The Statesman. — London, England, 1820-01-28 00:00:00

MIIIIMPMEM‘ppPI • • is OF 7111IPM • COURT *OF ORANGERY, JAN. Vis --•-•••••—• ATZtektV P. TNC t'Alti OF COTENTIIT AND GREILST. (..IiANCELLOII teas occupied until eleven in hit; priYalf , room with hearing this case. wa% a i mion for an itijuntition . to restrain tke Earl of Gorentry from encouraging_ the marriage of his tiang:iter, w)to is only 17 year's of age, with ilir.Oresley, who is not '2ll veers of age, a student of the University of Oxford. ana son of Sir George tireakey; and also to reit' win the young people from baring any estairmonica• ti 111 l or correspondence with each other, during the mi nority of the yonlng lady. It appeared that the Earl of Coventry and Sir :leorge Greeley approve of the in tended marriage of their children, b ut that the plaintiff. who is joint gnat-olio& with the Noble Earl of the yonng lady, disapproves of itNiond has tuade this application to the torn for the purpose of preventing it. The Loin CHANCEL/X.l postponed giving his decision to a future day. COURT OF KINU'S BENCH, JAN. 27. . IMMO firdMEUTLL r. WALTER.—THE. SAME r. PERRY. • l■ these two cases Mr. PLATTS moved for judgment *An nonsuit, the plaintiff haring neglei tett to proceed th° trill ft will be recollected they were actions for iiheb, woe in ru riMall, and tbs other is The Morn ing anomiefr. newspapers.-111otions granted. WRIGHT r. CLEMENT, ESQ. Mr. PLATT moved for a rule to show cans, why, neon payment of costs, the verdict for the plaintiff in this re.c for Mk... shoals, not be set aside and a new trial . granted. It was an action against the defendant for publishing a nuniber of Cohisett's Politirel Register, in the plaintiff's character was maligned, he haying been rune of the coadjutors of Mr. C. in the publication of. certain Parliamentary Registers. The defendant's case a the trial rested upon evidence that he had posi . iiirely enjoined his servasts not to sell any of Mr. Cob brit'. works, and that the paper which was the subject of this action Ira: sold elandestineltand unknown to the theft:n(lam. tine of the witnesses, named Sudbury, a s:,opotati to 31r. Clements, swore that his master haul never at any time given him any order s upon the sub- Jaeltif .11414 sett's works, contrary to his own previous voluntary statement, upon nhich the briefs of Counsel were prepared. Two other witnesses positively swore that they had received such orders front Mr. element. present mu • was founded upon the affidavits of W. Clement himself to that effect, of liiishrother, Mr. Char t .es element, his principal shopman, the porter, and Sudbury, who now stated, as a reason why he had rot adhered op his original statement, that he was con. ftise.i; and *.kpal mistaken the questions put to hint by Counsel. • Tb. L'OURT refused the rule for a new trial, saying, that as there was no new evidence, it was quite contrary to the practice to grant a new trial upon the supposition that the witnesses on the former trial would an ear (lir- ter' tie nn another nera,ior. I' ITT then moved for a rule to show manse, why theladgissent alioeld not be arrested, on the ground that iLe covets of the declaration upon which the verdict lot the plaintiff had pew-moiled were informal, in that the) professed to set out the substance of the alleged libel, instead of the erre words. ltel'outrr, upon this ground, gristed a rale to show cause. M ‘CICSON I VS 311M11.111r. This was an action for a libel, elicited to have been publishe,l by the defendants in The Qmarterly Rerierr, relecting opera the plaintiff's conduct, touching the fact of Mis procuring a passport for the late Prince Murat, twin the Austrian liovernment. The particulars of the case. is which the verdict welt! for the defendant, were Laid before our readers at the lime of the trial. Mr. Betz new moved for a new trial, and The Cot ItT, after hearing the Learned Counsel at con slat:able length, refused the rule. The Court sat until an unusually late boor at this pe riod of the Term. • TOII9TTII F. nALL. .--..........--- Mr. lioNa reeved fur a new trial in this ease, which it will be ;ecolierted was an action against the &f, nd + art infringing the -plainti ff 's patent for an improved us of discharging fire-arms by means of perettssat ing Iminatin gunpowder. The plaintiff had a ver dict of 300 i.; and _ . The Coral, after hearing the !Armed Counsel at ve r y considerable length, refused the rule. eenro r. CUATMAN. A motion was Milk by Mr. litiaTA TT, to set aside the emeriti', situ obtain a rule r a new trial in this ease. It was an action tried at floildhall against an at. tbrney, to recover baek an item in his bill,*hich, it was :11.04, lie coold not maintain. The defendant was employed by the plaintiff to prepare an affidavit sin which to found a commission of bankruptcy from the Court of' Chancery against him. lie was fortunate enough, how. nor, to get terms from his creditors, and the commis sloe cemsequently became nnnecesury. The affidavit was never sworn, and from that it was, argued, that as no proceeding was had in open Court, the bill was there-, tom sq fir net taxable. i rhe Coen?: however, thonzlit that it was a prelimi nary step to found .a proceeding in open Court upon, and that it was that sort of service for which the db feudattt was entitled to claim, not a patients, *tenth, but a fee tinder the Act of Parliatnent. It was, therefore, ordered that the nonsuit should not be disturbed. ACHES COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS, JAN. 27. iIIPOTENOY. woaToN P. MILTON, lALSZLT CRADLING nansci.r NORTON. .tair Jon,. NicinoL, to giving judgment on the above nnossiow, observed, this s'it was brought by (leorge Nation, Req. against Sarah, his wife, in order to declare their onarriage•nuil and void. The libel given in pleaded - the marriage to have taken plass in Janis, 1812, he heist of the age of 45, a bache. bee. sad the wife of the ate of 23 rears, a spinster; that their mutual bed, board, and enhaisitation, continued till June, 1819. That during such cohabitation they were butts in good health, bat the husband found himself un able to oonsummate his said marl/age , by reason of na tural iansiiment and defect in the virile parts, and that thieleneld be preved by the .fnepectioa and certificates et reipeetalshm medical profesuoi The libel is mat by an alitegation on the part of the wife,-by which the husband's *tit is opposed, mad pray. log that such may he diiisissed. The ghosting' before the Court now was, whether it conlakaatertiia *nth init; and whether the facts stated in the libel, being hie of proof, the husband is en tithel to his this •itase, the Coed scald taker the faces ao. true, or, that is, capable of proof; for the very atintiasinn of the plea waito prove the facts. in eider to dalginniue the douhts entertained, as to the admissibility or this libel, the Coert utast leek to the faineos eietunnamestes pleaded sad the oh)entiona made. The Ara objpotiost to this suit was holing altogether of oriel Madh for, after the meet diligent monk, se saw iwkfuuari wbarr a party' had broaght a fait toiwAsesS_hiMlboet i tage void, is alleging hid herd Mel. panto4•:-Thhathei•snt set vdth the Lashing setting op i b.veri cum and obese theparty evonninials has su 1806, Another eirctimetance worthy of libel, the husband was stated to be aged 45. Now, that a man aged 45 should be ignorant of his bodily defect, in this respect, was most incredible. But if this was not to be presumed, it seminal to the Court incapable of proof b y direct evidence. The presumption in this case was in favour of the marriage; and, as to non-capacity, the husband must prove all necessary facts in order to invalidate the marriage. Here was a cohabitation for a period or get en years before this suit commeiseesioind he whist ere then hi* discovered his incapacity. Although lapse of time might not be an absolute bar to this suit,: brought by the party injured, it.had been so decided is this Cooort • but the Court of Delegates held otherwise in Ball r. /tall. The wife's modesty might account for delay to institute in such suit, from the delicacy of the sex ; and this *polars was eynally allowed in Mat of wife complaining of her husband's adnltery : hut a delay of beven years, on the part of the titan, was not a rea minable presumption in alleging his own fraud. Here, be had not only defrauded the wife of her marriage rites and property, but he comes forward seeking a remedy against the wife, and averring his own misconduct. It' therefore increased the presumption against him vet) much at to the facts to be imposed upon him. Another circumstance was this being a marriage by licence, and it being usual for the man to obtain the lieeutw, the pre sumption was its being obtained on his own atiithttit. He there avers no impedimeut ; hut here he tunics for ward afterwards to aver impediment in the fore of his own affidavit,—his I.abeequent averment, there fore, is to be presumed the most incredible. Au other thing is, he cannot obtain collateral proofs bat such as are against him. It had been stated that the wife was pregnant, and he could not call fur proofs of incapacity front her which it lay upos him to pro duce, as to whether or unt the marriage wag &meow mated ; for, if out constentnatei!, then that would be to criminate herself; and then, pro, crie s the inspection of hers by select persona, was huuther species of proof. So that, in point of.peatoof, this rase mast lest bpots his inspection by medical own. Was there any case, where the report of inspectors applied to otte party was me rited, on which to pentameter aullity of marriage? This' coarse of proof hail always been received with a eitnsi deralole degree of ealcion and envie' , and had never been held suificient ou eLiwl torrououncoe mummer of But in this case, where there was pregnancy of ▪ Mt; wife, the Court was railed upon not only to an nul the marriage, bat to protionnee the wife an adul terra'', and to bastardise the ismte. Had there ever been a case to bastardise the issoa-bat in that of user-stress ? 'fail bastardy ever been established,apou the incapacity or frigidity iif the husband? Here there had been eon. stunt at-eras. add, a+ a proof of ronsuunnatiuti, thl wife was pregnant, winch was a proof they were boils of them an:tiles matrintodia, yet the Conti was here railed upon to pronouuce that the fruit of this marriage, with which the wife. it. pregyant, is net hie progeny. In order to support sorb a eta, it would be neee.sary that the law authority' should be clear beyond all doubt. It had been said the public had a right in ascerteio the state of the party: that was true, where a marriage is *laid to all intents and ',lupines—hut the tliestion here was, not that this marriage was said. but whether it was voidable? Blackstone says, that bodily injury or consaeguinity only make a marriage void. The /441 of the marriage remains valid, if the state of the party is not ascertained. The Mil authority upon which the Court could be called on to entertain this suit, was that of the Text or Canon Law ; theu it was necessary tit ice bow far that law aoplietl to the circumstances uf CAM', awl if it had been received into authority. as the law of• this count ry.—liveretals, b. 4. a. 15. c. I.—lf a inan applies, alleging incapacity, he may be separated ; but if it shall afterwards appear to the Church that this was erroneous, that marriage shall remain good. Again, if a man shall contrast wills an incapable woman, seire,er, be shall not be separated. [Alter observing upon the entho:ity of Commentators ou the ('anon Law, the Juliet) bproceeded.] Here was a bodily defect, whirls must have een knouts to the party snore than can be apparent on inspectiot.. Where the wife joined with the husband, on account of his impotency, the suit might he main tained—bid that was not the case here. She resists the snit, and her pregnancy- proclaims his ability. The in spection of the wife, and her answers upon oath, might be required, but could uut be übtaiued iu this ease. sty the Canon Law, if pregnancy arose upon a second mar riage, the first marriage was valid, and the second mar riage null anti void. The original marriage upon which he was separated from his wife was to remain valid, if the cause, impediattoto, were removed ; and this must be the case where the wife is already pregnant. There was sonuthing in the Text Law here which did not seem to he the law of this country. Übe contracts a mar riage with incapas ity in himself, *rimier, the presump tion in that case is stronger against him, than ar;emier as to incapacity in the wile, where his remedy is denied, because be has defrauded her of her rights. There was no Precise case had ever happened whereon this Court had adopted the Lillie rules es contained in the Canon law, where a suit hail either been brought sir main tained by the impotent party ; hut if the Canon Law be direct, it is not adopted by the law of England so as to entertain this snit. NO principle was more cleerly laid down, than that Do person shall take advantage of own fraud to void his own contract. The maxim of the Can non haw was—" Doles acs sal veleloif reanedia, &c." By the defrauded party alone had such suits been main tained, praying to be relieved. Upon the whole of this case, and on all the argn meats urged upon the facts stated in this libel, the Court tvera of opinion the husbantrwaisot retitled to the remedy he prayed ; it was, therefore, the duty of the Court to dismiss the libel, and the wife from this suit. CONSISTORY COURT, DOCTORS' CO4I3JONS. MORTIMER r. RIOETIMIR. This suit has been brought by the wife against her husband, for restitution of conjugal rights, the parties having been long separated. The question this day be fore the I 'ourt was Upon the admission of Al r. Mortimer's responsive allegation; and the objection WON gave rise to an argument of considerable length. Sir 1% mt.' Ili SCOTT ecirressed himself anxious to hear every thing that the Learned Counsel had to offer upon a case of so much importance, in which the Court waa called upon to decide whether the previous confessioo, of a party should he allowed to operate la bar of a fa tore suit, and how far it would be received in proof of a feet charged against her. It appeared from various articles of the allegation, that ,lohu !Mortimer, Esq. and Frances. his wife. being! resident at Blackheath. a hir. William Aleeander Young, who had been recently married, wasintroduelel to them in the year INO7. A great intimacy sabsistitig hewed, this individual. and slr. Writer., he *me very (reel +witty as that gentleutho'a Wait flaring his absence ip London, opal his eostmosey business; sad, sib suds et.' regions, Mrs. lloatiaser and hh: Young Weft frinuentit i alone together, it was .pleldeds in private 'ponies Ina' in various houses.-- It-was further pleaded, that na the 17tharf Aaltust,. Fraacea Author'', banns` 'given hirtleto p rtMfiY4a 4 because alarmingly ill ; and • . . . told bee t relievipg log/ car ing. Mrs. and sap posing her death to be inevitable, made a :Janitor eon-, cession to Mrs. Maria Mortimer, by whose husband it had been administered. In consequence of this confes sion, various Circumstances recurred to the mind of Mr. John Mortimer, in which he had to complain of inde cent familiarities observed to have passed between his wife and Mr. You'll(; and upon Mrs. fflortimer's unex pected recovery from her dangerous illness, he deter mined, in consequence of her confession, no longer to live with her. 41ccordingly, he acquainted her soon after with his determination ; but being unable to ob tain any clear and specific ;woofs of the adulterous in tercourse in question, except those which resulted from her own unsolicited declaration, he did not instiode any criminal proceedings against her. Upon consulting with her lathier, therefore, how best to provide for Mrs. Mortimer's future support and condition, they mutually agreed that she shotold co to her father's house and re side whit hint. Mr. John Mortimer agreeing to a ll o w her a maintenance of MO/. a-year. Dr. lII:O.NANV, On behalf of the lads, opened the pro ceedings. Ile contended that the 3th article alone of the allegation contained a specific fart, connected with the criminal charge, and which was pleaded ; it was to this effect:—" That on a day in the latter end of the year IslO, the said W. A. 1 ming and Frances 31m-ti nter were alone together in an upper Tainu of a certain house • and that the said Frances lortitner was then observed to bare her alw rouud the neck of the said Young, anal to be kissing him." listt there was all through, an utter absence of any strong or air ...A tact of adultery ; and only one circumstance mentioned, with reference even to tio:faudliarities of tise parties. As to the confession of the lady, he did not conceive it neces sary fur hiai to detain the Court upon that subject ; it was here clearly no evidence; an I although he under stood the Learned Counselor the other side meant to ob ject to that principle, he should meet them upon a ground arising out of the 105th comm. It was mini:dent for him to observe, that if the party proceeded against had any other proof, the rase might he different ; but in the pre sent instance, as far is the Court had yet seas, no fact of adoltery tatl been pleaded. as between the parties. The confession, Mrs. Mortimer retracted almost as aeon as made, mad denied that , in fact, she had ever heeii minty o f the crltuirarrrinduct she was chartist with, averring that it had been twice attempted, lint that the intention had been frustrated. The* familiarities, per se,. were insufficient to ground a snit for divoree; and the Court would not be asked to stay proceediagis upon them minus.-. lie submitted. therefore. that this allega tion could not he admitted to proof, if it Was intended to he relied upon as pirmling adultery. Dr. Lueltixitvosc, sin the same gisie, stsaintaitted, that this plea ;mold not he winsitted to proof, without the Court's violating some of the most essential rob, of it s practice. This marsiage took place in Pslbi, :1:1` the parties cohabited together until Int I. As to the deed I of separatiuse, no agreement of the sort could possibly alter the legal estate and character of the patties, or place then% in a different situation with respect to the operation of the law. The ground of partitig as Alleged in that very deed, was, that " some unhappy cliff reaces had long subsisted between them." lie covenanted not to molest her, and to allow her to see her children when and where she pleased, anti she to refrain from all suits, c. All this amounted to nothing, upon which a plea of adultery could Ire sustained. Sir WILLI ‘st Score considered it hail been always held in that Court, that a deed of separation was Hut to be admitted as et ialence. Dr. Lystrtstterfue sen proreeded to show, that though proof of adeltery was of coarse a just cause for stick in stitution, auspic was auto!. anti fur this plain reason —that the extent and nature of a fart might well be clear and definite, but no man could define what were the hounds and limits of mere suspicion. If, as was stated in the allegation. Mr. Mortimer was unable, even when the facts were fresh in people's memories, to rolled such as might found a snit, 'sow could he now hope to es tablish his case ? It very seldom happened that awe case improved by keeping; and be might well apply th at remark to this. The vagueness of this plea was no less inadmissible in point ofpractiee, than it was cruel upon her who should be called 0/ tit Cistlitterriend to it. llow was it possible that she was to establish her negative, for instance, where an act was charged to have been cot 1111 l itted by her, without further specification than that it was committed upon a day in the latter end of the year NIP, in a room of a certain house ? Was it to he expected that she si Id be called upon to defend herself against ea loose a charge, when the conseqaence of that defence alight be likely to reduce her to poverty ? Was she to come into Court matteelesi—lier tongitetied, lore hands bound, and her feet fettered ? She might have been geiltv of great levity, and gone merle far ther, fur aught . Ire knew to the contrary; but the rules of law and justice must he strictly observed ; the prin ciple of that Court's practice must be intotutahle. The familiarities themselves amounted to so very little. that he was tempted to ask what it was meant they should do? Were they to take these two riders quantities to gether, for s u ch was the nature of the farts pleaded, anti see what they amounted to? 1)r. Jeuxen (for Mr. Mortimer) did think, that the Court would be of opinion, that the :arts of adultery had been committed by the wife, during the several years there specified. And as to the absence of inorm direst and immediate proof, the Court had aleeadlii declared, in the case of " Burgess and Burgess," w salus • a suit for a restitution of conjugal rights, by the wife against her husband, that a greater latitude was to be given to the husband, in cases where he was railed upo to answer for a restitution of conjugal rights, than in cases where he was the original plemareaut the suit. 'fu the deed of separation there wane awe parties—the I husband, the wife, and the father. With her tether shot resided until the month of August, it4l6, when he died. Now, during that period, no redress was sought for by her in the Courts of this country ; and the ground npoir which he now rested his plea was, that the confessioadf, the lady was made at a time, and under cireunistaseas of such a nature, as that the Court would nut be likely US he deceived by giving credence to it. lie was quite, aware of the cation to which his Learned Friend had re-1 fared, last he shonlal contend that it applied to a differ ent suit from this. It was not meant to apply to eases of separation a mestso et Moro ' but to eases of nullity only. He a with his Learned Friends in thinking, that; poseibr e ttere was no intermediate state between the duties of cohabitation, and the sentence of separi- . den from that Court. If the canon of 1603 was different from the old law, which entitled him to a separation and divorce, what was his condition under the present law ? It would result from this reasoniug, that because the I confession of the wife was not sniffeient fitc his plea s thereto» A. heehaw& was bound to cohabit. /ratan, was the *mations( the husband ? Heft ~poi. llossions mesh ender riresasetasees which tesUillslilt possibly support any thing like a condolatioe, if 114. -• should be.helieved by the Coon t east yet the-' was bound to take the wife bock. Sopn• - - *hat, at tit. end of twelve ileeett by a senteoce of the Co. he got poseessiue of b.cts soft atioltiry sow . plekoloil, awl that eerkftig his remedy , hie Leer : It . se ; sup- . T. E, ~ 4 . A ST - , N. . 1- • hew the intjtretd A=TM 1111froTTirapaeffi in tie Vile( otterapsi .s. Tos7 bin' dintstitlties. have been buttehtity ilieteffbeataMMUng of incapacity hnsband tint she could - not die litippy "anima in the husband, but us-amoinstance of the husband's emu- her mind, by confessing to bin, that she bad plainipg ef iecartsity in the wife. ebbing!), the* was ried sin an iulitltered• intercourse with Tout something Nice Win a salt in 18416, Wilson r. Morris.— *winter, having received the Aricrameet ' Another circumstance worthy of is In the libel, posing hrr death to be isevitable, made a slat nin the husband was stated to Ipe 43. Now, that • fession to Jlrs. Maria hinetimer, by whose hi i . .. . .. . . . es • ._e.,_ I_e__. 1.—../ 1..... ..el..;niatabrodi in ran wfitience of th I k 1 !" 'T. w No, y0u.11410 basal kiseettinne to iohabit with k eti here is a condolatiosa.isodshe, having confessed 64 4 the Area, any. suboesinent. diseevery *hail be of as vantage to you whatever. The kite might say, st y q , are bound to receive me. and to cohabit with me." 11,:, was a sitimaion of such hardship and cruelty, that never conld have entered into the contemplation of ti, law, neither could it Lave been intended by the fram e , of the cation. Rut why was the wife, in this case, t , complain and seek restitution? Why did she note * , forward in the first instance, ref:tali fiseto, when ilh i i. circunistasees would have been fresh in the mentor, ,r all her witnesses. She signed the deed of reparmk and !iced separate for five years afterwards. Is misfit no means certain.that that confession had liceu saj ,,h6 Mrs: Mortimer, ts:hen she was in a stare of 4K. exhaustion; she at least nia,!e two confessions, mi st , received the sarrament.—When she fout..l, how ew. that all danger of immediate death was ee more d, attempted to take away the etfoa of her tomer e t . fession, by retracting so much of it as admitted lite& of adultery ; but that very admission proved her 0,, I intention, on her own showing ; and be shoulf that the proximate facts pleaded, proved her the fact, and that therefore this allegation ought mi., ' admitted. Dr. AD.1318 followed on Cie same side, in rn ables t , 'learned speech. Sir WILLIAM SCOTT said, I.e would he.,r this case... a future day. COURT OF t' 'l,l ARS. OFFICZ 01 THE JUDGIS StOTtn BY Srujo N r. Sir Jon Struot.t. observed, that baring alrerit folly delivered his oiiin!en upon the prituity yuesti.is.f adMittine the articles, he would therefore turrrlf nou nee the formal sentence of thlsw, athrionihhissii. (Mr. Nl•Alath) to refrain from the like practites is ture and without meaning any thing bush, dermal*, the costs be paid by the defendant. Potter. •••40..- BOW Morris allllll. tiorgti on 'Alonday la,t with having stolen a looking-glass boa a lodging-house in l'astle-rourt, Strand, was inane, from Tuthill-fields, liridewell, yesterday, handcit a notorious pickpocket, and, after a short te-exarans tion, was tally committed to Newgate for trial. Two heathers name.' fhtles (notoriou thiaves, the* the eldest is nut inure than 111) were charged with Ira. tilting the glass in the shop window of kr. Tarlac ,: St. 31artin's.cimnrt, and stealing thereont severarank of jewellery. This idea of robbery is called by the FL . fessurs kerning tile ',exc." and the Iwo prtsosen,: appeared, had utatle it their particular study. There was a similar charge against them by II: Simpson, a jeweller, of Castle-street, LeLester which. as well a. the former one, was fully st;bataatat and they were both committed to Ncwgate. I 5111.1: PINT Raiment. Jain &Wei: was charged with an extensive Inn, in the house of 3lrs. Anderson, of Moor-street, Mrs. Anderson had occasion to go upstairs, on W day. about twelve o'clock in the day, and nut the goner iu one of the landing-places, staggering huge burden tied up in a cnnnterpanr. She i gave an alarm, and the prisoner was secereil. examining his load, it was found to contain along entire furniture of the adjoining chamber—at In then. were the bed and window-curtains, the feathered and mattrass, carpets, looking-glass, dressing-casew instrnmewwwswrer and bacon, pictures, &r. &r. ease the pot do chewable. In his pocket was lotted a tap him+ of keys, one of w h ich unlocked the door of chamber. Fie had nothing to say in bit &tem hi the Magistrate, end was fully committed. Mr. Keel/seen, a very respectable looking ruin* denim', was brought . legion. the Magistrate. Mawr the complaint of Miss Gaspar', of Charlotte-sireet,nu. royssimare. MIS! , liasparal, greatly agitated, deposed that WU binson occupied apartments in her house, anl toot rid of him, she gave him notice to quit. fused to take the notice. alleging that it was net s one ; and she then consulted a professional s, wrote her another, and advised her to serve it area personally. The same day she met him in the and was about to give him the paper, when he ritli manfully lifted his umbrella, and beat her with it till screamed aloud for help, and bad not a gentleman to her assistance, she firmly believed he work done her serious injury. Mr. Robinson told a woful story about Miss Oaten shacking temper. She was, he said, the most young woman imaginable, and fearing she scratch his face, he, "of mom," defended with his umbrella, for a scratched face is a veryid. want thing. An eller!! gentleman, a friend of Mr. Robin* went still further, and assured the Magistrate dun thispard was " a very deli!, when she was onceap! This person seemed very anxious to mix up grievances with his friend Robinson's, but the trate would not suffer this; and, after a long al , the warms was directed to be held in wearers, expectation }bat the parties might compromise* fair. Miss (timpani, however, was highly di with this, and before 'Mr. Robinson could get est office, he was served with notice of action in the Bench at her snit. dna Elks Calm+, the young woman whose detailed on Wednesday last, was again brought' Clatekeuvrell New Primo; and her merciless I trig, together with her son and daughter, calls fee her commitnsent. The poor creature again solemnly protested noetstee, avert wept tneensantty sirlssiltrg hone her of her inhuutsn husband. l'he Magistrate, Mr. CONANT, at length deer there was eel sedicieat evidence to tend to a .11 ordered the auforteuate woman to he diseharr he 'Amerced at the same time that he should hs very glad to have punished her. The prisoner begged that her clothes migh stored to her! bat the Magistrate resnsed to oS remarking that she might think herself well el being sent to Netvgate. The poor girl, no donht utterly destitute, o weeping to the pass Ages of the office for hours alti IRTIIS. On the 2lst thstsnt, Mn. Robert M. bassos, dkeh, of a &wetter. On Oa ata teat. at Trios*, Mrs. Davis, of a deo 1; 4 6. is Om tite 21.1 Pas 1 thetWE dtit lidl trol trr cialagNiroWlSl 'dumped sr•J Hirt of Up, OM. •. Sarah 114 •Ir elm per gives pror, /OWL Esq. of ft Cligst yoke% Lfee...6010 asormewie - I - MG " w•tTia,mt NDON.,RRIOO ). 7W 00 Medisiess. 48 mM after 11.—Altervieue. I 6 oak Pe .1 the 00ei, Idill ft VI den, mod II I I