Star.
London, England, 1829-07-16 00:00:00

CAPE!. V. WIIrTTICK.

The plaintiff, a coal merchant, sought to recover a bill
for coals sold to the defendant and another person named
11 Aberd, who carried on business at Milbank.
The jury found a verdict for £7l 11s. 64.
NASH V. OLIVER.

'Ms w•as an action upon a bill of exchange for 1031.
accepted by the defendant, and payable six months after
date.

Mr. Gurney endeavoured to destroy the validity of the
bill, by stating an usurious transaction between the de-
fendant and a person named Cullen, who keeps the Swan,
at Hampton. It appeared from Colien's evidence, that
Oliver, who was at work for the King at Windsor, could
not get his money, and he applied to Cullen for the loan
of:1001. The money was advanced upon Oliver's bill,
but when the bill became due was renewed by the pay-
ment of 21. to Cullen. The latter being pressed by Mr.
Nash, the plaintiff, to Whom he was debtor to the amount
of 401. Oliver said if Nash would draw• upon him for 1001.
at six months, he would pay the money, as he then towed
9hver 1001. The bill was drawn, and 60/. paid over to
liver by Nash.
Collen never told Nash how much Oliver had been
pa) ing to him fur renewal of his bill.
. Lord Tenterden held that the bill in the hands of the,
plaintiff had not been in the least invalidated, and the jury
found for the plaintiff—Damages 1091. Is.

REEVES V. STAMMERS.

Mr. Platt, for the plaintiff, said this was an action for
M. Bs. for goods sold and delivered, and work done for
the defendant. The plaintiff had, it appeared, supplied
th^ defendant with trousers and other articles of wearing
apparel: The trousers were furnished about May, 1827.
Several witnesses were called to prove the delivery of
the articles, The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff:
Damages 3/. DIXON V. DUNIPACE.
Mr. Gurney said the plaintiff was a miler at Witham,
in Essex, and had consigned se:•eral backs of flour to the

NM,

defendant. The question now was, whether the defen-
dants had paid the full amount of the value of the dour ?
The delivery of the flour having been admitted,
Mr. Campbell, for the defendant, said that the only
dispute was, whether a sum of 261. 10s. was paid on the
26th August? •
A witness was then called, and underwent a long exa-
mination, from which it appeared that the case was merely
one of a disputed account.
Verdict for the plaintiff : Damages 261. 10s.

LABRAM V. STEERS.
This was an action to recover a sum of money lent by
the plaintiff to the defendant; the amount sought to be
recovered was 3701. The parties were relatives.
Mr. Common Sergeant was proceeding to state the par-
ticulars of the case, when he was interrupted by
Lord Tenterden, who suggested whether it would not
be better to refer all the matters and differences.

- ----
Both parties agreeing, a verdict was taken for the
plaintiff accordingly.
COURT OF COMMON PLIAS, JOLT 25.

CHIN. CON.-CHERER V. MARRIOTT.
Mr. Sergeant Wilde, on the part of the plaintiff, stated
the case. It was an action brought by Mr. Henry Joseph
Cherer against the defendant, to recover from him com-
pensation in damages for a criminal conversation with the
plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff was now thirty years of
age, and at the time of the marriage was little more than
twenty-one. The plaintiff was brought up to the Man-
chester business, and became acquainted with the lady who
afterwards became; his wife, at the house of the lady who
brought him up. This lady was most respectably con-
nected. After the parties had been some time acquainted,
they were married in 1824, and lived together until 1827.
There were two or three children by the marriage, but
they are dead. In 1827 some differences arose, in con-
sequence of the bad temper of the lady, and these ended
in a separation. The lady's conduct had been perfectly
good until she became acquainted with the defendant. In
the latter end of 1827 she was introduced to him. He
knew she was a married woman. This introduction ended
in their living together as man and wife. Some remon-
strances were made against this, and they separated in
consequence : but in a little time they again lived to-
Igether and have continued to do so until the present time.
IThe Learned Counsel then proceeded to call the evidence.
The marriage was regularly proved.
Mrs. Harker deposed to Mr. and Mrs. Cherer living on
affectionate terms up to 1827, when a separation took
place between them in consequence of the tempers of both
disagreeing.
Miss Martha Wakefield—l know Mr. and Mrs. Cherer,
the former from his birth, and the latter since her mar-
riage ; I saw them a few months after that. I remember
their going to Buckinghamshire, and I saw them only
twice before then. I also remember their return from
thence in 1827. I remember after their return some dif-
ferences arising between them, and their separation. I
visited Mrs. Cberer in St. Alban's-place, at the time Mr.
Cherer left her. She appeared to be living there in a
perfectly decorous manner ; temper, and differences aris-
ing therefrom were the causes of the separation.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Lawes—He left her,
and not she him. I do not know whether he paid the
rent when he left her ; he provided no means for her, for
she had a private income of her own, left her by her uncle.
After some other witnesses had been examined,
Mr. Sergeant Lewes then addressed the Jury for the
defendant, and said there was a great variety of cases of
this description, and it behoved the jury particularly to
inquire into the character of the parties. In this instance,
though the husband had deserted his wife, it appeared that
she loved him once and had loved him ever since, and it
was most likely that his own conduct had been the cause
of the unhappy difference. From all that appeared, the
wife might have been lett to starve if it had not been for
the defendant, as her husband had not troubled himself
about her, though she was lying on a bed of sickness, and
was abandoned to sorrow and despair. He (the learned
counsel) indeed thought he might go so far as to say that
a husband who left his wife in such a manner was not
entitled to any damages. Ha then commented upon the
evidence, and contended there was nothing to prove that
Mr. Cherer had taken the least trouble in inquiring after
his wife. It was proved in evidence that Mr. Cherer bad
said he could not again live with his wife, and therefore
he thought it inconsistent for him to claim compensation
for the loss ofher. Under all the circumstances, he contended
the smallest damages would meet the justice of the case.
Mr. Justice Park, in summing up the evidence, said it
had often been a subject of regret to him that, by the
law of England, an adulterer could not be punished ; but
so it was, and they must administer it as they found it.
The learned Judge then told the jury that as they could
not punish the defendant, all that remained was to award
a proper compensation to the plaintiff, but he did not
think it was a case for excessive damages.
The jury consulted for a few minutes, and then found
a verdict for the plaintiff---Damages, £25.
LONDON SESSIONS, July 15.

These Sessions commenced this day before the Lord
Mayor, the Recorder, and a Bench of Aldermen.