Star.
London, England, 1824-06-03 00:00:00

1..1.'{' itEl'6,'/: T.

rnEitoGATtvE COURT, JUNE 2.
L^cxt: v. DENN::r.
This WAS a suit i i which two wills of the late Mrs.
Sarah Locke, wife of the Rev. Dr. Locke, of Fareham,
in Hampshire, were pronolnded. Site died on the 11th
of June, 1:321, having the day before, as it was alleged,
executed a will to which she put her mark, in the pre-
sence of three of Dr. Locke's servants, by which she
bequeathed her property to her husband, and appointed
him sole executor. It appeared al'.o, that she made a
will on the 28th of May, 1819, in which she appointed
her nephew, Thomas Denner, sole executor, for whose
trouble she becprekithed him 200/. In this instrument
ail her brothers and sisters, as well as the children of
her deceased brothers and sisters, were well provided
for, whose interest by the last document was taken
away.—Mr. Denner, therefore, as the trustee for the
persons interested in the will of 1819, propounded that
will in opposition to the one of 1821, propounded by 1)r.
Locke. The property of the deceased, who was a very
illiterate woman, appeared to be very considerable; she
was formerly married to a person named Clinch, a
coachman, who subsequently became a coachmaster, and
bequeathed all his property to her. She married 1)r.
Locke in 1810, at which time part of her property,
17,5001. was in Consols. and 6,5001. on mortgage.
These sums were secured to her by settlement, but va-
3ionsly di posed of aftersa:ds by the two wills.
Dr. LUAIINGION appeared for Dr. Locke, and Dr.
JENNett for Mr. Denner.—Sentence on a future day.

HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES.
BRING() AGAINST SHISCO.

This very long depending suit was originally insti-
tuted in the Consistory Court of London, so long ago as
Hilary Term, 1814.; and was promoted by Lady Sarah
13risco; against Sir Wastel Brisco, Bart. her husband,
for a divot ce and separation, by reason of cruelty and
adultery by him committed. In the Consistory Court,
a variety of proceedings were had, up to the month of
April, 1818 ; and in the intervening period, Lady Bris-
co's libel, charging the facts upon which she prayed a
divorce, and an allegation of faculties (i.e. of income
and pecuniary means), wet e brought in by her Ladyship's
Proctor, and admitted. Sir Waqtsl (admitting the mar-,
riage, but otherwise giving a negative issue), brought in
his answers thereto, and his amended answers ; and ali-
mony "pendente lire" was allotted by the Court to Lady
Brisco. An allegat inn was afterwards brought in on behalf
of Sir Wastel lliisco, pleading in bar of this suit certain
acts of adultery alleged to have been committed by •
-Lady Brisco, denying the charges cemained in her libel,
and praying a divorce from her Ladyship. Upon the
libel of Lady Brisco (the substance of which we have se-
veral times stated) seventeen witnesses were examined,
and upon this allegation of Sir Waste), thirteen. The
latter was argued at considerable length, directed to be
reformed, and subsequently admitted- Further allega-
tions and answers, and exhibits (letters, &c.) were
brought in, and alimony was continued to Lady Brisco.
Some of the articles of an allegation submitted to the
Court by the Proctor for her Ladyship having been re-
jected, the Prcrctor appealed the cause to the Arches'
Court of Canterbury, in April, 1818: In that Court
proceedings were continued till June, 1819, when, on
the 21th of June (Tiinity Term) Mr. Registrar informed
the Judge that he had been served with an inhibition,
tinder the seal of tl,e High Court of Delegates, to
sairich• tribanal the cause was accordingly remitted.—
From ,idly, 1819, to April. 1820, the pi his ipal steps that
were taken before the whole commission forming this
high Court (at Seijeants' Inn), or before the Con. Dele-
gates at Doctors Commons, were, that on behalf of Sir
Wastel Brisco a libel of appeal was given ; and on be-
half of his Lady, a negative issue to it; and the whole
Commission pronounced against the appeal from the
Arches' (which was from a further allotment of alimony
to the wile during the suit), and found that the Learned
Judge of that Court had rightly Enoceeded ; but at the
petition of both parties, they retained the principal cause,
decreeing a monition against the husband for payment
of costs, and also for 350/. arrears of alimony. This
monition having issued, and Sir Wastel not appearing,
the Judges Con-Delegates pronounced him to be con-
tumacious; and such contempt being signified, a writ
issued against hint, in due course o de contumace capi-
cado," and in May, 182'2, he was arrested ; but in No-
vember following, he appeared in Court, and alleging
that he had paid such costs and alimony, and was ready
to take the usual oath to obey the lawful command of
the Court in future, he was absolved from his contempt.
The Proctor for his Lady then prayed a further moni-
tion against him for payment of 5001. arrears of alimony,
which had accrued since April, 1820, when he was pro-
nounced contumacious. Sir Wastel was heard on his
Petition against this payment ; but on the first Session
of Easter Term, 1823, the Con-Delegates assigned him
to pay the balance of said 5001. he having in the interim
paid 2501. on account. A further allegation, exceptive
to the credit of witnesses, &c. was this day offered on
the part of Lady Brisco.
Her Ladyship's Counsel, Dr.Austorso,Dr.JENsr.n, and
Mr. K NIGIIT, were heard in support of this allegation.
Dr.l'it 11.1.1;VMM, DT.LUSIIINGTON, and Mr.Bnouc. rtA
the Cfarnsel for Sir Wastel Brisco, after an argument of
some length, with the sanction of this Court, consented
to the admission of the allegation ; and that now stand-
ing for proof,the cause is definitively assigned for hearing
and sentence in its next stage.
The Commission was filled by Mr. Justice I3unnouctr,
Baron GA R HOW, Mr. Justice Bur, and Drs. DAUISENY,
GOTL INC:, I)6DSON, MI:YRICK, and J. ADDAms.

coNsisToßY couRT.

TILE OFFICE OF JUDGE PROMOTED BY RUST AND ADAMS

V. THE REV. DR. CLARKE.

D:. LUSUINGTON said, this was a suit promoted by
31cArs. Rost and Adams, Churchwardens of Great
Walton, Essex, against the Rev. George Somers Clark,
D.D. Vicar of that Paiish, for neglect of duty, inter-
ruptions and brawling, in the church, incontinence, &c.
The decree was served on Dr. Clark on the 9th of
Februaty last, but no appearance having been made,
the articles stood for admission. The Learned Advo-
cate then tend the articles; they charged him with
neglecting and telthing to bury and baptise persons,
tvi,ll *closing to perform divine worship, and with
brawling and disturbing the congregation ; for which
he had been suspended from the performance of all
public teligious rites for twelve months, which
suspension had been publicly read in the dutch.—
Also, that during his suspension, he refused to admit
the Rev. Godfrey liticl, junior, to baptise two children,
and 41-.0 refused to deliver up the keys of the church
for that purpose, which obliged the Churchwardens to
force open the dorms ; when applied to by them for the
keys, he banged the door in their faces. On Sunday,

-

the 3d of August, after the Sacrament w:s adroirds;
tered, he advanced to the commuiion-table in an iLre-
verent manner, and forcibly carried away the money
which had been collected ; and, on the same day, dur-
ing Mr. Bird's preaching, he violently shut his Bible,
which occasioned a noise in the church; and that he
(Dr. Clark), being a married man, did associate with
common prostitute,.
Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON said, the articles pre-
sented a most melancholy picture of perverse and
wicked conduct in this poor unfortunate man, mho, for
the last three or four years, had done everything pose
sible to pervert his holy office, and induce his pa-
rishioners to leave their Church and their Religion. It
was hardly possible for conduct to be more mischievous
than this : he had by such conduct, and by his neglect-
ing to appear to the decrees of the Court, eshiliited a
contumacious resistance of the authority of the Court.
Of course, the articles must be admitted ; but he (Sir
Chi istopher) believed that he was under confinement.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 2.

PARKINS V. CORBETT.

Mr. Serjeant Vaucitaa stated that this was an action
to recover the value of a horse sold to the defendant. It
appeared, that one day Mr. Parkins, taking a ride out to
Kensington, called on Mr. Cobbett, who seemed much
delighted with the horse on which Mr. Parkins rode,
and expressed a wish to purchase it. The horse was
an excellent hunter, and as Mr. Cobbett had a great
aversion to turnpikes, be wanted a horse that would.
early him over turnpike gates, toll-free. It was cer-
tainly very hard for Mr. Cobbett, mho had expressed
in one of his publications the great pleasure he felt in
taking a rural ride into the country—it was study very
hard for a Gentleman of his rural habits to be annoyed
by the unsentimental demand of two pence for a toll !
\o; he would get himself a hunter that could carry
him from one end of the kingdom to the other free of
all kinds of tolls and turnpikes (Laughter).—He pur-
chased this horse from Mr. Parkins for 401. and after
having used him for six months, he then returned the
horse to the plaintiff, as being of ao further service.—
The horse was disabled, broken kneed, and in a very
bad condition.

John Thorne, groom to Mr. Parkins; and William
Clarke, hostler at the Red Hart Livery Stables, stated
in evidence that the horse was sold on the 11th of Sept.
1822, and returned about six months afterwards. The
horse was aged, three-parts blood, and in their opinion
was wo:th from 40 to 50 guineas. Clarke said, that the
horse was sent to the stables, whither Mr. Cobbett came
:rime, and, after riding the horse, asked the witness's
opinion of his worth; on hearing which he ordered the
horse to be booked in his name.

Mr. Serjeant PELL was sorry that his Learned Fi lend,
Mr. Seijeant Vaughan, had unnecessarily mixed the
character of the parties vt ith this transaction, which was
simply a private one. The parties were both known to
the public, and as such any transaction respecting them
naturally excited interest. Mr. Cobbett had very pro-
perly taken notice of certain turnpikes, and had written
much that benefitted tke public—politics apart—on
which be would give no opinion. But in this case, the
only witness that touched the sale of the horse was
Clarke, whose evidence would be proved to be entirely
false. The horse was not sold, but lent to Mr. Cobbett.
Mr. Cobbett and Mr. Parkins were on frienAy terms,
till a trial respecting Byrne took place, in which Mr.
Cobbett gave evidence adverse to Mr. Parkins. This was
the true cause for bringing the present action. The horse
was lent in 1322, and this action was brought in-1824.
If the horse had been sold, why was not this action
brought long before?
Mr. William Cobbett, jun. examined.—ln 1.822, Mr.
Parkins came to my father respecting Byrne's business,
but my father having then no time, he said he was
going into the country on business, and asked Mr. Par-
kins to recommend him a good horse. Mr. Parkins
said he had the very thing ; he was once a hunter, but
was now a good roadster, and would suit my father
very well. Mr. Parkins shortly after told me that the
horse's near fore leg was strained, in consequence of
leaping a hedge, by which it fell on a flint. The effect
was, that the elasticity necessary for leaping was de-
stroyed ; the horse was then twelve years old. My
father asked Mr. Parkins what would be price of the
horse in the event of his liking him? Mr. Parkins de-
clined stating any price, but told my father to keep the
horse as long as he liked. The horse was given on trial,
but not sold. My father never rode the horse but once,
on the evening it was sent to the stable, and then only in
the stable-yard. I rode the horse occasionally.
Mr. Serjeant PELL said, that several letters passell
between him and Mr. Cobbett, jun. respecting the horse.
A letter from Mr. Parkins was, however, lost, which
caused a good deal of altercation. In one letter Mr.
Parkins highly eulogized the horse, styling him a
2 noble," and a "generous" creature. It was perhaps,
in his opinion, fit to be the war-horse of Julius CXiat
but, according to all accounts, it was the veriest hack that
ever tramped a turnpike road—(Laughter)—lame of
one leg, hobbling, and constantly stumbling on the
others, and capable of breaking the neck of any person
who ventured on his back, with the exception of Mr.
Parkins himself—(Laughter).
Other witnesses were called, one of whom, a Captain
of Artillery, said he did not think the horse worth 101.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN replied.
The CHIEF JUSTICE read over his notes, commenting
on the evidence as he went along. He remarked, that
there was conflicting evidence between the two parties.
Two witnesses swore that the horse had been sold, and
Mr. Cobbett, jun. on the other side, as flatly denied the
sale. It appeared the horse was unsafe for riding, and
only fit for general purposes. It was said to be worth
401. Now ►f the Jury thought a sale had taken place,
they would find a verdict for the plaintiff. But if they
thought the horse had been only lent, they would then
find for the defendant. One thing was clear, that the
I►wse, if lent, had been kept a long while, and returned
in a much worse condition, having his knee re-cut by a
fall. From the notoriety of the patties, the trial had
lasted nearly the whole day, which was so much time
los:, as the case, if the parties were unknown, might
have been settled in two hours.
The JUry consulted for a few minutes, and returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 401. costs 40s.
Mr. Parkins was in Court all day, and bowed his
thanks to the Jury with much self-satisfaction.

11W1'•