Star.
London, England, 1828-12-22 00:00:00

stet d that this was an action to recover SOL for board.
and lodging of the- defendant's w.fe. The wife had.
before her marriage wilh the defendant, which took
place in 1825, resided at a well-furnished house of her
owe, in King-street, Brysnston-quare, and had some
,anperty. The delenilant,**hen he married I er, was a
widower, with seven children. It appeared that in 1825.
she was apprehensive of anrexecutiun eing put into gm
house to take her goods for her husband's debts, and • ,
she removed some of them nut of the way ; and then
her husband, on some difference ati ing between the"
pot her out of the house, and she te.ide.l with the
plaintiff, as a relation, froM July 1825 to July 1826 s
and as there was no pretence for saying that there was
any serious misconduct on her part, the husband was
bound in law to pay the man who supplied her with
necessaries, and who claimed only a very moderate sum.
Mr. William Job .Lavingsten was brother of Mrs.
Southwood and Mrs. Wausel; Mrs. Southwood married
the defendant in 182$; in July, 1825, Mrs. Southwood
came to him at his residence, in the vicinity of Man. .
cheater square, and said that her husband had turned
her out of doors; soon after, Southwood called, and
his wife requested that he would allow her to return
home; but he said he would not take her home for that
year, though he would not say that he would never live
with her again. Before she was married she had ihr use
of her own, in King street, Bryanston square, which was
well furnished, and she had another house in George
street, Bryanstan square. which she had let. •
Cross-examined by Mr. DIUDIAN—He had pawned
some spoons and little articles of that kind for the Lady,
and carried some looking-glasses to be sold for her ; the
hilsband assigned no reason for his conduct to his wife.
Lord TENTBRDEN recommended a referrence of all
matters in difference, which was agreed to.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Fifty Pounds, subject to a
reference.

TUBB IL HALLOW.
Sir JAMES SCARLET? stated that this was an action
to recover a sum of 451. and another sum of 531. The
defendant was a horse dealer, and kept livery stables
somewhere about •Kennington or Wash.% and the
plaintiff purchased from him tno horses, a black one
for 451. and a bay one for 531. and paid him the money.
Both the horses were warranted sound, but the plaintiff,
on showing them, to Mr. Field, a veterinary surgeon,
discovered that the black horse had corns, and the bay
one an incurable thrush in one of the fore legs, and
some complaint under one of the boughs. He then
returned the horses and demanded back his money; and
not having teccived it, he brought this action. •
The unsoundness of the horses at the time t f tl.e
sale was then clearly proved, and Mr.WiLuatits found
it of no use to persevere in contesting the case. The
451. had been paid into Court.
Verdict for the. pl..intiff—Filty three pounds.
COURT OF COMMON PI.E.* Gumnsatt, Dar- 20.
BROWNING AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES OF WIDGER, A
BANKRUPT, V. E IDGER.
In this case the plaintiff., who are assignees of a bank-
rupt named Widger, sought to recover from the two
sisters of the bankrupt the title deeds of certain pre.
mites which had been conveyed to them in fraud,
as it had been alleged. r f the bankrupt's creditors.
For the plaintiffs it was proved, that in 1819 the
bankrupt was in embarrassed circumstances. and that
the conveyance was then executed, in order to enable
the sisters to retain possession of this property—that
his embarrassments had continued until 1823, when he
became bankrupt; and that in the whole of the inter-
mediate time he had received the rents of these pre.
mises. For the defence evidence was produced to show
that the two sisters had advanced money to the bank-
rupt; that they had allowed him to receive the rents of
some lands left them by their father's will ; and that at
the time the conveyance was executed they had pro-
duced an account of these claims to the attorney wbo
prepared the conveyance.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE left the whole if the cir•
cumstances to the Jury, but intimated his opinion' that
thVwas a case of fraudulent preference, and that the
plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, who
undertook to enter a std proceuus on the deeds being
delivered.

SECONDARIES' COURT, pm 20.
R&YDOI.DS v. DAVIS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff againse
the defendant for criminal conversation wit') his wife.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. POT rap presided on the occasion.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS then addressed the Jury for his
client. It becomes my duty, be said, to state to you a
case as painful to the pasties concerned, and as import.
ant to the citizens of London, as any I have ever known.
I observe that the defendant has not thought proper to
appear here by Counsel to urge any thing in rnitigatico
of the offence which to has committed. I believe he
flatters himself that, nate', I can prove his actual posses-
sion of property, there will be sufficient mitigation to pre.
vent you giving any heavy damages against him. But.
the circumstances are such that I need care very little as
to that proof ; I shall, however, be able to show,lhough
I cannot prove any specific property, that he is possessed
of considerable funds, according to his own declaration;
and I need not tell you that the declaration of the de-
fendant.on this point is, perhaps, the very best evidence.
However, I care not whether he is possessed of a single
shilling; to be soft, his being poor must pievent the
plaintiff deriving that poor and trifling compensation
which the law affords him, of coati tiling the deft :Want
to pay his money for his misconduct. But they would
hear from the Secondary, that if the defendant could
not pay in his purse, he melt in his person, and that
was a just dictum of the law ; for if it were oti er wise,
the domestic peace of every family might be violated
by any beggar who could obtain admission there. Mr.
Reynolds' is a merchant in this city—l do not know
I whether any of you, Gentlemen, have the pleasure of
knowing him—but at all events, be had, fur m any years,
been known and respected by the commercial world.
By his industry and attention, he had realised a con-
siderable property, but, unfortunately, in the year 1825,
when so much commercial distress existed in the city,
the plaintiff was among the many thousand sufferers,
and got into considerable difficulties. The plaintiff's
adversity, however, had only afforded him an oppor.
tunity of showing the purity of his previous character,
and the respect that was, attached to it. I may say,
without exaggeration, that scarcely ever was • man
treated with such exemplary kindness by his creditors
—so particularly was he trusted by th.m, that they ern.
ployed him to collect the debts that were due. This
calamity having come upon him, Mr. Reynolds showed
that he was a prudent man: he reduced his expendi.
tine in every possible way, at the same time taking
care not to encroach upon the comforts of his wile.
Among these steps, he thought it necessary to discharge
—unfortunately for him—the Gentleman who had pre-
viously travelled for his house, undertaking to do that
part of the business himself. 1 now have to intro.
duce to your notice the defendant Davis, and as it
is under circumstances of the most peculiar aggrava.
ton, I hops to make you feel it as such, because by 1 is

. .