Star.
London, England, 1813-01-15 00:00:00

1
i L4W INTELLIGENCE.
1
I al.m.m••••••••
COURT OF CHANCERY, JANUARY Is.
i tX-PARTE THE REV. MR LEE AND 1115 WIFE.
Ihe LORD CHANCELLOR this day delivered judg-
eat in this long and singular case. His Lordship
tated, that this petition of Mr. Lee, and counter pe-
ition of his wife, had brought before him a new case,
that he had not before heard of, a marriage with a
Ward of the Court, without leave of the Chancellor,

the year 1804, the circuznstao...... attendant on
shish, with the painful consequences, were brought
o his ears only by these petitions. If application had ,
been made to him by Mrs. Lee, or on her behalf, in
1805,4nstead of the present time, for directing a cri-
sninal prosecution against Mr. Lee and the Govees%
Iness of the Ward, with the other persons aiding in the
elopement, or for committing the husband for the
contempt, no doubt, he would have granted either Of
them ; but, admitting the undoubted right to punish
still, yet it was questionable whether the discretionary
power of the Court was not to be affected at this dis-
tant period by the intervening circumstances, such as
the verdict in the Court of King's Bench on Mrs.
,Lee's adultery, and the divorce a mrtua a thoro in the
'Ecclesiastical Court consequent thereon. It was his
fixed principle, that in cases of such marriages, where
.the husband had no property, he should not touch
that of the wife under the settlements lie should di-
'sect ; but the case was different here, where this hus-
band in the private settlement had settled equal pro-
perty
f se
ty with that
yea
ofhisrs on termsuife,aiid of affection,wherethe
and had
:two had
lived
•two children. by the marriage. It was difficult to
new model the settlement made in this case, although
made without authority of the Court ; but notwith-
t'atanding his unwillingness to do arty act that may
Affect the real rights of one of the children, or the
I Apparent rights of the other in the public estimation,
.and although he disapproved of settling so much
'property as £5OO a-year, for the maintenance of the
'two children, independent of the controul of the pa-
rents, which, in other instances, might be more titan
-the convenience of parents could afford, or the me-
'-tits and conduct of children should deserve, he felt
disinclined to make any material variation in the pro-
.vision of these children, some, however, he should
~make. As to the rights of the parents, he should
make material alterations, and particularly as to the
extension of Mrs. Lee's future contingent, or expectant
rights. Feeling not inclined to order any criminal prose-
cution under the peculiar circumstances of this case,
330 r to commit for the contempt, not admitting the
inference, contained in Mrs. Lee's petition on such
topics, nor allowing the case cited, of Miller v. Rouse,
in ith Vesey, jun.'s Reports, to be applicable to the
fresent, his Lordship added, that he had now, on
ull consideration, made up his mind on a judgment,
grounded on the principles and reasons aforesaid, and
had delivered his minutes to the foregoing effect to
the Registrar, with the tenus of which, if dissatisfied,
, either of the parties :wag lett at liberty to offer any
farther arguments on a future occasion.—Judgment
' for amending the settlement, and for refusing the

stachment.
r THE CORPORATION OF COLCHESTER V. TIJOS. LOWTENI ESQ.
• This case, which has been so long before the pub-
lie, came on so be argued again before the Lord
ochancellor yesterday, after the issue tried by a Spe-
' eial Essex Jury, in Nov. 1811, and whose verdict was,
,•11Gliat the bonds of mortgage from the Corporation to
'Mr. Lowten "had been duly and lawfully executed."
• Mr. ROUPELL, Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, and Mr.
1 HART, on behalf of the Corporation, now applied to
Ilsave these deeds, pronounced by the verdict to have
been fi duly and lawfully executed," returned to the
Corporation, on the equity grounds, that the consi-
deration for the same was not money advanced, or
services rendered for the benefit of the Corporation
it large, but for the protection of certain officers of
that Corporation against suits produced by electioneer-
ing contests.
• 'Sir ARTHUR PIGGOTT and Mr. RICHARDS spoke on
i the other side, and maintained the validity of the
4 deeds in equity, as well as in law. They at the same
time animadverted on the conduct of the Corpora-
tier) ; but those details are too well know% to need
1
repetition.
This day (the 13th) Mr. WETHERALL and Mr.
HORN were heard for the defendant.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY commenced his reply, and
was proceeding at great length, when the LORD CHAN.
CELLOR intimated his wish to postpone the remainder
of the proceedings until the next day.
l•
JANUARY 14.
THE CORPORATION OF COLCHESTER Vo LOWTEN.
Sir SAMUEL Rourt.Lv finished his reply in this case.
The only point on which he had now to trouble his
,' Lordship, was the third branch of the case, as it had
been divided in the course of the argument on the
1 other side, namely, the reference to Arbitration, and
the award following on that reference. On this point
the should detain his Lordship only a few minutes ;
,for if he could not dispose of it at once, he was aware
[tat he could not touch it at all. What he contended,
; then,' was, this reference was neither more nor less
1, shan a continuation of the same transaction ; it was
(a branch of the same breach of trust, on the part of
I the Select Body, of which the Mayor and Commonalty
I now complained. It the party now complaining had
'agreed to the reference, he should not have had a
word to say; but the very reverse was the case. The
reference to arbitration had been made, as the mort-
gage had been executed, by the Select Body alone,
without the Body at large having been parties to, or
at all consulted in the matter.--With these observa-
i Lions he left. the case of the Plaintiffs with his Lord.
ship.
The Loan CHANCELLOR directed that a copy of the
award should be handed to his Lordship, and said,
lie should give his opinion on the case on Saturday.

ROBBERY AT TILE Purr-Omcx.---This intricate,
complex, and delicate case, underwent another long
investigation on Wednesday, before Mr. NARES, at
'Bow-street Office. The prisoners, Henry John: and
1,4 Louisa Hannah Griffiths, were placed at the bar, and,
r sifter much evidence was gone through, Mr. PARKIN,
' the Solicitor to the General Post-Office, requested
that the prisoners might be committed for further ex-
amination,las he expected on a future day to be able
Ito produce some very material witnesses. The pri.
somrs were accordingly committed for hull= en-
mainatioep

Nima