Star.
London, England, 1829-05-21 00:00:00

Mt. Brodie's pi. W Swyeaseatt • • .' • ...
Mr.. Coignes b s Pani,Cry
Mr. Swansea b b by Henry .1..
Mt. Sesunetvilie's b m Skinflint •••• •

Mr. Lyle. ss. br h Rattlesnake
Mr. diesoe!eith s by Cobib Owlet
Mr. Scott's b h Young Penedos
Mr. Sailtliagt at Lady hinny
Mate! fdr Twenty Sovereign% carryins left each.
. Mr. DrOoriVii 1 wi maks* Mr. Usher's eh h Itedreaver.—Mr.
*owes ISM widest...fr.
. Match for Sleety Pounds..
Mr. Gichrisee eb May, jig, apt Mr. &meal* h Lancer, 13st.
Mr: Gilchrist walked over.
• ROWING MATCH.
Yesterday an Amateur Rowing Match took place en the River
lan. The mussel the wager were. that it should be a &ohne'
Wager. is fuer beater-4 Nile distance—and the winners of the drat
three beau to be sodded to row the grand beat, and the winner or
that heat to neater a prise of ASO.
After the the.. Int heats had been decided, the following Gra
duates started* els o'clock to row the grand heat—
Mr. Henry Wane Owen.
Mr. S. W.oolte Raherisithe. „
Mr. = Capps ' • Hackney.
They kept copiber for about a hundred yards, when Mr. Wbolfit
gained upon his adversaries. bet Watts soon after paned and kept
the had dating the ntitainder of dui dimmer, winning the prise by
about two beau' leogib,,W.uPfe yma amend, and Capp last.
TIM FANCY.
Barmy Aiwa aid Jan Rainea--The final deposit in this match
wee made' es Tender abbe, et the ftroasky Acres, Cleveland.
tanetafiersopesparo. tea, foe choice of place el kWh
less wen by the friends of Barney.

... 0 f
... U .

" .

1

•

4=--
POETRY.
• •• • 9LEAtiIi4GS *PROM NATURg AND LIFE.
• By H. B. Gomm's, WWI. ROIAL
' Sweet are the hopes which gild life's rising mom,
While yet the rose appears without a there;
Sweet are the hours when happy lowers meet,
And friends and prudence all their wishes greet;
Bet sweeter far that sympathy of soul,
When virtuous marriagicapelvases the whole;
No slid; views or worldly ties it knows,
• With tinelneresess, and fee ever Sow";
Been in the base, is predate. silivdri Pak
Yet warm and lively. faithful to the trust
Sweet see tfkilispes which gild life's rising mean.
While yet the roe ewers without a there;
Sweet are the heirs wiles diosghtims lovers ma.
Though friends and pendenot mark thestindikeeet ;
Sweet is feed hope-.bet baker is the eleig
Which rash-made vows sea dkappakkmaiklis ben
Bet far more bites, is the mestledi
When false Wades leads to Ins and skins;
When man and wife is misers, manse roam,
And seek for comfort auy where but home !
Oh ! then beware 1 while sunshine glide life's more
• While yet the rose appears without a thorn ; •
When youthful hearts beat high in bepe'and Maids,
And warm eVecdon enters there by stealth.
' Gay Youth t forbear to tamper with the ketie, •
The tender wish, which gives the feedings scope;
-Beware! lest Ode and vanity betray
4.pgitest, bit iiiphrit wok to pay;
Ohl kik mewl& *isle feelings here,
In manes teem, Ina learn to be sincere;
In doll distort Mere an yolk baps sied foam
And pyre ellsoks bless year futere-yeu!!
- lEb!Clf.•• -

LAW INTaLLIG_
COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, Winstansyllmr.lo..
There were no sittings in Banco to.day,- Lord Ten,
laden, Mr. Justice Baler+• and Mr. Justice Littledele,
being engaged in the Home of Lords. --Mr. Justice
Bayley sat for, a short time in the early part. of the
morning, and disposed of a few common motions.
liitdor at NW Prior. in Lagoa, before Mr. Jades Jams Paw
and Common Juries.
ATKISSON L. KINNRDT. =UQ•

Mr. BAOUGHAM (with whom was Mr. Chitty) stated
that this, was an action by Mr. Edward Atkinson, an
attorney..against Mr. Kennedy, a barrister, to recover
a sum of about 861. for professional business done for
" the defendant.. The circumstances out of which the
present demand arose were these—The plaintiff had
been the attorney of a Mr. and Mrs. Curtizos, who were
entitled to a life interest in the sum of 1,9801. Three per
Cent.. Consols, and the defendant (Mr: Kennedy) being
desirous of purchasing the reversion of that interest. ap-
plied to the plaintiff on the subject, and employed him
.to prepare the necessary deeds eif conveyance. tinder
the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mn. Curtizos, the
Lady was entitled to the dividends of the stock during
her life for her separate use, and the husband was ta-
ckled to a contingent inteiest—namely, in the event of
his eutviving his wife he was to take the dividends for
-his life. The deed of settlement gave to Mrs. Cutting
a power of appointment of the principal of the stoik.
Whith power .the had exercised in favour of an only
...child, and the.defendant had purchased that interest.
The negotiation for the purchase of the seversion of Mr.
and Mrs. Curtizos' interest was carried on for some
time, and at length the necessary deeds of conveyance
to the defendant were prepared, be having agreed to
purchase-41e reversion of the two interests at 7751. A
day bad been appointed for the settlement of the busi-
ness. bOt before the deeds were executed the defendant
discovered that Mr. Cuttiso, had been a bankrupt, and
he thin refused to complete thepurchase. He, how-
ever. imputed no blame to the plaintiff. but on the
conitary, expressed himself perfectly satisfied with his
conduct i's the business, though he bad since thought
peeper to refute payment of the plaintiff's bill of costs,
whichafter deducting 141. for spoiled stamps allowed,
.amount.-d to about 361. The employment of the
plaintiff by the defendant was than proved. as was also
, the reasonableness of the charges for the Insitteis done.
Bythe cross-examination of one of the witnessei,hostrever,
it appeared that Mr. Curtizos had' been a bankrupt in
the year 1810, and bad taken the benefit of the fowl-.
vent Debtors' Act in 1826, and that the .plaintiff (who
was the attorney of. Mr. Cortizos) bad knowledge of
those facts long prior to the time when the negeciatien
for the purchase by the defendant was entered into. It
appeared also that the defendant was ignorant of those
factsuntil the day before the purchase was to have been
completed, and that he then became apprised of the
fact of Mr. Ctutizos's bankruptcy by finding his certifi-
cate among some papers in a tin box in the plaintiff's
office. One of the witnesses stated that the plaintiff
declared be,did not think it necessary to inform the de-
fendant of Mr. Curdy's's bankruptcy and insolven4,
and that after the discovery of that fact by the defen-
dant. the latter expressed his readiness to complete the
purchase provided the trustees of-the stock wadi make
a transfer into his name. One of them, however, ob-
jected to do so; but the defendant, nevertheless, ex.
pressed himself satisfied with the plaintiff's-conduct,
and said, that if he had not been satisfied with hies,' be
should not have employed him in the business, as he
knew_ he was the attorney of Mr. and Mrs. Curtisos. •
Mr. CAMPIiLL (with whom was Mr. Hutchinson),
in addressing the Jury for the defendant. observed, that.
the plaintiff had been guilty of a shameful lunch of
duty in suppressing from the knowledge of the defen-
dant the fact of Mr. Cortizos having been a bankrupt
and insolvent prior to the time when the contract in
question was entered into. The plaintiff knew, or ought
to have known, that Mr. Cerritos's contingent interest in
. the stock for which the defiindant bad agreed to give a
large sum of money, belonged to hit (Ms. Curtizos'.) as-
Signees, and that be could make oo valid .assignment of
it to the ddendauC` It was theta gross fraud to aretnpt
to sell that which did not beldeg to him; and the ques-
tion for the Jury to consider was, whether the plain-
tiff, being the attorney of 'Mr. Curtizos, had not, in
conjunction with that gentleman, wilfully withheld the
'communication of those facts which it was so material
to the defendant to be apprised of. If they should be
of that opinion, then it was clear that the plaintiff could
not recover the amount of his bill on the defendant for
the business dace; the rule of law being, that if an at-
torney, through negligence or fraud, conferred no belie-
icial service upon his elieot, he was entitled to no re-
muneration. In the present case. it was clear that there.
had been either gross negligente-or fraud on the part
of the plaintiff. He knew the fact of Mr. Cartier's'
bankruptcy and insolvency, and if be bad acted as
'plain honesty or common prudeace dictated, be would
have communicated that fait to the defendant. Is.
stead of doing so, however, be had allowed the peso-
ciation to proceed to the very latest period, and
had prepared deeds which purported to convey an
interest which belonged not to Mr. Curtisos, but to his
assignees, for the benefit of his creditors,wbo would have
been defrauded if this purchase had bees completed, and
the defendant would bane been liable either to pay the
twisty a second time to them, or to have given up his
conveyance. Under these'circumstances, it was clear
that the defendant had derived no benefit from the igtotio.
tors Services. but. on the contrary, had Amulet* • 04-
iodic,. and be (Mr. Campbell) united. that the irerdiet.

of the Jeri in this caet teneld.beve the effect of teach•
iog monies who et:defter& to act for
_parties bevies
opposite interests, to be more eautioesinotlrefi Mode of
proceeding, and prevent their attempting tri ie'ddle with.
costs those to whom they had tendered no beneficial ier•
vice, but who bad rather been prejudiced by their On-
proper conduct.
Mr. Justice Jesse PARR; after recapitulating the,
bets to the Jury, observed. that the sole luestion for
their consideration was, whether, regard being bad to
the nature of the plaintiff's employments and the pur-
-1 pore for which he was employed, be bad been guilty of
such negligence, dishonesty; or other misconduct. as 10
render his services of no benefit to the defendant? lie
(the Learned Judge) was not aware of any case that bad
expressly decided the point which was raised in this.
case; but as at present advised, he thought it his duty
to tell the Jury, that if they were satisfied that the
plaintiff bad been guilty of such misconduct as (re-
gard being had to the nature and purpose of • his
employment) had deprived the defendant of all
beoeficial service. the latter was, in point of law, en;
tided to a verdict. It certainly appeared that the
plaintiff bad come-into Court, suing for a bill in re.'
spec' of business done, for which the defendant had
derived no benefit. He was aware at the commence-
ment of the business that Mr. Ctirtizos was in a 'Wit-
don which rendered him incompetent to make a valid
conveyance of the property' he had contracted to sr%
and the question was, whether the nonCommonication,
of that fact to the defendant arose from dishonesty.
ignorance, or the hope of being able ultimately to pro.
cure the consent of the assignees to the conveyance' to
the defendant? The Jury would take the whole .of the
circumstances into their consideration; and' they
would also consider the evidence which had been
given with respect to the supposed waver of the. ob-
jection on•the pan of the defendant; and also the 41••
fendant's expression of satisfattion at the plaintiff's
conduct,which, however, bad reference, probably, to the
commeneement of the employment, and not to the, con.
elusion; and if they should be of opinion that the
defendant had thrived no beneficial service from to
plaintiff's employment,owing to the mode in whichtbe
business bad been conducted, they would return a vie.
diet for the defendant.
The Jury, 'after little hesitation, foind fir thi
defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NAT 20.
In consequence of the' attendance of the .Jitclgo: being
requited in the House of Lords at 10 o'clock, thiscostrt
did not sit in beseco today. At one o'clock. Mr.
GAMMAS sat ist Old plats.
TURR/111LD Os '3ENTLITs
The plaintiff is a girl bf the town, the defendantpublican keeping the Crown house in Would&
ster raid. The plaintiff having used filthy language in
the coffee rooni Of the Crown, the defendant desired that
shewciuld not enter his house again. She went away,
but returned is a few minutes. when the defendant or-
dered his waiter to turn her out; but without Inking
for the waiter to obey 'him, he took the /roman by the
shoulders and thrust her oat; and. according to the evi-
dence on the part of the plaintiff, kicked her violently ;
but, according to the evidence on the other side. he did
nothing more than gently put bar out of his house I The
girl was laid up foe two or thane weeks with a sore on
her back, which prevented her from sitting.down, sod
which. as stated on one side, was the consequence of a
kick from the defendant, but as insisted on the other.
Must, if it existed at all, have been produced from some
other cause. No justification was pleaded; and the Jury,
atter as investigation which occupied the Court until
p2at six o'clock, aid in which Mr. Sergeant Wtiaa and
Pit. MAHON appeared for...the plaintiff, and Mr. Ser.
giant ANDRAWAAOd.Mr. PLATT for the thiltAdllAto
re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—P images, SI.
TUESDAY, MAT 19. •
MONT C. Di ILAQUIBRI.
Mr. Sergeant %toe and Mr. Sergeant Russet'.
yesterday contended that the defendant having ill treated
bit wife and turned her nut of doors, had clothed her
with credit far *necessaries; and althoigh she bad ob.,
Wined a decree for alimony in the Spiritual COurts. yet
Inaimuch as the alimony had Dot been paid, the decree
did not discharge the husband's liability. He was there.
fore bound to discharge the debts which she inctured
for necessaries, and he might stopihe amount out of the
arrears which he owed to his wife.
Mr. Sergeant SPAM= aid Mr. Sergeant
ped this morning in support of thtu.that the positive
legal remedy which this decree furnished extinguished
the implied right of contracting debts on the husband's
credit. The parties who trusted the wife thereby put
themselves in her place. and might enforce the decree.
The law treated a man and wife, who were divorced a
naiad those, in many respects as distinct parties. havingl
separate and distinct rights and privileges, although 41
•
did net go so far as it did in the case of a divorce a am.,
ark merino/ii. For instance, a man living apart front
his wife, in consequence, of -a divorce a mensa d thoto)'
could not, if be married' another woman, be convicted
of bigamy; and the children of persons so separated;'
born after the divorce, were illegitimate. This showed
that the principles which applied to a husband under I
other circumstances, were not applicable in cases where
the parties were separated under a decree of this kind.
Oa the ground also of public convenience and decotunt
the common law courts ought not to interfere; for in
cases of this'kund there was always much scandal,wbich
was greedily sought after by a large portion of the]
public. It was enough, therefore, to have one discussion
on the subject in Doctors' Commons, without dragging
the parties before the 'public again and again in the
King's Bench and Common Pleas. The parties ought
therefore to be left to enforce their decreee; and until
the remedies afforded by the Ecclesiastical Courts were
exhausted, the common law should hold its hand.
The COOK? were unanimously of opinion that the hus-
band was liable to this action.- The first question was,
whether or not the decree for alimony was an answer
to this demand ? and the second. whether the goods,
supplied to the Lady were necessaries ? The Jury bad
found that the defendant had struck his wife, and turned
her out of doors. Now, if a man turned his wife out of
doors, he gave her a general credit upon him for every
thing that was necessary to het rank. He had con-
moved to maintain' her, and in this case he was or-
dered to maintain her. But he had neither fulfilled
his contract nor obeyed the order ; and being gene-
rally liable (ocher maintenance, be could only relieve
himself from 'ouch liability by fulfilling his contract
or obeying the order. If she were paid the money,
she would then have the means of procuring necessaries
for herself, and he would not be liable. But here he
did not pay the'money, and if he discharged the present
bills, be would still not have paid a third of the arrears,'
from which he was at liberty to deduct the amount. It
was said that the Lady might, if she pleased, go into,
the Ecclesiastical Courts, and enforce the decree; but
was she to starve in the meantime? and if not. what
were the trainmen to do? The defendant, therefore,
was clearly liable for . necessaries supplied to the wife.'
Then came the second gagstion, were these articles of
-4•4 est necessaries? The Jury fOOlid the/ Wilts.

They did not thitk.tbat a Lady. the daughter of a
Marquis,who brought her husband 6,0001. fortune, was'
bound tossuintwa lotting, but that it was St she should
rake a bolisV Obeid a 'so, she mutt have a bed to be on,
chairs to sit -on, and a table to eat off, &c. and they
even found ihat the articles in question were necessary
and suitable for a woman having an income of 3801 a
year, without reference to•her rank. • Undt r all the
circumstances. therefore. the defendant having turned,
bit wife out of doors—the divorce having been fro
seamed in consequence of adultery on his. part—the
decree for alimony not having been obeyed—and the
articles in question being suitable and necessary to the
situation of the Lady, the action was clearly,maintain-
able, and the rule fora nonsuitatust be discharged.