Star.
London, England, 1811-03-07 00:00:00

COURT OP aUfo's BINcH, MARCH 8.
DAMIVIY O. DAUSZNY.
This was an action for a breach of comas% the
daina;es of which were laid at 440,000. The two
plaintiffs, who were the sister and the widow of a
brother of the two defendants, had, on the Bth of
April, 1806, their father being then living, entered
into a deed of covenant, to divide all the property
their father might leave to any or either of them,
equally among the whole of them or their children.
The father afterwards died, and left the bulk of his
property to the defendants, his executors, who refused
to perform the covenant.
Lord ELLINSOROUGH held such a covenant legal
and beneficial in the case of a probability of a captious
disposition of property ; but the present plaintiffs
were nonsuited, because the action was brought in
assmiuit against the defendants jointly, his Lordship
holding, that they had not promised jointly, and must
be sued severally.
Mal V. RASIILTINIL
This was an action to recover 43000, upon a Bill
of Exchange, drawn by a person named Goodhere,
and accepted by the defendant. The facts of the case
were as follow :—The drawer of 'the Bill, a distant
relation of the defendant, resided at Manchester, and
being a young man just commencing business,the de-
fendant had given him permission to draw on him to
a certain amount; and the mode of transacting bu-
siness was, that Goodhere having drawn upon the de-
fendant for any specific sum, say £5OO, previous to
such Bill becoming due, another acceptance was
given by the defendant for any sum which Goodhere
might want for making up the payment then becom.
ing due; this second acceptance was usually forward-
ed to oodhere, at Manchester, and he procured it
to be discounted at the Preston Bank; and the money
so procured was forwarded to Mr. Haseltine in town,
to be applied by him to taking up the bills then be-
coming due. This proceeding had existed between
the parties for some time, and was well known to the
plaintiff who was the most intimate friend of Good-
here. In the course of this dealing, however, Good-
here
had become considerably indelited to the defen-
dant, and a Bill for £2,900 being nearly due, the
acceptance in quest:on was given by Mr. Haseltine,
to enable Goodhere to remit money to take it up ;
but when Goodhere attempted to get it discounted at
the Preston Bank, his credit having received a shock
there, they refused to discount it. This circumstance
he communicated to the defendant, who, being alarm-
ed, immediately dispatched one of his clerks to Man-
chester, with a messae to Goodhere, desiring him to
return the £9OOO Bill` immediately.; during the inter-
view which took place between Goodhere and the
clerk of the defendant, the plaintiff was present, and
ca Goodhere desiring the clerk to assure the defers.
dant the £3OOO Bill should be applied to no other
purpose than raisins cash to take up the Bill for
42,900. The plaintiff repeated what Goodhere said,
and also desired the cleric to inform the defendant,
Goodhere would do very well, and all would be right.
Notwithstanding this, Goodhere afterwards paid the
£3OOO Bill over to the plaintiff, who now sought to
waiver upon it.
The defence set up was, that the plaintiff knowing
the purpose for which the Bill was given by the de.
fendant, was mot entitled to recover. The Jury were
of that opinion,. sad satamead a verdict for the it.
indent

MARCH 6....KOLDRX V. "%KATZ
Mr. PARK stated that this was a feigned issue from
the Court of Chancery, to try the legitimacy of the in-
fant plaintiff John Golden, who was unquestionably
the child of John and Elizabeth Golden, both demur
ed ; and the question was, whether the parents were
legally married ? Mr. Golden was in his life-time a '
stone.mason, in Upper North-place, Gray's Inn-lane,
in the parish of Pancras, who bad amassed property
to the amount of 5e30,000, and who died suddenly
without a will, leaving the only child, the present
plaintiff, whose legitimacy was the question of this
issue, itad the defendants his next of kin. The other
facts which Mr. PAKK opened will come out better
in the course of the evidence upon which only Ap-
pended the truth of the present question.
Mrs. Neesham deposed, that the was housekeeper
n Sir Philip Francis, for 3.years, and knew the late
Mrs. Golden who had been an attendant to Sir Philip's
two daughters for some time before the witness entered
the service, which they both left in Tune, 1800 ; the I
witness to be married, and Mrs., Golden (then Mrs.'
Langrish) to live as housekeeper to Mr. Golden. Mrs.l
Langrtcli objected at first to take Mr. Golden's shim.'
tion, as hc bad lived with his former housekeeper, Mrs.
Rockets, in a state of concubinage i • but the witness
removed het scuples,i and persuaded her to accept
she place. While she lived in the family of Sir
Philip Francis, she conducted herself modestly andi
with reserve, and was greatly esteemed by the fa,
MAY. In the spring of 1801, the witness called upon
Mrs. Langrish, at Mr. Golden's, but was told by the;
servant that she did not know such a person as Mrs.
Lab—trial-I upon which Mr. Golden came out of the
parlour, and said that Mrs. Langrith was then Mrs.
Golden, asking the witneu to walk in. She did so,
and when Mrs. Golden told Mrs Golden who the wit-
item was, he expressed his gladness to see her. Mrs.
holden told Mr. Golden that if he was satisfied with , '
her ass wife, he might thank the witness for penes- I
ding her to come and live with him. Mr. Golden re-
plied that he should be glad to see the witness at any
time as a fiend of Mrs. Golden's. The witness had
alen Mrs. Golden before, since her leaving Sir Philip'
Yrancis's ; and Mrs. Golden now told her. that she
less married when she called upon the witness then,l
mod bad her ring, though she did not tell the witneu
Sam In all the visits she made to Mr. and Mrs.
Belden, both then and afterwards, they appeared as
Irian and wife. Mr. Golden seemed very much hurt
at the death of his first chili, particularly as it was a
107. 'The witness learnt from Mrs. Golden, that Mr.
golden always took her wages to the Bank, while she
'was in his service. The witness had met at Mr.
golden's, Mn. Few sister to Mr. Golden, Mr. Foot,
"sad Mrs. Edzazolehis niece. She well remembered
sae birth et tile plaintiff, to s*.'m Mr. Golden ap-1
and Muth attached ; there was a third child also,
o was dead.
Upon her cress-examination, this witness said that
Mrs. Golden's first vistit to her was in October or
overober. The reasons she afterwards gave for not
vowing her marriage then were, that Mr. Golden
vas a p served pact.teigir Math tholia. tree au; veil

`..