Star.
London, England, 1826-05-10 00:00:00

LA W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY 9.
THII KING V. MAUL.

This was an information filed to recover the SUM of
3 1001. being a penalty which the defendant had in-
curred as proprietor of a fiJiing-boat at Rochester,
which had been condemned for conveying smuggled
silks. The record of conviction having been produced
in evidence, the Jury hesitated to return a verdict, with-
out some proof that the silks were foreign.
The CHIEF BARON said, that the record had been
alwajs held as conclusive evidence, and that the safe
way would be to return a verdict for the Crown, against
which the defendant can have a remedy, if he be able
to shew that the silks were not foreign; whereas, if the
verdict should be for the defendant on account of any
doubt which the Jury might labour under, it would be
decisive, as he could not be tried twice for the same
cause. The Jury, after some hesitation, found a verdict
for the Crown.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAT 9.
WILLIS D. CUNDY-ASSAULT.

This was an action to recover damages for an assault. Mr.
PLATT opened the pleadings, and Mr. SCARLEIT stated the case.
it appeared that the plaintiff and two others were
taking an excursion into the country, on Sunday the
17tH of April, 1825, and having mistaken their way,
they trespassed, near Tottenham, on the defendant's
grounth, who having come in contact with them, threw
the plaintiff into the New River, along whose banks
they happened to be walking. •
Mr. Coarse and the COMMON &Was I/. addressed the Jury for
the defendant.

The Loan Cuter Jusuce said that the plaintiff was earned to a
verdict ; for though he had been trespassing, yet that did not justify
the conduct of the defendant.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 201.
THE LORD MAYOR'S COURT, MAT 9.
THIC CITY OH LONDON V. BEDSOR.

The defendant, a sheep's head and pork sausage dealer
in Stonecutter-street, sought from the Corporation of
London, the sum of 2,500/. as compensation for the loss
of his bosinecs by the removal of his house in Stone-
cutter-street, Fleet-market, to make way for the new
market.

The sum of 3.501. had been agreed upon, but the
demand of Mr. Bedsor for the loss of his business was
lb the opinion of the Bridge Huuse Committee so enor-
mous, that they left it to a Jury. He began business
three or four years ago in Stonecutter-street, where he
established a house for the sale of the articles above-
mentioned. He afterwards took the next house, and
commenced as a black-pudding and sausage-manufac-
turer, and vendor of pork, keeping on bis business of
sheep's-head dresser and seller. At the same time, and
in the same street, he also took another house, which he
let out at a slight profit in furnished lodgings. The
profits of the trade were derived from the lowest of the
conmlunity, who inhabited Gorge-yard and the places
adjacent. The trade was exceedingly humble, never-
t! e'eis, the defendant made a demand at the rate of
900/. a year, which he set down as the profits be was
in tie hrbit of making.
No less than three Counsel appeared to support the defendant.
One of the witnesses who was called to prove that
the defentlant had carried on a most extensive business,
stated that he had been in the habit of purchasing mul-
ttrudes of pigs," and had paid as much as £5O on a Sa-
turday night tor " cattle' of that kind; that he sold quan-
titree of pork, and lots of black puddings and sausages.
The sheep's-head chopper and %Nyman was also ex-
amined.—He had chopped when he first went to work
(winch was a long time ago), but few " jemmies," but
be atterards chopl•ed ever so many. He sometimes
chopped ever to many. " Them" was prcfitable to
master as well as the sheep's heads. He didn't know
nothing about the perk business what. was carried on
next doe,. He wan't in the sausage line, he was only
amongst the sheep's-beads, and knowed nothing about
Lothing

One of the Jurynt ii said, why it is impeisible you should know
nothing about know nothing at all about it. I nerizr minds
nothing barring thna sb.•epa' heads and plucks.-o.aught rj.
Mr. BOLLANO—What, do you know nothing. of the machine?—
• No, I never uses no machines, 1 chops the heads.
Mr. Bou.Ann—Nothing of the machine! What ! Why if you
put in a pig at sate end it is sure to come out in sausages at the other ?
—(Laughter).--I knows nothing at all about it, I tells you.
Notwithstanding this appearance of ignorance, when the witness
was asked the same questions by the defendant's Counsel, he all.
swered, without hesitation, that his master had taken the pork-
house about two years ago.
One of the defendant's witnesses, greatly to the discomfiture of
his Counsel, said that he (witness) had been in the trade extensively,
but that he had quitted the " Jemmy" business because it was
unprofitable. •
Ti.e Cow SERJEANT contended that as the de-
fendant's business was amongst the lowest orders, his
profits must be proportionably low, pat titularly as the
sheeps' leads were, in warm weather, very liable to
decay ; and as for the plucks, they would perish in little
or no time—(l.augtter). The Learned Gentleman then
said, in alluding to Mr. llolland's description of the
sausage machine, that the witness, who had professed
his iAnorAnce of its virtues, would, if he were put in at
one end, eutne oat sheepe heads at the other—(Aluch
The .Tory aabrc-kd the damages fur the 1046 of the pig and sheep's
head trade .t

CONSISTORY COURT, MAY 9.
NSON.

Til;s case carnet-i tt r the sentence of the Coutt to-
day. The suit vvai instituted to obtain a nullity of (lim-
it:q.t.., by reason of the Luihand,ChatleliKing, who

married to Elizabeth Sanson, by license, without the
consent of his fritter, being at the time a minor. The
parties are moving in humble life, being both servants.
Some time after the marriage was solenmised in 1812,
they separated, and a deed of separation was regularly
signed by them, in which the husband agreed to pay a
small annual sum towards his wife's maintenance. They
were recognised as husband and wile from the time of
the separation in 1813, until shortly before the present
sjit was instituted.

The Learned Joige (Sir CHRISTOPHER RCBINSON),
having briefly noticoi the evidence, and the arguments
of Counsel in support of the nullity sought, decided that
no case had been mule out to warrant the Court in
pronouncing the marriir to be null and void. The
pat ties had lived, alth:Argh apart, as man and wile, many
years after the union, and wete so recognised by their
acquaintances and friends.
SAUMA R EZ, BY HI6 COMNIITTER, AGAINST &REILLY,
FALSELY CALLING HERSELF SAW., A Ilk Z.

This was a case in which one of the parties (the wife)
had been already tried for bigamy, at the I....ncaster
Assizes, before Mr. Jus'ice Bayley, but acquitted,
the ground of the invalidity of the first m u It
after wards appeared to the parties who conducted the
prosecution that the first marriage was a bad one, not-
withstanding the acquittal, and they instituted proceed-
ings in these Courts accordingly.
Dr. LUSHI NGTON stated that the reputed husband was
married in March, 1823, to the other party in ois cause,
sh- passing as a spinster, and under the assumed name
of Taylor; but it appeared in evidence, tf. at she had
been some time previously married to one O'Reilly,
within the province of Dublin, by license, but in a pri•
Tate house. If this marriage was an invald one, of
course the fact of O'Reilly being alive at the period of
her subsequent marriage with Saumarez, who was now
a lunatic, could not affect the validity of that second
match; but if the first was a good marriage, that being
clearly a case of bigamy, the second must be pronounced'
null and void. The Learned Counsel then entered into
an elaborate argument, to show that, by the custom of
the country, and upon all authority, the marriage with
O'Reilly was a good one ; and by consequence, that that
with Saumarez was of no effect in law.
Dr. Aasass.n took various objections to the validity of the former
marriage; which were finally overruled by
Sir Cnaurrorneu Itonassos, who held that the former was the
valid union ; and therefore pronounced the marriage of March,
1823, between the parties before the Court, to be, to all legal in-
tents and purposes, null and void.