Star.
London, England, 1826-07-12 00:00:00

THE MARQUIS 07 DOTE U. CONTNGHAM.

The Loan CHANCELLOR said, the question appeared
now to be reduced to these points—first, whether the
Marquis of Bute was liable to make good the produce
•of•the collieries mentioned in the pleadings, so as to
satisfy the annuity of 600 i. and, secondly, whether the
will was a compliance, er to what extent a compliance,
with the cosenant which had been insisted on as having
an great a weight in the case.
In the cause of " White and Mule." Ms Lordship promised kids-
extent on Thursday. •

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JSLT It.
1111.ATTORNIY-GENZRAL V CLIVIIVZ.

This was a prosecution in,tituted by the Att Tney-
General against the inhabitants sf a parish in Devon-
shire, to recover the amount of tithes unpaid ; and also
against the Governors of a Charity School in that
parish, for colluding with the inhabitants in not paying
the full amount of tithes, to which the Pastor was en-
titled. It appeared that the inabitants were, for a con-
siderable time, accustomed to pay their tithes is kind;
but in consequence of •the collusion above-mentioned,
they had given a modus on the different articles, by
which means the amount fell considerably short of what
it' had done in the preceding years. By an Act of
Henry VIII. the Charity in question was to be supported I
out of the tithes of the parish. _

The arsaments ea bob- aide' occupied the . Court almost during
'the whole of the day, after which,
. Vica CHANicit&t,oft said, he shquld leave tl e
tfervilants the benefit of a trial by Jury as to the greater
prockirtion of the modems; but with respect to the
modus'on wool and cider, he should take an.. oppor-
tunity of expressing his opinion. He did not think the
'evidence of corruption, on the part .of the Governois,
was very clearly made out.

SCOTS MARRIAGE&
'COURT &SESSION-RUST D111.1110)6, JULY 1.
FLAWS V. lILAILIC-CASZ 01 DIVORCC.

IC appeared that the patties in this cause were natives
'of Ireland, 'and had been privatelf married at Port-
patrick, in Scotland, after which they returned to Ire-
land, where they resided for some time. In 1816, they
separated; and. in 1824, the husband came to Scotland,
where he took a shooting box, in the Highlands, and,
.after residing theta forty days, he raised an action ofl
divorce against -his wife before the Commissary of
Edinburgh. To this action the Lady was cited io appear
by an edictal citation at the Mirket-cross of Edinburgh,
and pier and shore of Leith. No appearance was made
for her, and a proof having bien led, decree of divorce
wis pronounced against her in absence, which annulled
the marriage. When the Laiy heard of the decision,
which she did from the newspapers, she immediately
contradicted it, and brought an action of redaction of
that decree before the Court of Session, on the ground
that it was inccimpetent and void, in respect she bad
nut been leg-ay and -6crai fide cited for her interest. The
Judges were umelthnous in finding, that besides the legal
citation, the Lady wits entitled to have received notice
SIAM the husband u'ticlev the hand of a notary public
and witnesses, that such suit was in dependence against
her in Scotland ; therefore the Lords reduced the decree.
Lord 13a1gray stated, that if such decree were sustained,
the Commissaries of Edinburgh might unmarry all the
Ladies in the two kingdoms while they were residing at
hosite, and their husbands shooting, as they supposed, in
the Highlands of Scotland.
ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

yonx, „rimy 10.
'SPENCER V. HODSON,.

This was an action to rectiver. 441. for goods sold and
delivel ed. The plaintiff was a coal merchant, and the
defendant traded in the same art cle by retail. The
debt was preyed by the admission of the defendant in,
the I.llowing manner ;—He laid a wager of a guinea
with the plaintiff that he did not owe him 441. having
pleviously paid him 21. On settling the account, the
cieht appe Fred to be 461 leaving 441. due, after the pay-
t of the 21. The defendant admitted the wager was
fairly won, and paid it.
Mr. Justice Pear observed this was throddest way of proving a
See he bad ever sees.

Maria .StaNdeven, aged 26. was indicted few felo-
niously taking away a child, aged 18 months, the son of
Joseph Taylor, a woutiorter, trom Leeds, on the Bth of
April lAst.

The grandmother of the child stated, she was with
him, when the prisoner passing, asked her some ques-
t" n`• She went and pointed out the place she wanted,
leaving the child in The care•of a boy who was present.
;% hen she returned, she went into the house for some
tine, and then he and the child wele missing% • A pursuit
tutemenced, and the ehiki was reMered.

The bay to whom the child *as entrusted said, ihe ,
prisoneilTtme up to him after the old woman was gone,'
~
and asked the name of the child. He told her. She
then gave him a halfpenny to buy some toffee (a kind
of sweetmeat made of treacle and buttes). He went to
Loy it, but when he returned, he could find neithier the
prisoner nor the ch ld.
Mrs. Eliza Spencer proved shasaw the:prisoner with
the-child in her arms, but she thought she must be is
relation, or she would have stopped her. Both the father
and mother were at Boston, in America, now, but not
when the child was taken away. I
The constable who apprehended the prisoner proved
that when she was taken into custody, she stated she
found the child crying in the street, and took it home.
The prisoner, when called upon for her defence, de-
nied having taken away the child with the intention of
stealing it. She found it crying, and took it home from
pity. She took out the child when she went to fetch
water for t. a, and 'met the father, who claimed it. She
immediately restored it, and told him how she found it.
He thanked her for having taken cat eof it. She saw
no more of him till he brought a constable to take her.
Mr. Baron Hokt.oat stated to the Jury, it was for them to de-
termine, whether in the absence of the father they would convict
the prisoner on the evidence of the boy alone ?—Not
Thomas Jackson, aged 26, a very genteel looking maq,
was neat indicted for wilfully and maliciously ttabbing
Mr. John Breckon, a farmer of Aislaby in the North
Riding, with a sharp instrument, with an intent to do
him some grievous bodily harm.
The charge was not clearly substantiated, and he was acquitted.