Star.
London, England, 1827-12-13 00:00:00

ROLL'S COURT, DIG 14.

FIELD S& SIR JOHN OSBORNI, LORD CANTON, & ovum*.
This was a bill filed for Seducing certain deeds, ere.
cuted by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, on the
plea of misconception of the rights conveyed, and 'bat
that misconception, in respect of one of the deeds, had
arisen from an answer given in by Sir John Osborne to
a biil filed in Chancery in the year 1803, and in conse-
Treace of which that suit was compromised.
Mr. SUOMI, for the defendant, put in some docu-
mentary evidence, from which it appeared that before
she plaintiff had agreed to compromise the suit in 1803,
he had been famished with a copy of the settlement,
and that he had taken the opinions of the late Sir
Samna Bomilly and Mr. Hughes, and had had the
draft of the deed of bargain and sale settled on.his be-
half by Mr. Charles Butler, the eminent conveyancer.
Under them circumstances the Learned Counsel con-
tended that the plaintiff had by his own acts precluded
himself from the possibility of obtaining that relief
which he new bight by his bill. The conduct of the.
plaintiff had bee' OHM improper throughout; and•
The plaintiff, Or. Field, who .*as in CQIIT'; sitting
opposite Mr. Sugden, here rose and observed—" That'
Mr. Sugden had no tight to cast personal reflections
upon his conduct."
Mr. SRODEN-4 am really quite tired of telling par
ties, that in making observations on their conduct in
any particular cause, I mean nothing personal to them.
Mr. WALICIR was then heard at great length in sup-
port of this plaintiff's case, and the plaintiff himself
also iddressed the Cuuit.
The MASTZR of the Rows, in giving jodgment, ob-
served that the plaint,ff had
.stared in his bill, that 'he
had been induced to execute the deeds in question in
ignorance of his rights undo- the settlement; but it ap-
peared, that prior to his executing the deed of bargain
and sale in 1804, he had been furnished with a copy of
the settlement, and had taken the opinion of most emi.
nent Counsel upun ttse effect of its limitations, and he
had also had the draft of the deed of 18(4, approved on
his part by an able conveyancer. That d.ed, it ap
peared,•coatained full rec-tals of the limitations of the
settlement. The plaintiff was of age, and knew per-
fectly well what he was doing, having himself instructed'
Counsel, on his own behalf, and it was therefore ins-
pasible that a Coutt of Equity could, now set aside the
deeds.—Bill dismissed with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII;Doo.111.
Sittings after Michaelmas Term at Westralaster,biikft Lord
Tirstaaame and Special Juries. •• •
SRZTT S. VISHRR AND OTHERS.

This was an action briiught to try the right of the
Corporation of Cambridge to certain tolls, which, from
a.very ancient date. they or their lessees had been in
thg habit ofireceiving.. . •
3Mr. Tauvrox (..be, with Mr..Serggtnt Stocks and
M. Park. appeared for the plaintiff) salted the case
briefly, eon,idering the length of time subseqtreetly ors,.c6pied in laying before the. Court the evidence which
he thought it.necessa, y to product.. Leatred Gen-
tleman, after adverting to the lii,tory, of the Corpora.
lion, and its tithri t? property, stated that they claimed
to 'hays der iced those tolls fr om William the Conqueror,
and nrcourse before timed legal memory; From one
portion of his statement it appear edihar the point likely
to be most strenn iusly cen estrd •would be the sense in
which the word consueludinei WAS used in " Doomsday
Book." f•e contending that consueludixes and etraulare
were synoninthus. and convettible term'. It would,
however, be necessary, for a legal establishment of the
title, that a variety of anciedt 'documents and records
should be produced; after 'this it would be for his
Learned Friend to shew that cOnsudxclinesmeatit rent..
He thin concluded by 'hurt', detailing the origin, con-
fit mations, recognitions, and continued enjoyment of
these toll.

Evident* for the plaintiff was then gone intofor the
purpose of establishing the tide of the Corporation,
whose lessee he was. Extracts were read from 61 Dooms-
day Book" and the Pipe Roll. An' ou iginel charter
,was exhibited in Court, dated in the Bth of King John,
'which; to the.sarptise of some present, was much more
legible than documents of a later date, and much more
.brief and perspicuous than similar instruments of the
present day. 'Office, s of the Corporation of the Univer-
sity, and from several depositaries for public records,
produced a variety of documents %%latch were received
in eitidetice ; *insult t them was a compositionenttred
iaitu•briterwen the Corporation and the-University, rela-
tive to the tolls iu question: •

Cvho, with.the Solicitor-
(piraliiod Mr. Alderson, appearid for jbe defi,modaot)

1e147--r-t-A-nT.4..: . '..-rer-d•—•.v..f...0,e..-.:5,eizz.:.• • ...*.
hj ctol t4- keel traa4c•Eilifirilirliissima • :
Ase_ll. ayes-hitt Temahe.W.hlreeidaaap : die,
, , • ..,.
Lor ,1 l gxr!Agfejs—.Ael;ljdr:**l'. .IF. Mts..
Ali. TA Ul* jOli ;14. iel . Meti !Re aliullelikage •1'
~ . . ..
this award.
~, 4. '7 , ~. el 1, . • ~A. 0
:1).0 A Tpot w wit:4IOIIWAIL—Wr4II.: 1 eAMIMORMIIIO4I_
I b!liese it nusies for we, tow 4 ifffOr*Plololrsike‘•
,0 t--(A laugh)
.-
.• . .
Several large boxes were in Cowl
041
documents of the • Corpotaiims.• 17141 waist . tt+
dt cumentaiy evidence did not conebadtktiliS eflote
Witnesses were examined on the part, of theraktpora
tion, to shew that toll had been amicsod by tbsit lessee
11 the manner stated, during. the fifty yeatEprecediny
the time at which the present action was briiught—
namely, in the year 1824. .
When the plain.iff's case closed, the Attorney-Genera'
suggested to his Lordship the expediency of adjourning
it being then five o'clock.
After some conversation between the Bench and tlu
Bar, the case was directed to stand over till Friday, the
'Ling v. Bradley, which was fixed for that day, having
~ .
been r ostpoueu..
..... • .
The plaiiit.rs ease. wbkh was perfectly void of in'
Iciest to all except the parties, lasted the entire day,—
.Irt.e def. nclsnts (who are to make out theirs oat-Friday)
4 e btickmakers at Cambridge, and the atelier !Clout
is 'of considerable importance to the Corporation, in
voliing;iis it does, the right to what constithses the
greater (-art of their income. A trial on aria isaustwas
had in the year 1825 ; a new ;OA (41. Pelt -I*4
been gran'ed, p
but sagou what eeapga.elid Airs
day appear..
,z . •
~
CONSUITOIRT COURT, 11...tas • . • ' •
.. . . . - .
'YOUNG V. YOUNG; • -
This is a vale foils, divorce by reason of sadeltery.
prornoted by Ors. Mary Young against her hUsband
Colonel Henry Young, • It came now before the Court
on a question as to the admissibility of the alltgations.
The libel alleged that the parties were married ia;1798 .
they cohabned together till 1814% and dating that period
seven children were'born. Colonel -Yotsng, towards shi
latter end of 1814; it was alleged, feirmed:stdrindual
intimacy with a "roman
,named Sophia CrOtt,'Wh•ele-
compabied him to Abescleen. Mrs. Young itis in the
Mean time left in great want, by reason of this• deser-
tion, and owing to -an execution being put• into the
house by the contrivance of her husband, whereby the
was disabled from following him to Scothinien• It was
further alleged, that Colonel Young and Sophia Cross
went to Prince Edward's Island, where they cohabited
for eight or nine yeah'. In the year 1825, he- was found
to be residing at'Patis, arid Mrs. Young went to Fiance
in January, 1816, in order to serve him with a process
from this Court. 'She returned to England in May, in
order to raise Money, leaving her daughter, Matilda
Jemima Young, at Boulogne, where Colonel Young
came to reside. During this time, it was alleged, be
carried on an adulterous inset course with' a French
actress. By the medium of the daughter, a recootiliatien
was effected between the parties, and Mrs: Noting re.
turned to cohabitation with her husband at Boulogne
in July. Soon after, however, he formed' a 'criminal
connution
.with a
.French woman, named Juliette Do.
pont, and cohabited with her in the vicinity cf Bou-
logne, after his rdease.from prison, to which be had
been sent in October, 1826.
Colonel
• Dr. SIM Aiiiita and Dr. PICKARD, for u
I Young, Übjectilt to some of the articles as inadmissible.
lialb d particularly-to the admission of certain letters from
'4lll4biweivort. exhibited in supply of proof., which, they
'-tiofttended, weld not 'be so received, according to the
roles of the Court. They also contended' ihaf. there had
'been a condonation of the alleged acts of adultery prior
to the month of July, 1826, which was subsequent to
the commencement of this suit in December, 1825, and
from which thehusband might have ptayedto be dis-
missed. s • • ,

!

~I

. 4

•
Dr. Lusuiffotrou and Dr. DODSON, for the *We. con-
tended, that a condonation was merely conditional;
that by a miolation of a promise of ametuimeut. former
injuties weie revived and aggravated. The allegatiOus
set forth a very flagrant case, and, they couretidtd. were
unobjectionable.

Sir C. %Janson was of opinion that seine of the
allegations. were inadmissibles fle tecommendr.dithat
the term 4‘ false," in the article pleading the eaecutiop,
should be omitted. The letters of Cr oss.he must reject,
because the Court had no precedent or 'oath tit, for
admitting them. 0 n the whole, he should admit the
,libel, wish the exception of the last lour.beticift. .
' HARROLD O. HARROLD.
This was also a question as to the adenissl n of the
libel in a suit for divorce, on the ground of adultery,
promoted by Mr. Thomas Harrold Against James his
wife. The panics were married in July, 1820, 'When
.they went to live with the mrthet of tl.e husband, in a
house which was the joint property of the; latter, at
Coleshill, Warwickshire. • Suon after,throwafet ;ryas
alleged, became dissa.isfied, and treated her thtltkit'.
in Law with harshnels and cruelty. In 1822,. she Wt
her husb nd, and went to live with her own inothery at
Brixton. Mr. Harrold thereupon fitted uralsouse.lbe
tbeir sole residence, and prevailed open hie wild tj(Ye•
torn, in ISA. Up to thil„period no adultery w 4 al•
leged. Mrs,flarrold reirided with bee hiksband till the
Ist of January, 1826, .wlien she again left him ;de-
cluing, as alleged, thav• if all thrdevilfihhell should
atteMpt.to stop her, *o she would... Adultery was then
pleaded to have taken place between Mrs: Harroldand
Tnomas French, the driier of a Hastlnga.atage, and
likewise the birth of a child lifter _eleven months cessa-
. tion of cnhabitation With the husband. A confession
of the adultery was. pleaded, and at.o (lithe spurious
birth of the child, in a letter (a very coarsi,and indeli.
ate one) written by Mrs. Harrold to her hbsbabict.
Dr. DODSON, and Dr. PICKARD, (r the wife, ob-
jected .o the supetfluity of pleading in the libel, which
imputed cruelty towards the rpother.inalaw, and a
clandestine attempt to abstract the husband's property,
which were wholly new pleas in a 'suit of this nature.
They contended that ;here was nothing in the allege-
floor; to afford a grOond for believing that the husband
was entitled to the remedy he prayed.
Dr. Pant.t.tmOta and Dr. Jun ADAMS, for the has-
bandohought the objections extremely frivolous, and
that there.was ample ground for the suit.
The COURT was of opinion, from the nature of AO
case, particularly the alleged acknowledgment of thb
birth of a child long after access had ceased, that thew
was sufficient prima facie matter to support the-sidle
lle directed the libel to be reformed in_a few panic*
larva and then admitted.

GRANT' AGAINST (MAST. .•-. . . 'I
-
• In this case Dr. Animus moved upon a* allegetien
of faculties, representing the husband (+Rho is the Pro•
rooter of the-suit) as possessing an brains,. of f,0004
per annum, that the Court would utter the irffkonac.
count of alimony, i greater allOviai ci. toen4. per
week, which she now received from her•beelselllis • . -
~Dr„, Lusnlnerauren the other siderdertithtthe ales
.gations rcspectinsolie faculties, end:'.objeceird tO a A
sreatersalltivyane.—!llle Couir refused to order *le.
•
, .