Star.
London, England, 1819-02-05 00:00:00

LAW

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEBRUARY 4.
DRURY-LANE THEATRE.
COOK V. lOUI.US, wtitLlY, AND THE PROPRIETORS.
Sir ARTHUR PIGOOTT, at the rising of the Court,
observed, he was happy to inform his Lordship that
his judgment would not be called for in this case, as
the defendant (Mr. Foulkes) had accepted the offer
which he (Sir Arthur) made him on the part of -the
. Sub-Committee of Management of the Theatre, that
they would pay him 10s. in the pound of his debt of
£7OO, and also his full costs of the proceedings in
that Court, and that in the Court of Law, as between
client and solicitor.
The LORD CHANCELLOR Kr I am happy that it
_ has been settled out of Court, at it saves me from
performing a painful duty, which would not tend to
the advantage of any of the parties."
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEBRUARY 4.
WRIGHT D. BRAMAN.
The COIAT was of opinion, with the acquiescence of
Counsel on both sides, that his case should be refer-
red to the Prothonotary to decide whether the agree-
mententered into between the parties was fraudulent
or otherwise, either in the whole or in any part ? and
also whether it was entered into in contemplation of
bankruptcy ?—The Rule was suspended, and all ques-
t6n of law cra the subject was reserved, until tins in-
ves,tigation shall take place.
CON§ISTORY COURT, FEBRUARY 5.
LAD] BERBER? T. LORD HERBERT. ,
This cause, which is one of nullity of marriage, by
reason of informality in the solemnization, according
to the laws and usages of Sicily, has long been pend-
ing. A requisition was issued from this Court, ad-
c-asEed to the Magistrates and principal Authorities
or Palermo, empowering them to examine witnesses,
diligently and secretly;" and in the proceedings
transmitted from the Judges of that eity, the Chan-
cellor of the Sicilies, and his Britannic Majesty's Con-
sul-General, there were included no less than seven
rotests on the part of Lord Herbert against the
course pursued by them. The principal ground of
complaint, and tenon which his Lordships Counsel,
Dr. Arnold and D.. S..vabev, founded their prayer
Oat these proceedings should be quashed, was, that
inAead of the witnesses being examined secretly, be.
fare the examiner or Judge alone, according to the
custom and iajunctions both of the Civil and canon
laws, the substitute of her Ladyship's Proctor was
present, anci they subniitad, therefore, that a new re-
q'iisition be issued.
Dr. Pnrwsione and Dr. LUSIHNOTON, for Lady
Iterbert, contended, that these proceedings had been
in every respect fair and open.
' Sir WILLIAM Score said, that the question for his
Consideration rested ori an objeCtion taken to. the
• :tanner .in which a commission to examine certain
witnesses hal been executed. It was pleaded, that
the substitute of the Marchesa Octavia Spinelli,
falsely calling herself La* Herbert, was present at
the eraminatious. If that irregularity had led to
any consequences that could poilute the evidence,
th.e terms'of the commission were violated ; but if the
mistake originated in an error common to both par.'
ties, the Court, without some nruclipszeater
in tuce-
• invi, would be very unwilling to increase the es,'
penses already incur: ed.
Atli:: a lustrinoul investigation of the nature of the
i:formallty objected to. and the local variations in
the ailministrsitiou*f the canon and civil laws in dd..
Welt couiitrin, the Learned Judge affirmed the pro-
cee.iings.—The evidence, which is of an interesting
nature, was not this day gone into. Lady Herbert,
formerly Octavia Spinelli, is the daughter of the Du-
chess of San Giovanni.
COURT OF ARCHES, FEBRUARY 4.