Star.
London, England, 1824-12-07 00:00:00

- LAW REPORT:

, COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 5.
.•
.011111t.1410USE.--ItBICRS V. BENELLI.
• The Loeb Cit.txdzia.clit had before given it as his
opinion that the•plaintiff could not succeed in his mo-
tion for the appointment of at manager and. receiver,
without, in :effect, releasing the Marquis of Herttord,
and the other Gentlemen concerned in the bonds, horn
the obligations of their.sureties.
Mr. HART now stated that hewas ready to take the
chances of the Motion, with the condition only that, it
should be taken without prejudice to the legalliabilitiet
of the sureties. _ .

The LORD CHANCELLOR repeated a part of what he
had urged on the last hearing, that he could not put
the property under Mr. Ebers' management, or that of
any oiler person at the suit of Mr. Ebers, being also
against the ,will of the other parties, without effectually
releasing them from their sureties.
Mr. HORNE pressed for the costs of the motion on be-
half of the sureties.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought, that as he had been
the slave of the Opera-house so long, the Opera-house
might well allow him till to-morrow morning to deter•
mine upon these costs.
BLAKIMORE O. OLAMOROANSHIRE CANAL.

The rest of the time was taken up in argument upon
a motion to dissolve the injunction, by which the plain-
tiff withholds from the Company the power of widening
and deepening altogether, and instead of it, to direct an
issue at law, to try whether the operations of the Corn-
pany are or are not within the prohibitions and provi-
sions of the Act of Parliament upon which the injunc-
tion was first granted.—Further hearing to-morrow.

lIARINOTON V. HOGOART.
Sir John Harington, as it appeared, had bid for an
estate, sold by Hoggarr and Phillips, which was knocked
down to him at 10,0001. He made the usual deposit,
and as it would seem, discovering some defects either
in the estate, or the mode of conducting the bargains,
the fulfilment of the contract is still delayed, while pro-
ceedings upon that question depend in Chancery. In
1822, Sir John tiled a bill for discovery of interest ob-
tained by the auctioneers upon his deposit of 2,0001.
since 1813, when it was paid down. To the bill de-
murrers were put in, and this part of the cause was

fully argued.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion, that the auc-
tioneers were bound to shew the interest _received, in
order to aid the plaintiff in bringing his action at law
for the recovery of the money and the interest.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 6.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
WHARTON V. LEWIS.

Mr. BROUGHAM stated the case to the Jury. It had
never fallen to his lot to state, or to hear stated, a case
of this nature, whose circumstances called more feel-
ingly and powerfully upon their commiseration for the
young woman, and reprobation of the other party. The
plaintiff was Miss Amelia %Marto:), a young woman,
daughter of a very respectable man, who had retired
on a very competent fortune. He had kept an Inn in
Berkshire, and had retired to %Yarborough, in Oxford-
shire. His daughter had been brought up with great
care, educated with strictest morals, and possessed great
personal attractions. Unfortunately she had become
acquainted with Capt. Lewis, for he now.was a Captain
in the Madras Infantry. He had beenr at home on
leave. The Learned Counsel detailed ibe circum-
stances which were after wards proved in evidence. He
had never heard of a family who wholly conducted
themselves with such entire propriety as that of the
plaintiff. The defendant WAS son of a very opulent
man, who had retired from business in this town. He
was himself in the way of very high promotion. When