Star.
London, England, 1829-07-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCRRY, ham W.
FRASER v. lOOTHIT.

The LORD CRANCRLLOR, on taking his seat, gave
judgment in this case, the arguments io which occu;
pied several days. It is an appeal from the decision of
the preient Master of the Rolls (Sir John Leach). and
related entirely to the proper construction of certain
words in the marriage settlement of Lady Boothby.
His LORDSMIT, after citing several authorities, af.
armed the judgment.
COURT OF XING'S BENCH, This 30.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION-TM" KING W. TAYLOR.

Mr. CAMPISLL moved to file a criminal information
against Joseph Deering Taylor, a Post Captain in the
Royal Navy, for insulting language and improper con-
dect towards Mr. Tilby, an attorney. at Devizes. The
application was made upon the affidavit of Mr. Tilby,
who stated that he was employed by a Lady to bring
ejectments and recover possession of certain premises to
which she was heiress at law. On the 3d of June he
set Wed the ejectments, and at that time Captain Taylor
was in possession. The deponent knew nothing of that
Gentleman, having only seen him once in the street. A
few days after the ejectments were served, Mr. Tilby
went to the public reading room at Devizes, which was
visitrd at the same time by Capt. Taylor. Mr. Tilby
having nodded to a friend, named Bullock, who was in
the room, Captain Taylor said Why did you nod at
me ?'• Mr. Tilby skid he did not nod at the Captain,
. _

but another Gentleman. Mr. Bullock also sAid—" He

nodded at me." Capt. Taylor then used the following
words—" You are a d—d blackguard. and if it were
nest for the law I would break every bone in your boiy."
The next day he wrote a letter to the Lady who had
employed Mr. Tilby, and applied to him the most
abusive terms. The deponent further stated that he
had never given Capt. Taylor any offence, and the in-
sult was unprovoked. Mr. Campbell observed, that
nothing could be more insulting to an Attorney and a
Gentleman than to be called a blackguard before com-
pany in a public reading room.
Lord TaNTERDaN—Take a rule to show cause.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS. ACT.
Mr. CONTN applied for a rule to discharge an Insol•
irent debtor from a judgment fur 2,0001. obtained
against him before he took the benrfit of the Insolvent

Act. It appeared that in May, 1819, the defendant

. -
was discharged under the Insolvent Debtors' Act (5Sd
pf George III.) The Insolvent delivered in his sche-
dule wit's the debt of 2,0001. included. Judgment upon
the said debt had been entered up in Michaelmas Term,
1818. The Act says that no prisoner who shall obtain
his discharge by this Act shall be imprisoned by reason
of all judgment or decree obtained for non pay-
ment of debt contracted before his discharge, and in-
cluded in his.schedule; and if any judgment shall issue,
and upon application to a Judge it shall appear that he
is entitled to his discharge, the party holding the judge
ment shall pay the costs.
Lord TENTIRDIN observed, that this judgment was
t,►na a bond given as security for stock.
Mr. CoMYN said that was the difficulty.
Lord TaIITiRDEN—YOU may take a ntle to show
Cause.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jugs SO.
RTHRRINGTON V. GRAHAM.

This was a writ of dower, in which the plaintiff, Anne
Etherington, claimed dower in respect of certain pre-
mises possessed by her late husband. The defendant
pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to dower, be-
cause she had left her husband, and lived away from
him in a state of adultery. .1 o this there was a replica-
tion, that the plaintiff lett her husband with hisconsent,
and that if there was any adultery on her part, it was
after she so left her husband with his consent. To this
it was rejoined, that while apart from her husband, the
plaintiff lived 111 adultery of her own accord. The
plaintiff demurred to this rejoinder.
Mr. Sergeant Warm, on the part of the plaintiff. rose
to support the demurrer. The Learned Sergeant said,
the whole question turned upon the construction of the
Act of the 13tff of Edward I. (commonly called the
Statute of Westminster), f ir it was only by force of this
statute, if at all, that the wife was deprived of her
dower. The words of the Act were-4, If a wife wil
tingly leave her husband, and remain with her adulterer,
and be convicted thereupon, she shall lose her dower." 11
He submitted the plea did not support the bar to this
writ of dower, because it bad always been considered
that the departure must be with the adulterer, which
was not alleged here—(Mr. Justice Parke shook his
head). At least, he (the Learned Sergeant) could not
find a single case where the wife bad lost bee dower,
unless she left her husband with the adulterer; and it
was always, so pleaded. He therefore submitted that
this plea did soot bring the case within the statute.
Mr. Seigeant Joists, for the defendant, submitted
that the plea furnished a bar to this writ. It was a
simple separation that was here alleged, without any
decree of •n Ecclesiastical Court, or any assigned term;
whether it was for a year or whether for a single day,
did not appear, and is could not be held that on such
an nettle as this, a wife might be guilty of adultery
acd yet retain her right to dower, It was laid down
by Lord Coke, that if a wife remained away from her
husband, and committed adultery, she should lose her
dower, even though. her departure should not have been
voluntary (sponge). It was ►o even if she should be kept
•by force by the adulterer. In Paynell's case, where the
wife was disposed of by bargain and sale, she was ad-
judged to loifeit her right of dower. The law only looked
to the adulterous cohabitation, and afforded protection
to the woman after separation only when she remained',
innocent.

MM. Sergeant WILDB replied—Simple adultery could
not create a forfeiture of dowry.
The COURT held that nothing but a voluntary recnn.
eilialien could relieve ihe wife from the forfeiture.—
They bad not much doubt about the question . but a.
it was a case of old and subtle learning, they would
look into the authorities, and give judgment heivatter.

KIMBLE AGAINST WARREN.
It will be recollected by our readers that, in this
cue, an action was brought against Mr. Farren, the re-1
lebrated comedian, by the Managers of Covent-garden
Theatre, for the forfeiture of the penalty of 1,0001. in
cemsequence of his breaking his engagement with that
theatre. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages 7501.; and in the early part of the term Mr.
Sergeant Wilde obtained a Rule to show cause why the
verdict should not be entered for 1,00 W., that being
the penalty, according to the agreement between the,
parties.
Monday Mr. Sergeant SPAN/16 showed cause against
the rule, and 'contended that it never could be meant
that the amount of damages were not for the consider-
ation tit the Jury, for if not it might happen that Mr.
Yemen might have kept his agreement up to the very,
-welt of di hemination, and if he then for one night
*Am bloke its the whole penalty might be claimed,