Star.
London, England, 1821-06-06 00:00:00

THE MARCHIONESS OF DONEGAL.

In the case of the Marquis against the Marchioness
of Donegal, one witness was permitted to be exa-
mined, de bene esse, out of the regular and ordinary
course, and without allowing time to administer to
her the customary interrogatories. This exemption
was defended by Dr. Phillimore and Dr. Jesse
Adams, on the ground of the extreme old age and
precarious health of the witness, who had twice broken
a blood-vessel ; and was opposed by Dr.. Lushington,
(for Mr. Chichester, M.P. the presumptive heir to the'
titles and possessions, in case of the illegitimacy of
the children being established) on the ground of pos-
sible collusion between the Marquis and Marchioness,
and of influence exercised upon the witness. The
Court allowed the examination of this witness, an
old w oman of seventy-three, who was present at the
marriage, on condition that if she survived to the
period at which her regular examination in chief,
and the administration of interrogatories, could take
place, the present one should be entirely quashed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE s.
JACOBS V. JONES.

• This was an action for an assault. The plaintiff was
a glass-cutter, in Charles-street, Soho, and defendant
was clerk to Goss and Co. what fingers. in Thames-
street. •On the day on which the alleged assault took
place, the defendant, it appeared, went to the plain-
tiff's house for payment of a bill, due from the plain-
tiff to Messrs. Goss and Co. The plaintiff not being
ready to pay, the defendant made some observations
on the length of time which the bill had been stand-
ing, alleging that the credit exceeded two years.—
The plaintiff said this was false, and desired the de-
fendant to quit the house, as he would call and settle
with Mr. Goss. Instead of quitting the house, the
defendant seized the plaintiff by the collar, struck
him in the face, knocked him down, and kicked him
♦iolently. This was the assault complained of. Wit-
cesses were called tc -prove these facts.
Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, addressed the Jury;
he acknowledged that an assault had been commit-
ted by his client, but urged in mitigation the provo-
cation which had been given to him by the language
of the plaintiff.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 30s.—Costs 40.
DAVIS V. SHAW.

This was an action brought for slander by tl. r-
a, who v, as Captain's Steward, in the ship &Laval!

daring a voyage from Madras to London, in 1819,
against the defendant, an Officer of Dragoons.
Mr. ScAatirr stated the case. The plaintiff, it
appeared, was Captain's Steward of the ship Man-
gles, and sailed in that capacity in the year 1818,
from Madras to London. The defendant, a Dragoon
Officer, came home kith a party, principally of the
14th Regiment, in the Mangles ; and, for some debt
which he owed him, gave the plaintiff a gun. On
the arrival of the vessel in this country, the passen-1
gers, who were fifteen in number, agreed to sub-
scribe £1 a piece, as a reward for the Steward's at-
tention. When the cash was being gathered, however,
Mr. Shaw said that the plaintiff was a thief, and had
stolen his gun; upon which the passengers retracted
their intention, and the plaintiff lost that bounty to
which his good conduct had entitled him.
Captains Edmund Forster and Charles Greville, of
the 14th Dragoons, proved the words used by Mr.
Shaw, and the consequent loss sustained by Davis.
No defence was offered; and the Jury found for the
plaintiff—Damages £lOO.