Star.
London, England, 1821-11-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCZ

'COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 11.
SCALES V. BARLow.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on coming into Court,addressed himself to Mr. Ching, and said-, that after
reading the affidavits in this cause he had come to,
the conclusion that the Court hid no jurisdiction to
commit Joseph, the brother of Thomas Barlow. It
did not appear that the order of the Master of the!
Rolls prohibited Joseph Barlow, as it did his bro-
ther, from having communication with Miss Scales.
When the Court was called upon to commit a per-
son for contempt, it was necessary that the nature of
the contempt should be expressly stated upon affi-
davit. Under the present circumstances be would
advise Mr. Ching to amend his petition.
Mr. CHINO replied, that he would adopt the sug-
gestion which his Lordship had thrown out.
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose at one o'clock.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER Is.
AVA RIM V. SALT.
This was a bill filed for relief to the plaintiff from
a lease of lands in Derbyshire, on the ground of the
lease having been fraudently obtained. The plain-
tiff, in 1816, when a young man of twenty-one, and
serving as an officer in the army, granted a lease of
the farms to Thomas Lee. The lease was afterwards
sold by public auction to the defendant Salt. There
was no evidence that Salt had notice of any inten-
tion of challenging the lease, and the bill as regarded
him was dismissed. But against the assignees of
Lee, who was bankrupt, it was contended that the
plaintiff was entitled to relief. A few days before
granting of the lease, the plaintiff received a loan of
£lOO from Thomas Lee,, for which he gave his pro-
missory note. This was urged as a ground of suspi-
cion. Lee gave but aroo ; Salt paid 1.1,200 for the
lease. This was alleged to •be evidence of fraud,
since the consideration given was not adequate. It
VW further stated that the plaintiff had employed
no legal adviser, but trusted to Mr. Hicks, the soli-
citor of Thomas Lee.
The YICE-CHANCELLOR, without hearing Counsel
on the other side, dismissed the bill. The previous
lending of money was an ingredient to prove fraud,
but standing nakedly, as in this case, the Court
could not attend to it. If a man chose to take less in
the way of bargain than he ought to receive, or if
he availed himself of no legal adviser when it was
in his power to obtain one, the Court was not to re-
lieve him from the consequences of Ms Own improvi-
dence and negligence. There was no evidence that
the plaintiff had been embarrassed or under any re-
straint. The bill was dismissed, and with costs, as
it charged fraud.
amain V. SUTLER AND OTHERS.
Mary Wright had forsaken her late husband, John
Wright, of Hull, and attached herself to a Thomas
Johnson, in London, whose name she assumed. She
had carried with her an infant son, John Wright.—
The forsaken and injured husband died, leaving by
his will the defendants Ms executors. They re-
covered the child from the profligate mother, and
sent him to a 'chool at Horncastle ; they at the same
time paid her all charges for the period she had
maintained him. She contrived to get the son again
taken away, and kept possession of him for some
time. A bill had been filed in Chancery, and an
order had been obtained to restore the child. The
subject was now mentioned for the purpose of ob-
taining from the trustees the expenses of the mother
in maintaining her son after she had the second time
carried him away.
Mr. FONBLANQUE supported the mother's claim ;
Mr. AGAR opposed it, and stated, that Johnson
having gone to America, she had lived with a baker in
London, and took his name, and that she now again
resumed the name of Wright.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Not a farthing—no, not
one farthing can she have for any charges previously
to the filing of the bill; and as she can claim nothing
under the will, she cannot come before the Court
but by petition for anything subsequent to that period.
Mr. Ducawowrit stated, that the charges asked
were incurred previously to the filing of the bill.
Mr. FONBLANQUE said that be was to understand,
then, that a petition might be presented respecting
any charges subsequently.
The Vics-Cuasceotant.—Yes, but I shall cllsralss
it with costs, if the facts cannot be materially altered.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER
SEDITIOUS LIBEL—THE KING V. DAVID RIDGEWAY.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, hehad Dow to apply to-their
Lordships for a Rule to thew cause why the verdict
which, in this case, was for the Crown, should not
[be set aside, and a new trial granted, The case was
tried before Mr. Justice Holroyd, at Lancaster, and
was a prosecution against the defendant Ridgeway,
by the Society known by the appellation of the
Bridge-street Association, for a pretended seditious
Pulble cicatot.
il Jusrics—An indictment far a Ilbek I appOss.
Mr. Blt01:0HAM—Yell. my Lord; and the adjairevidesee was
that of a lad about IS years of age, E. named , clerk to
Nadin, the attorney.
The CHIRP Justin—Media, did you say?
Mr. BROUGHAM—Yes, my Lord, the name is well
known ; young Nadin is the attorney ; the old one,
the thief-taker, has retired out of town. Evan Mil-
ler was the only witness at the trial to prove the iden-
tity of Ridgeway, the defendant. In the course of
his evidence he swore that he called at Ridgeway's
shop, is Manchester, on the 7th of March last.
Ridgeway was a fustian-cutter, and was generally
employed at the top of the house. His wife sold
sand, brick-dust, potatoes, checks, threads, tapes, &c.
and small books for children, amougst which were,
Jack the Giant Killer, and Mother Shrpton l He did
not pretend to any previous knowledge of the defend:
ant, nor was the defendant confronted with him in
Court at the time of the trial ; but it was necessary
to establish that the shop was the defendant's, and
that he sold the publication to the witness ; and to
do this, Miller stated that he went to the shop of the
defendant, where he saw a notice, in writing, pasted
on one of the panes of the window, stating that the
Address to the Rfformers tpight be had within; that
he (Miller) went into the shop, and asked the defend-
ant for The New Year's Address to the Reformers VI
Great Britain? The defendant said, he had not
The New }ear's Address, but was writing to London,
and should have it by the end of the week. He then,
went away, and called at the end of the week, but;
_lse defendant had not received his parcel from Lon-
lon. At a subsequent time* however, the. witness

called again, and got it, and this was the alteged li-
bel. The witness received the two Addresses. accord-
ing to his own statement, at the same time ; and he
(Mr. Brougham) contended at the trial, that even al-
lowing the fact of the witness having purchased the
publication, as he stated, still there was no evidence
to shew that the defendant was at all acquainted with
its contents; and there was no allegation that the
Address to the Reformers contained anything illegal.
It was material that Miller should shew that it was
the defendant's shop at which he purchased the Sup-
posed libel ; and tti effect that object, he said, in one
part of his evidence, " It may be proper to observe,
that there was a sign over the door of the shop, with
the words, "David Ridgeway, dealer in tea, caffee,
snuff; tobacco, irc." He (Mr. Brougham) had nor►
the affidavit of Ridgeway, positively denying that
there was any such sign over the doer at the time
Miller swore to. There had been such a sign, but it
was taken down a week before Christmas, in conse-
quence of his having declined dealing in tho.e arti-
cles. He also possessed the affidavits of James and
Mei& Daniels.

The Cum Jusrice then inquired what affidavits
the present application was founded on?
Mr. BROUGHAM said he had the affidavit of James
Daniels, and Maria his wife, who had tor several
years lived opposite the defendant, and who both
swore to the sign having been removed from over the
door a week before Chtistmas, and that it had never
been replaced since. He had also the affidavits of
two other persons, Ann Miuenger, and Jane Mur-
dock,
.to the same fact.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—MiIIer stated, that the de-
fendant's wife was present part of the time, when he
was at the defendant's to purchase the libel; does she
join in the defendant's affidavit denying the sale?
Mr. BROUGH A my Lord; and your Lord-
.ship sees Miller does not state that she knew what
passed, though she was present some part of the time.
Mr. Justice Boss. asked what the defendant said in
his affidavit as to his knowledge of the witness?
Mr. Baoucti M said the defendant positively swore
that till he saw the witness in Court, when under exa-
mination, which he did fora short time, he never re-
collected having seen him before in his life.
The Cilia F Jusrice.—The fact of the sign having
been removed, as sworn by the defendant, you say,
is confirmed?

Mr. BROUGHAM—Yes, my Lord, by the affidavits
of four other persons.
The Crime Jurrics.—You may take your Rule to
skew cause.—Rule Nisi granted.

MURRAY V. HUTCHINSON.

This was an action by an innkeeper of White-
haven, to recover the amount of his bill for entertain-
ing the friends of the defendant, who attended his
father's remains to the grave. The sum demanded
was 1:2: Ss. part of which waecomposed of a sum of
Ss. for spirituous liquors suppled to the mourners oft
the melancholy occasion. At' the trial before Mr.
Justice BAYLEY, at the last Assizes for the County
of Cumberland, the plaintiff recovered only the suns
'of Cl:lss. the Learned Judge being of opinion that
the plaintiff could not recover the Ss. for the spirits,
being contrary to the letter of the 24 Geo. 11. c. 40,
s. 12, which declares that no person or persons what-
soever shall be entitled to maintain any action to re-
cover any demand on account of the sale of any
spirituous liquors, unless the debt shall be contracted
at one time, and shall amount to the sum of twenty
shillings or upwards.
Mr. D. T. JONES now mbved to enter the verdict
for £:2:3s. with a view to costs, and made two points.
Ist That an innkeeper, bona„ entertaining his guests
in his house, and charging for the spirituous liquors
drank, was not within the contemplation of the Act,
which clearly had reference only to retailers of spit its
to the lower orders; and 2dly, that as the spirits were
not supplied to the defendant himself, who was not pre.
sent at the funeral, the case was not within the statute,
He brought the cases of Jackson v. Attrill, Peake's
N. P. C. 180. Scotu', Gilimore, 3 Taunt. 228:
Spencer v. Smith, S Campbell, 9. and Gilpin v. Ren-
die. Selw. N. I'. 71. under the review of the Court.

The e Court were dearly of opinion that the caw
being witthin the express words As well as spirit of
the Act, the-verdict ought not to be increased.--
Rule refused.

IWARTRIN V. TAPLIN.

This was an action in the case, for libel and defa-
mation; pas, the general issue and justification.
The cause was tiled before Baron Gattaow, at the
last Assizes for Oxford, and a verdict taken fog the
plaintiff for £5O.
It appeared that the plaintiff was nurserymaid to
the detendant, wbo is a Magistrate of the county of
Northampton, and that upon her referring to him for
a character, when she had left him and was getting
another place, he wrote a letter in which he painted
her as the vilest of women. He concluded by saying,
that instances of her misconduct were easily capable
of proof. At the trial he endeavoured to prove these
instances of misconduct on the plaintiff's part, but
totally failed. The Jury, therefore, gave the verdict
against him.
Mr. CROSS moved to set aside the verdict, on the
ground that malice was not proved against the defen-
dant. The Learned Counsel was proceeding with
his argument, when he was interrupted by the Court,
who said they were summoned to another place.
The argument stands over.
LIABILITY OP COACH PROPRIETORS.

Mr. SCARLETT obtained a role against the decision
'of the Chief Justice in the case of Horne and Hall,
by which it was held that the printed notices given
lby the proprietbrs of stage-ceache not to be answer-
l!able for packages above the value of £5 is sufficient,
uniess the parcels are entered and paid for accordingly..