Star.
London, England, 1826-06-24 00:00:00

011- •

itAte ome to London until the 15th of October, v.:3e de-
fendants ought then to have repudiated the;r contract ;
instead, Lowever, of pursuing that course, by flier
silence on the subject Mr. Sinclair might fairly and
reasonably conclude that the 15th of October would be
quite time enough.
The Jury, after a short consultation among themselves, found for
the plaintiff—Damages, 4501.—Costs, 40s.
ROBINSON V. W. J. CLEMENT, ESQ.
This was an action brought by an attorney of Cle-
ment's Inn, against the proprietor of the Morning
Chronicle, Observer, and Englishman Newspapers, to
recover a compensation in damages for an alleged libel
published in those newspaper), in the form rf a report
of a trial, which was designated as a paltry action
brought merely for the purpose of putting costs in Alt'
Robinson's pocket.
The alleged libel having been proved, and it being established
that Mr. Clernes.t was the sole proprietor of these Journal...
The A TTORNILY GENERAL addre,)ed .!'e Jury for the

defendant, and contended that he should be able to
prove that Mr. Robinson was a person of the descrip-
tion which the libel alleged, namely, a person who
brought actiont for the sake of costs.
The Le Itned Counsel then called tsittressea„ who
proved that Nlr. Robinson had brought two actions'
against Mr. Knight, the Editor of the Windsor uazette,
for the Sams cause of action, and had also brought
actions severally against the British Press, Morning
Chronicle, Morning Post, Morning Advertiser, and
other Journal,, for the reports they had inserted of the
trial in the first mentioned action.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
COURT OF C031.110N PLEAS, Juait 23.
SULLIVAN V. BISHOP.

Mr. S rjeant VAUGHAN ,tatted the plAintiff's case. He
said his client was a man in humble station. a porter to

wine merchant, aid the 41, fendant was the I:kn.:fiord of
*houses in Upper Thame.-stree', in one Hf which the
plaintiff muted a room fur ss. a week. The defendant
had distrained for 15s rent, when there WAS but 10s.
dues had taken a table in distress, which was of much
greatLr va.ue than the sum claimeJ, and had refused to
sell it when required to do so. Tu recover compensation
in damages fur these violations of law and injuries to the
plaintiff, the present ac.ion 'lli brought.
It appeared by the evidence, th .t the defendant had
given the plaintiff notice to quit or pay double relit, and
being offered 10s. for the succeeding two week,' rent, he
refused to take it, demanding 10s. for the last week,
which the plaintiff 'rinsed to pay, and the defendant is
consequence distrained for 15'. for the two we. ks, taking
a mahogany table, which one witness valued at 40s.
and another at 255.

The plaintiff '3lattorney proved that the defendant's broker re-
fused to sell the table at the expiration of five dAys, when by law he
was hound to sell it.

Mr. Seijeant Wittig, for the defendant, addressed the Jury at
considerable length .
The Cntrr Justice said there must, in law, be a verdict for the
plaintiff—Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, One Shilling.
CONSISTORY COURT, Jars S 5.
WIKNINGTON V. WINNiNGTON.

This was a suit for a divorce, by reason of adultery,
brought by lienrietta Ant, nioWinnington, against John
Miles Winnington, sometimes called Sir Jiihnlgiles Win-
nington. The parties were married in Aug. 1820, and
cohabited till Aptil, 1821, when Mts. Winnington left
her kv.band at Paris. In 1823 it was alleged that the
defendant columned icluita, with Dame Sarah B isco
(wife of Sir W.c.sel Bii•co, Bart.), at which period ;lc
passed as Mr. Remington. Additional acts of adultery
• were als,i alleged as committed with other persons.
The Cotter pronounced sentence as prayed.
The defendant addressed the Court in person, stating the embar-
rassments he had been involved in, and the hardships be had sus-
tained, in not bring able to defend himself in fatma peuperis.
After the sentence had been pronounced,
Dr. Les requested to address the Court on behalf of Sir Jelin
Winnington. lle spoke of the injusric:: he had sustained, as a Bri-
tish subject, in being-denied the privilege of defending tame:f in
forma puliperis, which was occasioned by the Court itself.
Dr. LosniNcsom said that as the party had been heard, the Learn-
ed Counsel must hold his tongue.
Dr. Lee, however, continued : he observed to the Court,
" You, Sir, ought to have been here as Judge, on that occasion,
when you were in another Court as Counsel, %litre there were
larger tees to be got." He at Itngtb became silent.

THE EARL OF POT.TSSI3UTII,IIY Hle COMMITTEE)AGAINST
MARY ANN HANSON, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF
COUNTESN ()F PORTSMOUTH.
Dr..I.USHINGTON informed the Court, that applica-
tion, by petition, had been made, as sugges ed, to the
Lord Chancellor in this case, whose order he sould
communicate; first stating the manlier in which the
property of Lord Portsmouth was s coated. The estates
were in the hands of truittes ; over these trusts the Lord
Chancellor exercised no jurisdiction ; subject to them he
thus dealt with the estates: Ile I ad provided first fot
the maintenance of Lord Portsmouth ; 2dly, tot Lady P.
and her infant child ; 3dly, ter the costs ot the commis-
sion.of lunacy and the defence, as well as certain other
costs; 4thly, for the debts incorrect by Mr. Coombe
for his Lordship's slipper: t ; lastly, for the debts
recovered (nun Mr. Newton Fellowes, on account of
Lord P.ltsmouth. On the application for leave to
apply any surplus of the property, after the aforegoing
orders had been carried into effect, to the rayment ot
costs incurred by Lady P rtsmouth in delence of the
present suit, opposition had Leen made by Mr. Marne,
on behalf of Lady Portsmouth and the ire-di:ors. The,
Lord Chancellor had sai f that he would make the order',
but it must be understood as n, e,ating only upon the
surplus expectant fit teas, it such • rder was approved by
this Court. He (D-. Lrishington) therefore, prayed the
Coun's opinion. Tne am tnl the -costs now applied
for was 631. and he wished fir this o por took, of stating
that there had been a grievNis 7 icep:e.entation in the
Court of Chancery on this subject, and he was at a loss.
to conceive how it had arisen,---.1 representation which,
on the face of it, wit manifestly false and unfounded.
Hoene nas 'elites. nted to have said, that in this
suit there was an array of doe; ors and proctors, and
that the c ssts in his COQ, t would amount to 30,0001.
Noire, although this was a case which,affected persous
ut high lank and large property, there were only one
p. factor and two cr tinsel on each si,'e It was an evi-
dent absurdity to suppose that costs to that amount
ceol3 be intoned, were the case to last ever so long.
Them had bee:i no suit in this Coot in which Vie costs
had amounted to one-tenth of me vim.
Dr. JENNER wes not disposed to recede from the
inction be lied m tIIC on a triirm-r occasion, either that
a rnenition of ci•nterept should issue against the Com-
mittee, for non-payrn lit of costs, or that the proceed-
iegs shouid be suspended until the costs were paid. He
:agreed wish U.. Lulitt4;ton in protesting aga list the
nustei.resen.it in the Court of Chancel y, respecting
the array ut doctors an,t proctors in this suit. The
orison why the applicati..n t,, Li e Lord Chancellor, that
the surplus fund:. .Inoild be applicable to the costs, ui as
oppose 4 by t..e ciednois and Lady P.rtsa.outh, was