Star.
London, England, 1826-06-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

... CHESTER CIRCUIT.
,• Before Judges WA allMand Jassy'.
Montgomeryshire—Welsh Pool, July 24.
Denbighshire—Ruthin, July 29.
Flintshire—Mold, August 4.
Cheshire—Chester Castle, August 10.
COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, Joni 17.
WILLIAMS W. LEVY AND M`NtILL.

The plaintiff is a widow Lady, living with her two
daughters, in her own house, No. 51, Upper Berkeley-.
greet, Portman-squaw. A parther hour. she bolo.
been in the practice of letting out to loigeisof.
respectability. Some time ago her lodgings were ACS
cupied by a Gentleman of the name of Massaroni. who
purchased a carriage of the defend tat *Neill, for
which he paid by a draft .os his agent. 'The drat's, how-
ever, was not paid, the agent having abs:ondel Colonel
Massaroni shortly after-went abroad, took the carriage
with him, and used it there during his stay. Oa his
return he met and s iii, 4. 1 am sorry the di aft
has not been paid; and although .I am not legally liable
to pay you, because you never gave me notice of the
dishonour of the draft, X will nes ertheless pay you at
such a time," naming the day. With this arrangement
M'Neill was quite satisfied ; but befote the day ars ived,
he sued out a writ against, C slouch Massaroni. Sap.
posing that Colonel Massaroni might still be stayini in
the house of the plsiutiff, he together unit Levy, the
other defendant, went with-the Sheriff's officer to tier
house, between seven and eight o'clock in the wining
of February last. They obtained admittance into the
house, and searched. all the lower apartments, at last
came to the room where one of the plaintiff's daughteis
WAS sleeping, and finding the door fastened, attempted
to break it, and while they "me in search of a poker to
effect that purpose, the yonng Lady escaped trona tie
room, on which they entered it, throwing the clUthei
the bed, and acting in a manner most indecorous, anti
using very indecent language.
To recover damages for this outrage the present action was
brought. For the defence no witnesses were called, and the Coumel
merely addressed the Jury in mitigation of damages.
The Loan Cum Jurnce having slimmed up. the Jury consulted
a frwminutes,and returned a verdict for the plaintiff— Da mages,l on/
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DUBLIN, Juie 13.
CATHOLIC IttltaMAN.

THE LINO AT THE PROMOTION OF EDWARD. ADCOCK,
V. THE CORPORATION OF DUBLIN.

In this important case, which was under the codsi.
elevation of the Court in Hilary Term (when-it na, at-
cat considerable length, and with mucs ability on
sides), the CHIEF Jusrica this day pronounced
judgment. His Lordship said the case came before the
Court upon a return to a writ of mandamus command-
ing the defendants (the corporation of Dublin) to admit
Edward Adcock m the freedom of the city, and to the
privileges and franchise of the corporation. To this
writ the defendants made the return alluded to-; it was
in substance, that every person applying for freedom
must be approved of by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen,
Sheriffs, and Commons, sitting in Quarter Assembly;
and that, on the 21st of January, 1825, a petition or
beseech was presented to such assembly for such pur-
pose, by the prosecutor, which petition was refused ;
and that by the-usage and custom of the corporation,
for time out of mind, it was not necessary to state or
assign any reason for such refusal. There were several
objections taken on the part of the prosecutor, both as to
the form and substance of the return. It was contended
that such custom was unreasonable, that it was con-
trary to public policy, and tending to. extinguish the
corporation altogether, and that therefore such custom
was bad. It was not, his Lordship said, unreasonable
that one part of a corporation (and that the leading-and
most influentialpart) should exercise some controul, in
selecting members from the inferior branches of it ;
thus trying the validity of the custom by the test of its
unreasonableness. The Court sees no solid season to
suppose that such privilege, speaking generally, will be
exercised unless on good, legal, and reasonable grounds;
nor can the Court question the motives of such mem-
ben of the corporation in exercising such privilege.
The Court is therefore cf opinion, that the return is
good. No costs, boss ever, would be allowed, because
it was a question that deserved the opinion of...the Court
to be taken upon it.
PREROGATIVE COURT, Jot: 16.
HOGG W. noon.
This was a suit commenced by the husband for a di-
vorce,_ on the ground of the wife's adultery. The libel
stated a separation between the parties, and the pay-
ment of an allowance by the husband to the defendant,
Who resided for some time in the house of her ; s.ster.—
Subsequently she removed, and there were charges r.f
her living is a constant habit of adultery with several
strange men for a considerable period, and of her hav-
ing procured a man, named John Finn, to write letters
to several persons, stating her pregnancy by them, and