Star.
London, England, 1818-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

♦IC&CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DECEMBER 4.
Before his Honour the Mom ofthe
The MASTER of the Rot Ls was occupied from
nine in the morning till four; in hearing causes, of
no public interest whatever. In the course of the day
a case was called on, James v. the Vicar of Croy-
don. which related to the production of accounts.—
A Gentleman by his will had bequeathed certain
estates to the Vicar, Churchwardens, and six inha-
bitants of Croydon, for the purpose of building a
Court-house, a Butter-market, and procuring a Bu-
rying-ground. The sums for each of those purposes
were specified, and the surplus was directed to be
paid'into the Bank, under the controul and direction
of the Court of Chancery. Some dispute arose about
the production of accounts, but no decision was given,
as his Honour the Master of the Rolls wished to read
over the pleadings in the case.
The following notice was put up in Court :—" The
Lord Chancellor is not sufficiently recovered to attend
Court on Saturday, being the first day of Seal."

OOURT OF KING'S IiF.NCH, DECEMBER 4.

HARPUR V. PARRY. -

This was an action upon the case for a nuisance.
The plaintiff, who is owner of the Jerusalem Coffee-
house, had built a neat little villa at Hackney for his
family, and the defendant, who is a cowkeeper, and
owner of some houses on Hackney-terrace, had emp.
tied two of the privies of these tenements, and depo-
sited the soil upon a common field close to the plain.
tiff's dwelling. The plaintiff had remonstrated
against this nuisance without effect, and was obliged
to remove it at his own expense, which the defehdant
refused to pay, and therefore the plaintiff brought
the present action.
The CHIEF Jusycz intimated his opinion early in
the cause, that the action was maintainable, and it
was agreed oa both sides to withdraw a Juror, upon
an understanding that the nuisance should not be
repeated.
SALMON V. ATKINSON AND OTHERS.

This was an action of assumpsit, to recover from
the defendants the sum of £2. 17s. being.the hire of
a post chaise from Conway to Bangor, in Wales.
The plaintiff is an Attorney, residing at Bath, and
the defendant, Atkinson, is driver and part owner of
the Holyhead mail coach from Holyhead to Liver.
pool. On the day mentioned in the declaration, the
plaintiff was an outside passenger on the coach in
question, going from Liverpool to Holyhead, and
after he had crossed Conway Ferry, with the other
passengers, he stopt to breakfast at the coachman's
house, the usual place of refreshment for passengers
there, and after breakfast, when the coach was just
about to start for Bangor, the ferryman came up to
the coach, about 200 yards from the water side, and
demanded 6d. of the plaintiff for his passage. The
plaintiff said " it was a did impositibn," and re-
fused to pay, and wa's about to take his seat on the
top of the coach, but the ferryman interposed his
hand betweer. him and the coach, and insisted upon
'being paid his demand, but the plaintiff persisttd in
the refusal. The coachman, then on the box, said—
" Sir, that you may not break your word, I will pay
the 6J. for you ; so get up." The plaintiff answered,
" If you do, I'll notitay you again ;" and left the
coach, a crowd having collected about it. The de-
fendant said, that the guard of the mail coach was
hit miner, and be must obey his orders ; and he
turned round to the guard to ask what was to be
done? The guard answered, that the mail could not
be detained there all day, and bid the coachman
drive on, upon which the coachman drove off round
the corner, and up the hill on the Bangor road. It
was prbved that a person was sent to the plaintiff to
tell hint that the coach waited for him ; but he an-
swered that he should have no further bother about
it, and declined going. The plaintiff afterwards
hired a post-chaise to take him to his journey's end,
which cost him £2 17s. for which this action was
brought. It appeared from the evidence, that Con-
way Ferry belongs to Colonel Lloyd, and that an
allowance was formerly made by Government of £5O
a year for the conveyance of the mail and the guard'
across the Ferry, which sum was deducted from the
salary of the postpaster in that town, but that of late
this deduction was discontinued, and the mail and,
guard crossed at his expense. It also appeared that
the usual charge to ordinary passengers was a penny
per man, and twopence for a horse and man, but,
that for all passengers by the mail and other public
coaches, a shilling is charged to every inside pas.;en-,
ger, and sixpence to each outside traveller.
Mr. SCARLET?, for the plaintiff, contended, that
this extra charge to stage coach passengers was ille-
gal, and a gross extortion ; and that the conduct of
the.delendant was in direct collusion With the ferry-
man to commit such extortion.

Mr. GURNEY, in his address to the Jury for the
defendant, contended that this was an action brought
by the plaintiff for the sake of putting money into,
his own pocket, and not with a view of benefiting
the public.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, in his charge to the Jury,
declared his opinion, that the extra charge was ex-
tortionate and illegal. The point for their conside-
ration was, whether, upon the whole of the evidence,
it appeared to them that the defendant had acted in
collusion with the ferryman ? If they were satisfied
that he had done so, the plaintiff was entitled to a
verdict.

The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages £2 17s.
DELANCEY V. STRICKLAND.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered
to a Club of Military and Naval Officers, called
" The General Service Club," of which the defeadant
was a member and active malinger.
It appeared that a number of Officers ;in the Army
and Navy occasionally resident in London, during
the close of the last war, had associated themselves
into a club, for purposes of economy and comfort ;
the defendant, Captain Strickland, being one of the
founders. They held their meetings in several places;
and the question was, whether the defendant was
liable individually for certain articles of plate fur-
nished for the use of the Club by the plaintiff ; it
not appearing that the whole of the articles were
supplied at the instance of the defendant ?
The case went to the Jury, under the direction Af.
the Learned Judge, who ruled, that the plaintiff,
might elect to sue the defendant individually, or the
whole of•the Club, if be thought proper, and left it
to them as a question of election.--The Jury found
for the Plaictiff—Damages £lO2. 14s.

CAIN. CON.,

SUPRZgR COURT, CALCrTTA.

(noM " TW CALCOTTA GAirITZ" OF APRIL 9.)
BRIGHTNIAN V. PROBATT.

The case was opened for the plaintiff by Mr. Fait.
(remora. The offence brought under the notice
their Lordships, heinous as it was at all times, was,
in this instance, increased in enormity by a breach of
hospitality, and blackened by ingratitude. as being
committed against the defendant s best benefactor.
The defendant brought letters of recommendation
from England to his (Mr. Fergusson's) client,
received him with the utmost kindness and hospita-
liey—made him an inmate of his house, and did every
thing he could to promote his welfare. This kindness
and hospitality was requited by an unceasing exertion
on thd part of the defendant, to seduce the wife of
his benefactor. It would be proved that the plaintiff
was a most kind and indulgent husband, and enjoyed
in the society of his wife.the greatest possible domes-
tic happiness---ind although damages were not
matter of any consequence to his client, who, by :
talents and industry, had raised himself to opulence
and respectability, yet it was incumbent on
Lordships to lay on the heaviest damages, not tu
demnify him for his loss, for that was impossible,
had been deprived of every thing that was dear
Km. The world would not sympthize with '
Lie was exposed to the coarse jests of the vulgar
unfeeling sneers of the abandoned, of both sexes
of alt ranks. Money could not compensate for .
even if the defendant could pay it ; but the clam).
must be measured by the enormity of the crime
more than the means of the party, and it was
opinion of the most sound lawyers, that in a case
this kind, where a man cannot pay for his fault v
his purse, he ought, at least, to atone for it bl
confinement of his person. He then stated the .
cumstances which led to the discovery. In Dezember
last, Mr. Brightman was living in Calcutta, while
his house on the opposite side of the river was under
going a repair; this seems to have been the period
which the defendant first meditated his insidious
sign. Letters had at that time been written by hi
which, though without date or signature, would
proved to be in his hand-writing. In the month
March, Mr. Brightman, while in bed with his •
perceiving a hand thrust into bed with the evi
intention of awaking her, he started out of bed,
pursued the defendant down stairs, who however
escaped, and in a state of nudity tcok a boat
came across the river. Here was et case of villain'
unparalleled in the annals of depravity. Don
never attempted any thing like it ; had he done
he probably would have died contented. But
most detestable arts had been used (as would appear
by the letters produced) by this man of gallantry '
accomplish his purpose. This Werter Of the cot
try service, this Lothario of the caddy, had wor,
upon the *Fan as well as the vanity of his victii
in one of his letters, among a great deal of Lonsent.
and rhodomontade, he tells her that "he goes armed
against his own life ;" this is meanness, baseness, •
absurdity, without parallel. Now, though this r
appear ridiculous and preposterous to any man
senses, yet what effects might it not produce
addressed to the vanity of a weak woman?
defendant is no bOy, nor at all likely to be Lilo
and if he quits his own profession of making ini
and packing bales, to make love and seduce a
riedwornan, he must pay for it. If Mr. Bright_
was an affectionate and indulgent husband, and
was so ,to his (Mr. Fergusson'i own knowledge,
was the more to be pitie.±. Ile then insisted on hea'
damages; the defendant must be able to pay -•
as he had obtained security to a large anioant,
concluded with an eulogiurn on Mr. Brightman's
ratter, and prophesied, that if the opposite part:
tempted to throw out any thing against it they I
be foiled. He then.examined several witnesses
J. D. Cruz proved the registry of the marsh!
Capt. W. Kinsey was witness to the mania.,
took place at Mr. Brightman's house ; had frequi
dined at Mr. Brightman's, and knew the p:11
identifies Mrs. Brightman to be the same whom
save married to Brightman. He was living in
Brightman's house at the time of the marriage,
lived there for six tveeks after, until he went to Chi
lie has lived twice with them since that period,
about ten days each time. He generally dines
on Sunday. Mr. Brightman was a kind aid
donate husband. Mrs; Brightman conducted herser
as an affectionate wife; they appeared to live-vs
happily together. The first time he saw the del"(
dant was in Mr. Brightman's house in Cakut'
was in the latter end of September : has often
him there since ; knew Mrs. _Brightman after
Brightman was engaged to her. She was a wid,
but for what period does not know.
cross-examined by Mr. SPANKI e.—Never obsen
any thing extraordinary in Mrs. Brightman's condi
towards the defendant. Mrs. Brightman is a
enough woman, as the common run go, not
lively than most women, at least was not sure
she was. Dined with Mr. Brightman generall
a Sunday, •he gave excellent dinners, was perfr
sure of that, and plenty of claret. Does nut
his friends' houses to be a spy upon their action
to pry into what quantity of brandy and water
drink, but that at Mr. Brightman's house the;
take a little after tea, Ladies as well as Gentler
Never said Mr. Brightman had a good riddant
his wife, till after she misbehaved : then he said
and that he thought so still.
Mr. Wilson has been intimately acquainted
Mr. Brightman for twenty years past; knew '
Brightman since her marriage, visited the famil'
ten, and is of opinion that Mr. Brightman was
markably kind, affectionate, and indulgent husband.
Never saw any impropriety in Mrs. Brightman.-
duct, and always looked on them as a very haj
couple. They had one child, and Mrs,Bright
was a fond and attentive mother ; did not know
before her marriage, nor for some time after, •
did not at the period at which it took place resit
Calcutta; cannot recollect whether or not he w;
Calcutta before the birth of the child spoken
Never saw any thing slightly in Mrs. Bright.
conduct ; has seen her frequently in female soci
Witness does not generally dine on Sundays with
Brightman ; saw Mrs. Brightman in company
the defendant, it was about six week: ago ; Ca,
live in Calcutta in 1814.

Mr. Bently knows the parties ; generally
there on Sunday, and has done so tur three