Star.
London, England, 1819-07-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

~~ ~ r :~

•
OptltT OF CHANCERY, JULY so.
GORDON D. GOON. ,
long-contested case oecurikt4be - Courtin .
bole of the day. It first came an his liebeeir
WIALIAM GRANT) the late Master of thellujht:
Jbit circumstances lie in a very narrow cOnSpos, and
briefly these?--The plaintiff and irefendant'ard
riitlters. Their parents were 'privately riaariiedln
6tland ; they afterwards went to the United' Stiarslif
"Arnerica, and were publicly married. Between tbetwo
marriages the plaintiff and an elder heather, who died
in the life time of his father, were born. At the de.
cease of the father the defendant, who is a Barrister,
suggested to the plaintiff, who had spent the early
'part of his life in India, that although he was the
elder brother, he was not legitimate, and pnaduced
to him the certificate of the public marriage of their
parents, and said, for the sake of the family and their
mother's feelings, it was better not to publicly agi-
tate the question of the legitimacy, but that he, the
defendant, who was the first-born son after the pub-
lic marriage, would take the estates of their father,
and rent a part of them at a low rate to the plaintiff.
So that the public seeing him in possession would
suppose they were legally vested in him, and at the
same time would not know that their mother had im.
properly cohabited with their father before marriage.
Fhe plaintiff not knowing of the private marriage,
and the respect he had for his mother and sisters, 6
;peed to this proposal, and an agreement to that
effect was accordingly executed. Some time after-
wards the plaintiff came to the knowledge of the pri.
vate marriage; and to vindicate' the character of his
mother, which had been so aspersed by the defen-
dant, he filed the present bill. His Honour the late
Master of the Rolls directed an issue to try the va-
lidity of the private marriage in Scotland ; and af-
terwards another question came before his Honour,
whether the dying declaration of his motheras to the
previous marriage should go to the Jury as evidence. ,
Has Honour was of opinion that it ought, as it was
r.price evidence to go to Jury, under the direction
of the Learned Judge at Nisi Pries. The defenditnt
appealed from that judgment to the Lord Chancellor,
and his Lordship, on hearing thetase on its merits, con-
firmed the judgment of his Honour. The issue was
tried, and the Jury returned a verdict, declaring the
validity of the private marriage, and establishing the
'legitimacy of the plaintiff. After. this trial the plain-
tiff applied to the Court, as a matter of course, to
have it referred to the Master to take an account be.
tween the parties, and for the plaintiff to be put in
possession as the owner of the estates. The Lord
Chancellor, however, on that occasion was of opi-
nion that the verdict of the Jury did not decide all
that was in dispute between the patties, as the agree-
ment might have been entered into by the plaintiff
and defendant through mutual mistake, that neither
of them knew of the previous marriage of their pa-
rents, 'in which case it would be impossible for the
Courtto declare that the plaintiff had committed such
;7t fraud on the defendant as entitled the latter to re-
lief, or, as his Lordship observed, that they might
,both have had a knowledge of the private marriage,
but from its doubtful nature have considered they
were meeting the equity of the case by the agree-
ment, in which event the Court would not disturb it.
His Lordship, therefore, wished to hear a Counsel on
each side on that point, and appointed an early day
fOr that purpose, on account of the plaintiff being
imprisoned by the defendant in the King's Bench for
a debt claimed to be due to him; tnit on account of
his Lordship's lamented indisposition (an attack of
the gout), and Mr. HARTS (Counsel for the defen-
dant) family •loss, the death of his wife, it did not
.come on to be heard until 41tis day.
Mr. HART was heard at great length for the De-
fendant. He did not deny but his client had a know-
ledge of the private marriage, but contended that
the Plaintiff was also in possession of the circnin.
}ranee when the agreement was entered into ; and to
'prove this, he stated several letters written by the
Plaintiff to the Defendant, and laid particular stress
upon one, where the Plaintiff complained of the con-
dUct of the Defendant, in starting the question of
*legitimacy, and the hardship of his pressing on him
the terms of the agreement—where he says, " Are,
we' not brothers, the sons of the same patents? Did
they ever make any difference in their attentions to
you, myself, or our ever-to-be-regretted elder bro-
ther ? If he and our father were now living, would
you ever have attempted to have thrown such a slur
upon the best of women, our mother?" The Learned.
Counsel contended, that this passage :hewed that he
knew of the private marriage, but doubted its validity.
Mr. HEALD, Counsel for the Plaintiff, contended
that at the time his client entered into the agreement
with the defendant he had no knowledge of the'pre-
riot's private marriage 'of his patents, but that he
Wired into it to prevent the feelings of his family
being hutti' as 'the plaintiff had Flamed to him the
JertificateAt marriage,iishich on the face
of it shewed, t heohe weanot born in tile
Rale of that "piasviage. Tr 4 letters, read. b
edhisi Learn-
trlenci, Mr. t, accordkiii* his (Mt. Ifea(crs)
constrno ir of them, proved that to Lho fact, par-
.
cicidarly that timer which was so much on by

the other side. Ile would Ask his LotdsbiP whtOns,
the meaning of the words; "We art ME sons of tne
same parents, &c. If our Faller and elder brother
were now living would you attempt to throw such a
slur on our mother?" Did it not me.tn, " if my mo-
ther was so unfortunate as to have cohabited with
my father before marriage,_ you, as their son, ought
to be the last person .to expose the circumstance to
the world ?" This, he contended, was the true con-
struction, for if the plaintiff had known there had
been a private marriage at that time he would have
said, " It is tthe you are the eldest son of the public
marriage, but I will defend the right of my mother
and sisters on the previous private marriage."
The LORD CMANCELLOt. .at two o'clock, said.
" Proceed with this case to-morrow, for I amobligetl
to rise, having to attend the Prince Regent, relatives
to the Recorder's Report of the criminals under sen-
tence of death.7—Further argument postponed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 19.
THE MPG V. TIRE.

This was an indictment for an assault against a
warden of Smithfield Market, named Pike, on the •
prosecution of a police officer, named Green. The
defendant pleaded not guilty, upon which pies issue
was joined.
It appeaied frottr the evidence, that the defendant,
some time in the month of October last, was sta-
domain Smithfield Market, and instructed to take

tarathar :istsinaproperridinft should occur in it du-
ring the:tirce that the home fair was holden. A lad,
the Pl4#l.pr man 4 .ritp&ared to the defendant to
b riding faier ishundi prescribed for the fait,
kuifilisteethinftr iiwatprisdent tirricie in such a ctOvr4
Mlp filittati••as were then tuid.thers assembled. The

:therefore went up to him, struck him on
thediaok, quilegecl him to dismount, and then rode off
wjtis.the.itOrle to the City Green-yard, in order to
impougg if. The lad, not knowing what reason the
aeferidariVhad for adopting such conduct, raised a
crynfb Stbp thief;" updn which the prosecutor and
another man named Beecher, both of them consta-
bles, *no happened, to be passing at the time that
the boy raised the cry, told him to hoki his tongue,
and followed the defendant, who was not easily dis-
tinguishable by his hat as a Man of authority, with
the intentioh. of 'securing hint. They overtook him
non' the City Green.yard, when they informed him
that they were police officers, 'hewed their staffs, and
demanded by what right he had taken the horse on
which he was riding ? He answered them in the
most abusive language, saying among other things,
that 4, they were no officers, but returned convicts ;
he would have a special vestry summoned, and
would have them tried by Court Martial," and cons
eluded by positively refusing to deliver up the horse.
.Considerable altercation then ensued between the
parties, arid was terminated by the defendant de-
siring the keeper of the Grecri-vard to send for a con-
stable, as he intended to place Green and Beecher in
custody. A constable of the name of Stocks was sent
for accordingly, and on his arrival handcuffed
Becher, and took him to the Compter. He was also
proceeding to handcuff the prosecutor, when the pro-
secutor gaud that he had in his pocket his own hand.
cuffs, which he should prefer wearing, if it were
thought necessary to pinion him. He deemed it, how-
ever,.quite unnecessary, as he was very willing to
accompany them to any Magistrate. During the
tirbe•that this scene was transacting, a personal senile
tcatistacie between the prosecutor and the defendant:
this proseesitor charged the defendant with having
commenced it, which the defendant as resolutely des
nini• gleveral witnesses were examined upon this
point ; afer which, •
The Loan Cunt, Jurnevintsmed up the evis
• ckace which they had given, and the Jury immedi-
ately returned a verdict of Guilty against defendant.

JULY 20.—woowtorrE v. TQIUMS ANQ ANOTtiliffik
This was action of trover to recover four horsk,
claimed by the plaintiff, as lord of the manors of
Claygate and Wyke, in the county of Surrey, as
hcriois, alleged to be due upon the death of a gen-
tleman named Cousmaker, (of whqm the defendants
are executors), according to the custom of those ma-
nors in respect to certain freehold tenements held by
the deceased in his lifetime.

The plaintiff rested his claim to these heriots upon
proof of a custom said to be enjoyed by the lords
of these manors, to take the best head of cattle, or
the best furniture, which belonged at the time of his
death to any freehold tenant who died within them.
It appeared that the testator held three tenements,
Glasiers, Westwoods, and Buckhursts, within the ma-
nors of Claygate and Vyke. The plaintiff, there-
fore, upon the death of Mr. COusmaker, claimed a
heriot, for each of the two first-mentioned tenements,
and two heriots for the last-mentioned tenement, for
which? as it had originally consisted of tWo distinct
'tenements, two were due by custom of the manor in
which it was situated. Shortly afterwards.thejaailiff
of the plaintiff went upon the lands, and marked two
cart and two coach horses, as heriots for the
They were, however, suffered to remain on the pre-
mises of the deceased, for the use of his family; in
order that *Ms executors might make their elections,
whether they would deliver up the heriots, or com-
pound for them. The defendants, not being con-
vieced of thejtietieecof the lord's claim, determined
to try his right'at law ; and from this: tleterrnination
the present action arose.
Mr. Bray,' the steward of the manors in trieStioe,
produced the court-rolls, in order to .show the cus-
tom which. it was now attempted to establish. The
evidence not being satisfactory, with regard to 4se
tenement at Westwoods, the heriot claimed on ac-
count of it was abandoned by the plaintiff,k
Sundry entries in the court-rolls were theit'tead
respecting the other tenements—after which, it was
agre-0 that the, plaintiff should have a verdiit for
100, thereby acknowledging a right to two lbetiots
in respect to 13uckhursts, and one in rciptet
siers, subject, however, to a motion, on 'the ?an of
the lefendants, to seduce the verdict to 00, übtase
the Court should be of opinion that ad beriot wat due
foe Glasiers.

CORN-MARKET, MARK-LAN % JULYiet.
. We had an additional supply of. Wlwit front Suf-
'folk this morning, besides a tolerable quantity which
was.left over from Monday ; but; in consequence of
,the roil) which fell since yesterdraynveniug,, higher
lq
prices were asked, and in a,fevf, jaitf . *s• per 9'.
'advance was obtaine4—Barley . was . 51e ; but
'PLis 40 ,Ciais fey butojortki :Voiiiilar #ivices. •