Star.
London, England, 1826-11-06 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nevama 4.
WELLESLEY V. THE DMZ OF BIAUFORT.
His LORDSHIP gave leave to Mr. Shadwell for a pe-
tition in this matter to be transferred from the paper of
his Honour the Vice Chancellor into his Lordship's, and
to stand for bearing on Thursday neat.
All the causes and lunatic petitions in his Lordship's
paper being called on, some of which were allowed to
stand over, and others, in consequence of the absence of
Counsel, could not be gone on with, his Lordship rose
a little before twelve o'clock, when he observed he
was determined not to sit in the only Court that was
not attended.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Normans 4.
IN THE CASE OF WELLESLEY V. THE DUKE OP BEAUFORT.
Mr. SHADWELL applied on behalf of the infant
children of the late Mrs. Wellesley, for an order
upon one of the tenants to deliver up certain
estates and farms, of which he remains in possession,
contrary to a former order of the Court, which di-
rected him to deliver them up, that he might account
for the value of some bucks which he had shot, and pay
the produce to the receiver appointed by the Court; and
that he might be required to do various other things in
reference to the property of the infants, or in defaillt of
obedience, that he might be committed.
Mr. HART opposed the application on the ground of
its being made in a snit which had been instituted with-
out the sanction of Mr. Wellesley, who was the natural
guardian of his children ; and that the question of his
parental rights was now before the Lord Chancellor,
awaiting his Lordship's decision.
The Vice CHANCELLOR thought that the objection
must prevail, and that it would be highly improper for
him so to interfere with a case which was at present sub
judice before the Lord Chancellor.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Noumea 4.
APPLETON V. CAMPBELL.
This was an action to recover the sum of 451. for
board and lodging furnished to the defendant. The de-
fendant pleaded the general issue.
It waroved in evidence that the defendant boarded
and lodged in the plaintiff's house. for several months.
The principal witness for the plaintiff, however, ad-
mitted in cross-examination that the defendant was a
woman of the town, of which fact the plaintiff and his
wife were perfectly aware.
Mr. SCARLET?, for the defendant, contended, that in
point of law the action could not be maintained, inas-
much as it was for the lodging, &c. of a woman of the
town, the plaintiff knowing at the time he gave the cre-
dit, that such was the dettndant's occupation. It was
among the privileges of the other sex, that they were ex-
empt from legal liability in cases of this description, if
the party trusting them was privy to the mode of life
which they followed. This doctrine was founded on the
be' principles of morality and public policy. A person,
therefore, giving credit to a prostitute, so as to enable
her t 4 carry on her immoral practices, was no more en-
titled to maintain an action for the board and lodging
of such a person, than the old bawd who dressed up the
unhaPpy victim of her avarice to lure the male sex to
her /brothel, could recover against the poor girls whom
silt/had so nurtured in vice and infamy. It was ad-
mitted here that the defendam was a woman of the town,
and that the plaintiff knew the fact at the time of her
residence in his house. Without going into the disgust-
ing details of the defendant's life, it was sufficient for
him to rely upon the facts already proved. because they
were a complete answer to the action. The defendant
undoubtedly must be defended rather by her demerits
than her merits.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the Learned
Counsel had correctly stated the law as applicable to
the case in question. If a person let a lodging to a wo-
man to be used as the scene of her prostitution, he could
not recover anything in a Court of Justice on account of
such a bargain. This was the question for the Jury. If
they thought that this lodging was let to the defendant,
in order that she might, in fact, see and receive unlawful
visitors, then, undoubtedly, the defendant would be en-
titled to a verdict; bat if they thought it was not let for
such purposes, the plaintiff must recover.
The Jury deliberated a considerable time, and found their ver-
dict for the defendant.