Star.
London, England, 1802-05-19 00:00:00

Ldfff INTELLIGENCE.

lUGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, DOCTORS CJMMONS
MAY 13.
This day the Right Hon. Sir WM. SCOTT pre:
cceded to the adjudication of the following caufc:
The Mary-:-Alexander M'Donald
This was a cafe of falvage.—lt appeared that this
vetel was on Ilion on the night of the afth Dec.
ha on Sandwich flats, and that the maßer and
three of the crew had left her to procure (as they
pretended) affillance : the afterwards floated off
the flats, and was drifting dole on Pegwell rocks,
when fome Ramfgate boatmen went to her :ant-
mice, and got one man on board, and condu&ed
her fafely into Ramfgate harbour. It further ap-
peared, that a tender of 70 guineas had been made
in an early Rage of the catile to the (Avers, which
AVAS refuted; and the Court, under all the circum-
fLinces of the cafe, allowed the calvon tool. and
their expences.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY TS.

LORD RODNEY AND ANOTHER V. CHAMBERS.-SEPA.

KATY MAINTEN.INCE.

This was a queßion which came befare the
Court upon a demurrer to a declaration in an
anion of covenant for nonpayment of an arnuity
of tool. fccured to be paid to the plaintiffs, as
Is tillees for the defendant's wife. The deed on
which the atlion was brought Rated, that Sir Wil-
liam Chambers, the father of the defendant, by
his will bequeathed to Mrs. Chambers, the wife
of his fon, the fum of awl. per ann. as long as
The (honld continue to live with the defendant, in
addition to an annuity of tool. fettled upon her by
her marriage articles. It alfo recited that unhappy
differences having arifen between Mr. and Mrs.
Chambers, a reparation had taken place; and that
the defendant, as an inducement for her to return
and live with him, had covenanted and agreed
with the plaintiffs, her trullees, that in cafe at any
future period the fhould be diftatisfied with his be-
haviour towards her, and Mould feparate lterfelf
from him with the approbation of her minces,
their executors or adminiftrators, he would pay
and allow them foi• her site, the rum of zoo!. per
ann. in lieu of the additional annuity of zocl. left
her by the will of Sir William Chambers; and that
with loch approbation the fhould be at liberty,
from time to time, and at all times, to live fepa-
rate and apart from him.
Mr. Serjeant WILLIAMS, in fupport of the de-
claration, contended, that the adton was main-
tainable upon the recognized principles of the law,
as applicable to feparate maintenance where a
wife lives apart from her hufband ; that the deed
upon which the action was brought, was in its na-
ture firnilir to thole which had been fandioned in
cafes of reparation for a century pall ; that the
content on the part of Mrs. Chambers to return to
her hufband conilituted a valid confederation, ope-
rating as the foundation of the grant of the an-
nuity ; and that her fubfequent reparation, with
the approbation of her trullees, on account of the
ill•treatment of her hu(band, entitled her to claim
the full benefit of what was feellred to her under
the (feed. _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Seijeant Ottseow infifted that the deed in
one Ilion was contiderably more extenfive in its ope-
ration than a common deed of feparation between
hatband and wife; that it was illegal, inafmuch as it
held out an inducement to the wife to feparatt her-
felf from her hufband when and as often as the
pleated ; that making the confent of the truftees a
fufficient faation to the feparation, had the effea
of crating a kind of forum for the decifion of ma-
trimonial differences, unknown to the laws of the
country ; that the provifions of the deed were im-
moral in their tendency, and violatory of the fa-
cred duties impoted by the marriage contra& ; and
finally, that the content of Mrs. Chambers to re.
turn to her hatband did not conflitute a good con-
toleration for the annuity, as the defendant could
have compelled her to have lived with him by pro-
fs of the Eeckfiallical Court, unlefs fhe could
have Thawn futiftantial reafons why he was not en-
tided to the enforcement of conjugal rights.
Lord ELLERSOROVOM obferved, that no new
queftion could be raifed as to the legality of agree.
menu, tending to facilitate the reparation of huf-
band and wife, the difeardance of whole difpofi-
lions rendered it impoffible for them to live toge-
ther • it was advantageous to the parties that the
law look! have the power of ratifying them; and
after the many &villeins on the fubjea, it was too
late to contend they were vicious and immoral in
their tendenc;, becaufe they afforded an indepen-
dence to the wife in the event of her feparating
from her hufband. Such an argument would go
the length of invalidating every eftabliffiment of
pin-money made in contemplation of marriage.—
It had been Paid, that this was a covenant which
was immoral, becaufe it had a tendency to pro-
mote a future feparation between the parties. If
it had fuch a tendency, which was merely a re-1
mote and probable one, it was to be obferved, that
it had an immediate tendency to promote their
re-union. In antwer to what had been lined by
Mr. Serjeant Onnow, that the confederation was
not good, becaufe the buftrand might have infifted
On his marital rights, it was only neceffary to fay,
that this Court would have interpofed in order to
have prevented any decree of the • Ecclefianical
Court, contrary to.a previous and exprefs agree-
ment between the parties. Upon the whole, he
conceived this was a sueftion which was too dif-
daftly fettled to be agitated at this time of day ;
and be was of opinion, that judgment ought to be
for the Oaintiff.
Mr. Janice GROSE Paid, he had /10 conception
that the validity of this agreement was to be made
the point in this cafe, it was too clear to be the
fubjee of doubt; however he might lament what
the law was, and had uniformly been, upon fuch
fubjees, the tea was, that Courts, both of Law
and Equity, had coofidered filch agreements as
valid, and it was not for him to prefinue that all
the former decitions had been made upon infuffi.
cicnt grounds.
Mr. juttiee AWR SS CS was of opinion the plain-
tiff ought to recover. The parties, it appeared,
had ffparated, and the probability was, their fe-

paration would have ended in a fuit'in Dottors'
Commons. To avoid this expence, they had mu-
tually appealed to a dumellic forum, who were to
allow the lady tool. a year in cafe iq fliould ad-
mit the legitimacy of her reafons for again fepa-
rating from her Lu(band. He thought fuel' a dif-
c;etion properly repofed in the trultees.
Mr. Juflice La &axe obferved, that the cafe,
as flitted, appeared to him to be this—the wife
had, from her own 'family, an annuity of iool.
and from her hufband's father a farther annuity
of zoo!. as long as (he lived with her hufband.
Differences had arifcn between the parties, and
with a view to reconcile them, the whole was
veiled in trullees for her ufe in cafe fhe lhould fe
Inmate with their approbation. The objed of this
was, that in cafe the'lady fhould be compelled by
her hufband's behaviour to quit him, the thould
have an equivalent for what his father had left her
in cafe (he contiuued to live with him. The only
quellion therefore was, whether fuel) an agree-
ment was contrary to the policy of the marriage
(late? If it could be confidered 11) becanie it faci-
litated the feparation of the parties, the fame ob-
jeaion would apply to every decd of feparation,
and thus it would becomeimpolEble (or a man and
his wife, whole tempers were irreconeileable with
each other, ever to live feparatc. What was called
pin-money might be laid to have •R tendency to
promote feparation between a huthind and wife,
and yet it was a conitant provifion made upon the
marriage of perfons of fortune, and had repeat-
edly been recognized as legal. His Lord(hip pro-
ceeded to review the arguments of Counfel, and
concluded by exprelling his convidion of the lega-
lity of the agreement.
The Judges having thus unanimoufly expreffed
their opinions, judgment was pronounced in favour
of the plaintiff.
Lord &Li SOKOL, G afterwards proceeded to
Guildhall, and tried feveral caufe4, too unim-
portant to the public.
There was another argument in a fpecial cafe,
ELWES v. , upon the queftion of the te-
nant's (a farmer) right to remove buildings
ereded during his term. The Chief Jullice ob-
ferved, that the old rule of law upon this fubjed
had been very much relaxed, but to what point
was not fettled ; as it was a quettion of general
conc-rn, he thought it a fit one for a fecond argu-
ment, which the Court ordered.

FROM 117. LONDON aAzn-rr, MAY IS.
BANKRUPTCIES ENLARGED.
July 3. Thotaaa Curtis, now or late of Frith-ftrect. St. Ann,
Soo, painter and gloater. at ten, at Guildhall.
July 20. Augutins William Bodecker, al the Old Jewry, Loa-
dor . merchant, at r; n, at Guildhall.
BA NKR!' I'TCY SUPERSEDED. •
I
&media -Paul Wagner, of Great Machette-Brat, merchant.
BANKRUPTS.
Benedid Paul Wagner. of Great Whiehefter-greet, London,
merchant, dealer awl chapinan, to furrendcr May 22, June I,
and 29, at ten, at GuiklhalL Attorney, Mr. Catty, Angel-
court. Throgrnotton-street, London.
John Lewis, of the Old Jewry, London, warehoufernan, dealer
and Chapman, May 25, at eleven, day 29. and June 29, at
ten, at Guildhall. Attorney, Mr. John Davies, Addle-itreet,
Aldernianhury, London.
Wtiliam U'efton Young, of Ditlis Mill, in or near the parifh of
Cochlear, Glamorganfhire, miller, dealer and dolman, May
22, Jun: 3, and 29, at eleven, at the Rummer Tavern, Braiol.
Attornies, Meffrs. Blake, Cooke's-court, Carey-greet, Lon-
don ; or Mr. George Martin, BrifhaL
Thomas Harrifon the younger. late of Sandford-Hall, Glon-
cefierfhire, timber-merchant, dcakr and ehapman. May 27,
28, and June 29, at eleven, at the Beaufort Arms Inn, Chep-
Row, 11fotunouthaiire. Attornics,Meffrs. Bird and Nicholls,
R, reford.
James Yeomans, now or late of Tamworth, Staffordildre and
Warseickihire, clothier, miller, dealer and chapnian, June I,
at five, June 2, at ten, and June 29, at eleven. at the King's-
Anus inn Tamwortk. Attorney, MeWillington,Taraworth.
William Hood Newton, of Golden-lane, Sashimi, I.ondun,
liquor-merchant, dealer and chapman, May 25, 29, and June
29, at ten, at Guildhall Attorney, Mr. Lucke; &Withal'.
fine, London.
John Burton 'rimming*, now or late of Portfea, Southampton,
grocer, dealer and chapman, :lay 25, 29, and June 29, at
one, at Guildhall, London. Attorney. Mr. G. H. Kirton,
Mantel-greet, Goalman's-Fields.