Star.
London, England, 1826-04-22 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Aram 21.
WILLBELRY P. TAR BURR Or BEAUFORT.
The Than CHANCELLOR observed, that he had marked the parts
Lit the affidavits of Dr. Dulkeley, to which he had alluded on a for-
mer day, and would direct copies to be sent to both parties.
P. RTE ORIMETZAD. IN TH. MATTER OF HOWARD ♦ND 01110.
Th. LORD CHANCELLOR said he was perfectly prepared to give
judgment in this case; but as it was a matter of great consequence,
and as the panics had left it to his decision, he wished Mr. Mon-
tage to he present at the time he would give his judgment.
Mr. 31ontagu was absent from indisposition.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Aram 21.
THE IMO r. WM. .

The defendant. the printer and publisher of the Common Sense
newspaper, was brought up before the Court under two criminal
ilformations filed against him—the one at the suit of Colonel Berke-
ley. the other nii the prosecution of Alfred Bunn, Esq. for libels
reflecting on the characters of those Gentlemen. No Gentleman
a: the Bar being prepared to pray the judgment of the Court against
the derendant, he w.,1 remanded to Whitectoss-street prison,
Where he has hitherto been in custody.
The Cuisr Jusrics sat at Neu Prius at Guildhall.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 21.
FOSTER AND OTHERS V. LAWSON.

This was an action brourht by the plaintiffs, who
are hankers at Cambridge, against the proprietors of
%!he limes, for a libel that appeared in that Journal in
Decembe• last, wherein, in retcrence to the distress and
panic that pervarjed tl:e country, it was stated that
intelligence had reached town of the stoppage of a
number of country bankers, which were therein par-
ticularised, and amongst them the plaintiffs ; that the
graduates and heads of colleges had tendered a large
to avert the evil, which had been declined.
The defendants bad demurred generally to the declaration. .

Mr. Sergeant TADDY was heard in support of the
demurrer, and took three objections :-I,t, that the
action was improperly brought, becaure three persons
cbuld not bring a joint action for ,lander ;-2Jly, that
an action might also be brought against them sepa-
rately ; and sdly, that the words alleged were not
actionable. These points the Learned Sergeant argued
at great length, and cited cases in support of his argu-
ment; and also contended, that although they had
alleged that they had 10.000 of their promissory notes
out, yet it was not shown that they were payable, and
that they might be in the hands of persons who had no
leg.ll claim. There was in the declaration an allega-
tion of special damages to the amount of 2,0001.
_ _

The Lonn Ceres dasma stated t' e nature of the
libel as set out in the declaration, and then laid down
the I.w as applicable to the case. It had been 5.1 d that
an action for slander could not be maintained by three
persons; generally that. was law; but there were parti-
cular exceptions, and, in his opinion, this was one of
them. This question hsci been decided in the case of
Cook v. Batchelor, and there were many previtsus deci-
sions. Two or more persons inight have a joint inte-
req, and there might be an injury done that would
affect that joint interest, and it could not be contended
that they had no right to bring their action for that
joint injury. It had been said that they might bring
separate actions, and if they had sustained any separate
injury, he saw no reason why they should not do so.
It bad also been said that the words were not actionable.
In his opinion, to say of a banker that he had stopped
payment, was injuring him in his trade or business as a
Warr, and was actionable. The subject of special
damages had been alluded to; that they had a great
number of notes, and that they had been called upon to
pay them, and had paid them of necessity, and had
therefore,by that means, lost the profit they would other-
wise have derived from those notes remaining in cir-
culation. In his opinion the action was properly brought,
the allegations sufficiently set out, and that judgment
must be for the plaintiffs.
l‘lr. Justice Parts quite agreed with the Learned Chief, that the
action had been properly brought. The case was not new; it bad been
decided a great many years ago, and had remained unimpeacheda
blr. Judie/ Busaoeuu and Mr. Justice (hums,: perfectly agreed
with the opioions of the other Judges. The parties cleaved that
they were at the time of the publication good and solvent, and that
they had never stepped payment.

FISHER AND OTHERS V. LAWSON.

This was another action brought by tL•e plaintiffs, who are also
bankers at Cambridge, and the like judgment was given.
COWSISTORY COURT, Arai:. 21.
WESTMEATH AND WESTMEATH.

Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON pronounced the SOO•
teace of the Court in this case, the particulars of which
have been so often and so fully before the pubrc. The
Learned Judge went at great length through the de.
tails of the evidence, both as to the allegation of adul-
tery and that of cruelty. The foimer Le considered
not to be sufficiently proved to enable the Court to pio-
nounee a sentence of divorce on that ground. In,
examining the evidence with respect to the charge of
cruelty, he commented upon the objections offered to
the evidence of Sarah Mackenzie, whose character he
considered to be liable to no objection, though she
might be suspected to labour under some degree of
bias. The acts of violence to which she deposed bad
not been satisfactorily answered by Lord Westmeath.
The evidence of Mr. Wood corroborated the testimony
of Mackenzie ; and he (Sir C. Robinson) thought there
was no probability of his being influenced by his dif-
ference with Lord Westmeath. He could not reject
therefore the testimony of that Gentleman, or that of
his daughter, Miss Wood. The Learned Judge then
read the evidence of the latter, as to the occurrences in
France, and thought that an act of violence had been
established, as committed there. though it might not
amount ro legal cruelty. In reference to the evidence
of Mr. Sheldon, he expressed his surprise that, as a le.

al person, that Gentleman shotild have confounded the
legal and popular senses of teparation and divorce, in
speaking of the intention of Lady Westmeath to apply
to this Court. A great defect in the c ise c f Lady
We.tmeath was, that her family had not appeared in
the affair of the separation. The late Lord Salisbury,
I.er father, would not interfere; Lady Salisbury, her
mother, was a witness on the opposi e side ; and the
present Lord Salisbury, though named as trustee in the
deed of separation, said he was made so without his
consent. Many acts charged as .instances of violence
bad by L-ird Westmeath been admitted to be. acts of
barbarity. Much had occurred in 1814 and 181.5,
which hoi tiered, in the opinion of the Court, on legal
cruelty ; indeed, he (Sir C. Robinson) was of opinion
II at, according to the principles of this Court, they
%%mild at that time have supported a suit for a divorce r
but not prosecuting it at that time, detracted from the
force of the facts as evidence ; and they were viewed

under a diEcrent asueet retrospectively. A reconcilia-
tion bad taken place in 1815 ; and the events subse-

quent to ISI9 did not furnish more than disagreements
of temper and ill words. The question then wa•, what
was the legal result of such a state of facts—whether.
the subsequeLt acts of Lord Westmeath h.id or h id
not tic effect of rewind time old injuries? Li C;irist-

f mu, 1816, Lady Westmeath had told her father that
her Lord was " uniformly. kind. to her." This was said
with reference to an application for a loan ; but it
showed the placable state of her Ladyship's feelings.
He (Sir C. Robinson) was surprised to find, after this, a
statement from Mr. Sheldon, that early in 1817. there
had been no revival of good feelings on the flirt of
L dy Vestmeath. The renewal of her ,Ladyship's
complaints seemed bottomed upon a different ground—
namely, the illegitimate children. Mr. Sheldon spoke
of this as a cause for separation, but it was no ground
for a divorce. He (Sir C. Robinson) knew that this
case would be considered elsewhere; he therefore pro-
nounced his judgment with more confidence. The
counsel for Lady Westmeath bad contended that the
subsequent acts of Lord NVestmeath broke off the re-
conciliation, and let in the charge of cruelty; but he
was of a different opinion. These subsequent acts did
not amount to cruelty, or such personal injury as to
authorize the Court to pronounce a s:ntence of di-
vorce. The Learned Judge referred to the authorities,
and the dicta of Lord Stowell, which requited appre•
hension of dane.er to life or limb, to ground an aidep,a-
tion of cruelty. Looking to all the circumstances;
he (Sir C. Robinson) did not consider he was justified
in pronouncing for a divorce. This was a result he
.half; long foreseen ; and he-was therefore desirous that
the pat ties should have time to reflect, and that Coun-
sel should have tine to consider whether *the Court
could not hold its hand, and forbe Sr to pronounce
sentence on either side. It seemed to be clear, however,
Oat there was no authority fora middle course. Great
as the responsibility was which i.e incurred in requiring
this Lady to return to her husband, it was a duty im-
posed upon him to do it, and it was the duty of the
Lady to obey. It was a consolation to him to know
that she might appeal from his decision, otherwise she
must return to her husband. He therefore pronounced
that the matter set up by the Marchioness of West-
meath against the suit of the Marquis, for restitution
of conjugal rights, was insufficient, & otdered her Lady-
ship to return home to the Marquis accot dingly.
From what fell from the Court, it is probable that this case will
be brought by appeal before the High Court of Delegates.