sole and separate use. For this was substituted 1,000l. a year after the death of Lord Kennedy, or in case any misfortune should cause a separation. These were the facts, according to the statement of Mr. Innies. Since the marriage of Lord and Lady Kennedy, as soon as the latter attained the age of 21, an action was commenced by Lord Cassilis in the court of session in Scotland, the object of which was, in the first place to obtain a conveyance from Mr. Innies, of 30,000l. in stock, which stood in the Bank of England in his name; and in the next place, to compel Mr. Innies, who was all along the active guardian, to give in an account of his management of the property during the minority of the lady. As soon as these proceedings were commenced, Mr. Innies applied to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain them, which injunction was granted, upon ex parte hearing, 6 months ago. It was to dissolve this injunction that the present application was made.

The application was supported chiefly on the ground that it was not competent to the court of chancery here to restrain proceedings in the court of session in Scotland. The court of session was itself a court of equity; it was independent of the jurisdiction of any other court, save that of the House of Lords. If the court of chancery could issue an injunction to restrain proceedings in the court of session, the court of session would have an equal right of issuing an interdict to inhibit proceedings in the court of chancery. Such an interposi.

tion was expressly in violation too of the act of Union.

The application was resisted on the ground that the court pos. sessed the jurisdiction, because the Bank stock was in England. The parties who made the contract, so far as it was made, were, with the exception of Mr. Innies, domicile subjects of England, and the matter was negotiated in England. The court of session in Scotland could not make any order by which the Bank of England could be affected, and there. fore that court was not competent to take cognizance of the matter. The merits of the case were then gone into, in order to support the injunction. Doubts were suggested as to the terms of Lord Cassilis's final propositions, and it was therefore hoped, that if the court could dissolve the injunction, it would at least direct an inquiry to be made to ascertain what were really the terms of the final propositions.

It was re-urged on the adverse side, that the injunction was originally obtained in order to protect Innies from giving in his

the part of the children of Lady Kennedy. No injury could be done to the children by the Scotch suit, as the court of session, while it might compel Innies to give in his accounts, could not make any order which the Bank of England would be obliged to obey. The other trustees of the property were not, it appeared, made parties to the suit in Scotland; but even if Innies and they consented to convey the stock, still on the part of the children it was competent to the court of chancery to enjoin the Bank of England not to transfer the stock in question. Although the act of union ought certainly to be considered as sacred, yet cases might arise in which it would be impossible for the court of session to proceed with effect, if it were not aided by the court of chancery here, and vice versa. His Lordship concluded with ordering the injunction to be dissolved without regard to the merits of the case, and he desired the order not to be understood as giving any encouragement whatever to the other trustees to join in making a conveyance of the Bank stock.

CIVIL SIDE, FRIDAY, JULY 17. Breach of Promise of Marriage. Hardenn v. Causton.-This was an action against the defendant for a breach of promise of marriage with the plaintiff, and the case, which was tried by a Special Jury, excited universal interest from its peculiar circumstances. The damages were laid at 5,000l.

The plaintiff's case was con

ducted by Mr. Gurney and Mr. Chitty.

The leading circumstances proved in evidence were these:

The plaintiff, who was represented to be a young lady of great personal attractions, singular amiability of disposition, and possessing an accomplished and well-cultivated mind, is the daughter of a respectable tradesman residing at Hatfield, in this county; and the defendant is a gentleman of independent fortune, lately retired from the business of a printer, which he carried on in Finch-lane, Cornhill. The parties are first cousins by the maternal side; and in the year 1809, the defendant, then about 30 years of age, and the plaintiff about 21, commenced his courtship, having known each other from the earliest infancy. From that time down to the month of May, 1817, a voluminous epistolary correspondence was carried on between them, the defendant professing throughout the whole the most devoted and tender attachment towards the plaintiff, whose language, in reply, evinced on her part the warmest reciprocity of affection. The defendant's promise of marriage, relied upon in the plaintiff's case, was expressed in these terms:-" I will marry you as soon as circumstances will permit."

It appeared that the defendant's family were averse to the match, and took every occasion to discourage the connexion, imputing the regard of the plaintiff towards the defendant to sinister motives. The defendant had gone the length of proposing to marry the plaintiff in private, to which she consented;

consented; but although the wedding-ring had been purchased, and the licence obtained, and the half-brother of the plaintiff had consented to give her away, the contract was never fulfilled. This intimacy continued down till May, 1817, when the defendant wrote to the plaintiff, announcing that the best mode of terminating the anxious suspense which she had always expressed, was to break off the connexion, and think no more of matrimony; and he submitted the proposition to her deliberate judgment, declaring his own intention of breaking off the match. The defendant's father was then living, the former being in partnership with the latter as printers, with a very profitable business. In consequence of the defendant's determination to break his promise, Mr. Palmer, a professional friend of the plaintiff's family, was consulted, and at first he wrote a friendly letter to the defendant, conjuring him to consider again of his rash determination; but this letter having no effect, the present action was brought. Since the commencement of legal proceedings, the defendant's father died, leaving him in possession of real and personal property estimated at 20,000l. These were the principal circumstances proved in evidence, the main ground of the case being substantiated by a volume of the defendant's letters.

Mr. Sergeant Taddy, with whom was Mr. Comyn, addressed the jury with considerable ingenuity and eloquence in mitigation of damages.

Mr. Justice Abbott summed

up the circumstances of the case with great minuteness and impartiality.

The Jury retired for about an hour, and on their return, found a verdict for the plaintiffDamages, Four Thousand Pounds.

ESSEX ASSIZES, CHELMSFORD,
JULY 24.

Vooght v. Winch.-This case, which was a second trial, lasted 22 hours, beginning on Thursday morning, and at about two the subsequent morning the court adjourned until eight, when it was resumed, and continued until three o'clock on Friday. It was a singular case, from the remarkable contradiction of the witnesses-the one side to prove the place in question an ancient navigable stream, and the others that it was a common passage across for hay carts. The form of the action was a charge by the plaintiff, who is the occupier of a mill, called Abbey Mill, at Stratford, against the defendant, for deepening and widening a ditch, called Potter's Ditch, and diverting the water from his mill stream. The defendant, by his evidence, attempted to justify this act by asserting that it was an ancient navigable stream, and that he merely removed the accretions of the mud and obstructions which had been suffered to grow up. As it is not possible, within our limits, to go through all the details of the evidence, and as the substance may be shortly told, it is as follows:

The river Lee, in its progress to the Thames, besides the main stream used for navigation, sub

divides

divides itself into smaller streams, which run parallel with each other, and sometimes approach very near each other's courses. Near Stratford are two of these minor streams, the one called Channelsea-river, on which the plaintiff's mill is situated, and on the banks of which the defendant has a wharf; the other is called Waterworks-river, on which are several other mills. The last communicates with the Barge river, or navigable stream. Both the Waterworks river and the Channelsea are formed by the subdividing of a stream called the Temple Mill Stream. After the stream has passed through the Temple Mill, it divides into two, the Channelsea and Waterworks rivers, which ran nearly parallel, and some short way below the point of division Potter's Ditch runs across from the one to the other. At the point of division of the waters is a very ancient pier,carefully constructed, with the evident intention, as all the engineers agreed, to distribute the water equally between the two streams. The defendant, with a view of saving the trouble of navigating his barges up the Waterworks river, round the point and down Channelsea river, by widening Potter's-ditch, and making an open communication between the two rivers, saved that circuit, but in doing this the plaintiff alleged, that the Channelsea water ran away into the Waterworks river, and lessened his mill head, consequently the power of the mill by one-third at least. In order to prove the ancient state of the ditch, about thirty witnesses were called, and

beginning from nearly seventy years ago to the present time, they said it was a mere fence between the adjoining lands; that many of them had jumped over it, had walked over it; that it was a little muddy, and had water at the bottom; that it was full sometimes, as sometimes all the marshes were overflowed. But that it was ever navigable for a barge they all treated as ridiculous, and to use the expression of one, it would not float a butcher's tray. At one end of it there was a parcel of brick-bats and rubbish, to make a road across for the hay carts, when they made hay on the adjoining land, and many had seen the hay carted across.

To meet the evidence on this point, the defendant had near 50 witnesses, and the account they gave was almost as far back. They were lightermen, persons working in the adjoining calico grounds, and many who had been anciently proprietors of the manufactories on the borders of the Channelsea rivers, and they gave instances of the fact of barges commonly navigating at spring tides this Potter's ditch, with loads of 10, 15, and 20 chaldrons of coals at a time, with freights of bricks, and to use barges, and that it had at all those periods been used as a navigable stream.

It is also not less singular, that the men of science were not less at variance in their evidence as to the effect produced by the alteration of the ditch upon the plaintiff's mill.

Mr. Donkin and Mr. Keir, supported by others, were decidedly of opinion that it materially injured the plaintiff's mill ག

by