Star.
London, England, 1830-05-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

Seals and Petitions before the Loan CHANCELLOR, after Easter
and previous to Trinity Term, 1830.
Thursday, May 27—The First Seal.
Tuesday. June B—The Second Seal.
Wednesday, June 9—Petitions.
Seals and Petitions before the Vics CHANCELLOR, after Easter.

and previous to Trinity Tenn, 1830.
Thursday, Slay 27—The First Seal.
Tuesday, June B—The Second Seal.
Wednesday, June 9—Petitions.

COURT OF /LINO'S BENCH, MAT 20.
London Sittings, before Lord TZXTZRDEN, and Common Juries.

LIABILITY OF HUSBAND FOR WIFE.
HOUGHTON V. CARMICHAEL SMYTH, ESQ.

This was an action to recover a sum of 21. 10s. for
coals supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant's wife.
The wife lived separate from the husband ; but then it
was contended for the plaintiff, if the wife had left her
husband by reason of his ill-usage and cruelty, he still
remained liable for necessaries supplied to her, although
she lived separate from him. The plaintiff, then, in order
to support his claim, was bound to prove that the separa-
tion of the wife from her husband was owing to his bad
usage.
A witness was called, who had resided before 1824,
for some months in the family, who proved that the hus-
band and wife had been quarrelling, and that he struck
her.

The defendant pleaded his own cause, and stated that
the witness who gave evidence of the cruelty was not de-
serving of credit ; but no evidence of that was produced.
He then stated that his wife had wilfully left him, and
had been harrassing him with suits in the Ecclesiastical
Courts for four years from 1824. First she proceeded
for a restitution of conjugal rights, and he took her back
again, but she again left him, and instituted a suit for a
divorce a mensa et thoro, on the ground of cruelty and
adultery, but this did not succeed. He submitted that,'
as the wife wilfully absented herself from him without
any good reason, he was not bound to pay for even the
necessaries supplied to her in her separate state.
In order to show that the wife had not made out her
case in the Ecclesiastical Court, the proceedings in that
case were produced, but it appeared from these that the
suit there was not terminated by sentence, but that it was
given up by consent of parties. The defendant wished
to have the libel and evidence read, but this was not per-
mitted, as the Court could only look at the termination.
The proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court did not show
that alimony had been paid to the wife, although the da
fendant contended that such was the fact, and that it
might have been proved by officers of the Ecclesiastical
Court, Messrs. Shepherd and Townshend, who had been
subposnaed, but did not attend. They were called on their
subpoenas.
A Mr. Dupre was then called, who stated, that he had
let a house in Regent-street to Mrs. Smyth, at a rent of
1501. and she gave him a reference to Dr. Phillimore and
the American Consul, by both of whom he was informed
that she had an income from America. After she had
been in the house for some time, and placed good furni-
ture in it, he demanded 301. of his rent, but she could not
pay,and he was glad to put up with the loss of his money,
on condition of his getting his house back again.—To
question from the defendant, who asked him what 1*
thought of her, he answered, that as long as she remained
in his house he heard nothing amiss of her.
The husband remarked, that she had not a shilling
of income from America, and had swindled the fnr-1
niture all over London ; but Lord Tenterden said that
they had nothing to do with that, as there was no
proof of it.
Lord TEN TERDEN observed that the defendant had
stated the law correctly enough—that if the wife left the
husband without ill usage and cruelty on his part, he was
not liable for necom•--gs supplied to her in her state of
Jr

separation. It was for the Jury, therefore, to consider
whether cruelty and ill usage had been proved, and he
informed them that it was not a single act done in a mo-
ment of passion that would warrant a wife in leaving her
husband, so as to make him liable in this way. It must
be such conduct as candid and sensible men would con
scientiously say amounted to cruelty.
The Jury, after a short consultation, found for the
plaintiff for the Fifty Shillings.
The defendant requested his lordship to save the point
of law.

Lord TENTERDEN answered, that he saw no point of,
law to save, but informed hit► that he might move the
Court if he thought proper.

BRINTON ♦. BLUNDELL.
This was an action brought to recover a sum of 701.
for loss occasioned to the plaintiff by a misrepresentation
of the defendant. The plaintiff agreed to take from the
defendant the public-house called the White Hart, in
Fetter-lane, on a representation that it sold eight butts of
beer per month, 121. per month's worth of ale, and 401.
worth of spirits. For the good-will of the house 1501.
was to be paid. The plaintiff paid 301. of the money,
and then applied to the clerk of the brewhouse who sup-
plied the beer, who informed him that the house sold
only five butts of beer per month. The report of the
spirit merchant was also unsatisfactory, and the result
was that the plaintiff brought his action to recover back
the 301. and also money which he had expended in
the repair of the premises, and in taking out his
freedom, which he had been informed by the defendant
was necessary.
The clerk of the brewery proved that the house sold
only five butts per month ; but the spirit-merchant did
not appear. A person who took the house after the plain-
tiff refused to take it, said that he paid 1051. only for
the good-will, and even at that rate Mr. Denman ob-
served that he was manifestly not satisfied with his
bargain, from the dismal look with which he had left
the box.

Verdict for the plaintiff, for Forty Pounds.
ADMIRALTY COURT, MAY 22.
THE GENERAL PALMER.

This was an appeal by the owners of the East India-
man General Palmer against an award of 1,0001. for sal-
vage, by the Commissioners under the Salvage Act. It
appeared that the General Palmer arrived from India in
November last, off Margate, in a heavy gale. She had
lost her Final' bower anchor; and being fearful of losing
her beat bower anchor, which she had also cast out, sig-
nal was made for another. The Liberty and the King
George then came off to her assistance. The crew of
the Liberty boarded her ; and the King George ascertain-
ing what sort of anchor she wanted made for shore to
get it. In the meantime the General Palmer ran on
shore in Whitstable Bay, and she was got off the next
tide without much difficulty. The cargo was valued at
30,0001. The compensation above stated was claimed by
51 men belonging to the different boats.
Sir C. ROBINSON decided that the owners should pay
5001 to be divided among the crews of the three vessels
which assisted ; and also awarded 1001. more to the
crew of the Liberty, who boarded the vessel in distress.
Yestanday morning, between two and three o'clock, a
destructive fire broke out in the back parlour of a house
in Ethyl-street, Finsbury. The house was completely
burned down, and no pert of the property was saved.

LONDON SESSIONS.

Yesterday these Sessions were held at the Guildhall
before the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, and a Bench of
Aldermen. The Recorder having sworn in the Grand
Jury, charged them, and stated that the calendar pre-
sented but a comparatively small list upon the London
side of offences. A few cases of no importance were gone
through, and the Common Jury was discharged.