Star.
London, England, 1812-07-08 00:00:00

- •

EiITAPH ON A MAN AND HIS WIFE.

Two of my bones have taken a trip,
My rib is departed, and so is my hyj 1

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF DELEGATES; SERJEANVS INN, JULY 6.

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE.

5511111 4J. liElirt+ON.-
This case came on for a further hearing, before Mr.,
Justice BAILEY, Baron' Wool), acc. It is an appeal
against the decree of the Eccleaiastical Court, dis-
charging the plaintiff from 'his matrimonial contract[
with E. Hewson,his wife, ipasmuch as they were ma-
riad by a licence (she being a minor) without the con..
sent of her parents. The plaintiff, a grocer at Croy-
don, visited at the house of Mr. Hewson, a plumber
of that town, %%here he was received as the admirer
of Mks. Ilewson, a young Lady of amiable accom-
plishments. Her lather expressed, on cne occasion,
that he could•have no objection to the plaintiff as a
son-in-law, preivided his father would make some,
settlement in life for him ; but it did not appear that
any direct consent was given, notwithstatuling which
they obtained a licencek and were married at St.
George's, Hanover-square. In consequence of some
Jisagreement, the plaintiff afterwardi obtained a de-
cree of nullity of marri.ige, on the ground that this
maniage had not been solemnized according to the
Marriage Act.
• Mr. HOLROYD and Mr. BROCCIIAIit argued, that
the marriage had not been performed according to
the provisions of the Marriage Act, and that it could
only be considered a nullity.
Mr. LEActt and Dr. SIJABEY contended, that the
witnesses had proved the consent of the father to the
marriage, inasmuch as he received the young man
into 'his, house as the admirer of his daughter. The'
young Lady was described to be a person who had
great cause of complaint ; and it was urged, that their
- Lord Ships ought not to suffer a ceremony so sacred
to be set aside, when there was a reasonable presump-
tion that the consent of the parents had becn obtained.
, The Court expressed a is ish to leave time to delibc.
:the on a case, of so much importance ; and it wbuld
be, perhaps, next term before they gave judgment.
.• ' COURT OF-KING'S BENCH, JULY 6.
• • WALKER V.'BENSETT.
This wa; an action braught by the plaintiff, who
bauerved as armourer on board a privateer called
thebLitcy, against the defendant,, Captain and Owner
of the vend for a breach of contract. •
- It appeared that the Lucy had *tined letters of
,marque to cruize ,ainst the French and Dutch, and
• the detendant -engaged-aureveconsiging, aaf • 56 per-
pasts,,.of Whom the plaintiff was.pne, to serve for 12
months. The crew wereto receive no wages, but in
lieu thereof, they were to have a certain proportion of
the prizes taken.. The Captain, on _his.part, eon:
ft:lett:l3'm providethe veiselivith aritatuttition and all
'itifficient surto. • Jr apPearetl firm the evidence, that
,she sailed to the West Indies, and in the course of
'hdr entice made several prizes ; but it also appeared,'
'that the defendant hadpefformed his part of therrin:l
tract so ill,' that they, were several times obliged to
give up vessels when in their power, for want of am-
munition, and that they were several timer in the
.greatest distress for want of provisions, and that ul-
timately the defendant sold the ship and cargo at
Port-au-Prince, the crew were put ash-re there, and
did not find their way home for four years and a
h elf, and even up to the present time had rece;ved
no account whatever of the produce of the prizes
really taken. • ,
The plaintiff failed to prove the antount of die'
prizes taken ; but it appeared from the evidence of
an Officer in the East India CoMpany's service, that
the wages generally paid to aimourers on board their
ships was £6 per month and it also appeared from
the evidence of the Captaites Clerk, that had . the
Captain fulfilled his part of the contract, there was
not a doubt but the share of the prizes which would
have been taken, would have amounted to double
that sum.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, the proper course for
these parties to have adopted, would have been to
have filed a bill In equity against the defendant—
The case, however, having come before them in the
shape it had, they muss do the best they could with
it ; he was of opinion, that the rate of wages stated
by the Officer of the East ,India Company, as that
given by them to Officers in their service, of the same
rank with the plaintiff, would be a fair criterion to
go by. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,
tor his full pay, for the whole period he was absent
from this country, amounting to £353. 10s. and forty
shillings costs.
• OLD nAILEr. ,

-Yesterday Nutt was indicted for conspiring
*ith J. Smith, to defraud -- Weaver. It appear-
Lid that the defendant rented a house, No. 2'2, West
--Smithfield, and, in Conjunction with Smith, set up'a
•Itind of Register dike. An advertisement appeared
'ln one of the Morning Papers, holding forth that
• clerks were wanting for important situations, and by
• virtue of this advertisement the proselcutor applied ;1
and he was informed that Jones and Co. bankers, at
Norwich, were in want of a clerk. A letter was
, written by the prisoner, in recomMendation of the
prosecutor to Jones and Co. for which l id. was paid
Sy Weaver', and which sum was the subject of the
I; 'fraud. It turned out.that no such persons as Jones
and Co. bankers, at Norwich, existed ; and the Post-
Master proved that no such letter eier•was received
at Norwich. For the defendant two witnesses were
called to character, but all they could state was, he
. .
?t at Spalding, in Lincoln.l
knowledge bow he lived in
•
/ for Stealing a gold,
,f C. Taylasay • and
same. Blake was
watch was lost off
prosecutor challenged
' she confessed hay-
s in possessioriof ir.
her box. In defence
given her the watch
this he denied, and
was acquitted:
stealing a Watch and

had recently been a bankrupt at Sp:
shire, and they had no knowledg
London.—Gi;ill.
Elessor Bide was indicted for
watch and seals, the property of (
Elzabeth Cauida for receiving the
the prosecutor's servant, and the 1
the parlour mantle-shelf. The pro
Blake with a knowledge of it, and
ing taken it, and that Cassida was
An officer found the property in ht
Blake said, the prosecutor had gi
for favours granted him; but th
Blake wit found Guilty.—Cassida
M. Athoity was indicted for ste;