The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-03-03 00:00:00

HOPKINSON V. BALES AND OTHERS.

This was en action to recover from the defendants
14s. 6d. the value of a haunch of venison, sent for
conveyance by the Gloucester mall-coach into the office
of the defendants, who are proprietors of that coach, at
llharing•cruss. The venison, it appeared, was sent
thither by Colonel Hopkinson, in London, packed up,
and directed for his father, at Gloucester. It was then
in a sweet and sound state, but by the negligence of the
defendants, or their servants, it was not sent by the
night's wail, but by the Cheltenham coach of the follow-
ing day, and did not reach Mr. Hopkinson until the 2341,
and then in so putrescent a stile as to be utterly unfit
fur food; he therefore returned it by the porter who
brought it from the inn at Gloucester, anti brought the
present action.
A number of wit were examined on both sides;
but the result was • verdict for the plaintiff—Datnws
41. 1-11. 6J.—Costs Is.

—.0.--
ARCHES COURT, Itlicroits' Commoss.

Before Sir JcLn Nichol!, Official Principal to the Arch-
bishop qt Canterbury.

THOMAS SMITH, ESQ. (PIIONOUNCED A LIYHATIC IT MIS
COMMITTEE) T. ANN, HIS MIPS.
This was a suit of nullity of marriage, otherwise of
jaetitation, directed as an issue by the Court of Chancery,
in order to try the validity of this marriage, upon the
sanity or insanity of the husband (a person of consider.
able estate in this country), who, it appears, was pro-
pounced a lunatic by the verdict of an inquest, and in
consequence this suit was brought by his guardians.—
The wife was represented to be a servant in his family,
at the time of marriage.
[lt null be recollected, from former proceedings in this
ease, that a question arose, whether the wife was en-
titled to an affirmative sentence upon the validity of the
marriage, as the Committee of the bushier" had applies
to a ith Iran all further proceedings, alleging the earner
of 2,5001. having been already incorrect; and s further
expence 011,54101. more being necessary to conclude the
cause, which must prove ruinous to them, as the reason
fur praying that all further costs and proceedings might
be stayed.]
On the part of the wife it Was alleged. that this was
case of gross oppression, in her having been denied ac-
cess to the person of her husband, and in the interme-
diate time, left destitute of means elerePfirV for her sup-
port and protection ; and further, since her character
and feelings had been won wird by the charge of (rand
and undue influence, in hringiug about the said Mar-
riage, it was fair that her evidence should undergo pub-
lication ; by which it would appear, that her character
had been unjustly aspersed, and that the husband (in-
stead of bring a lunatic) was perfectly sane. The ordi-
nary course, in case the party promoting the suit pro-
cconted no further in this Court, was to dismiss the other
party from all further observance of justice, with costs,
as against the party not proceeding.
Or. AalloLic cited several cases by way of analogy,
contending, on the authority of Lord lie they, in the
case of the Duchess of Kingston, that sentence of mere
dismissal would not limply validity of marriage in a suit
of nullity, but Mould be taken to have arisen frum wine
legal informality; and as it was necessary that the
Master in Chancery, who was called upon to report in
this case, should he correctly informed on that subject,
he prayed the Croirt to pronounce an affirmative sen-
' tenee, so as to seek at rest for ever the validity of this
marriage, and that upon the molly of the husband, in
order that the Master might be aware of that fact in
making his report.
Sir JOHN NICHOL directed his sentenceto be recorded
In effect as follows:—That the Committee of the said
Thomas Smith having declared they would proceed no
hither in the cause, the Court pronounced for the force
and validity of the said marriage; and upon the ground
that the said Thomas Smith was at the time of the said
marriage not a binatir, but of sound mind ; and the
Conti further dismissed the said Anne Smith from all
further observance of justice, on promise of costs being
I first paid by the Committee.