Star.
London, England, 1820-02-04 00:00:00

f' . • -‘. eks ' • •
5.•,,e. • "-A... •
• •
. • _

-

6~y~~

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEBRUARY 3.
CLANDESTINE MARRIAOZ.
IN THE MATTER 011,. ANTHONY J. DRAM?, ESQ. A
MINOR, AND A WARD OR CR
,ffekßX.
The. LORD CHANCELLOR, on coming, into, Court.
at eleven o'clock, observed, it had been intimated to
him, from. Master Alexander's' Office, that the Report
in this case, relative to the legality of the marriage
of the Ward with Miss Sarah Elizabeth Staples at
Gretna Green, was not ready ; he therefore post-
poned the further consideration of the case to Satur-
day next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was occupied until eleven
o'clock in his private room, discussing the question
whether the patents of precedence granted by the
late King to several of the Learned Counsel, were
abated by the itemise of his Majesty. We under-
stand his Lordship is of opinion that they are abated.
In consequence of which, Mr. WETHERELL took his
seat outside the bar, in a stuff gown.—His Lordship
rose at one o'clock.

COURT OF KINGS BENCH, FEBRUARY 2.
This being the Anniversary of the Puriticatien,
the Court; in Westminster-Hall did not sit in Banc.
The Chief-Justice of this Court, however, sat at Nisi
Prius, but the cases tried afforded little of-public
interest.

HEYS s'. SWETTINGITAM.
This was ail action to recover half a year's board
and lodging of the defendant, at the rate of £lOO
per annum.
Mr. SGARGETT and Mr. TVPITON conducted the
plaintiTs.case, and Mr. GUENET and Mr. _ABRAHAM
the defendant's.
The plaintiff, who is a Lade of fortune residing atl
Sunbury, in Middleiex, received the defendant, who
is related to her by marriage, into her house in
November, 1811, a; an inmate, at the rate of £4OO
per annum, for hoard and lodging for himself and
two servants. He continued in her house for about
six months, during which time she lent him several
sums of money.
The defendant now pleaded the Statute of Limi-
tations, but the evidence went distinctly to take the
case out of the Statute.
Tne plaintiff ca se was supported principally by
the tet,tiniony of Lady Viscountess 'limier, the plain-
tiff's datiOncr, and who was present at the time of
the agreement entered into by the defendant.
The Jnry, under the Learned Judge's directions,
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 4:200.

:4mNix.4eist: AND .4.sornEn V. snsrolcr.
This was an action by the plaintiffs, Who are apo-
thecaries and surzeons in the Strand, to recover the
sum of El 1 s. for attending the defendant's wife
in two confinements, and supplying her wi,th medi-
cines in the years 18;)4 and 1809. Tlle defendant
pleaded the Statute of Limitations.
Mr. GonNEy and Mr. ANDREWS conducted the
plaintiff; case, and Mr. CASiii'.RD the defendant's.'
It appeared, for the plaintiffs, that they had at-
tended the defendant's wife twice, during two several
lyings-in, and had supplied hen with medicines.
Since the yea' 1809, various applications had been
made.to the defendant, a bookbinder and stationer,
in May's-buildings, St. Martin's-lane, for payment,
but he always postponed payment, under pretence
that he had not time to look into his ledger, and
semetimei he offered to ivork out the amount of the
demand in bookbindliT. &cc.
1.1:e elefei.,.e set up was, that in point of fact the
plaintiff, had been paid for attending .Mr.;. Benedict
dnving her confinernent in 1803 ; and that andther
medical Gewlernan had attended her on the like oc-
casion in 1809, so as thereby to reduce the pL~i tiffs
.lemaild to an amount under forty shillings, aral CO 5
sequently to bring the ca'e sNi;hin the operation of
the Westminster Court of Bequests act. The evi-
dence went to show that the plaintiffs had been paid
for the first accouchtnent, and that another Gentle-
man had actually &limed her on the second, but
that ;he plaintiffs' had attended during the lung and
fatal illness which followed the latter.
The case went to the Jury, who found a verdict
for the plaintiffs—llarnages _ 'ls.

FEBR UARY 2.
A person named WEilti addressed the Court as
their Lordships entered, and craved to be heard with
respect to a claim to justice. The Gentleman was
ailt,wed to state his application, which appeared to
he a complaint of misconduct on the part of an At-
torney, who, he said, had maliciously indicted him.
Ile moved, therefore, to have him struck off the Rolls
-for the infamous and cri4ininal part he h. 441 Laken in
a malicious pro-ecution.
The CE lEF Jos rict informed him, that the Court
• could not attend to his motion to strike an Attorney
cff die Rolls, unless it was made by a Gentleman at
the Bar. The law at the same time was open to him ;
and he had also a remedy by bringing his action
against the Attorney.
The applicant, in a very loud tone, the conse-
quence perhaps of deafness, which obliged him to
cal ry an ear-trumpet, expressed his inability to fee
Counsel. and finally withdrew, saying he should pe-
tition the Home of Commons.