. The Court in that case decided for
the nullity of the marriage, on the ground of the inca-
pacity of the Royal Duke to contract a marriage with-
out the consent of the Crown. The marriage was dim-
fore unlawful. So in the present case, the marriage was
illegal, because the Lady was incapacitated from enter ing
into such a contract, being at the time a married wo-
man. The Royal Duke could not contract a foteign
marriage, because it was contrary to the law of England,
and the Lady in the present case could not legally con-
tract a marriage, because it was contrary to the law of
this country for one female to have two husbands.
Doctors LVSHINGTON and DODSON argued that in the
libel it ought to have been pleaded that the parties were
married according to the law of Scotland, which had
been omitted, and they strongly contended that there
was a deficiency in proof of the identity of the parties.
Dr. STODDART said, that such plea, in his judgment,
was unnecessary, and cited cases in prcof. There was
also a great difficulty in setting out the form of a Scotch
marriage ; but if the Court held it- essential, he trusted
that it would allow time to plead, particularly as the
Lady ought to have taken the objection in a more early
stage of-the proceedings.

Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that he should have betrayed
his duty to his client, had he not taken the objection at a
time when it was likely to be most beneficial to boll,
and he had a right to take the objection in any stage of
the case. He did not consider the case of the Duke of
Sussex at all in point. He called the attention of the
Court to the case of Morris v. Morris, decided eight
yearsago in the Arches Court, in which it was pleaded
that the marriage was solemnized according to the law
of Ireland ; proof of the fact was held necessary, and
for want of it the suit failed. It was said there was a
great difficulty in setting ont a Scotch marriage; be
had nothing to do with that ; but it was essential that
evidence should have been brought before the Court to
shew that the marriage was solemnized according to
the law of Scotland. He denied that any marriage had
been proved to have taken place; the post-boy at the'
Bush, at Carlisle, says that he drove a Lady and Gen-
tleman eighteen months before to Dumfries; that a
parson was sent for, to the inn, who arrived after .t
short time, and went up stairs into a room, where the
Lady and Gentleman were; that in his presence the
parson read some words from a book, which the Lady
and Gentleman repeated, which words resembled the
Church of England Matrimonial Service; that during
the ceremony, the Parson put a ring on the Lady s
finger, and the Gentleman thrust it over the joint ; and
after the ceremony was concluded, the Gentleman and
Lady acknowledged themselves man and wife. He
also spoke to the fact of the parties having signed some
paper, and a paper which had been called a certificate
of the marriage, had been put in; but as the parties
bad not been identified, and as no evidence had been,
given that this marriage was contracted according to
the law of Scotland, he insisted that the marriage was
completely invalid. The certificate of this Parson is'
said to be signed by the Lady, as well as Mr. Noakes;,
but there was no proof of its being signed at the time of
the ceremony; it might have been fabricated since. The,
certificate says, " This is to certify to all whom it may
concern, that John Noakes, of Chatham, in the County
of Kent, and Rosa —, of St. Mary's, in the County of
Nottingham, being present, and having declared they
are single persons, are now married accor ding to the
form of the Church of England, and conformably to
the custom of the Kirk of Scotland." This document
did not establish the identity of the parties, and he (Dr.
Lusbington) hoped the Court would not rescind the
conclusion of the cause, to give the opposite par ties an
opportunity of bringing in new evidence to meet the
exigencies of their case, as it would be a most dangerous
precedent to adopt, and after publication ought not to
be granted. He concluded, praying that his client
might be dismissed from the suit, &c.
Drs. ADAMS and STODDART replied, and the Court
deferred its judgment till a future day.
INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S. COURT, JUNE 30.

Benjamin Shaw was opposed by three creditors, for
obtaining goods under false representations. The in-
solvent, it appeared, was a leather-seller, and becoming
much distressed, he obtained from the three creditors a
quantity of leather worth about 170/. with the promise
of immediate payment; instead of which, he put them
off from time to time, and was at length thrown into
prison. His creditors, in opposing him, said he ob-
tained the leather on the pretext that be was about ful-
filling an order for Newcastle-upon• Tyne, wheteas they
discovered that he had only disposed of 491. worth of it,
and the remainder was unaccounted for.