THE LAW.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

Monday, November 2. The Lord Chancellor resumed Ins sittings at Lincoln's Inn to-day. The Court rose very early, and nothing interesting occurred.

Tuesday, November 3.

IN THE MATTER on Dares, an allegeni Lunatic.—The Lord Chancellor, after expressing his regret that the friends of Mr. Davis had not been able to come to any accommodatiou amongst themselves, ordered a commission to issue, and the expenses to be defrayed out of some funds which were in the bands of Mr. Davis's ban kers.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, LINCOLN'S INN.

Alonday, November 2. The Vice-Chancellor resumed his sittings to-day ; and haying disposed of some unimportant business, rose at twelve.

Thursday, November 5.

PRACTICE OF COUNSEL—A petition being called on in its turn, and Mr. Pepys, who was retained in it, being at that moment engaged in the Rolls, the SolicitorGeneral and elr. Horne expressed their wish that the cause should go on, as a number of gentlemen of the bar had come to au understanding on the subject of their practice in particular Courts. The Solicitor-General observed, that Mr. Horne and Mr. Knight had come to a determination to abandon their practice in motions in that Court; and the Solicitor-General did not intend again to take a brief in Bankruptcy.

ROLLS COURT.

The Master of the Rolls commenced his sittings on Thursday, and disposed of a considerable share of uninteresting business. His Honour appears to have improved very much in his health.

COURT OF CONDELEGATES, SERGEANT'S INN.

PRIVILEGE OF PEERAGE. WESTMEATH V. WESTMEATH:In the suit of separaration by the Marchioness against the Marquis of Westmeath, the Judge of the Consistory Court ordered a monition for the payment of costs to be issued against the noble Marquis ; who refused to comply with the order, pleading his privilege as a peer of the realm. The questton has been for some time under consideration ; and on Thursday last, the judges Condelegate, after hearing counsel on both sides, pronounced the Marquis to be " in contempt of the law and jurisdiction ecclesiastical " for not having paid the costs ; and their Lordships " decreed such his contumacy to be signified according to the statute." A significavit is therefore to be placed in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who \vitt have the conduct of the ulterior proceedings.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER.

Monday, November 2.

FROWD AND ANOTHER V. Setae/tem—This was an action for an attorney's hill. It was suggested that the plaintiffs could not recover, because the bill delivered was not written in words at length. The statute of 2 George II.. c 23, required that Atomics' bills should be written in words at length, except times and sums. A subsequent statute alllowed " suds abbreviations as were commonly used in the English language." The abbreviations objected to in the present case, 'were—" instrons" (instructions) " attg" (attending)," alit" (affidavit), ''confee " (conference), " admon " (administration), " dedon" (declaration), " fib" (folio), " co " (copy). The Attorney-General cited a case which had been decided in the Court of Common Pleas, in which Chief Justice Mansfield had said he was at a loss to know what the statute meant by the words" such abbreviations as were commonly used in the English languaee:" he thought, however, that it was sufficient if the items were written in such words as were intelligible to professional men. Lord Tenterden was of the same opinion. Verdict for the plaintiff for 99/. 14s. 4d., the amount of the bill.

WILSON V. COPELAND AND ANOTHER.—This was an action against the late Sheriffs of Middlesex, to recover the value of certain household furniture, seized by them under two several executions against the effects of Lord Montford. It appeared in evidence, that the goods in question had been ordered by Lord :nontford from several tradesmen, and sent to No. 42, York Street, Name Square, where his Lordship resided in the society of a Mrs. Bromley, who in 1819 was it chambermaid at Si. a year in Hatchett's hotel, but was removed from that situation by Lord Montford in consequence of her being " a very pretty little woman." In 1827, the plaintiff, an upholsterer, was employed by Mrs. Bromley to dispose of the house in York Street ; and received from the lady a transfer of the furni. turn (as if her property) for the purpose of disposing of it, and paying himself and two other persons to whom Mrs. Bromley was indebted. Soon after, two executions against Lord Montford, at the suit of some of his own creditors, were put into the house, and the goods were seized and sold. The defence to tile present action was, that the goods belonged to Lord Montford, and were not the property of Mrs. Bromley. The several tradesmen who were called upon the trial deposed, that his Lordship had not paid for the goods. Lord Tenterden left it to the Jury to say whether the goods belonged to Mrs. Bromley, either by purchase or by gift from Lord Montford : if they thought that they did, their verdict would be for the plaintiff; but if not, they would consider whether the transfer to the plaintiff; ill the name of Mrs. Bromley, had been made bomi fide for the benefit of the plaintiff, or was merely a colourable transaction for the purpose of protecting the goods against Lord Montford's creditors. If the latter should be their opinion, they would find for the defendants. The Jury immediately found for the defendants.

Tuesday, November 3.

Cams. CON. LORD BRANDON V. Lotto MittmotatNE.—The noble and reverend plaintiff, who is about sixty years of age, is the Rector of Castle Island, in the County of Kerry; and the improper intimacy for which he sought damages in the present action is said to have commenced during the period when the defendant, then Mr. William Lamb, filled the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In stating the plaintiff's case, Mr. Gurney observed, that considering the time of life at which Lord Brandon had arrived, and with the infirmities he laboured under, a divorce was, of course, of very little consequence to him ; but, notwithstanding the difficulties which he knew he should labour under in proving his case, be had felt himself compelled to bring the action : more especially, from the injurious reports which had been circulated in Ireland, where party animosities were carried to so great a length, he was anxious that it should not be surmised that he had been any way instrumental to that conduct of which he complained, or that he had sanctioned the rumours by neglecting to institute proceedings.

The following is the result of the evidence called for the plaintiff. Lord Brandon was married in 1815 to his present wife, Miss Elizabeth Lateuche, a lady of great beauty and accomplishments. His Lordship appeared to have a greater affection for his lady than she had for bins. In 1827 his Lordship had an attack of palsy ; and Mr. William Lamb used to dine at his Lordship's house frequently in that year. His Lordship went to several places upon the Continent and in England, for the benefit of his health, leaving his lady in Ireland. Her Ladyship afterwards came to London, and lodged under feigned names in two or three places ; where she was visited by two or three persons, to the witnesses unknown. A short gentleman, whom nobody knew, went once or twice in a hackney-coach from Lord Melbourne's house to the neighbourhood of Lisson Grove, about which place Lady Brandon was said to be residing at the time : the short gentleman used to wear a long cloak ; and some of these transactions used to happen late in the night.

Lord Tenterden having heard all this testimony, said to Mr. Gurney—" Have you any more witnesses ?" Mr. Gurney—" No, my Lord." Lord Tenterden" Then call the plaintiff." The noble and reverend plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.

Wednesday, November 4.

Lewis AND ANOTHER V. MARLEY:This was an action for damages for the ingement of a remarkably ingenious patent for the shearing of cloth. As soon e invention became generally known, machines were sold to the amount of 0/. The defence was that the invention was not original; and on that ts validity had been before questioned in this Court with another tie'ten, after the fullest investigation, a verdict was given for the plaintiffs,

and on a motion to set it aside, it was confirmed by the whole Court. The Jury in the present case found a similar verdict for the plaintiff—damages 2001.

COTTON V. JAMES, AN ATTOHNEY.—This action was brought to recover compensation in damages for the injury inflicted by the defendant upon the plaintiff', by suing out a commission of bankruptcy against him fraudulently and illegally,

The defence was, that Mr. James had probable cause for suing out a commis. sion ; and that the plaintiff was a trader within the meaning of the bankrupt laws. Lord Tenterden left it to the Jury to decide from the evidence,—which was extensive, intricate, and uninteresting,—whether the defendant had been influenced by any malicious motive in suing out the commission. The Jury found for the plaintiff—damages 1501. The commission had been superseded.

LLOYD V. ALDRIDGE.—The defendant was a lady who ordered the plaintiff to bring to her residence a necklace and pair of earrings, which she wished to pup chase. When Mr. Lloyd arrived with the articles, the lady was in bed, and te was shown into the bedchamber, where he presented his wares; which so pleased the lady, that she requested to be allowed to examine them a little more closely than she was able to do whilst they remained in the plaintiff's hand. Mr. Lloyil accordingly allowed her to get possession of the articles. She asked the price; he valued them at thirty-eight guineas: she told him to leave the articles and cal again : he declined this proposal, and insisted on money or jewels : whereupon the lady placed the necklace under her own person in bed, and refused to surrender the article to the tradesman. He was accordingly obliged to have recourse to an action of (rover to obtain a specific recovery. There was no defence. Verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Monday, Nov 2.

FAG V. NORMAN.—This action was brought by a female servant against her master, to recover a balance of wages. The defence was, that after deducting the atnount paid to an apothecary for medicines and attendance furnished to the plaintiff whilst in the defendant's service, she had been pail every farthing of what she had been entitled to. The Judge, in summing up, took occasion to state, that if a gentleman directed his family physician to visit his domestic servant, he could not afterwards charge that servant with the suns paid to the physician for his trouble. That, however, was not exactly the present case. The Jury found for the plaintiff—damages 10/.

Tuesday, November 3.

Seaanaeo v. C A imn.—This was an action to recover damages for a very gross assault committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff, and some members of Ins family, who keep a ladies' school in Wilmington Square. The defendant, who was io a state of intoxication at the time of the assault, collared the plaintiff, anl loaded him and his family with all hummer of abuse he also kicked about the furniture, broke seine china, and committed various other outrages, without any provocation which appeared upon the trial. Mr. Sergeant Cross addressed the Jury in mitigation ; and they returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 401.

DAWSON e. N ESBIT.—This was an action for an assault of rather a singular

nature. The plaintiff, who had gone out to Sydney as agent to the Australian Agricultural Company, was coming home to England by a return Convict ship, on board of which was the defendant Nesbit, in the capacity of superinteudiet surgeon of Convicts. One evening at tea, the conversation between these two passengers turned upon the hot winds which prevail in those latitudes. Mr. Nesbit said they always blew with great violence. Mr. Dawson observed that the hot winds themselves were not violent, but were. generally followed by squall:. The defendant declared he was satisfied they blew with violence, because helium of boats having been upset by them. The plaintiff nevertheless maintained his

opinion, and said he did not believe such was the case, although The defendant, without suffering him to finish his sentence, struck him a blow on the nose, which drew blood ; asking him at the same time how he presumed to contradict hint ? The plaintiff replied, that if he had not struck hint, he was about to have added, " althoughI know you would not say so if you did not think it." The defendant then expressed Ids regret for the blow he had given him, and invited the plaintiff to shake hands; which invitation, however, he declined to accept, and left the ship on the first opportunity, to return home by one in which he would be relieved from the company of :Mr. Nesbit. Mr. Sergeant Storks addressed the Jury on the part of the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff

damages 100/. PALACE COURT.

Friday, October 30.

CLEMENTS V. HOMAN.—The piahltiff keeps can academy for boys at Prospect House, Stoke Newington. The action was brought to recover 291. fie, being two quarters' charge for boarding and edocatingtwo suns of the defendant. A ivritten agreement between the parties, after settling the amount of expense and nature of the instruction and acconunodation, provided that each party should give the other three months' notice before withdrawing from the agreement. The defendant had withdrawn from the agreement without giving notice as agreed upon ; and the question now was, whether the defendant, in withdrawing without notice, less justified by the following circumstances. One of the defendant's sons, with a boy named Owen, were, for some alleged misconduct, flogged with a cane in the public school, by the plaintiff The two boys who had been flogged ran away from school, and came home to their parents. The defendant finding the inarlt of the cane upon his son's back, sent for his other son ; who, on coming horee, brought a piece of bad pudding, to show the sort of diet which they received at school. After a few days, the defendant carried his sons again to school, and openly directed that they should not again receive any corporal punishment, but should be confined, or have additional tasks imposed on them, whenever they acted contrary to propriety. To prevent all mistake upon the point, he addressed a written note to the plaintiff upon the subject, and gave it to his son to deliver in case his master should proceed to flog him any more. When the defendant had gone away, the plaintiff called up the boy for the purpose of flogging hint ; and the boy produced his father's note, which was read aloud in the school. The plaintiff then observed, that Mr. Homan's written request was, that his son should not be flogged with a cane. This direction he should comply with to the letter: he therefore laid by the cane, and had a dish of brine brought into the room, and steeped a birch in it for an hour; after which it was taken out, and the boy, together with young, Owen, were both stripped naked, and flogged with the " briny " birch in the public school. The defendant, on hearing this fact, took his children away.

Mr. Erle, for the plaintiff, contended that the punishment which bad been inflicted was necessary for maintaining the discipline of the school, and the proper education of the boys themselves.

Mr. Flanagan, for the defence, made a long speech up: e eruelty of the plaintiff's conduct. The defendant admitted that one quaree , • The Judge left it to the Jury to say whether the , ::utees of the case justified the conduct of the defendant, and dispensed with the :ring notice. The Jury found for time plaiutilf—damages, 144