Star.
London, England, 1825-04-26 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

VICR-CHANCILLOR'S COURT, APRIL 25.
1t litoi b. lulttrAlm.
His Honotm gave judgment iil this case, after bear-
ing Mr. Hama) in reply. The parties are brother and
sister. The plaintiff, Mr. Neils; filed the bill for an
account of his father's estate, the well-known hotel in
St. Jameh's. The defendant, now Mrs. Bititand, Was
sole ekeeutrir, and co-residuary legatee with the plain-
tiff. After the testators death, the defendant carried
on the busineis, first at the same place, and afterwards
in Cliford.street. In answer to the bill, the defendant
alleged a contract with her brother, tinder which the
propetty had been valued, and a moiety of the proceeds
received by him. To establish the evistence of this
Contract, an issue had been directed to a Jury, Who,by
their verdict, negatived the contract, and decided that
the defendant was not entitled to carry on the business
for her sole vise and benefit. The Court, therefore, or-
dered that the defendant should account for a Moiety of
the old concern ; and as the new concern in Clifford-
street must be assumed to have been purchased by
means of the old property, it should be considered as
belonging to the partnership. The plaintiff was ac-
cordingly entitled to an account of this concern, and a
moiety of the profits, up to the time of the defendant's
marriage (who might, if she pleased, consider the part-
nership dissolved by that event), as well as to a moiety
of the testator's effects.
The Nrsca-Cnancar.rna to-day acted upon the new order milli-
bited in the Court, which imports, that his Honour will on no ac-
count
adjourn any :natter or cause, unless two days previous notice
be given.
Tbe cause of " Seaman a. Maws" being called on, Mr. Tooter
appeared for the plaintiff; bat neither of the opposite Counsel was
in Court.
His Houston directed that Mr. Tinney should take a decree in
whatever terms be chose, which be could abide by. The particu-
lars of the cause did not transpire.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APRIL as.
Mr. 'Justice BAYLZY at till 11 o'clock, and heard short motions.
The other Judge's did not take their seats, but proceeded with Ur.
Justice Bayley, at 11, to the House of Lords.
ARCHES COURT, APRIL 56.
DURANT V. DURANT.
This was a suit commenced by the wife against her
husband, Mr. Durant, of Tonge Ca-tle, Staffordshire,
praying for a divorce by reason of adultery.
Sir Jon"! NICHOLL gave judgment, and entered at
cons derable length into the facts of the case. He ob-'
served, that the parties had lived together Several years
in uninterrupted happiness, and had several children,)
when a female, named Mary Bradbury., was engaged
as nursery maid to attend the children. Mr. Durant
immediately paid her the greatest attention, which
'traded in her seduction, and she became pregnant. The
account she gave of the affair was, that Mr. Durant
locked himself up with her in an unfurnished room, and
began to take liberties with her pers'on. This, oliserved
the Learned Judge, was the manner in which this father
of children seduced almost a child, and then continued
to carry on his illicit connexion with her, sometimes in
the brew-house, and at others in an unfurnished room.
After the girl had been delivered of her first child, she
returned to a sort of wood-house near Mr. Durant's
house, in Staffordshire, where she was visited by Mr.
Durant, and again became pregnant, and was delivered
of her second child. She, again returned to the wood-
house, again was visited by Mr. Durant, and between the
birth of the- econd and third child, Mr. Durant feinted an
acquaintance with Miss Bradbury's successor (a young
woman named Clift), and she also became pregnant.—
Theintercourse was carried on-between Mr. Durant and
this girl almost in the same room with his own children.
and the nurse discovered them together in a ro-m op-
posite the nursery, with the door unbolted, thus making
,a brothel of his nwn house, and corrupting the morals,
of the attendants on his children. This, in the opinion
of the Liarned Judge, was most aggravated -conduct,
and the wife had, in a very spirited manner„inimedi.
ately separated herself from Mr. Durant; she properly
resewed such conduct, and was only induced to return
home front necessity, as she had paitned tier Clothes for
her support. The next charge of adultery was alleged
;o have been committed with Mat y Dyke ; she was the
dairy-maid at Tonge Castle. One of the female do.
mesticsoramed Ryder, was told, by an upper servant
that she Was not to milk the cows in the usual place,
the cow•yard, but in an adjoining.field ; no reason was
given for this order . • but one day Ryder's curiosity was
excited, on seeing Dyke enter the cow-yard ; she peeped
@nisei a hole in the wall, and saw Mr. Durant and
Dyketogether. Poor Mrs. Ryder, who is a tailor's wife,
expressed herself to have been very much frightened,
4041 she ran away. The cook in the family, on other
tiecasion-s, 'saw them toying and throwing their aims.
round each other's necks; and other witnesses. saw
them together in the back offices of the Castle.—
Mr. D. did not appear to be very careful in selecting
the piled wherehecommittedadultery ; and theLeirned
Judge did not consider it improbable that he might
enjoy the society of these unfortunate girls,' as well in
an avenue of trees as in an unfurnished room. The
witnesses who proved the adultery with the cottagere
wives, wee not much deserving of credit ; but Mr.
Durant had not attempted to contradict their testimony.
One of these women was not of very good character,
and instead of feeling shame at the circumstance of
having committed adultery wilt the 'Squire of Ton e.
Castle, appeared to consider it rather as a merit. Mr.
Derant had, on one 'occasion, charged his wife with
impropriety of conduct with the children's tutor. She
immediately repaired with two of her brothers, and a
friend of Mr. Durant, before her husband, and the
matter was investigated, when he declared that he Was
perfectly satisfied with her conduct. Notwithstand-
ing this, a few days after, he shut his doors against her,
and said he bad sufficient -proofs of her criminality.
He did not make any specific charge, but in the inter-
rogatories he asked her if she had not kept up the con-
nection with the tutor, and supplied him with money ?
Since the separation, Mr. Durant had, by a deed, CO*.
anted to allow her 5001. a-year, for the support of her..
self and one child. The defendant had contended that
this, coupled with the wife's forgiveness, when they re-
united, had deprived her of obtaining relief from thit
Court ; but he (Sir John NichoU)thonght that it was no
bar to the suit. It was more than probable that she
was not desirous of returning home, where she was ha-
lashed and degraded by her husband, and it was estri.
unions on her part not to expose her husband's ann.
Upon the same principle he thought the forgiveness of
,the wile was no bar to the suit. Here is the mother
a large family turned 'out of doors in the face of het,
neighbours, in the faced' her children, in the face of her
sons and daughters, and with the heaviest charge al-
leged against her, viz. criminality with bet' children's'
tutor, and those charges were not in
made the heat of
the moment, but repeated to the present time. The