Star.
London, England, 1824-11-11 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

-r-

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOV. 10.
WELLER V. WELLER.

Mr. Rourst.x stated, that this was a petition from.
-tbe mother of the defendant, a young Lady, a ward of
Court, who had departed for Gretna-green in company
with a young Gentleman of the name of Crampton,
without the knowledge or privity of the plaintiff, or of
wither of the guardians. It was not that any formidable
objection
_was taken against this alliance. The young
Lady owns one.third of an estate, as tenant in common,
which produced upwards of 9001. a year. The Gentle.
man has about 561. a year in real estate, and 1,5001. in
ready money. The petition therefore prayed that the
Master should be directed to report separately—first,
if the parties were lawfully married, aud, in that event,
of a sufficient settlement of the ward's property. The
Gentleman had, by letters written on the North" road,
signified his entire readiness to comply with the wishes
of the Court.
The LORD CHANCILLOR observed, that the panics,
ought to have known that this was a gross contempt of
the Court. He wished the petitioner to state what she
knew of the matter of courtship prior to the marriage.
Mr. Rourar.r. said, that she admitted the intimacy
of the young Gentleman with the family of the ward
and it was generally allowed 'that he was of sufficient
respectability to have satisfied the Court, as the guar-
dians, had they been regularly applied to, would not
have thought of refusing their consent.
The LORD CHANCzt.Los said, that the consent of the
Court ought not to have been overlooked, the jurisdic-
tion being more deeply concerned than any of the par.
ties seemed to suppose. The readiness of guardians to
dispose of their wards did not always satisfy the Court,
because it was found that a young Lady's fortune would
often have the effect of softening their opposition to a
marriage of wards to their own sons. Nay, there were
cases in which guardians found no objection to a mar=
riage of their wards with themselves,—one instance of
which, as his Lordship well remembered, had caused a
guardian to appear in the pillory. The husband must
have a subpoena served upon him on his arrival, to ap-
pear before the Chancellor, and give a more satisfactory
account of his conduct.—Ordered to attend the Court
on Monday next.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. NOVEMBER 10.
WYNNE V. CALLENDER AND OTHERS.
_ The plaintiff's bill in this cause stated that he had lost
large sums, amounting in the whole to 6,0001. to the
three defendants, Callender, Charretie, and Fleming, at
whist, which was played after dinner at the house of
one of the defendants. 19, liquidation of his losses, he
accepted bills to the amount before mentioned ; and
this suit was brought to restrain the holders of the bills
from proceeding on them, on the ground that the con-
sideration, being a gam )ling transaction, was illegal.
One of the defendants had demurred to the bill for
multifariousness, the alleged losses having been to the
defendants separately, and not jointly, as was assumed
by the form in which the bill was drawn.
Mr. HORNE was for the plaintiff, and Mr. HEALD for
the defendant; but the VI&E•CHAICCELLOR without heat:-
ing any argument, decided that upon the face of the
bill, the demurrer was a good one.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH. NOVEMBER 10.
HARVEY V. RUSSELL.
This was an action for verbal slander, tried before
Mr. Baron Hullock, at Lancaster, when the plaintiff
had a verdict with 20/. damages. The words proved
were—" You are a rascal—a scamp. I have taken
from you my work myself, and have prevented you
from raving many hundred warps to size from other
manufacturers, which you would have had, but for my
persuading them not to employ you:"
Mr. Serjeant Catlin now moved for a rule to shew
cause why the judgment should not be arrested, on the
ground that the words were not sufficient to sustain the
action.—The Cover granted the rule.
SULLEN U. SPRINOFELLOW AND WIFE.
This action was brought to recover damages for ma-
licious mischief to a picture. The case was tried be-
fore Mr. Justice Barrough, at Chelmsford, when the
Jury found a verdict for the defendants.
Mr. ADOLPHUS now moved for a new trial, on the
ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence, and The
dii ection of the Learned Judge. The case was proved by
a servant of the plaintiff, who left the defendants in the
room where the picture was, and who found it defaced
shortly after their departure. The Learned Judge told
the Jury, that if they believed this witness, on whom
there was no imputation, they must find a ►erdict for the
plaintiff, and ought not to confine their damages to the
cost price of the picture, as it probably was rated at a
higher value by its owners. Notwithstanding this di-
rection, the Jury found a verdict for the defendants.
The COURT, understanding that the value of the
picture was under 201. said the case came within their
general rule, and refused to disturb the verdict. The
rule was founded in mercy to parties who would have
to pay the costs of the first trial, and thus would pa.y
very dearly for the chance of a second, in whichatey
m►ght also fail. They could not, therefore, interfere
with the verdict of the Jury.