Star.
London, England, 1826-11-13 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 11.

HIS HONOUR sat at nine o'clock this mottling in his
private chamber, to hear causer, further directions, and
petitions by consent. There were 40 notices entered on
the paper, all of which his Honour had gone through
by ten o'clock. It would appear, from the facility
afforded by his Honour in the dispatch of business, since
his recent appointment to preside in this Court, that he
is determined to redeem its character from the changes
of delay usually preferred against it. SirJ.Copley seems,
indeed, in this instance, to be following up the good
example set by his late predecessor, Lord Gifford,
whose memory as a Judge will be long remembered
with affection by the practitioners of this Court, and
whose mode of practice, in most instances, Sir John
Copley appears anxious to follow.

COURT OF ARCHES, Nov. 11.
GRAHAM P. lISANAM.

This was a snit promoted by Mr. Baron Graham,
against bis wife, Caroline Graham, praying for a di-
vorce by resson of adultery, which the wife was alleged
to have committed. It appeared that the parties sepa-
rated in 1820, when Mr. Graham retired to Scotland,
and Mrs. Graham resided in Sumemet-place. Albany-
road, Walworth, where the adulterous intercom se was
Frayed to have been carried on with a Mr. Rigley.—
Under these circumstances, an action for cries. con. was
!nought, but only one shilling damages was given, it
was supposed on account of the parties being separated
at the time.

Dr. Imstnucrou now prayed for a divorce.
Sir J. NICHOLL said, be was of opinion, that there
could be no doubt that the libel was satisfactorily
proved, and that Mr. Graham was entitled to the sepa-
ration for which he prayed.
Tbe Coons therefore prooouneed for the divorce, and then ad.
jounird.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Wanumsna, Nov. 11.
coLusis P. Lwow.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attor.
ney, to recover la the amount of his bill for service
done to the defendant. The cause was tried at Exeter
in the course of last Assizes, when it appeared that the
plaintiff had omitted to give the defendant notice to
produce the original bill, with the plaintiff's signature,
delivered in previous to the commencement of the action.
Tire plaintiff tendered a copy of the bill, and offered to
sign it, but the Cowl was of opinion that that was not
evidence, and the plaintiff therefore was nonsuited.
Mr. WMJGHT now moved for a rule calling upon the
defendant to shew cause why the nonsuit should not be
set aside, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff for IW.
Ha founded his application on the case of " Andersen
and May," in 2d flosanquet and Puller, Si Eipinasse,
161.—The Court granted the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 11.

These fads were clearly profeettje eillsoee, anidetio.sidis
to di, West India Decks was preyed to be words
For this defendants it was contended, that they never
took possession of the ship for themselves-,they were
met ely agents. The ship had been sold at New Orleans
by order of the Government; and Gorden, for whom

tliey acted, had purchased her, and sent her to England,
where they took possession of her as his agents, and not
on their own account, consequently they could not be
held responsible.
A great number of documents were produced as evi-
dence to prove that the ship had been sold by order of
the Government, and that the sale was a fair one.—
Gordon was proved to have purchased her for 1,695 doll.
The Lunn Cam JUSTICZ summed up, leaving it co
the Jury to decide whether they believed the defendants
to have taken possession of the ship, and whether they
were not liable for her value; and it was for them to
say whether the sale in New Orleans had been a fair
sale, when it was proved that her value in England was
2,9001. and that she was sold for only 1,695 dollars.
_ _

The Jury returned s verdict for the plahiiiff—Damages, 302,400.'

Han IN SUTTON.

Mr. Sergeant TADDT stAted, that this was an action
for money had and received, and was brought by the•
plaintiff, a poor woman, a widow, far advanced in
years, to recover a sum of about 5501. the savings of a
long and industrious life, which the defendant had bor-
rowed of her, and now denied her liability.
The only question was, whether the money had been lent to the
defendant or to her sou,who was a confectioner, and had failed ?
The Jury were of opinion that defendant was respondbk for re-
payment of •the money, and retutised a verdict for the plaintiff...
'Damages 3571.

THE EVENING STAR.