Star.
London, England, 1817-07-31 00:00:00

JUNKS v. MIRO KOKEBY.

This was a motion to enforce the payment of the
porehase-money into Court of an estate in Cleveland,
in the county of York,. of which a Mr. Richaril Car.
ter was the best bidder, at a sale before the Court of
Chancery, in the year 1812. •
it was ft:tied in the printed particular of the estate
in question, that thirty-two acres were tithe-free, but
without specifying in what particular parts those 32
acres were situated. An abstracr of the title was de-
livered to the purchaser in April, 1813, which con-
tained no mention whatever of the tithe-free lands
The purchaser made several objections trR a title,
when the matter was referred to the Master, to exa-
mine whether a good title could be made The Mas-
ter decided that the title was good ; but the purchaser
then urged, that as no title could be made to the
tithe, the whole must be considered as defective.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY and Mr. HEALD, in support
of the motion, contended at some length that it was
unfair for the purchaser, after having taken possession
of the estate at Lady-day, 1813, now to throw it up,
more especially when, in consequence of his so having
taken possession, and then vacated it, the property
had become in a most ruinous state of dilapidation.
The doors throughout the mansion-house had been
carried away for fire.wood. and all the lands remain-
ed uncultivated. The only yersons upon the property
erne two paupers, who had lodged themselves in the
bons., and fed two cows about the grounds. They
farther contended, that the matter of the tithes ought
not to vitiate the title, but that it should be made the
subject it a compensation, on account of misstate-
ment, according to one of the conditions expressed in
the printed particular.
Mr. Btu. and Mr. CriAnwrzt,, on the part of the
purchaser, opposed the motion, and observed, that
the claim of compensation which had so improperly
been used by auctioneers, could not apply to a point
o essential as that of lands being titheable or tithe-
free. They declared that the purchaser never had
taken possession of the property, and to prove this
they compared two affidavits of plaintiff finks, viz.
one dated the 6th of June, 1817, in which Binks
states, that the dilapidated state of the property was
occasioned by the defendant art having taken Isonelsion,
and another dated 21st July, 1817, in which he
states, that the purchaser did actually take possession
at 2.ady.day, 1313. The fact really was, that the
lands had been let by the venders at such exorbitant
rents, which rents they themselves received, until a
decline in the times compelled the tenants to throw
tip their farms.
The V►ce-CHANCELLOR seemed inclined to consider
the matter in the light of a compensation, but de-
clared it to be important to decide whether the pur-
chaser had or had not actually taken the possession ?
There was a seeming contradiction in the affidavits
of Mr. Binks, but still it appeared capable of expla-
nation.—Further time was allowed to procure affi-
davits from Yorkshire as to the fact of possession.

The two Barristers, whose quarrel and personal
conflict have been for some lime put known to our
Readers, were on Tuesday last pronounced, by a
Committee of their brother Barristers, to be ao longer
hleufbets of their Circuit• Club.

ASSIZES.

DERBY, lint CR.
CHADWIN V. ►►•ATSON.

_...._...._ _
Mr. Serjednt CopLey stated the cm for the plain-
tiff. in the foll,iwing i ff,ct

The plaintiff, Elizabeth.Chadwin, is a farmer's
daueliter, in 131“siegton, in this county. The defen-
dant, dovish Watson, is a farmer iii the same place.
i During the simmer of 1815 the defendant had some
transactions in business with the plaintiff's father, in
cnurse of which he became acqu 'hued with the plain-
, tiii; who nets beautiful And inleff'Stilla Her lather,
in consequence of the derangement of his affairs, found
it necessary to remove from home. The detendant,
I however, continued his visits, and applied to the
mother for leave to pay his addresses to the plaintiff,
and declared his intention to make her his wife. Mrs.
Chad vein expressed great reluctance to be deprived of
the society of her daughter, and espnially at a time
when she required it sit much ; hut not 'inclined to j
obstruct trio eqablishment of her daughter in life, she
consented. lie said she could live %sill) him, and
enjoy the society of her daughter. Michaelmas fel•
lowing was, in fact, fixed on for thetime of solemniz- '
ing the marriage. Michaelmas came ; the month of
September passed away, and the defendant said ne-
thing of the marriage. The plaint'lF was now ob-
served to be in great agitation and distress of mind.
The cause was obvious. Under the protection of the
promise he had made, and aided by the possession of
the plaintiff's affections, the defendant had basely
abused his oppot 'unity, and the gill was with child.
The m nhet sent for him, and upbraided him with the
foulness of his conduct. He affecte Ito treat it with
indifference ; he said he was not bound by any pro-
mise, relying on no writing having existed ; but at
length, overpowered by the remonstrances of genuine
distress, which, when actually exposed to their senses,
the greaust profligates are generally unable to resist,
he said he would still perform his promise. He said
it was not convenient for him at that very time, but
if Miss Chadwid would come and live with him for a
month, he would at the end of that period marry her.
The mother was not to be justified in such a compli-
' ance; it would not be attempted to justify her ; but
is should be recollected that she was anxious to get
her daughter now married to the defendant, as the
only alleviation of the injury sustained ; and feared to
offend him lest be should make that a pretext for
finally refusing. She gave her reluctant consent.
The daughter lived with him for a month. At the
end of that period every preparation was made, the
wedding dresses were prepared ; but when Mrs. Chad-
win went to the defendant's house, she was received
with jeers and scoffs, and he said that her daughter
did not even wish him to marry her. The daughter
upon this fell down upon the floor and fainted away.
When she recovered, she and her mother walked off.
The defendant soon after married another woman, and
this action is now brought that you may visit the mis-
conduct of the defendant with the only punishment
that can be called for. Money cannot compensate
for the injury inflicted ; but to claim damages in
money is the only resource left for the unfortunate, the
irreparably injured, plaintiff. You will, therefore,
.recollect that the defendant is a man of considerable
opulence; he not only holds a pretty large farm, but
he has besides much real property. You are not only
to provide for the present satiafactioa of the plaintiff,'
but for her future comfort, so far as pecuniary damages
can have that effect. She was pure and spotless till
the misconduct of the defendant seduced her from the
paths of virtue. If she has fallen at all from virtue,
it is entirely owing to the misconduct of the defen-
d int. There cannot be a more flagrant injury to an
amiable and virtuous young lady than to seduce her
from a virtuous course. We are indeed acustomed
to speak liehtly of matters of this kind ; but, Gentle.
men, you cannot think lightly of it, if you think
rightly. I know that a powerful address will be made
to you by my brother (Serjeant Vaughan) on the
other side. I trust, however, to your discernment
and sense of justice. Great pains have been taken,
on the other side, in investigating the circumstances
of this case, and the characters of the parties. I am
much obliged to them for their exertions, for I defy
the tongue of malice to impute the slightest blame to
the conduct of the plaintiff previously to her acquaint.
ance and connexion with the defendant. I shall now
call witnesses to prove the facts to you.
Mrs. Chadwin is mother of the plaintiff, who was
21 years of age last Christmas.
Here a long consultation took place among the
different parties, their Counsel, and the Bench ; the
results of which was an agreement that the defen-
dant should pay ,e5:l damages, and 4s. 6.1. a week
for the maintenance of the child whie in the custody
of plaintiff. The Jury gave their verdict accordingly.,