Star.
London, England, 1810-09-13 00:00:00

FIDLER v. WILSON.

This action was brought to try the
Eritt to cured
found on the Lake of Ba:;senthwaito ; hich John
Fidler, farmer, Whiterhall, tuukr Sir F. F. Vane,
Bart. was Plaintiff ; and Wilson, boatman, un-
der the Earl of Egremont, was Defendant.
In May, 1809, two sheep belonging to the Plain-
tiff bad strayed into a neighbouring field, belonging
to one Wales, front which they were hounded, and
ran into the abovementioned lake, where they were
drowned. The Defendant finding the sheep in the
lake, claimed them as wreck; and on the 4th of
September following, the value of the skins and
wool being demanded by the Plaintiff, he said he
had a right to every thing, dead or alive, found in
the lake, ar.d that the plaintiff in order to prevent his
sheep coming into the lake ought to have /erred.
Mr. PALEY, for the McAdam, argued, that, not-
withstanding Wilson could not shew any specific
right he possessed to the wreck found on the lake, it
was allowed by the inhabitants in general of that part
of the country, that he bad such a right, and that
the boatmen, his predecessors, had acted upon it fur
la number of yea's.
The Learned Judge remarked, that the . claim set
up by the defendant could not be substantiated.—
Verdict for the plaintiff—ls.

WI ARAM 'V. /1E EIIERINCITON.

The plaintiff is a widow, who, since the death of
her husband, has resided with her father and mother
at Dubwath, in the parish of Kirklinton. The action
was brought to recover damages for a breach of pro-
mise of mnriage.
It appeared, on the part of the evidence for the
prosecutrix, that, on the 26th Jul„ 409, the De-
fendant, Francis Hetherington, came to visit the
Plaintiff's father, and asked his consent to marry
his daughter. This being complied with, promises
of marriage were repeated by the Plaintiff to the
Defendant, but not fulfilled. In October fellow- 1
ing, the Plaintiff and the Defendant met at a public-
house, kept by William Moffat, at Bolton Fell End.:
The Defendant was here interrogated by the Plain-
tiff respecting the delay of his promise. He replied,
in the presence of Moffat, that ~, he would marry
the Defendant, let friends or foes say what they
pleased." An artangement was then made, that on
the Saturday following, the parties should meet for
the sllemnization of the marriage at Carlisle. The
Plaintiff, according to his agreement, was met by
the Defendant, who then stated that he had altered
his intention. The consequence was, the Defen-
dant's return to her father's houe, much chagrined
by the disappointment : she was, however, accom-
panied by the Defendant ; who, after entering the
house of her father, kneeled down, and in the presence
lof the Plaintiff and her mother, imprecated the ven-
geance of Heaven on himself if he did not, on the
Monday following, fulfil his former promise. After
which, the defendant discontinued his visits, and all
correspondence between the parties was for the future
broken off.—lt was urged on the part of the Defen-
dant, that there existed no proof of courtship having
commenced previous to the 26th of July, at which
time it was known that the. Plaintiff was pregnant—
,''bathe disparity of age betweep tile plaiutifEtuld the
_

/ .