Star.
London, England, 1824-01-28 00:00:00

THE KING V. BARROW.

The point in this case arose from a deed of separa-
tion between the defendant and his wife, in which the
plaintiff was trustee. The difficulty was, whether the
adultery of the wife subsequent to the separation inva-
lidated her title to the annuity covenanted for her in the
deed of separation.
Mr. CHITTY argued for the validity of her claim,
notwithstanding subsequent adultery, and cited a great
number of cases in support of his argument. It was
not likely that the husband would have executed such a
deed, or the wife agreed to it, especially as none of the
children were allowed to live with her, unless there had
been previous infidelity, or at least a suspicion of it.
Mr. PATTISON argued on the other side, that the ado!

tery entirely did away with the indenture for annuity.
If there had been a reconciliation, that would have an-
nulled the annuity, as decided by several cases, which
he cited. Now what prevented this reconciliation here,
but the adultery of the wife? She brought her suit for
restitution of conjugal rights, and the husband resisted
it by pleading her adultery.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—WiII not the question re-
sult to this; that there has prevailed an uniform course
of decisions in Courts of Equity and Law for more than
a century upon this subject, though every Judge may
have for himself said that if the matter were res integra,
he would decide otherwise ? The highest tribunal has
never decided against such an allowance. Would it not
then be an excess of jurisdiction in this Court to decide
against this uniform practice at the present day?
Mr. PATTISON again pointed out the distinction be-
tween an agreement to separate and a separation.—The
Court held that there had been the determination to se-
parate. It was an immediate separation.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said lie would only add,
that the husband might have made the annuity condi-
tional, on their living separate, and her living chaste;
he had not done so here.

vviLLANs TAYLOR.
This action, which, it will be remembered, was tried
a few days ago in Middlesex, was brought under the sta-
tute of Anne, to recover four times the value of money
lost in the gaming-house kept by the defendant, at rouge
et noir, by a young man named William Willans, to the
amount of 6671. The brother of the alleged loser was
I the plaintiff, and he was himself the principal witness,
and swore that he lost the money at various times in the
house, where he saw Mr. Taylor nightly presiding, and
regularly entered on a paper (which he produced) the
sums which he lost. The defence was, that this witness
never had the money to lose; and that, though he had
been in the house, and though Mr. Taylor had been in-
terested in it, he had not been there at the times he pre-
tended, nor had Mr. Taylor, during those month; been
present in the room where he was sworn to have acted
as master. To prove this case, the porter was called,
who produced books, said to be made up nightly from
slips of paper containing the names of the vitors; the'
dealers, who swore that Willans never played but for
small sums, and that Mr. Taylor was not present during
the time spoken to by him; and that, in particular, on
one night, the sth of April, when the witness asserted
that he sustained his greatest loss, being Gaud-Friday,
no play was permitted ; and several pet sons, who de-
posed that, about the time, Willans was in great pecu-
niary distress.—The Jury after some time spent out of
Court, asked the Learned Judge, wliether they could
reduce the damages ? to which he replied, that if they
; believed Willans, the whole was proved; but they might
.finda for part if they thought fit; on which they returned
a verdict for 680 i. finding only that 1701. was lost.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for_ 2 rule to

shew cause why a new trial should not be had. He
urged, that the verdict was against the weight of evi-
dence in the cause; that the appearance of the paper
proved it to be all written at once; and that the very
finding of the Jury manifested that they did not place'
implicit reliance on the solitary witness by which the
case was supported.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTITR said, that the appearance
of the paper, the books of,. the defendant, and the de-
meanour and testimony of the witnesses on both sides,
• were all before the Jury, and the Court could not say
they had formed an erroneous judgment. Had they
found a verdict lot the whole sum, he was not prepared
to say they would have dons• wrong ; and he could not
think a defendant had a right to a new trial, because
they found for less than they might have compelled him
to pay.—The other Judges concurred, and Mr. Justice
BAirt.Ey observed, that it did ❑ot seem to hint that the
paper was all written at the same time, though pro-
bably with the same kind of pen and ink.—The rule
was therefore refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JANUARY 27.

MAY AND HOLMWOOD MAY. NORTON, AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the two plaintiffs to
recover certain sums of money which they had been
obliged to pay as sureties for a third party, to whom
the defendants were attornies. It was alleged that the
obligation to pay had arisen to the plaintiffs on account
of the negligence of the defendants in the cause of tile;r
principal.—The Jury on the trial gave a verdict fox
the plaintiffs.