Star.
London, England, 1830-07-03 00:00:00

LAW RIPORTS.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY
WILSON, BART. V. Hoani AND Osuzis.—This was an
action brought by Sir Thos. Wilson, to recover from the defendants,
as trustees of some charity property situate at Hampstead, the
amount of B,OOOL odd for a renewal fine. The claim was resisted
by the defendants on the ground of its being unreasonable ; contending
that there was no custom to warrant the demand of the plaintif.—
The plaintiff, however, relied on a decision of the Court of Chancery,
in 1729, by which the parties were empowered, on the number of
trustees becoming reduced to five, to appoint ale others, so as to
make up the fourteen. The whole question, consequently, rested on
this decision, as to the reasonableness of the demand.—Thc plaintiff
was jtonsuited.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 2.

MASTIC'S THE YOUNGER, V. wmtrwitu..
This was an action brought bilh2laintiff, who is a partner in
a house at Bristol, extensively in the manufacture of wool,
against the defendant, who is 'Mr; India planter, and brother.
in-law to the plaintiff, for criminal conversation with his wife.
?he plaintiff married in September, 1822, being then twenty.
three years of age, a young lady, named Bryant, who was pos.
eased of considerable perusal attractions, and a handsome
property. The fruits of their marriage were a son and daughter,
who were now residing, in consequence of the unhappy affair,
with their grandfather, at Bristol. The defendant had also a son by
his lady. The possessions of the defendant at Demerara were very
considerable, but were then subject to incumbrances. They bring
In an annual income to the defendant now of 1,500 L a year, but in
a few years the annual return to the defendant would be 9,000!. or
10,0001. The defendant used to go frequently to Demerara, and
upon his return to England, was in the habit of-visiting at the house
of the plaintiff at Clifton ; indeed, the families of the plaintiff
and the defendant were on terms of the greatest intimacy. From
the clue and intimate connection of the parties, the plaintiff never
of course anticipated that the defendant would have taken any
improper advantage of this intimacy, to seduce the affections of
his wife. He was however deceived, for in Dec. 1829, Mrs. M. was
missed from her own house; the defendant also suddenly Wisp-
from his house, and they were traced to the house of a Mr.
pears!
in Arundel-street, Strand, where they lived as man and
wife, and occupied the same bed. The plaintiff's solicitor called upon
the defendant in Arundel-street, and after a conversation upon the
unhappy affair, the defendant offered the solicitor 2,0001. to
settle the matter. This, however, was rejected by the soli-
citor ; who said that no money could alleviate the sufferings of
the plaintiff: Defendant and Mrs. Masters bad since then gone
to the continent, where they now resided. Serjeant Spankie, after
commenting upon the conduct of the defendant, and after alluding
to the extreme distress of mind and entire loss of peace suffered by
the plaintiff, called seven or eight witnesses to prove the facts al.
ready stated.
No Counsel appeared on the part of the defendant.
The CHILF Jusricz shortly summed up the evidence, and the
Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 40001.
!The damages were reduced to 3000 i. the amount laid in the de.
claration.