Star.
London, England, 1809-07-08 00:00:00

DAVIES V. DAVIES.

This was a suit of divorce irstituted on the part of Mary Davies
against William Davies, her husband, by reason of cruelty and
adultery. It ',peered that the marriage in this case took place
between the parties on the 4th of November, 1804, and that they
continued to live and cohabit together as man and wife, till 1806,
when Mrs. Davies separated from her husband, on account of his
ill treatment and personal violence towards ker, and his adul-
terous intercourse with women of the town, whereby her
health became much injured. The farts being made out to the
satisfaction of the Court, it was of opinion the wife was entitled
to the relief she prayed, and accordingly pronounced for the same.

BING v. PRICt, falsely calling herself BING.
This was a suit of nullity of marriage, instituted by Susannah
Bing, widow, as the natural guardian of John Bing, her son,
against Mary Price, by reason of minority. it appeared that the
parties were married by licence, obtained by the woman on the
SOth August, 1807, the minor (John Price) being not then 17
years of age, and which marriage was solemnized without the
knowledge or consent of Susannah Bing, the mother.
The necessary facts being clearly proved in this case, the Judge
(Sir Win. Scott) pronounced the marriage to be null and void.

GURNEY v. Pluck; falsely calling herself GURNEY.
This was a proceeding of nullity of marriage,brought by Charles
Gurney, the husband, against Ann his wit:, by reason of minority.
From the proceedings it appeared, that the parties were mar-
ried in 1801, by licence, obtained on oath of the husband ; and
the material points to be established in this case, were the proof
of the minority of the party, and want of consent of the father ;
who, it appeared, had absconded front his family when his daugh-
ter Ann was only three years old, and went to America, and had
not since that time been heard of. The Court, after making
several pertinent qbservations applicable to the case, was of opinion
that the proof was defective as to the points of minority mid want
of consent, and therefore dismissed the application made on the
part of the husband.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 7.
WATSON V. LORD SONDES..
This was a question upon the construction of a
deed. Lady Mary Pelham had conveyed her landed
property, in Sussex, to a trustee, of whom the defen-
dant, an infant, is the representative. for the purposes
mentioned in the deed ; and among others, to convey
a stated portion to the plaintiff, and another portion
to the Earl of Chichester, subject to the payment of
£lO,OOO, to be applied in the manner set forth in the
deed. The ground of the suit was a doubt whether,
under the words of the deed, a certain wood, called
Bishop's Wood, alias Horsebridge Wood, in the pa-
rish of Hayling, and. the great tythes of the parish of
Lawton; were to be conveyed to the plaintiff; or,
whether they formed part of that property to be Lon-
veyeel to Lord Chichester, subject to the payment 0:
!the
x 610,000. The bill was filed by the plaintiff
against the representative of the trustee, for a con-
-1
veyanee ; and this was opposed by Lord Chichester,
the real defendant.
After Sir S. Rositt.Ly had been heard for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. HART for Lord Chichester,
The LORD CHANCELLOR delivered his opinion.—
Having adverted in detail to the several parts of
Ithe deed, and also to those of the paper of insu uc-
tions, drawn up for the Conveyancer, he intimated
that he was strongly inclined to think that the inten-
tion of Lady Mary Pelham was to include the con-
tested property under the portion of Lord Chichester.
But this being a Deed, not a Will, he was bound to
take the meaning not from the paper of instructions;
or any other source, but from the deed itself. All
that he could say therefore was—" Quod vault, non
dixit " By the obvious sense of the words of the
Deed, they were part of the property to be conveyed
to the plaintiff. Decree for a Conveyance to the
pi:limit-1:
His Lordship in the course of his observations re-
marked, that some gen,:ral words altering the effect
of the deed might possibly have been inserted by the
Conveyancer's clerk, copying his precedent-book with
too much exactness. This proves how necessary it
, s may be for parties not to content themselves merely
with giving a paper of instructions, even to the most
accurate Conveyancer. They ought to have the deed
' itself, after it is drawn up, carefully examined, in
order to be certain that it corresponds exactly with
their intentions.

FOWLER v. WIIITEWOOM

This was an application to vary the decree made in
this cause by the Master of the Rolls.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY stated, that in the year 1791
the plaintiff had lent the sum of 9,0001. to Sir John
Pechell, who, besides a bond and mortgage, had ex-
ecuted a conveyance of his estates to the defendant,
as trustee, in order, by sale or otherwise, to pay off
the debt. In 1796, the Plaintiff arrested Sir John
Pechell on his bond for 18,0'901 And threw him into
gaol, where he has lain ever since. He likewise took
possession of his estates, and tiled his bill of foreclo-
sure. In 1798 there was a decree at the Rolls to an
account, by which the Master was directed to take an
account of what was due to the plaintiff for principal
and interest, on the foot of the mortgage, and of what
had been received by him out of the estates of Sir
John, tip to the time of taking the account, and to
strike the balance between the two sums. The
ac-
count was accordingly taken, and the Master's report
confirmed in 1800. The petition now presented by
Sir John Pechell prayed, that the decree might be
varied, by directing the Master, in taking th! ac-
connt, to make rests, from year- to year, a; plying
the rents teceived between each period, by the plain-
tiff, to discharging the interest, in the first place, and
then in reductio9, of the principal ; by which, it was
contended, it would be found, that not only nothing.
was due to the plaintiff, but that, on the contrary,
hoth the person and estates of Sir John Pechell were
in the custody of his debtor instead of creditor.
Mr. HALL, for the plaintiff, contended, that the
Chancellor could not now interfere with the decree,
both from the length of time elapsed since making it,
and from the acquiescence of Sir John Pechell in the
report, to which no exceptions had been taken • and
for this purpose he cited a decision of Lord /brat-
wicke, under similar circumstances.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he would take till
to-morrow to look into that case, before he decided
on the present application ; as he felt extremely in•

eked, if he could, to compl/ with th..l
Under the terms of the decree, the Dittster could no:
take the ,account-ot4tee,t4an.he did.; ..b.utalleagsf),•.l.
be no doubt but that, in that way, FiitTieliThirej it •
be done between the parties. However, N% :I;lekTr
might be his feelings as at individual, he lutist
g iu the character in which he sat there. 'l'.