Star. — London, England, 1827-12-07 00:00:00

r point .fight. Pi property of the firm, He did not deny that the plaintiff had made advance. to Silcox and Pearce, nor did he deny that he, subsequently to the month of October, • had put into the premises goods that were actually his' • .n property ; but if they had been convened to the 'purposes of the defendants, it was his bu•iness to being • an action against them fot that conversion, and not pro! teed in the present form. The Leirned Gentlemo t after noticing what he described as the failure of an at, tempt to shear that the defendants had invaded thebed: chamber of Mrs. Pearce, went on to state the history of the transactions between Carpenter and Si'bot. The former had been applied to by the latter, to nistkrhisl a...advance of •1 0001.; the actual advante, however; Only amoun'ed to 6201. It was soon discovered that • cox was unable to repay this in cash, and he pro-, posed from time to time, to pay over to Carpen ' ter small parcels of goods; even this he proved unable to continue for any considerable length of time; 4204 still remained due, and Carpenter brought an action for It. which was tried before his Lordship (Lord Tenterden) in the early part of the year 1826. He would produce a letter from Silcox, horn which it would appear, that in the month of February, previous to the trial of that action, he was in much apprehension as to the result, and said he must prepare for the worst that could hap. pen. in the event of Carpenter's obtaining a verdict against him. In short he (the Attorney General) had little fear, that when such evidence as he was instructed could be produced, had been laid before the Jury, they would see the justice of finding for the defendant.— There would be produced to them a •letter from Wil liam Pearce, in which he proposed to take the concern from his uncle, paying him at the rate of two guineas a week, with an annuity to his widow after his death. It would be proved to tkeir full satisfaction that this letter vats actually written in the month of August, and that for fraudulent purposes-4or the purpose of defeating Carpenter's action—it was d.ted as of April. Now, they would see, that there was here an attempt to give a preference to a particular ere• dkor so far back as May, fur it was on the 16th of that month that a warrant of Attorney was exe cuted, and by a late Act of Parliament, his Lordship would inform them, that if a man in insolvent cit cum stances so attempt to prefer a creditor, he by that cir• cumstance alone committed an act of bankruptcy; and ellen a man had once committed an act Of bask rercy. a creditor could not legally take advantage oil su h conveyances as the debtor might have made to him subsequent to that Act. After several other ob servations he concluded by string that he could prove - that William Pearce had been adaked to antedate letter, making the proposal already adverted to, and not to 'end it by post. • - • •• The commission of bankrepterwat then pot in and read, arid evidence given is shear that a verdict for' 1721. 9i. sd. had been given in the action of •debt be tween Carpenter and Silcox. Wit:.esse. were then examined to shew the insolvent condition of Silcox previous to the transfer to the plaintiff, as well as acts of bankruptcy committed be hee that time. Aaitness,nimed Hudson, stated, that a of an agreement between Silcox and' ' the two Pearce. had been made at his house, in the month of August ; that the plaintiff and- his br. then mere present; and that it was expressly stated before them, that the object of that proposed agreement was to defeat Carpenter's execution. A paper, then handed to him, was, he said, a c'py of that agreement ; but be believed the original had been destroyed by Silc , while in the King's Bench Prison. This witness denied that be had ever said that the tills accepted by the plaintiff, and the warrant of attorney, were bona.fide transactions. On cross examination, he admitted that he was a preacher, that he was a practical brewer, but denied that he had ever dealt in drug.. • In reply, on the part of the plaintiff, evidence was given to thew that Thomas, one of the defendant', had gotten possession of the books, from which Mark Pearce might have shewn the extent of injury he had es perienced ; and other witnesses were produced, who contradicted Hudson as to the statement. respecting the bills and the warrant of attorney, The Aeronaut GENERAL spoke to evidence; and Mr.-Casteszt.t. replied. He adverted to the circuits. stance of the possession of those premises not having been abandoned till the Slf3th of April. He contended that the acts of bankruptcy were, in point of law, of no impou since, unless the plaintiff were aware of them, and that the commission was sued out within two months Lord TENTERDEN, in summing up, observed that it had been admitted that part of the property seized, belonged to Silcox and Pearce, therefore the verdict west be for the plaintiff, with what damages they. were to say. If they thought there was nothing dishonest in point of fact. he could Worm them there was nothing iA the Bankrupt Laws which could deprive the plaintiff of his remedy. The Jury then retired, and, at six o'clock, ',sought in a verdict for the plaintiff—,,Damages, 7501. The case lasted the entire day. COURT OF Elk-CHEQUER, 1)=.6. The avenues leading ttithis Court and the Court itself were yesterday crowded to excess. to hear the re sult of a prosecution on the part of the Excise, against a person of the name of Machin, a foreigner, well known in the spirit trade. The case has been pending a considerable time. and from term to term postponed, to the great inconvenience of the numerous witnesses sobessnaed, of whom there ass between 350 and 400. The LORD Cutts BARON entered the Court a little before ten, and 'on the Jury being called over, scarcely one-man in ten answered to his name. Finding very. little probability of making a special Jury, the Learned b ar on inquired whether the case was of so important a nature as to prevent the number being Made up from the commie jury list. The Arroailmt-Gasigaar. having answered in the affirmative, The Loan CHIAN BARON ordered the summoning officers to appear. The names of the Jurymen hav i n g been called over, and a sufficient excuse appearing in in Apt% Lady was only 18, and in delicate health. Instead of treat. ing her with conjugal tenderness, it was alleged that the husband used constant har,hnes towards her, made also• minable accusations, and thereby endangered not only her health but her life. The Learned Jute then read the articles co:ttaining the allegations to this effect. The intermediate aiticles, he obseiared. were imioduced 6il up the outline of the case; and wit. ie the health :met lite of the party wai s alteged to be in danger, the Court au bound to admit the allegations. Mrs. Bray, it' appeared, was the datighter" of Major M akin, who waS ,Married in 1805, and died in , 1806, on his voyage to India, leaving his wile pregnant ; and he consigned the cafe of hi, offspring to his wile's brotl er, Mr. Ham atersley, who brought tip the respondent as his own daugh er. In 1825 he and Mts. Malkin cAnsented to ber marriage with Mr. Bray, on condition that the young couple lived with them, Mr. they having co preferment at that time. The allegatiers of his et:rt. duct towards her, his violence, hi, giving her a blow 'on the mouth a month after the marriage, supposing vkie taus true, established a case of legal cruelty ; and the Court was bound to take the facts as true, though some might be spread out too much, and others might be unimportant. No impress on, however, prejudicial to the husband ought to be entertained, becau-.e the facts were assumed to be tree; he had no means yet of dis puting them. Onihe whole, it did not appear to the Learned Judge that it Was a question on which the party ought to call la this Court to interfere. He should therefore pronounce against the appeal, and remit the cause. On the application of both Proctors, the Judge con• sensed to retain tte cause in this Court. HAWARTON V. WASSZAToIf• This was an appeal horn the Con•istorial Court of Gloucester, in a case of divorce by reason of adultety, ptomoted by Major William ilamerton against Isabella Frances Hamerton, his wife. The sum allotted for alimony was three hundred pounds, and a question arose, namely, whether ceitain sums paid by the hus band on account of his wife were to be deducted, and whether an annuity of WI. possessed by the wife , should not be included in the 3001. The Judge in the Court below had refaced to allow the sums expended to be deducted b and had held Major Hamer ton in contempt. The Collat. reversed the sentence of the inferior 'Court. and retained the cau,e. OLIVER AND TOLL AGAINST HOBART. This was case of scandal in the church, brought by appeal from the Consistorial Coors of Esetev. • The office of the judge was promoted by the churchWa►dens of the parish of Beer Fetters, in the diocese of Eletei, against the Rev. Henry Charles Hoban, minister of that parish, for incontinence and adultery. The Judge in the inferior Court had rejected the libei, and con demned the promoters of tl.e suit in cost. The libel alleged that the defendant, who had been ins•.ituted to the living in 1798. who married in 1800, and separated from Ins wife 13 years after, did, 14 or 15 years ago, commit-acts of adoltery, with his se►vant, Mary Merifield ; that nine or ten years ago he vat in the constant habit of sleeping with her, and treating her ars his nristiess, and that within Are last eight months he had been guilty of divers other acts of indecency with the said Mary Mews AL • MM. hearing Dr. DODSON and Dr. Jam ADDAMS for the tespondent,' and Dr. Lusurricrron sad Dr. BLexit for the aprellant, . . . The COURT gave sentence.—Under existing einem. 1 stances, pending the appeal to the House of Lords, in , the case of r. Burgoyne against Flee," the Learned Judge held that the 47th Geo. 111. c. 44. did not pre vent proceedings against a clergyman, for acts done at an earlier siestas' than eight months: the situation of parishes would oth.rwi.e be lamentable, for the co jest of a snit like this was to tid the parish of a nuisance,l rather than to reform the manners of the individual.-- The otjectiun as to the lemotelless of the acis would, therefore, be no bar to this suit, provided the charges bad been mole specific; but they were not sufficiently so to give the patty an opportunity to defend himelf upon so serious a ch.rge. He therefore confirmed the sentence of ute Court below, and allowed the respondent the costs of this appeal. ROLLS COURT, Dec. 6. HARVEY 1. COOKE. His Honour the Mama of the ROLES last night gave judgment in this case. As soon as he had taken his seat Upon the Bench, and before the delivery of the judgment, a scene took place at the Bar, such as very rarely di,tatbs the gravity of a Cuint of Equity. In the course of the arguments which had been addressed to the Court in the case, it had been rieed bi Mr. Bug. den, who was leading Counsel for the plaintiff, that a certrtin legacy of 2 0001. had not been paid by the de fendant, Mr. Cooke. When his Honour was proceeding to give judgment, Mr. Hours. who was leading Counsel for the defend , ant, addressed the Court, and said that he was anxious to snake a statement, which did not concern the merits of the ease, but merely regarded the character of the defendant. Mr. SUGDIN objected to the introduction of any new facts or observations in that state of t' e case. MI. HORNS said that he would unde• take to say thatl the observation which he was about to make would not be disagreeable to Mr. Sugden, He then refev red to the statement which M. Sugden had made relative to the legacy of 2,0001. and, producing the legacy receipts, said that he had now given, on the part of Mr. Cooke, a sufficient answer to the assertion. He added, that the fact of the payment was not in issue, aattbat the üb.er action of Mr. Sugden had, thetefore, been wholly irrelevant. At this instant Mr. Cooke and his solicitor made some observations from the seat uncle' needs the Bench. Mr. SUODIN rose, and asked whether he was to an swer Online!, solicitors, parties, a 4.1 all addressing the Court at one And the sense time ? The MASTER of the Rutt.s here said, that he con ceived bir. Sugden to be entirely justified in what he had said, as the fact of the payment of the legacy arils so far. as appeared Upon the Jac b , assertion was perfectly correct. or s for Mr. Cooke, here complai ne d or t , e ahich the statement had been made, and, who had stationed himself outside the t er Settler). said that the o b servat i o* • as but made in a toasse, tingentlemeo4 Gentleman, at the same iisstam,thie, r. 4ugilen:. immediately ro• e and appealed for p m , Court. Mr. 8. asked his Honour if ther e wa !Omit, observed in Court, or whether h e 1 ? He then proceeded to state (ho!dirtg which had been thrown to him) that h e consider himself bound to give Any tati.i se . ho thought proper to find f,u t with which he had ezercis:d his motruional Gentleman had called upon him M another be a dill rent matter ; but he would tie,„ .son to intimidate him, as the peer % 1 41 just now thought proper to throw tali The 31A3Talt of the Roics—What card? Who !lei attemred to intimidate you ? Mr. 84:ODIN—This Gentleman. who stands close to bar, and has just now thrown rue his card. The Mama of the Itot.t.. , —lt it be proved to me shit any person has presumed to intiosid•te Counsel in this Court, I shall imme ti.tely se 1J hiin 'to the Fleet Prison, The C ntkman here addressed the Court, and 'rid that he was the s in in law of Mr:Cooke, the defend and had felt de ply indignant at the impritstion *bid, had beer% thrown 'icon his father-in-law's integrity. The Sturria of the Itos.ns—For what object did ye s threw your card to Mr. Sucen ? The Gentlentan replied, that it was for the purpose d introducing himself to Mr. Sugden. Mr. SUODIN expiessed vitae astonishment at this assertion, and the Gentleman (whose name we could n t leas n) acquainted the Court that he was a member of the English bar, and repeated that he only intended to introduce himself to Mr. Sugden when he 'threw hos his card. . - The NIASTaIIt of the Botts again said, that if he had any reason to think that the fact was otherwise, he would instantly order him to the Fleet. M. SUGDIIN here interposed, and said, tbst as h e believed the Gentleman's ♦iolence to have proceeded from some notions of honour, however mistaken, he would be the first to interpose between hint and any severity. A meat deal t,f confused and angry diseassion as and preceded, and followed this declaration, and the Master of the Rolls having been assured again by Mr. Cooke's son in law that he had not intended ail hostility to Mr. Sogden, the matter was suffered to rest, and his Honour proceeded to give judgment in the caw. The judgment, which appeared to satisfy all the Conn. sel in the case, was entirely unintere•ting to the pubis& ',rag EVENING STAR. LONDON. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1827. STOCK =CHANGE, TWELVE O'CLOCK • m. Public lutve been greatly surprised with the informants received this meeting, by the French Papas, from Comstantinspit. which is by far more favourable than the private accents received late yesterday afternoon ; but this may be accounted for, by the pristine information being received from Vienna of a later date than the French Account, as the Fapreu arrived from Vienna in seven Jaye. Tbe private letters from Paris, received this morning, state, tiat it is thought vet/ doubtful whether 'quarts cap keep his pia, It said that Austria km sent a remonstrance to the English Court, to prevent the Russians from cros.ing the Pruth. Consols opened this naornins, at asr I, and at present may be quoted at 11311 I. In tile Foreie atarket little is doing. CITY, HALF-PAST ONE O'CLOCK: Them are two different set-cents in town in regard to the affair► at Constantinople, one received yesterday, of a very late date, from Vienna, of an unfavourable nature; the othw received this wont ing from Paris, stating, it was believed that tbt negociations would terminate favourably t both t►ese accounts are from respectable sources. In consequence of the latter account, the Consol market keips its price, apd Consols may be quoted at presentat 83 j j to sti. - - - PRICE OF STOCKS AT TWO O'CL'ICK. Bishamick - India Stock 9 pew 000 led SIN 1 93 Ditto Bonds 70 72' 3 per ICI. Oman aut. Snarls Sea Stock 31 per Cartt.'9lll • • Old Annuities 621 ' 31 pee Cent. lied. 6N 1 1.1 /11900 &chug. Hills 41 42 43 4 per Ct. New Shot. 4so Mtn 44 41 43 4 per Cent. Scrip 4100 and £9OO Ditto 44 42 43 4 per Cent. 1856, 1001 1 India far Account 247 long Ann. 18 15 16 '1346 1 Conseil for Acct. 1131 fe 4. FORRltitt FUNDS, TWO O'CLOCK. !Unit,. Ms, 3 p Ct. PI g Russ. 8d5.18411, 5p C. NI ' Do. Ace. Do Aect. 891 1 Groat Bonds, 5 p Ct. Spanish Bds 5pC Do.Bds. 1625, Sp Ct. 171 Ditto 510, toj Mel 812.1620,6 p C. Fr. Renege. 5 p C. 10117 Sc Do Acct 41 a 46a a 471 47 I Exchange. itSf tOc BRITISH ANt) FOISIGN SHARES, TWO O'CLOCK. maim PAM , - iiraxilian ' 35 20 91 83 Bolivar 50 71 51 5 General Mining Assn. so 5 13 I Beal del Monte 400 400 Di. ' Do. ' 430 430 460 .Thipuxaktia 400 240 140 145 United Mexican 40 35 - 16 4041, liellikaillilint 45 5 2 3 nom Fosse—Pasta, DEC. 5.--Five per Ceuta. 100 f. 55c. 706 75c. 101 L -100 f. 95i. 90c. 95c. Three per Cents. 67f. Sic. ntif. Sc. 106 2.5 c. 20c. 4N 15c. 10c. Sc. 90c.—BanliSt641, 1.975 f. Neapolitan' Reines, 73f. 75c. 74f. Royal Spanish !wen, 601 I 1 I.—Rents Pt-Trim*/ d'Espagne, 461. Futcbsige en Lcoileit, one masik, paper, 25f. loc. money, 4.5 f. sc. Three menthe, snooty, itef. 95c.—Caws ifethentipar. About' six o'clock this morning, Lieutenant Mortm, of the Royal Artillery, arrived at the Colonial Office in Downing-street, with dispatches from Malta, dated the Bth of November, announcing the arrival there of Admiral Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON with three sail of the line : the rest of the squadron had been sent to various parts of the Levant, for the protection of British property. We are happy to add, that the sick and wounded were recovering. The whole fleet left Navarin withoat oae shot being fired at them. In the late engagement, the Russians had three Officers and fiftreight men killed, and one hundred and twenty wounded. We are happy to lay before our Readers the sub joined intelligence Iron Constantinople, emtacted from the Gazelle de Frastee of yesterday, received by expos this morning. These accounts are much more favourable tbaib we bad reason to expect from thte vat isms accounts that had previously reached us from that quarter ; and we siucetely hope this intelli,;ence is on y the rekodoto sA 7' ..'44ll"t r il te i .717' ' I 4• •. •. . -: . • 4 ' 1 . -'• 4 .. .. . - ~ ~., ! th • - ,- ,7, . • . . very few instances, the remainder were severally fined most to reduce the pleadings. With regard to the accuse- material, sod, I . tha t um 14tat# Umtata' myna aekter we 40 °' dl. In the course of . thjeispestiptionehis Lordship to* which had been made by Nlr.Brafegainetbk.liam.. Mr. Sundae.% a . . . .occaeion to obseidf ! s eep poiatedly.oceihe gross instills inersley,aleciostlromadiately after hisrrriage,it warty( a % Mr. Piterrot oeonslill4*.i 41 4 1 . j! - .. •• - • TIRO ATTU - 12-maswr ilstaoces, the names moss atrocious nature ; flake, it ihnediabolkut. andsL 'manner in whi m e d ium , a Few observa-' orpersodi melt whetted 17g dace'beeo de 4cl ; and • mast indicative of an unsohod mind; *sue, cohabitation gentleman wine • e ' S . wbich miff had laid be. id one iortkillar atte,-41hat a Oseeittrian formed" ought not to have existed }nether, *went. - la 640,. close to Mr. Si complaints the opposite party *ld' residihen Cavendish.tqfisre, aid intimately known to ease a separation must ta e place; do Wife ought to be only untrue. I be.. lodsl u tltel theittrade lei milled. .He would ask the Learned Judge and the Bar,--it appealed that be .c The to cohabit with a man who had so aspersed rummer, TO ilk 'why the? ifienotpodece boob t o elmer the state of h i d b e en dead three years, and be-rtddrn ni l e years h er. lie only question now w as , wkether the fact , his talc! to Mr: gs thee trade ; Aft 11111 those *6441 they were the best previously. The Court ordered-one of its officers to give mere !roper); pica:led. Attu the lclttri, he thtsui ; lit Mr, SIIODIN owidiswie that4l4 bt toci ttr acti. dad Yet It had been immediate attention to this subject , and communicate Mr . B ra y would be gl a d of an ° f iat-await, to deny the lectern' to the C thaeaki 004 ar lei.i . gathout that Itlretma , the result of the investigation, with a view to the col- wining, or the knowledge of - who wrote. those infamous to 1).• any regul Ile% *filch could not elsewhere: bit obtained. He had rection of so great an abuse. productions. could be heat d not the slightest Isesitatittir in asserting, that the whole T: e ease above alluded to was postponed to the Sit • Sir Jost N NICHOLL began by observing, that appeals up the card wf was a fraud to defeat chi creditors of Silcox. by trans- tings after Hilary Term, and the Carat adjourned until from grievances to this Court ought by no means t o be would not ex , u ,, (erring all the property: first to a partnership, and se. Monday. encouraged, unless substantial justice was :die tee— lion to any per. condly to the present plaintiff. He expected to be able To give an idea of the magnitude and extent of the Such appeals tended of themselvet to increase the ex. the m a n n e r to I to shew that Indg priot to thaarrangements with Mark eases against Minchen,sthe Excise books brought down eense of patties, though in some eau.: they were fl eets. duty. It the G e Pearce, and y a efy freqdituir too, Silcox had committed to Court to be produced in evidence occupied the in• sary and proper. But in a question like this, a stru t way, i t wo u ld 1 acts of bankrop;cy. aid these act., he contended, were, terior of two hackney coaches. pound ought to be shown to justify the superior Coot t suffer any peril In point of law, abundantly sufficient to invalidate the ARCHES COURT. Dec. e. in setting aside the sentence or the tribunal below. The done who had it appeared, were married in Aptil; Ib2S; th e this c.rd. right claimed for thi_ Plaintiff over what had b e en t'e rife BARON Da !LUBECK AGAINST Tun nanoxerls DR Wiles, ROBECK. This was a suit for divorce, promoted' by - the Warne de Robeck against the Baroness Isis wife, by reason of aduttery, committed with Lord Sussex Lennox, with wi om she eloped (roll Faits in January last. A ver• dict had been obtaked against his Lordship by the hus band in a Court Li Law, with damages to the amount of 2 500/. Dr. LUSHINOTON, for the Biron, contented himself with gising a short statement of the facts. . P 1111.4.111110113, for the Baroness,-stated, that afte full consideration of the evidence. it did not appear that he should for ward the interests of his client by opp siug the sentence pre, ed. Joan NICHOLL said, dui facts of the cue were eta. melt/ clear.' The parties were married in Ireland; id September 18i20 ;tt ey cohabited together, and had five children, dire-.: of whom were still living. In the eon's, of the last year they resi Jed in Paris, it the Hotel de Dauvres, rue dc la Pais. It appeared that the Ba reness employed a young woman in her service to carry notes to Lord Sussex Lewin', who lodged on the oppo- site ride of the street. Alter some correspondence of this kind, on the 13th &January last, during the ab- sence of the Baron, his wife quitted the Aotel, with her servant, and went to . the Hotel de l'Empereur, where she was met by Lord Sussex Lennox, acid they cohabited there as man and wile. They afterwards occgpied priiate lodgings at Paris; and sribsequently proceeded to Rouen, continnthg to lite together as man and wife up to the' date of the citation in the present suit. The Baron, find ing that his wife was gone, was in a state of distraction. For the injury be had receivtd he had recovered a large sum in a Court of Law. Under these circumstances-, he WAS cleArly entitled to the sentence he prayed, and Court pronouncal for the separation. BRAT AGAINST BRAT. This was originally a suit in the Conlistory C. for divorce, by reason of cruelty, promoted by Mrs. Saba Eliza Bray, against her husband, the Rev. Bidlake Bray. The . 4 efenclant appealed from the sentence of the Learned Jedge of the Court, who had admitted the libel, and the question of its admissibility scow came for ,rehearing before this., the superior Court. The circum stances of the case had been already disclosed pretty fully in the Court of King's Bench, upon the trial of some of the parties concerned for a conspiracy, who , were acquitted. 1)r. PHILLISIORE, for the Rev. Mr. Bray, the appel lant, prayed a reversal of the sentence of the Court below; on Abe ground of the extraneous and frivolous , nature of the matter contained in the libel, which went into the whole'life and history of the other party, and; was spun out to 56 articles. If capable of proof, the evidence would•eztt nil the cause beyond the limits of any preceding suit of this kind, without assisting the judicial mind of the Court. The paftiei were married in April, 1825, and a citation was served upon his client in the beginning of 1827 ; so that in little more than 19 mouths matter was to be off Ided to fill 56 articles. This Court would, he hoped, be on its guard, lest its process should be employed to opfress the de. fendant. The Learned Advocate then examined the allegations in detail. In order t,) rebut the accusation of Mr. Bray,ol an incestuous connexion between his wife and her maternal uncle Mr. Hammersley, with whoen the pat ties lived, it had been thought necessary to relate all the minute circumstances attending the death of the Lady's father, and her being consigned to here urcle's protection. One of the articles pleaded a stipulation . before marrisge, that, in conseques ce ef the Lad)'s de licaie state of health, the party should live with Mr. Ilammersley and Mrs. M ilken, Mrs. Bray's mother. But the Court would not sanction such anti nop.ial contracts, which were calculated to create dissension. One ar iee alleged that whilst they were at (Mind Mr. I.l . ray kicked his wife on the shin at the tea table, and when she sheaved hits ehe k•nn her leg, he said she had been amusing herself with scratching the skin ff. An ther article al.eged, that as Mr.. Bray was taking a walk, he went up to her and pinched her fin ger. These were ludicrtms instances of cruelty. Ano ther example of cruelty was Mr. Bray's requiring his wife to fall on her knees, and swear on the Bible that s! e loved him, and requiring her mother, Mrs. Malkin, to swear in a similar marine: that she believed it, which they consented to du in order to grain him. If the pre sent case had been a suit of a different description, these circumstances might have had sonic %%eight. Then there was pinching his w ife on a sofa, "carrying the child in an improper manner, refusing to let Mrs. Bray come to London to consult Mr. Vance, the surgeon, about a disorder in the trachea with which she -was afflicted; and when Mrs. Malkin became extremely ill and lost her senses, refusing to let his wife see her.-.. The first 23 articles, he c-ntended; were loose, vague, without specification, arid frivolou,; all of them re quired reform, and were almost wholly inadmissible.— Tire subsequent articles were still more objectionable; they pleaded consultations with a barrister (Mr. Abra hams), and all the negotiations between the attornies. Wha: hal the Court to do with this? Then the closing articles pleaded that same anonymons lett , rs of a must disgusting description had been written by Mr. Bray. ' in a feigned hand, - 4. or by some other person by his direction?" It a cha ge of•cruelty coolti be Made against the appellant; it could be brought into a shorter compass, and made snore specific. It was the duty of his Counsel to bring the case before the Court, which must be anxious to prevent its process being; made thei instrument of injustice. • I Di. JESSE imams was on the same side. Dr. Lusistuu rot•, for Mts. Bray, the respondent, be g.:n by stating that he was inxructed to say. with respect to the expenses in this suit, that no claim would be made for costs till the end of the cause, when that point would be left entirely to the Court. With regard to the generality of the pleas in this case. it was to be recollected that this was one of a peculiar kind, not consisting of isolated acts of atrocious cruelty. The Learned Advocate then proceeded to show the necessity for the introduction of the various passages objected to. He and his learned friend Dr. Jesur had duae their ut- .~ % N O v vfoi •41 .~ .~ ~1 W ao~ th li te