Star.
London, England, 1827-05-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MAY 16.

IN THE MATTER OT SIR GREGORY PAGE TURNER, A

LUNATIC.

Mr. HORNE presented a Petition, which prayed that
this matter might be referred to the Master, that he
might make a separate report for the maintenance of
the infant daughter of the lunatic.—Prayer granted.
IN TItZ MATTER OP TOUNO, A LUNATIC.
Mr. Borrouns had a Petition, which stated that it
had been referred to the Master, to inquire whether a
lease or leases of the lunatic's property ought to be
granted ; he had found it would be for the benefit of
the estate that leases should be granted, and he had
approved of the terms; the present application, there-
fore, was, that the Master's Report might be confirmed.
Report confirmed.
MORRIS V. DAVIS.
Mr. TAUNTON appeared to shew a prima facie case,
why this Court ought to direct a new trial, that the
Court might decide upon whether or not it would send
for the Judge's notes of the yid ? The issue directed
out of this Court by Lord Eldon was, to try whether
the plaintiff was the legitimate son of William and,
Mary Morris, of Argoed ? It appeared by the evidence
that the mother and father of the plaintiff were married,
and lived together until the year 1788; that in-March
in that year Mrs. Morris eloped from her husband's,
house, and took up her abode at a place called Llan-
drink about sixteen miles distant, where she conti-,
rued to reside until 1795. In May, 1788, articles'
of separation were maw(' between Mr. and Mrs.l
Morris, and from that time they lived apart. Before
the elopement, a young man of the name of Austin
*as taken into the house as footman; he afterwardsl
accompanied Mrs. Morris, became the manager of bei
affairs, and soon appeared in a much more important
character than he had befose assumed. Oa the 7th of
January, 1792, the plaintiff in the 'present suit was,
born, and his legitimacy was questioned on the grounds
of Ms. Morris's separation from his wife, as well as on
other suspicious circumstances which •belonged to the

case. Austin, of whom be was supposed to be the child,
went into the army, became a Captain, and dying abroad,
bequeathed the whole of his property to the infant child
of Mrs. Morris. That child, as soon as it was born, was
carried out of Mrs. M.'s house, at midnight, and in very
inclement weather, to the house of the father of Austin,
who was an old man in very humble circumstances. It
was contended also, that the resemblance borne by the
plaintiff to the younger Austin was very striking ; and
in support of this citcumstance a miniature pictare of
Austin was handed to the Jury, to be compared with
the plaintiff, who was in Court. On the other side, the
answer given to the case was merely that Mr. Morris
had ben seen in the neighbourhood of Mrs. Morris's
abode, and that an intet view bad taken place between
them about a fortnight before the birth of the child.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether the period at,
_

which Mr. Morris's visits to Llandrath were alleged to
have taken place included the time of parturition?—
whether he was shewn to have been there inMarch 1791?
Mr. AGAR said he was proved to have been at Lland•
rath in the spring of that year.
Mr. TAUNTON continued, and argued, that as the
Judge had directed the Jury to find a verdict for the
plaintiff, if they were satisfiei that the husband of Mrs.
Morris might, by possibility, have had access to her
during the period before the birth of the child, he had
made out such a case as would induce the Court to call
for the Judge's notes.
The Loaf) CHANCELLOR thought that such a direction
was too vague and general; and that as Mr. Morris,
lived only 16 miles distant from Llandrath, there could
be no doubt of the possibility of access. He was of
opinion that a sufficient case had been made out for the
production of the notes on the trial, which were accord-
ingly ordered, and the further argument consequently
postponed.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MAI, Ht.
PRACTICE Or 'THE COURT.
HoNoutt, in the course of the day, stated, that
he had had a consultation with the Lord Chancellor on
the subject of some definitive arrangement as to the
practice of the Court, for the advantage of suitors. 10,
consequence of this, he suggested, that " Further Di-
sections" had better be taken up, immediately after the
Recess, instead of being postponed until after the third
Seal, when it often happened that parties, after winning
their Report and Dectee, lost a-whole Term by being
obliged to wait for the " Further Directions, and the
7orms of the Offices." He also thought that some ar-
rangements should be entered into, with reference to the
Bankrupt. Petitions. With respect to these, he consi-
feted that it would he better that they should be taken
seriatim, instead of days being set apart for them at
different intervals. It they were taken seriatim, he
thought it not unlikely that Counsel would ns t tire
themselves with long speeches, after they had been upon
the subject for three or four days. His Honour claimed
the credit of .some knowledge in these matt. rs, observ-

ing, " that be had been in the oven himself."
Mr. HORNE wished to know, whether flis Honour
meant to classify theVetitions according to their merits?
His Houma was of opinion, that the less innovation
they had the better. To use a maxim of Lord Kenyon's,
without for a moment intending to adopt his Latin, it
was best " staresuper antique's vim." Lord Eldon we.
the first to adopt the system of classifying, and he was
.soon convinced of his error. Something ought to be
'done to controul the filing of affidavits, which had gone
a a peat height. It often happened, that there would
becitir affidavits in a brief, all sworn on the same day,
Nf 'die same individual, and at the instance of the same
thStney.
At a'subseqUint period-of the day, a Junior Counsel
tsked, whether he bad rightly umkistood that his Ho-

'notir would heat no case in which be hid himself been
Counsel?
His Rotuma did slot wish to betulderstood. •
.Mr. Anon!' observed, that ifibis r adopted such
a course, be would give himself five years vacation.
Hi, HONOUR said, that it did not follow that because
he had been engaged in a cause, he should have any
predilection for one side -more than another. He re.
membered; well a case, in which the present Lord
M insfield. and Lord Eldon, then Sir J. Scott, Attorney-
General, were engaged, and met with him almost daily,
in consultation. Sir John Scott was always saying, that
't m is impossible there could be a decree for theoplain-
tiff. Upon this, he was quite warm in his °pinks% The
case came on for judgment before Lord Rosslyn. and he
gave a sweeping decree against the defendant. Shortly
after this, Sir John Scott was made Lord Chancellor,
and he (Sir Anthony Hart) advised an Appeal to be
brought before him, thinking he could not but gain
his calve. He found, however, to his coat, that Sir
John Scott, Attorney General, was very different from
Sir John Scott, Lord Chancellor, and that he discovered
very different reasons for his opinion as a Judge to what
he had as an Advocate. Although he did not always
object himself to hear cases io which be had b..en Coun-
sel, he should leave it to the option 'of the parties to ob-
ject to any case being referred to him. He should
always, however, prefer their being carried before the
Lord Chancellor.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAT 16.
THE KING U. THE JUSTICES OP SURREY*

Mr.BARNEWALL obtained a Rule Nisi for a certiorari,
to bring up an order of the Surrey Sessions dismissing
an appeal of the Auditors, under the,New Church Act,
against the allowance of a sum of 6671. for a peal of
bells to the new Newington Church, which had been
supplied without the authority of the Commissioners
appointed by the New ChurCh Act, in order to have the
same quashed for irregularity.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAT' 16.
ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
WARD F. RASISDALR AND TWO OTHERS.

Mr. Sergeant WILDS (Mr. BRODERICK with him)
stated the case. It was an action brought for a com-
pensation in damages from the defendants, who had
assaulted the plaintiff, and imprisoned him in a watch-
house, withont•the slightest pretence for so doing. Two
of the defendants were father and son ; the father was
liable to pay certain rates in the parish of Armwell, in
Hertfordshire. which he had neglected to do, and had
removed to Hackney; be was summoned for the rates.
but paid no attention to the summons, and eventually
a warrant to distrain was obtained, and the plaintiff,
who was a parish constable, went with the Church.
warden to Hackney, to execute the same, first
getting the warrant indorsed by a Middlesex Ma-
gistrate, and taking with them a Middlesex Con.
stable. The defendant, whose rate it was, was not at
home; they waited for some hours, and put a man in
possession ; and then waited a farther time to see him ;
he offered to pay the rate, but refused to ply any ex-
penses. The plaintiff, with the Churchwarden, got into
their chaise-cart.to return borne. Having to pass the
door of the elder Ramsdale, the man who had been left
in possession called to them, and said, he had been
turned out of possession; the younger Ramsdale then
came up, seized the head of the horse, and ordered a
constable of Hackney to take the plaintiff, the Chun's-
warden, and the man who had been left in possession,
into custody, which he did, dragging the two former
out of their chaise-cart, and, without inquiring upon what
charge, conveyed to the watchhouse, and the next morn-
ing they were taken before the Magistrates at Worship-
street, and there discharged.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY appeared for the defendants,
and submitted that the warrant was bad, the sense of
" Benjamin" being inserted instead of " Matthias;" but
it appearing from the whole of the evidence, that.the,
assault took place after the distress was made, and off
the premises, this point was overruled. The Learned
Sergeant then argued, that such an error must go greatly
in mitigation of damages, particularly when coupled
with the fact that the case might have been tried at
Hertford, and enormous expense saved; but that would
not serve the purpose intended—a heavy bill of costs •
and besides, the faces of the parties would have been
then well known.

The LORD CHIMP Josma said, that the plaintiff
had been imprisoned contrary to all law, propriety, and,
decency--he had been kept out all night, and wantonly'
taken before a Magistrate ; the constable who took him
into custody had acted most improperly. Under all
the circumstances of the case, the Jury would estimate,
the value of the liberty of a man in the same rank of,
life as themselves.—Verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 101.

MEETINGS OF CREDITORS TO.MORROW. a.
G. Smith, Henry street, Waterloo road, grocer . . 19
I. Davis, Devonshire street, Queen square, surgeon . 10
W. sen. Muswell hill, coach and harnns•maker .

T. °bee, Weymouth street, Mary-lalonne, carpenter . 11
J. Roberts, Mitchenbamptun, Gloucestershire, surgeon . 11
W. G. Phillips, Oxford•street, linen-draper . . 12
W. Andrews, Louth, Lincolnshire, grocer . . 1
.
J. Vasil, High street, Islington, baker . . 2
J. Swan, Alsop's buildings, Middlesex, coal-merchant . 1
J. J. Frith, Banner square, silversmith and Itardwareinan . 11
J. Once
• 1
. .
J. Cox, k Vaothall, dealer . .
eadeidiall-stroet, victualler . • • 11
•
W. Mitchinson, Foot's Cray, Kept, general shophigie .- 10
R. Prici, Berrew, Montgomeryshire, farmer . 11 .
J. S. Lundie, late of Copthorne Sussex, builder . . 111
T. Swift, Fenehureb.street, hosier . 1
. . .
A. Wearherhead, late of Coventry-street, grocer . . 1$
J. Shepherd, Beaumont street, hackneyrnan • . 1
A. H. Turner, Mile-end, Ste. • 11
. . Froggott and Lllleyman, Doncaster, linen-drapers . .11
K. Bonfield, Wisbeach, Cambridgeshire, draper . . 14
W. Lucas, Bishop's Castle, Shropshire, currier . 10
•
11. Barge, Clifford street, Bond street, wine-merchant . 10
W. Cromer, late of Snow's fields, Bermondsey, coal.dealer . 9
J. base and J. Roberts, Gray's Inn-lane, carpenter's . 19
M. Wreford, hieW Bond street, milliner . . IS
.
K. Fowkr' Neptune street, ROtherbithe, silkman . 10
G. Clubs, llalhara kill, Surrey, dealer . 19
L. Illanchenay, Pall-mall, wine-merchant . 11
D. !lodges, Rodney streets Liverpool, silk-mercer . . 'll
J. Howdy, Free School street, Horselydown, tin-plate-worker It
J. Graham, Waterloo place, upholder . . 19
.

CRESCENTS.—The Crescent was the symbol of the
city of • Byzantium, now Constantinople, which the
Tutkl have adopted. This device of the Woman Em-
pire is of great antiquity, as appears from several me
dais, and wok its rise from An event related by S ephens,
the geographer, a native of Byzantium. He telli us
thiat Philip, the father of Alexander the Grear, meeting
with mighty difficulties in carsying on the siege of that
city, set the workmen in sciely 'dark night to under-
" mine the walls, that his troops might enter the place
without being perceived; but, luckily fur the besieged,
the moon appearing, discovered the desist, which ac-
cordingly miscarried. In acknowledgment ,f this de-
liverance, says he, " the B) zarttines elected a status to
'Diana, and thus the Ciesc:nt become the symbol."