Star.
London, England, 1810-07-18 00:00:00

-,-- IVO

63 6

63 4
113 0

3 g.
123 0

g ,6
61 0
IU2 0

LAW IArIELLIGENCE.

ARCHES COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS, MINX 11.

TADDY V. RUNE, FALNCLY CALLING HUM/ TADDY.

PIUNG v. CURREY.

EAVZS.r. DIXON.

unsound at the time of sak, they would
plaintiff. Verdict for the defendant.

Cbar'otte, by the usual cermony of thrnseut. g a bnt•
tle of wine against her bows. Lord Hood was pre..
sent. Mr. SHERIDAN and a party of tile') •• I
just in time to see the launch. Mr. W. %um, M.P.
and two ladies inspected the ship before Ae went of
the slip.
The Royal Dukes and the Duke of BgITORD dined
at •Greeaw:ch after the launch. Lord Ga IRGX CA.

VENDISIip Lord BaowNLow, Lord Et.usenanuces,
and many other persons of distinction were present.

This was a suit of nullity of marriage. pr :motel
by the husband against the wife, by reason -1 mints.
rite, which was brought by letters of request from
the Consistorial Court of Norwich.
It appeared that the parties were marri_d on the
l6tll of January in the present yeisr, by licence, at
St. Petee.s Church, in that city (the hush Ind being
then under the age of 2l) without first having ob-
tained the consent of his mother, whose husband died
without appointing any guardian to his son.
The Learned Judge (Sir Jowl Mot n.r.), after
hearing the evidence and other necessary documents
read, together with the arguments of Counsel on both
sides, observed, it was an extreme hard case. and very
injurious to the yrtung .woman, who was only 11
years of age at the time of marriage, which marriage
was consented to an the part of her parents, but not
that he was bound by law (having
no discretion in such a c:ise) to pronounce for the sen-
tence prayed, and accordingly pronounced the mar.
rine to be null and void.

This was originally a suit instituted in the Consis-
torial Court of Bath and Wells, by John Currey
against Mr. Pring, for smiting and laying violent
hands on Thomas Currey, the brother of the promo-
ter, and also for brawling, gum-I-. ening, or chiding, in
the parish church of. Horton Fitzwarren.
It appeared, that on the Sabbath of the 28th of
November, 1802, there being between forty and fifty.
persons assembled in the church, for the purpose of
hearing divine service, that Thomas Currey seated
himself in a pew belonging to two other parishioners,
who endeavoured to turn him out. A scuffle ensued
between the parties, when Mr. Pring, the then church-
warden, came up (as alledged) and used very foul
and indecorous language, and added, 6, We will have
no fighting here, if you want to fight go into the
chtntli-yard," which place, by the statute of the sth
and 6th of Edward the Fifth, was equally prohib:ted
from such a transaction occurring in, and it was fur-
ther enacted, that persons so offending against that
statute (particularly the churchwarden, whose duty it
was to keep the peace daring divine service) was lia-
ble to be suspended.
The Learned Judge was clearly of opinion, that
the churchwarden had not discharged his duty in so
strict and correct a manner as he ought to have done
—that his conduct was very improper on the occasion,
but under all the circumstances and considerations of
the case, he should dismiss the defendant, and con-
demn him in £4O costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY It
BROWN V. ROBINSON, BART.
This was an action to recover upon.a rants* we-
nat. The plaintiff was an Auctioneer in Bedford,
and had been employed to sell the estate of the de-
fendant—the attempt to dispose of it by auction had
been ineffectual. The plaintiff, however, succeeded
in selling it by private contract for 11,000 guineas.—
After the sale he sent a letter to a Mr. Cole, the de-
fendant's Solicitor, in which he inclosed his bill for
his own trouble in the disposal of the estate, amount-
ing to the sum of £66 14s. but, at the same time,
stated that such charr was considerably below the
usual rateovitich was at least one per cent. and that he
left it to the liberality Of the defendint how much more
he would give above the bill, but lie refused to give
more than £2O for the whole of the plaintiff% erouale,
and on this he brought the present action. The de.
fence was, that though originally applied to by the de-
fendant's agents to sell the estate. yet that at th, t me
of the sale of the estate the plaintiff was the age it ii.d
friend of the person who bought it. and that the plain-
tiff had taken an active part in prevailing on the de-
fendant to sell it—and that the defendant's agents
had, however, offeted plaintiff for his trouble N2o.
On the other hand, the plaintiff proved in his evi-
dence, that the most respectable Auctioneers, Skin-
ner and Dyke, Ste. charged one and a half per cent.
which would, in the present case, amount to £l7O,
instead of R 66 14s,

Sir JAMES MAXSFIILLD, in his charge to the Jury,
recapitulated the evidence. He acquitted Sir George
Robinson of acting in any other way than becalme .i
man of honour, and left it to the Jury to say it the
plaintiff had received from the defendant's agents, in
the offer of the twenty pounds, a sufficient tender fur
his trouble, and if not, how much more should be
awarded him ?

Verdict for the plaintiff, £ll5, being at the rate
of one per cent.

`his was an action to recover en, the price paid
fa' a horse warranted sound, but which died teu
!oloys after the sale ; this cause was tried by a special
airy, baying beerr tried before, when a verdict was
green for the pia:miff. It appeared that the bone w 4
ught at Boston Fair, and was warranted sound; but
&it on its arrival in London the horse refused hisoato--
Farrier visited the horse the third day after the sal.,
and prot.ounced him ill of a dropsy, which must have
*been ia him before the sale ; that the horse WAS (full
in the eyes and diseased before the sale, was prvved
by one of the plaintiff's witnesses. The defendant
proved on the other hand, that the horse did not ap.
pear to be affected by any disorder before the sale,
and several Veterinary Surgeons agreed in thinking,
that the disorder of which the iv,rst died had been
contracted before the sale, and that t was commit
for horses to die in the same manner, u the horse in
question had done, from inflammation contracted a
few days before their death.
Sir JAMES MANSTM.D in his charge to
said, that the plaintiff was bound to prove
horse was unsound at the time of sale,
were not satisfied of this they would find
fendant ; if they had no doubt that the

-

1111.1.;\

o the Jury, i
we that the
if the Jury
! for the de-
horse was
find for the