Star.
London, England, 1823-08-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, AUGUST 9.
ST. JOHN V. GLOSSOP AND ARKENSTALL.
Mr. WAKEFIELD stated, that he appeared for the
defendants, to move that his Honour would dissolve
the injunction which had lately been obtained in this
case. The defendant, Glossop, had granted, in the
month of February, 18421, an annuity of £5OO to the
plaintiff, and by the terms of the deed', all the scenery,
dresses, and decorations of the Theatre were pledged
for the payment of that annuity. In May, 1822, he
granted another annuity to the same amount to Mr.
Jackson, to whom Mr. Arkenstall acted as trustee.
Notwithstanding the property of the Theatre was
pledged for the payment of General St. John's an-
nuity, it was provided that the Theatre should be kept ,
open, and that the plaintiff should not interfere in the
management. The annuity was granted in Februsry,
18'21, the glass curtain was not bought until Decem-
ber is that year, and it could not therefOre be said
that it was pledged for the payment of that annuity,
and the defendant, Arkenstall, in the fair exercise of
the power of managemeat which had been entrusted
to him, sold it, as it was getting old-fashioned, and
had ceased to possess the attraction of novelty. He
had acted on the same principle with regard to some
of the dresses and decorations; but the produce of
whatever had been sold had been applied to the use
of the Theatre. The Learned Gentleman contended
that, under these circumstances, he was entitled to
his motion.
Mr. LOVATT, on the part of the plaintiff, contended'
that all the property of the Theatre, whether then in
existence or not, was pledged tb his client.
The VICE CHANCELLOR, interrupting the. Learned
Counsel-4. You must remember that this curtain
was not put up at the time of granting that annuity.
This security on the property of the Theatre was in-
tended to leave those in the management of it with ,
the full power of making those alterations which cir-
cumstances and the public taste should require. Can
.you contend, Mr. Lovatt, that they were not at liberty
to change the dresses or the decorations?"
Mr.l.t,vArr could not maintain the propositionthat
the annuity deed was intended to shut up the Theatre.
Mr. WAKEFIELD said, he had the report of a sur-
•eyor, stating that the curtain was in danger of fall-
ing on the performers and the audience, on account.
of the machinery which supported it being worn out.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—" Any security given on
the property of the Theatre must leave that property
subject to such changes as the public taste would re-
quire. lam of opinion that the removal of this cur-
tain was an act of prudential management, and was
not done to injure the property, but for the fair pur-
poses of the Theatre ; and I shall therefore dissolve
the injunction."

MARRIAGE EXTRAORDINARY.—II is singular that
the decendants of CHARLES I and CaostweLL inter-
married in the fourth degree. •
DREADFUL DEFENCE OF CHASTITY.—Abingdon,

-•
a town in Berkshire; is famous for a battle fought in
877, between king Alfred and the Danes, in which
neither party had the victory, nor did they renew the
conflict. St. Ebba, Abbess of Coldingham, fearing
the brutality of the Danes, prevailed on her nuns to
cut off their noses and upper lips, hoping thereby to
avoid violation, but their appearance so disgusted the
Danes, that they set fire to the Monastery, and every
nun perished in the flames.
A true miracle performed by Doctor Connell, of
Bunno, in the County of Cavan, in the year 1777.-
4, In the year 1773, about the month of Fehr nary, a
girl of the name cf Ann Mulligan, who lived near
ltockberry, and who was about fourteen years of age,
went over to a neighbour's house on a visit, one
evening, and returned about ten o'clock at night,
having completely lost her speech, and remained in
that state till the month of May, 1777, being a space
d four years and about a quarter, when, her friends
brought her to Doctor Connell, generally called the
Mad Doctor, who, when he had examined the girl,
and heard the story, brought her into his parlour, and
locked the door. Then, placing her on a chair at
one end of the table, and himself opposite to her at
the other, he commenced by distorting his counte—
trance in a shocking manner, so as to strike terror
into the girl, and after some time, he furiously
bounced up, flew to a dagger which was hanging
over the chimney-piece, ran at the girl, swearing he
would instantly put her to death, when she dropped
on her knees, and exclaimed for GOD'S sake to spare
her life, and immediately faintifl. On her recovering
'from the faint, she had completely regained her
speech, nor ever after lost it. This can be attested
by above twenty persons, and by the tradition of the
whole neighbourhood."
The Churchwardens of Manchester have come to
a determination not to relieve any pauper who keeps
a dog.

ASSIZES.

MAIDSTONE, AUGUST 1.

COLZMAN V. SMITH, M.D.
This was an action by, a surgeon and apothecary
against a physician of Maidstone, for words of slan-
der Concerning the plaintiff in his profession.
The case proved on the part of the plaintiff was
this :—ln the latter end -of May last year, the defen-
dant was called in to attend a lady named Cleveland,
who was taken ill in the night, at the house of her
daughter, Mrs. Shoredyk, of Cozheath. Knowing
that the plaintiff was in the habit of attending Mrs.
Shoredyk's family, he called Upon him to accompany
him to the house. The defendant knocked at the
plaintiff's door, but being unable to arouse the ser-
vants, he went away with the determination of going
alone. As he went off, he made some offensive re-
marks, which the plaintiff's wife heard as she opened
the window, having got up to see who was at the
doer. The defendant arrived at Coxheath and pre-
scribed for the sick lady some camphor draughts, and
an aperient draught. In his prescription he detected
a camphor draught to be taken directly, and to be
repeated after four hours, if necessary ; and the ape-
rient to be taken early in the morning. The doctor
had arrived at Coxheath between two and three
o'clock, and on his return to Maidstone sent the pre-
scription by his servant to the plaintiff's house to be
made up. The servant arrived at the plaintiff's house
about three o'clock, and left word that a messenger
from Cozheath would call for the medicines. About
half-past four the messenger arrived. The plaintiff's
assistant was then emplar-yed in mixing the draughts,
but in consequence of the advanced hour of the morn-
ing, he awoke the plaintiff, and consulted him as to
what should be written on the labels, informing him
of the terms of the defendant's prescription, and that
it would be impossible for the messenger to get back
toCoxheath before six o'clock. The plaintiff, exercising
the best disci etion under the circumstances,gave direc-
tions that the order of taking the medicines should be
reversed—namely, the apes tent first, and the cam-
phor draughts every four hours, if necessary. The
assistant accordingly made up an aperient and four
camphor draughts. On the label of the first he wrote,
'" This draught to be taken immediately;' and on the
others, " These draughts to be taken every four
hour,, if the first has operated." The messenger ar-
rived at Cozheath about six o'clock, and the aperient
was administered to the patient. Next day the de-
fendant visited his patient to know the effect of his
prescription, and upon finding that the order in which
he directed the medicines to be taken had been
changed, he became extremely angry ; and on his re-
turn to Maidstone, called at the plaintiff's house, ac-
companied by a rival surgeon to the plaintiff, and
reproved the young man for the liberty he had taken
with the prescription. In consequence of this pro-
ceeding, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant,
in which he expressed his opinion of his conduct. The
result was, that the defendant thought proper to cir-
culate the slander which was the subject of this action.
To several persons the following statement concern-
ing the plaintiff was made:—" He has a young man
in his service who has made an error in another case,
which I have since pointed out to him, and Mr.
Coleman has, in consequence, written me a severe
letter, accusing me of ungentlemanly behaviour. 1
shall, therefore, not meet him, nor shall I allow my
prescriptions to be sent to him until he has made an
apology." In one instance, this statement ,had the
effect of depriving the plaintiff of a patient, and it was
ithis:ed that such slander was calculated to do A
man, in the plaintiff's profession, much mischief.
On cross•exaneination of the witnesses, it appeared
that the plaintiff and the defendant had been pre-
viously on most friendly terms, and on one occasion the
latter had said of the plaintiff that he was one of the
most good-natured fellows in the world. The plain-
tiff's assistant was called, and interrogated as to his
knowledge of the Latin language. Prior to this
transaction he had studied that language for twelve
months, and since the commencement of -this action
he had received private lessons. When Dr. Smith
called at the plaintiff's house, and he was desired to
construe the prescription, he construed it correctly.
Dr. Hue, Lecturer of St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
was examined as to the propriety of the plaintiff's con-
duct in altering the order in which the medicines
«•ere to be taken by the defendant's patient. In the
judgment of this Gentleman, it was a matter of per-
fect indifference whether the aperient or the camphor
draught was, taken first. For his own part, had it been
his own case, he should have been much obliged to
the plaintiff to alter the directions of the prescription
under tire, circumstances stated. The prescription
was written in such general terms, as to leave a good
deal to the discretion of the apothecary, and certainly
the plaintiff had exercised a very sound judgment in
directing the aperient to be taken first, the morning
having been so far advanced after the prescription
reached the plaintiff's house.
After the plaintiff's case was closed, Mr. Baron,
GRAHAM interposed and suggested the propriety of
ithdrawing a Juror, considering the respectability
of both parties, and the impolicy of keeping up a feud
of this description, which could not fail of doing harm.
Mr. MARRYATT Said, it was impossible for Dr.
Smith to yield to any terms of compromise, short of
an ample apology for the offensive letter which had
been written to him.
The case then proceeded, and on the part of the
defendant, it was contended that the supposed slander
complained of by the plaintiff was perfectly justified
under all the circumstances of the case. On the
morning when Dr. Smith called upoo the plaintiff to
accompany him to Cozheath, the plaintiff's bell was
repeatedly rung without anybody coming to the door,
and at length the Doctor's patience being tired out,
he said to his servant, " Go on, my man, there is
nobody coming." This was all the doctor had said,
and this was the supposed offetrce alluded to in the
case for the plaintiff. Next day, after the defendant
had ascertained that his prescription had not been
observed, he called at the plaintiff's house to inquire
the cause. Another Gentleman happened accident-
ally to be with him. He saw the plaintiff's assistant,
and called upon him to construe his prescription, but
he was unable to do so correctly. For instance, he
translated the words " Si opus sit," to mean " After
it has operated," which was quite contrary to the
Doctor's meaning. He gently remonstrated with the
young man for his mistake, and advised him to be
more careful for the future. On the following day,
the plaintiff wrote a most offensive letter to the de-;

fendant, in which he bestowed upon him the terms
illiberal, ungentlemanly, malicious, disgraceful, scan-
dalous, base, and other epithets of that description,
in speaking of his conduct. Under such circum-
stances, it was impossible for the Doctor to submit
tamely to the insults heaped upon him by the plaintiff,
and it was put to the Jury, whether the defendant's_
conduct, as a physician, was not perfectly justifiable?
The facts stated in defence were proved in evidence,
and the plaintiff's letter was read.
Mr. Gunwav replied on behalf of the plaintiff.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM summed up the case.
The Jury inquired what damages would carry
costs? The Learned Judge informed them 40s. and
they immediately found their verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages 40s.
The r ase excited considerable interest in Maidstone.
The plaintiff expressed his regret at the necessity he
felt in being obliged to bring the action, and now ex-
pressed his sorrow for the intemperate letter 'he had
written to the defendant. The trial commenced on
Friday, was adjourned till to-day, and ended about
twelve o'clock.

BRIDGEWATER, AUGUST 7.
ELLWORTRY AND ANOTTIRR D. BIRD.
Mr. ADAM stated the case of the plaintiff to the
Jury. The defendant, who was a man in a respect-
able situation in life, some years since martied a Lady
who was the daughter of one of the plaintiffs, and
the sister of the other. This marriage proved an un-
happy one : the parties lived together for some time,
but it became necessary at last for the friends of the
wife to appeal to the law, in order to put a stop to
the cruelty and oppression which the defendant prac-
tised towards her. At the last Quarter Sessions the
defendant was accordingly indicted, and found guilty:
a compromise was proposed, and the Counsel tor the
parties arranged an agreement, the substance" of
which was, that Mr. and Mrs. Bird should live se-
parate, he allowing her the sum of £5O per annum
for her support. Upon that arrangement being made,
the Chairman 81 the Bench of Magistrates contented
j himself with imposing a nominal fine an Mr. Bird.
The defendant now refused compliance with the
agreement, alleging that he had not in person con-
Isented to it, and this action was brought to recover
£12.105. being the amount of one quarter's allowance.
The case had proceeded but a little way, when it
was perceived that the plaintiff's case was defective,
and Mr. ADAM consented to be nonsuited.
Mr. Justice Bast desired that the plaintiffs should
be called, observing that he could not but deeply re-
gret that such should be the termination of a suit so
properly brought against a man who had conducted
himself in so scandalous and disgraceful a manner.
Mr. Serjeant Pau. said, as Counsel foe Mr. Bird, my Lord,
I must be permitted to say—
Mr. Justice Besr.—Let the plaintiff be called.
Mr. Serjeant Proz:-.-My Lord, it is my duty to state—
Mr. Justice BISIN—Let the plaintiff be calkd.
Mr. Serjeant Pra.t..—As an English Advocate, my Lord,
I have—
Mr. Justice Rm.—English Advocate! Don't let us hear such
things. An Advocate is an Advocate.
Mr. Serjeant Pst.t..—On the part of my client I mast be per-
mitted to say a few words.
Mr. Justice Barr.—You may go on, Sir.
Mr. Serjeant Pin.L.—Tben, Gentlemen of the Jury—
Mr. Justice Bm.—No. Sir, I will not permit you to address
the Jury. The Cause is disposed of.
Mr. Serjeant P5t..1..--Then I'll address your Lord-
ship. I have to observe then, that according to my
notion of justice, the Judge whb pronounces the con-
duct of a defendant to be disgraceful and scandalous,
without having heard that defendant, appears to me
prematurely to express his opinion. Audi alteram
partem, I always thought had been the favourite
maxim of the judicial seat of England.
Mr. Justice BEST rose, and with considerable ani-
mation said, " Then, Sir, I have to observe, that
this man has been heard ; he has been tried and con-
victed of disgraceful and scandalous conduct before
the Magistrates at the Quarter Sessions, who fined him
Is. and it would_ be to reflect on those Gentlemen,
to suppose they would have so limited the punish-
ment, if it had not been in the confidence that the
arrangement made would have been completed ; and
I do admire the taste of the advocate, who irregu-
larly stands up to palliate conduct so disgraceful.
The nonsuit was then entered, and the Court pro-
ceeded with other business.