Star.
London, England, 1825-04-26 00:00:00

laurtage of the hasbiad this, "If pet Van tete%
I will relinquish all my ettatieithinlii 1 *ill make any.
concessions, and I will lirre'ttpota bread and water, pro-
vided You will return to my Society-Ind protectiOn."—
Mrs. Durant listened to these fair prothiset, and this it
the return she received. The Learned Judge thought,
it he should be obliged to refuse her prayer, that he
should act under a very easel la*, and merely because
she had pteMised forgiveness. He iliairglit he was,
therefore, warranted in pronciuncing that the wife was
entitled to the sentence of separation which sheprayed.‘
SECONDARIES' OPFICt, APttIL
A Jury was summoned to assess damages in a ease'
in which an attorney was plaiatiff, and his client was!
defendant. The plaintiff sought to re4clikr 441. the:
amount of his bill of costs. amongst the items was
one for an abstract of a deed, considered by the plaintiff
as necessary to hand in to Counsel With the instructions.
The attorney far the &Militant said, that the ex-
penses had 'been most unnecessarily increased by co-
pying so large an abstract. Counsel might as well
have been handed the deed itself. 1
The SECONDARY said, that he had, in the course of
his experience, often observed what serious evils reaultedl
from the practice of not supplying Counsel with neces-
sary information; and it certainly was but reasonable;
to suppose that when an Attorney *as instructed to;
prepare a case for Counsel, he Was to do everything
that was necessary in the case. It was very seldom
that Counsel could, or indeed would, lo.)Ic at a bundle
of deeds ; or if k was their practice, the expenses would
become much more heaiy to clients than they now
were obliged to pay for the taking of abstracts, and the.
supply of other necessary Lformation.
The -Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict for the while
amount of the bill of costs.
Immediately atter the case Was over, the Jury were;
called upon to assess damages, tinder circomstancesj
sorreivhat similar. The plaintiff was a Proctor, andi
his bill atironnt(cl to nearly lOW. Ile called, for the'
purpoSe of proving the iai:nrss of the charge, a Gen-
tleman of the same profession.
The witness, upon looking at the bill, said, that if he
were sending in a bill to a client for the same services,
he should certainly consider himself bound to charge
less than the plaintiff had charged.
The Sa.connanv, in addressing the Jury, slid that the plaintiff's
own witness baying stated that there was an overcharge in the
biil, they mu't deduct the 118. The Jury then assessed the da-
mages at 'Xiin less than was tfemanded. •
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, APRIL 211.
Augustus Murton, Esq. tortnetly of Hampstead, De-
puty Commissioner-General, came up on h's petition to,
be dis Charged. No creditor appeared 'to oppose the
application, but the insolvent was questioned relative
to his salary, &c. &c. by Mr. Commissioner BOWEN,
who also commented on his having been lending his
acceptances for the accommodation of others, at a time
when he himself *as incapable of fulfilling his engage-
ments; it war therefore, the Court observed, a very
fortunate thing for him that no creditor came to cam.
'plain. The Insolvent replied, that he had lost his situa-
tion throtigh this circumstance, and was reduced to
half-pay.—The Insolvent was, declared entitled to the
benefit Which he sought.