The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-04-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGEN.C*
•.
•
COURT OF BINS'S BENCH, Amts 16.
CRIaIiNA t NFR M OATION..•
Mr. GAasow moved tot. It ride to shew cause why
criminal infoneadon shOuld nut be filed against
Lioutemunt Henry VyPe, Of the Royal.. Navy, for
'endeavouring*, provoke Mr. Brightly, a Geutleman
in the Commission of the Peace, to a breads or the ,
peace. it appeared, from the• affidavits read, that
- an application IA been mills to Mr. Brightly, in his
capacity of a Justice of the Peace,, for a warrant
against' Mrs. Vyse, who, it would seem, it the mo-
ther of Lieutenant Yvse, fear an assault.. Ont of
o•pect to the Ladd', the warrant, instead of being
served on her, sia4 &livered to her husband ; and
Mr: Brightly interfered no-farther, but left the mat-
ter to be decided by the Bench of Magistrates. On
the afternoon of the day en which the case bad come
before the Bench of Magistrates, but as to the deci-
sion of which Mr. Brightly was ignorant, he was at.'
taeked in his own grounds in a ,very uncourtly man.
ncr, by a person whom he did' not know, but who
tamed out to be Lieutenant.Vyse. This person,
laying a stick which he held ill his hand on Mr.
lkightly's shoulder, told him he would not horse-
whip him, as that would entitle him to take the law
of him; but that he was a rascal, bad used his (the
person's) owl,* ill, and that he might take that
(the stick)liir.,* horsewhip. The person, who was
then in the ataktnele of quitting Mr. Brightly again
terned to littnitWd That' you MOy notmisun-
derstand me, my name it Henry Vyse, I a Lie.sa-
tenant in fhe Navy, anal you know where to find
'sue."—Rule to shew cause granted. •
• ANNUITY ON THE LIFE OF BONAPARTE.
GILBERT V. al RES BART.
4. Mr. PAR% moved foT a role to shew cause why the
• verdict for the Defendant in this case should not be
set aside, and a new trial granted. The cause came
on to be tried before Mr. Baron Thompson, at the
last York Assizes, and was brought to recover at'
annuity of one guinea per day, which the Defeod-
ant had undertnken, fur a valuable consideration, to.
Izeto the Plaintiff', during the iife of Bonaparte.—
Jury had found for the Defendant, awl the '
Iftarned Counsel now moved to have this verdict set
:vide, as being contrary to the whole evidence addn-
ctd on the trial, amid also, as being contrary to the
recommendation of the Judge.
• The evideitce adduced on the trial amounted to

thiq, that, at a dinner at which the Plaintiff, the Rev.
WM. Gi!bert, and Sir Mask Sykes, the Defendant,
were present, held Gang the ?alert interval of peace
after the Treaty of Amiens, a conversation took
place as to the instability of Bonaparte's sway, and
the precarious tenure by which. he held existence,
when Sir Mark said, that if any person would give i
him WM. he would eugage to pay such person one
Tuinea per day during the natural life of Bonaparte.
his was immediately taken up by the Plaintiff, who
said it was a &win, stud that be took the bet. The
matter was little thought of afterwards by the com.l
pony, who slid. not think the parties hail been serious.
But, on the followingriey, the Plaintiff wrote to the
Defendant, reminding him of-their bet, and inclosiug
a Bank-note for 100 i. in performance of his part of
: the bargain. This was so far recognized and acceded
to by the Defendant, that he kept the 1001. and
went on for three years afterwards, paying the Plain.
tilf the stipulated guinea per day. The Learned
Judge, on the trial, told the Jury that this was to be
considered as in the nature of an annuity, and that,
'as such, the Plaintiff was entitled to a verdict; but
the Jury, contrary to the evidence, and also to the
recommendation of the Judge, found for the De-
fendant. .
Lord Er.t.mcsououcn agreed that the claim of the
Plaintiff was to be regarded as in the nature of an
annuity. There were cases of annuities, however,
to which that Court would not give effect ; as for
instance, where the annuity depended on an indivi-
dual being of one or other of the two sexes ; or
where two foolish attornies chase to makes betas to
a rule of that Court. His Lordship did not says,
however, that the present case came under any of
these exceptions. He thought the question was
worthy of being argued, and therefore the Learned
Counsel might take his rule.—Rule to show cause
grauted.