Star.
London, England, 1825-06-14 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.
VICE.CHANCILLOWS,COURT, JUNE 13.
LORD ORXIOND O. •RILVVRIGNT AND othtYt9. "
Hi: Hoznun said-, if the parties bese should be dis-,,,
satisfied with .the judgment he felt it his duty so 4eliverr
the best way would be for them at Once to appeal to
the House of Lords, for by ding so, and only by'doing
an, could they have the question satisfactorily set at
rest. The proposition in this case was, whether in i
deed named in the pleadings, there was either anti
pressed or implied contract on the part of Lord. Or-
mond to forbear telling for the payment of what was
due to him from Mr. Clarke, during Mr. Clarke's life-.
time ?—The Court was t• f 'opinion that the deed con-
tained no such engagement. If there had been this en-
gagement, Lord Ormond having contracted tor &re
per cent. besides, the transaction would have been
usurious, and therefore the deed would have been alto-
gether Anil and void. It was indeed- argued, that
though the Court 'should have been of opinion; upon
the construction of the de..cl, the contract was not usu-
rious, and yet that the meaning of the parties really
might be usurious, that was a proposition which no
Court of Justice could listen to.—The result of the
Court's present opinion was, that the defendants must
specifically perform the agreement.
Lard Oetnowl was ea the bench during tit time his Honour was
preasesseialjaelpaset. ,
COURT OF KING'S BENCIA, JUNE 13.

itd THR MATTiIt Or 1."1". len A DWICKe
This was an application la' strike Mt. Chadwick, an
attorney of Samersetshire, off the roll for alleged mis•
conduct,in having, four or five! years ago, introduced
some espressions into an agreement of compromise, re-
specting the diversion of a road, after it was written.
The ATZORI GUIRRAL. Air. BROUGHAM* and. Mr.
C.F. WILLIAMS*. shewed cause against the rule upon affi-
davits, which clearly proved that the alteration, if made,
was in furtherance of the original agreement. and with-
out any fraudulent design ; and also that the conduct
of Mr. Chadwick had been investigated. last November,
at a meeting of Magistrates, who were, with one excep-
tion, uaanimous in a determination to continue him as
the clerk of the division.
-. The COURT discharged the rule with costs, but inti-
mated that if, as suggested, any needless matter were
introduced into the voluminous affidavits filed against
the rule, the Master might disallow them, although Mr.
elsadwick was justified in attempting to shew that the
application proceeded from vindictive motives.
The Loma Cater Jusesee sat at NisiPriats at one o'clock.
NEWPORT V. PERRY.
• This was an action by Mrs. Newport. a widow Lady,
who recently kept a school at Little Hampton, Susses,
against Mr. Perry, a grocer in the Strand, for a small
balance of the bill for the education of his three chil-
dren, and also for a quarter's pay for the removal of
each of them without notice.
On the pea of the plaint;ff it was proved that the
children were taken for fifteen guineas a year, being
five guineas less than that mentioned in the printed
terms, which stipulated for the quarter's notice ; that
one was removed without notice, at Midsummer, and
the remaining children at Michaelmas ; and that the
balance was left after deducting a bill for groceries,
for which a-receipt was given. .
- • Mr. DZllilAw, for the defendant, relied as to the small
balance en a set-off for grocery delivered to a" parson
named Weatherdou, who had been writing-mastpr in
the school, supplied by the plaintiff's order; and as to
the claim for removing on a case of gross mismanage-
- m. nt and neglect, which justified the removal.
,To sustain both parts of this case ,Weatherdon
.was
called ; who, however, admitted that though the goods
vete to be charged
to Mrs. Newport, they were ordered
by him after his dismiszal ; and who represented the
school as in great disorder till he left it—the children.
without adequate instruction,,boys of the village ming-
ling with them—their persons dirty, and the accom-
Mod itions bad. A servant of his who hadsbeen at the
house with notes, said she often saw Mrs: Newport in-
toxicated; a Mr. Westall represented her as drinking
freely in theusorning; and Mrs. Jiggers, the wife of
the chdendant in the neat cause, with the children them-
selves, lesented school as ill-conducted, that the
wereoeatly neglected.
called, who exprcased
parleur-boarders, who
; and a child
school, and who
except that tsao
not come for a

wick great misute-

f ury.
plaintiff--damages LI S 6s.
• compensation for re-

.4 question, stood over, a•
concluded.

13.

inarriAge by reason of
once or twice

reports of proceed-
Old Briley Sessions.

of the second
bigamy being
Burke's second
life-time of the
rpm a criminal in-
Burke had been
is now on board
c' the suit in the
plead inform
444, defence, the
consequent validity
4y on account of

contended that
June, 1815, with
Ithert at Cashel, by
ic persuasion (1)r.
according to .the rites of
THis was quite clearly
- not:denied by the
defendant set up;
rites were not
ritual, as that be
;atholic, and 'that
between a Roman
contentled he was,
"..aIMAMICe miiM
that fin tune t•

,bliss Bruce) would
such marriage was declared
tt of ,Par pent passed in
Conisel then adverted to

, , '
.

~.
. selves, represented the school as ill-Gonda(
-. cbilthen had scald-heads, aryl were.gseatl
. In reply, several parents were caUed, v
. their entire satisfaction ; two parlenr4
1) spolte to the plaintiff's tensperate.habits ;
w. had been the whole time at the sch
de edall the grounds of complaint, eac
. tea hers went away, and nailer, did nt
I for ight to perform their dnties. • -
to loss Cuter Jowls summed up. the cue wi
. ,
ne. and left It on both points to the Jury.
• 1 c Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—il
I•t " the whole of her demand, including the com
111 :no ng without notice.
t..,
; two next cases, involving the same question
it past six o'clock before this case concluded.
ARC.HES COURT, JUNE 13.
r BRUCE AGAISST BURKB.
, IS was a cause of nullity of Marriage
i big• fliy, the facts of which we have a
ake dy given some statement, of, its repor'
• ings both in v is Court, and at the Old B,
The uit vas brought here by the father
wife, on behalf. of his daughter, the I
I . char d to haveheen committed, that B
ward ger was solemnised during the lil
it fora) ...wife of the defendant. Upon g
dicta t sat the last July , Sessions, Bu
cattvieft• mid was sentenced, and he is
the. Hal Pending the institution of t
.
Spiritual mut, be had.been admitted to
1 pauperi: and has alleged, for groUnd 91
- milli . the first marriage, and the const
of the I , which Was impeached solely
the first onnesion.
i Dr. sunroros and Dr,,Donsow c
I the ma ' ge- of the, defendant, in Jut)
Miss B ler, in the house of her 4ather,
.
i.Clerg man of the goman Catholic p
.11 _
Wrigh ), was duly celebrated according
I the Ito an Catholic Church. This wal
t rov • ;.and in point of fact, it. was not
I very . ound of defence. which the deli
1 for th t was, aot so much that those
*sly .erfortned according to that- rift
I(Bark ) was not in truth a Roman Cad
- , theref. re a marriage so.celetirated bets
. ,
Ciabo is and a Protestant (as lannow con
. ..
'wheth ?r with a view to get his present_
. :
gated, or to establish it legal claim to
which i' t appeared the second wife (Miss
• be her after entitled)—that Inch mania!
mull so . void by an Irish Act of
,Par)log
the last sign. The Learned Colisel tl
, .. II