gentleman had to surmount, it would be necessary in the first place to estimate the amount of business to be done, and to point out the steps taken by Mr. Westmacot for the purpose of establishing the defendant's claim. The difficulties with which he had previously to struggle were, in the first place, the will left by the baroness; the defendant, and James Dawes, the brother, contending for its invalidity, Mons. and Madame Thanaron and the executors asserting its validity; secondly, the contract of marriage and the rights of the hus. band under it by the French or English law, according as deceased was found to be legitimate or illegitimate, or capable or incapable of being identified by the family; thirdly, the judgment of separation du corps et des biens, and how far the rights of the husband were affected by it under the French law, and how far the English law would recognise the effect of such judgment upon the marital rights in an English marriage? fourthly, the question of a French or English domicile, as in case of the latter the husband would be entitled to the English property; fifthly, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the baroness, which presented innumerable difficulties from the fact that there was no baptismal register of herself and her elder brother James; that she had when baptized as an adult fixed her birth in 1793, in her marriage in the Romish church having stated herself to have been born in London in September, 1792, whilst in an affidavit of her father it was fixed to have occurred in 1794; that she was really born in 1790, and

her parents born in 1793--in having falsely described herself in her marriage contract as the widow of William Dawes and as the daughter of Richard Clark and Jane Walker-in proving that no such persons had ever lived in Southampton-in having sworn that she was a widow when she married, and in her mother being described as a spinster in the register of burials-in the declaration of the Duc de Bourbon that she was his daughter-in the change of the family name from Daw to Dawes-in the imperfect state of the registers of St. He len's-and lastly, in the contrast between her obscure birth and humble condition when young, and her subsequent elegance of manner, accomplishments, and influence at the French Court. All these were circumstances to be considered and difficulties to be met by Mr. Westmacot when he undertook the duty of ascertaining the claims of the next of kin. Still he persevered, and the result was that his labours were ultimately crowned with success. To return, however, to the circumstances which arose after the death of the baroness. Shortly after this event M. Thanaron arrived from Paris, accompanied with M. Voizot, armed with a power of attorney by M. Odillon Barrot and the other executors, to demand the will and property of the deceased, and they, on its being refused, placed their interests in the hands of Mr. Amory, of whom more hereafter. In the meanwhile the plaintiff Westmacot, proceeded to make himself master of the case in all its bearings, both as regarded the French and English law upon all

interim constant meetings were taking place daily between Thanaron and Voizot on the one part, and the plaintiff and both the Clarks on the other, which, how ever, led to nothing. On the 16th of January, 1841, Voizot obtained in France provisional administration of the effects of the deceased, and demanded from Mr. Clark here the possession of all papers and property; but M. Dupin's opinion of the invalidity of the will having been obtained, they were refused, and it was deter mined to take steps at once to prove the legitimacy of the birth of the baroness. Accordingly inquiries were set on foot, which were covertly opposed in every direction by even the parties most interested, from motives of jealousy of each other, until on the 6th of February, 1841, the Baron Feucheres began to take a prominent part in the discussion going on, which alarming the Marquess de Chabannes, a compromise was proposed, but was rejected by Westmacot on the part of the defendant. This proposed compromise was attended with the effect of giving rise to greater jealousies between the parties, which continued till the close of the affair. In March, Westmacot went to Paris. In the meanwhile the proceedings in the Prerogative Court in this country were going on, reports of which appeared in our columns. At length all parties being pretty nearly tired out, in April, 1841, the Marquess de Chabannes and Edward Dawes, for his father and M. Thanaron, came to an agreement, by which it was stipulated that the minimum sums which should accrue to the defendant and to James Dawes

This agreement was subsequently ratified by the French Courts, but in the interim new difficulties started up. The Baron de Feucheres was found to have assigned all his interest under the marriage settlement to the hospitals of Paris, and they were pressing for an assignment of all the property upon the ground of the illegitimacy of the baroness. This appears to have brought all parties to their senses, as they then came to the determination to make common cause to oppose the hospital claims. On the 30th of October, proceedings were also instituted in Doctors'-commons, to appoint Voizot administrator pendente lite, and about the February of the following year the Baron de Feucheres filed his bill in Chancery against all par ties, praying for a receiver, and that the estates of the baroness might be secured. In May, 1842, judgment was given in France in favour of the next of kin, and which judgment was appealed against by the hospitals. Ultimately, in spite of innumerable difficulties, and by making a payment privately of some 29,000 francs as a fee or honorarium to the counsel and avoués of the hos pital, and 13,000l. to the hospital themselves, the opposition was withdrawn: a deed was executed between all parties, the defendant received her 70,000l., and the whole matter was brought to a successful termination. Upon this being done, the plaintiff naturally expected to be immediately and handsomely paid, but was met with excuses and objections on the part of his client and the perpersons who had received such benefit from his exertions, who

em, and tying him down mere taxed costs of the ion. Eventually it was he attorney of the parties ves (Mr. Amory), who, considered all the circum, awarded the plaintiff the 7,000l., besides the costs pocket and advances of he had actually made in g on this very complicated The parties demurred to ing with this award of own attorney; and Mr. acot, becoming disgusted ed at what he considered grateful and unhandsome t of the parties whom he › much befriended, comd his action to recover the t of Mr. Amory's award, ompensation for the trou e difficulty, and the outlay

incurred. Before, howhe had proceeded to these nities, he had offered to the question of remunera. the defendant's own counut which offer had been d, and, consequently, the came into Court. Upon the d counsel concluding his ent,

Kelly, who appeared for efendant, rose, and after g that no one could have a r sense than himself of the tance of the efforts made by laintiff for his clients, said they were most desirous of justice to the extraordinary s of the plaintiff, but felt were precluded from comg with the plaintiff's request rticular circumstances, some ⇒ parties being abroad.

t upon the learned Judge, also paid a very handsome liment to the talents and

related to the way in which he had supported the interests of his clients amid so many difficulties, suggesting an arrangement out of Court, the matter was ultimately left to the decision of Mr. Biggs Andrews, with permission for M. Thanaron to come in under the agreement; and thus ended this most singular case.

The arbitrator subsequently awarded to the plaintiffs a sum somewhat larger than that awarded by Mr. Amory-so that the defendants not only had to pay a larger amount than that which their own attorney had fixed, but were also saddled with the costs of a most expensive arbitration.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT. LINCOLN, July 18. BREACH OF PROMISE Of Marriage -STANTON V. PATON, CLERK, AND WIFE.

This was an action for breach of promise of marriage.

Mr. Whitehurst and Mr. Boden conducted the plaintiff's case; Mr. Hill, Q. C. and Mr. Humfrey were for the defendants.

The declaration averred the promise to marry, and breach in marrying another. The plea admitted the promise, and averred a mutual release from the engagement. Upon this state of the record the counsel on each side claimed the right to begin.

Lord Abinger said, that he would confer upon the point with the learned Judge in the other Court, and having done so, observed that Mr. Justice Patteson felt, as he did, great concern at the uncertainty that existed as to

interim constant meetings were taking place daily between Thanaron and Voizot on the one part, and the plaintiff and both the Clarks on the other, which, how ever, led to nothing. On the 16th of January, 1841, Voizot obtained in France provisional administration of the effects of the deceased, and demanded from Mr. Clark here the possession of all papers and property; but M. Dupin's opinion of the invalidity of the will having been obtained, they were refused, and it was deter mined to take steps at once to prove the legitimacy of the birth of the baroness. Accordingly inquiries were set on foot, which were covertly opposed in every direction by even the parties most interested, from motives of jealousy of each other, until on the 6th of February, 1841, the Baron Feucheres began to take a prominent part in the discussion going on, which alarming the Marquess de Chabannes, a compromise was proposed, but was rejected by Westmacot on the part of the defendant. This proposed compromise was attended with the effect of giving rise to greater jealousies between the parties, which continued till the close of the affair. In March, Westmacot went to Paris. In the meanwhile the proceedings in the Prerogative Court in this country were going on, reports of which appeared in our columns. At length all parties being pretty nearly tired out, in April, 1841, the Marquess de Chabannes and Edward Dawes, for his father and M. Thanaron, came to an agreement, by which it was stipulated that the minimum sums which should accrue to the defendant and to James Dawes

This agreement was subsequently ratified by the French Courts, but in the interim new difficulties started up. The Baron de Feucheres was found to have assigned all his interest under the marriage settlement to the hospitals of Paris, and they were pressing for an assignment of all the property upon the ground of the illegitimacy of the baroness. This appears to have brought all parties to their senses, as they then came to the determination to make common cause to oppose the hospital claims. On the 30th of October, proceedings were also instituted in Doctors'-commons, to appoint Voizot administrator pendente lite, and about the February of the following year the Baron de Feucheres filed his bill in Chancery against all par ties, praying for a receiver, and that the estates of the baroness might be secured. In May, 1842, judgment was given in France in favour of the next of kin, and which judgment was appealed against by the hospitals. Ultimately, in spite of innumerable difficulties, and by making a payment privately of some 29,000 francs as a fee or honorarium to the counsel and avoués of the hospital, and 13,000l. to the hospital themselves, the opposition was withdrawn: a deed was executed between all parties, the defendant received her 70,000l., and the whole matter was brought to a successful termination. Upon this being done, the plaintiff naturally expected to be immediately and handsomely paid, but was met with excuses and objections on the part of his client and the perpersons who had received such benefit from his exertions, who