Star.
London, England, 1825-11-15 00:00:00

Li*

• .
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nauseam I,S.
Ocasstsb.rosr AND tHwAlTes. '
Mr. Glassington addressed the Court this Morning
from the floor, and complained that notice had been
given that his appeal would come on the first day
of the sittings; and although fourteen days had now
elapsed, it had not been mentioned.
The Loas CHANCELLOR desired him to communicate what had
passed to the Sulicitori, and said that the subject might be men-
tioned in Court this day week.
COCHRANE AND CHAMBERS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment herein. Theli
plaintiff was a widow, and being possessed of one thou-
sand pounds, married, and afterwards the same was
settled upon such trusts as she should appoint, with
remainder to her and her executors. The trustees sold
out without any such direction of the wile, and the
Lord Chancellor ordered them to restore it. He, how-
ever, directed that she should elect to take this, or
under the husband's will t and
Mr. SLIODZH, accordingly, at the bar, elected for her, to take
the one thousand pounds.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. la.
HALL v. ROLLO'S.
This action was brought by a father to recover da-
mages fir an injury done to his child. The declaration
stated, that the defendant negligently drove a carriage
over the infant son of the plaintiff, and inflicted divers
wounds arid bruises, in consequence of which the plain
tiff was deprived of his son's services. There were two
counts : First, that the plaintiff was deprived of the
service. of his son ; and secondly, that he was eatitled
to be paid for the expense incurred by the accident.—
The cause was tried before the Lord Chief Ju.tice,
when it appeared that the child, after the defendatit's
coach had passed over him, was carried to an hospital
l'he plaintiff. removed Itim ftom the hospital, and in-
curred one shilling and sixpence per day, until the
child's, recovery. The L ‘rd Chief Just ce n,nsuited
the plaintiff, on the ground that the tender age of the
infant rendered him incapable of do:ng any service for
the plaintiff: the relation between master and servant
consequently did not exist.
Mr. E. LAMES now moved to set aside the nonsuit.
Several cases were cited in support of the motion, also
the opinion of Lord Mansfield, viz.—A son living un-
der the roof and protection of his father, was to be con-
sidered a servant to the father, who could maintain an
action for deprivation of those services. Mr. Lawes
admitted that the, tender age oldie child in this case
might raise the question whether he was capable of any
essential service? but if a child was able to finds his fa-
ther's slippers, the Court might consider it sufficient
service to enable the parent to support an action for
loss of services.
Mr. Justice Bavixr.—l am of opinion the nonsuit is right. The
first count states the plaintiff lost the benefit of the child's services.
Now he must prove that the child was capable of performing some
act of service. With respect to the expense, that was incurred by
taking the child from the hospital, where he might have recovered
free of expense.
The Loan Cam. Jurrica.—l take the principle of the common
law to be, that a man is entitled to the services of his son or servant,
where services are performed, but we are going further. Here the
relation of master and servant does not exist. It is a case in which
there can be no service, from the tender age of the child.—
Rule re fusysl.

QUO WARRANTO.
MK TAUNTON moved for a quo tvarranto, calling upon
Mr. Jenkins, the Mayor of Munmouth, to shew by what
authority he holds that office. The affidavits stated that
the predecessor of Mr. Hughes, the late Mayor, was a
Mr. Philpot, who WAS elected in 1828. A quo tvarranto
was applied for respecting him, and it was proved that
he was illegally chosen. The objections in his case ap-
plied to Mr. Hughes and Mr. Jenkins, and in fact there
was nu Mayor at this time duly elected.
The Court granted a Rule to shew cause.
- CASE OF ARREST.
Mr: GURNEY moved, in behalf of a foreigner be-
longing to the Spanish Legation in Paris, but now a
prisoner in London, for a rule to shew cause why he
should not be discharged out of custody on finding
common bail? The person had been arrested forloo,oool.
and also 25,0001. and he stated in his affidavit that he
had never received one farthing from the plaintiff on the
action. Mr. Gurney moved on the ground that the
affidavit upon which the Gentleman had been held
to bail had been irregularly made. It was sworn
at Cadiz, before the British Consul only. It did
not appear in Les Mercatoria, that a British Consul
had authority to take an affidavit of debt. Another
objection was this: the affidavit made at Cadiz stated
that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the
amount of 100,0001. sterliag, but it did not say sterling of
Great Britain. It might be sterling of any other country.
The Court granted a Rule to shew cause.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Novelists 14.
COPE, AN ATTORNEY, STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS.
The LORD Com JUSTICE observed that having con-
ferred with the Judges of the Court of King's 13,nch,
respecting the conduct of Mr. Cope, the Attorney, who
had been struck off the rolls of that Court, they saw no
reason why he should not be struck off the rolls of this
Court al o. It was the opinion of Lord Mansfield, that
an Attorney who had been struck off the rolls of one
Court, was unworthy to remain on the rolls of another
Court, and the Judges of this Court, concurring in the
wisdom of that opinion, had ordered Mr. Cope to be
struck off the rolls, and not to be suffered any longer
o practise in the Court of Common Pleas.
Alter a short argument, the Rule was made absolute.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Novelises 14.

John Miles Winnington, commonly called Sir John
George Winnington, was opposed by Mr. PoLcocK, for
Mr. Gass and another, and by two creditors in person.
The insolvent, in explanation of the grounds on
which he assumed the title of 44 Sir," stated that he had
been created a Knight of the Military and Ecriesttian
Order of Rome, by Pope Pius VII. in 1820. His title
had not been confirmed in the Gazette here, because it
was not necessary to do so. The Learned Counsel was
then proceeding to examine the insolvent touching other
matters, but it appearing thst he had omitted to men-
tion in his schedule several places of abode in which he
had resided dining the period at which he contracted
some of his present debts, under an erroneous impres-
sion that it was only necessary to insert the first and
the last of them, the Court ordered the case to be ad-
journed generally for the insolvent to re-adveitise, with
a full statement of all his places of re idence.

In the 134nkrupt Act passed last Session, the im-
portant clause which compels assignees to file an
account in the Chancery Conti of every unpaid diviJend
in their hands within six months from the passing of the
Act, will expire in two months. We therefore recom-
mend it to the attention of our mercantile readers.