Star.
London, England, 1820-11-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
•

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, NOYBWSZR is.

DOS ON THE DRMISI Or DIIDMAN O. DDDMAN.
This was a motion by Mr. Serjeant TADDY for a
Sew trial, on an action of ejectment, that had been
tried at Guildford, before the Lord Chief Justice.
The deceased had a natural child, in the year 1791,
by a woman whom he afterwards said he had mar-
ried, and introduced into society as his wife. Soon
after the birth of the natural child, the deceased and
the mother had gone together to London ; and on
their return, gave out that they had been married,
and were received and visited as such. The question
that came before the Jury was, whether the plaintiff
was the legitimate son of the deceased; or, in other
words, whether the parties had been really married.
The Jury determined against the marriage, and the
motion for a new trial was made on the ground of
misdirection en the part of the Judge. The Learned
Serjeant contended, that the publication of banns
was not necessary to be proved, as repute would be
sufficient, especially in die case of cohabitation foc
seventeen years ; and the marriage might have been
by licence.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE read the evidence in the
cause, and observed, thait he had stated to the Jury,
that though the marriage might have been irregular,
yet if they believed that it had really taken place,
it was not to be questioned at that distance of time.'
The plaintiff was not excluded by the result of that
action ; and had the verdict been different, he (the
Chief Justice) would have been equally loth to base
disturbed it.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that the marriage was
allowed to have taken place in London; but though
Registers were kept in all the parishes, no proof
had been, produced that any search had been made.
The journey to London appeared to have for its
object to enable the parties to give out that they had
been married.
Mr. Justice BEST observed, that there was no
proof of the man iage ; and that all the presumptions
lay on the other side, as the woman had nut pre-
vioubly led a virtuous life.—ltule'refused.

LEWIS V. CLEMENT.

Mr. ADOLPHUS in this cause moved fora Rule to
shew cause why there should not be a new trial.—
The action had been brought by the plaintiff, an At-
torney-, against the defendant, Proprietor of The
Observer Newspaper, for an alleged libel inserted
i.i the defendant's Paper.
The alleged libel referred to conduct imputed to
the plaintiff* when an Insolvent had been brought up
to move for his discharge, and had been headed—
`. Shameful Conduct of an Attorney." The cause
came on for trial at Maidstone, in ISIS, and the de-,
feadant had justified the statement from the truth of''
the facts. The Jury on that occasion had returned
a verdict in favour of the defendant. A motion
having been made in the Court of King's Bench for
a new trial, the Court had been of opinion that the
plea of justification could not apply to the heading
of the article, and that a verdict should have been
for the plaintiff. The cause was sent to the Sheriff's
Court, for the purpose of assessing damages, and
the Jury,- under the direction of Mr. Serjeant Huh
lock, assessed the damages at £5OO. The Learned
Counsel now moved for a Rule to shew cause why
the verdict should not, -be set aside. First, on the
ground of misdirection on the part of the Learned
Seyjeant who tried the cause ; and, secondly, on
the ground of excessive damages.—Rule granted.