The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-06 00:00:00

~~~,

.1

THE LINO v. THE CITY OF LONDON.

MESTDrEATII.

The Loan Cater JUSTICE said, there the Sheriff had called
the persons returned Gentlemen, here he has called them Knights.
T. a word Sir was merely a term of respect, and not confined in
a,icseLt usage to Knights, but employed in addressing all persons
of high rank, except Bishops. " Sir Duke " was then a common
expression: •• My lord " is comparatively recent.
Ale. Fervent Botta utrri• argued that iu this case the Sherifr's
retina was conclusive, and could not be traversed.
tie Loan ("unto JUSTICE said it had ►ern decided that ES-
quirts were Knights in law for the present purpose. Almost all the
County Members in the present Parliament, though called Knights
in eM writ, sere in fact }:squires. In the present day no one
would presume to say that the untitled gentry of England were less
respectable titan those who hail received the order of knighthood.
Thg reet of the Court concurred with hia Lordship.
'The Knights were then sworn. mid retired for half an hour, when
they returned with a list of the Jury they had elected.
Srvgeartt VAUGHAN afterwards moved, cs•perte, that this
cause should be tried at the bar of the Coen. lie stated that this
Lilian was brought in respect of three.tourth parts of certain light.
litioscs, situated at the mouth of the !lumber, the tolls of which
amtitinted to 6,0001. per annum. The stake was therefore large,
and the question would involve the construction of two Acts of Par-
tiastrt.t, and might determine matters relating to the interest of the
I'rown, Or the grantee of the Crown, besides which, the terms of a
Kill, drawn in a very ambiguous frowner, must come under diccus-
■ioo. pn these grounds he submitted the Court would be induced
to grant a trial at bar.
The Collar said, as he had not given notice of this motion, he
cold tiely s,lc for a rule to show cause •why the trial should not
take riacc at bar, and the rule was accordingly granted in those
terr.s.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, SATURDAY, Fu. 4.

Tins question, which has long been Wore the Court, was heard
this day on einlurres. The question was, whether the King or the
City of London was entitled to a fine of 5,000/., which had been
levied on the Most Noble the Marquis of ;ligo by the Court of
Admiralty.
Mr. TINDAL appeared to support the City's claims, antl 31r.
Pavia thole of the Crown.
. ' • •

Mr. riNDAL submitted that the Me depeetied on the construe-
tMn put on certain charters granted to the Corporation of the City
to London. The first was that of the let of Edward 111. The
reason of his quoting that statute was that it constituted the Mayor
of London • Justice of Oyer and Terminer, with certain other per.
eons, for the Gaol Delivery of Newgate ; and gave the goods and
chattels of felons, who were tried at the Court appointed for the de-
livery, to the Corporation. The next was the .23t1 lien. VI, which
tree all fines, ransoms, and amescements which were directed by
the Court of Oyer and Terminer, of which the Mayor was one, to
be paid by certain persons to the Corporation. The next charter
was that of the lath of Charles I. That increased the privileges of
the Corporation as to the reeeipt of the amount of recognizance' in.
to which the different parties had entered within their jurisdiction.
From this it would appear that the fine levied on the hlarquin of
sligo having been paid by him, accenting to the sentence of a
('sort of Oyer and Terminer, the Lord %I Ayer, es a member of the
Corporation, must he entitled to it. If the Court would look at the
Acts coestituting the Court of Admiralty. they would find that they
Wreeteil all °rams to be tried by it, as if they had been committed
to land. Thus the provisions of the charters would clearly extend
to the offences tried by the Court of Admiralty, as well as the other
offences which come before Courts of Oyrr and Terminer, of which
the Lord Mayor was a member. TMs, he apprehended, entitled
the Corporation to the fine.
Mr. Pan IC, on the part of the Crown, observed that it was unne-
cessary to quote authority for the purpose of proving that all grant.,
Prom the Crown were to be construed strictly. But that principle
was unnecessary to be here considered, as the plain examination of
the language of the Charters would completely destroy the City's
claims. The translation of Wen/ had been rather skilfully con-
trired ; but, if the Ledo originals were consulted, no doubt could
reinalo as to the intention of those who framed them. That cri-
drnily was, tbst the privileges of the City should be confined to
crimesolllllmitted.within the City itself ; but the crime which
caused this sentence to be passed had been committed without the
City. Beside; the Charter of Henry VI., on which the right de-
pended. however construed, could only refer to crimes at common
But the offences which came within the jurisdiction of the
Admiralty were rtatutable otier.ces, as the Commission itself was
vet constimted WI the reign of Henry the Eighth. To show whe.
t'er the King had really intended to give the fines to which parties
were sentenced before the Court of Admiralty, to the City, let the
Court examine the grant made of them to Lord Seymour. as High
Admiral of England. That was to be found in 6 Rymer's Fowlers,
161. There the Charter specifically mentioned the Court of Atlrni.
tatty, and left It not to any constructive manner of giving. Looking
tit these authorities, he conceived the Court Could not avoid decid.
leg in favour of the Crown.
Tit: Court deferred its judgment.

CONSISTORY COURT, SATURDAY, Fts. 4.

T3E KAIICLIIONESII Or WESTMEATII r. Trim MARCIVIS Or

The arguments in this case were resumed upon the sitting of the
Coact this morning.
Dr. Jra 'ma led for the Marquis. He stated that the suit was
ortgreallv brought by his diem for the restitution of conjugal
nein., the Marchionesa having withdrawn herself from cohabit.
titian with her husband. Lady Westmeath answered this suit by
a defensive allegation, charging the Marquis with having committed
111.1 of cruelty towards her during her eohabitations with him, and
subsequently another allegation was put in on behalf of the
Machioona. charging his Lordship with acts of adultery
if the Marchioness succeeded in establishing either of the charges
trade on her behalf. she would certainly be entitled to • sentence
not only pronouncing against the claim of the Marquis, but also
articli the Marchioness to a legal reparation. It was said by the
l.eatr.ed Counsel opposite that the Marquis came into Court on the
letter of the lar. nnd that as the alarehioness seas not the
aggressor. but came into Court in her own defence, a distinction
efirruld be nrade between the evidence produced on behalf of the
Marchioness and that brought forward for the 31 arquis. His
Learned Friend (Dr. Lushingtonj had referred to two cases in sup-
port of that principle, but the facts of those cases were =timidly
different, and lie contended that the priociple was by no means ap-
phcable to the present ease. The Marquis of Westmeath came
forward on a claim of right, and if the defensive charge is pot in
or behalf of her Ladyship were not proved, the Court was bound
tot to permit the parties to live separate, hut to pronounce the sen-
teoce prayed for by the Marquis. He (Dr. Jenner) apprehended
that personal danger was the only ground upon which a charge of
cruelty could be supported. It was not sufficient to prove quarrels,
or that there was hastiness of temper on one side and aggravation
on the other. In defining legal cruelty, Lord Stowell had laid it
down, that there could rot be cruelty without danger of limb, life,
or health. It was not necessary that the Court should wait until
tl.e hurt was done, but there must be a reasonable apprehension of
personal danger. It was true petty irritations may at length wear
out the bodily machine, but the Court could not interfere on this
ground ; such matters must be left to the judicious resistance of the
offenden party. It was the duty of the Court to compel parties
Contracted by marriage to tuldl that sacred contract, and the Court
could not allow parties to violate that contract upon insufficient
grounds. In the pre-ent case there was no question that violent
quarrels had taken place between the parties.arising perhaps (roman
rams of susceptibility, but he was prepared to contend that nothing
had occurred which should Induce the Court to pronounce a di-
riser. It hail been sail on the other side that the Marchioness of
iVestmeeth was brought unwilling into Court, and that his Lord.
ship ri:ll%t take upon himself all the inconveniences which may arise
fruit such a public proceeding. Lord Westmeath thought it was
much better that! the full extent of the charges made against him
by Lady Il'estninth should be made public, and that nothing
should be left to the representations of the idle and malicious.
Every charge that could be raked up had been brought forward
there was no ground of complaint which had been left behind, and
the Court would evince more credulity than be was willing to give
it credit for, should it believe that there was a scintilla
of evidence to support any other charge but those which had been
brought forward. The question was, whether there were grounds
laid tor a sentence of separation P If an act of adultery was found,
ft would undoubtedly entitle the Slatchioness to a divorce ; but he
desisted that there was not a shadow of proof to support such a
charge t nor were there any features in the ease which could war.
rein the Court to allow Lady Westmeath to separate herself from
husband, ea she had done since June, 1813. It was said by
Dr. Lusiiington that nearly seven fens had elapsed since the par-
ties ceased to cohabit, and it was a year and a half after that the
Marquis instituted his alit. The delay was easily accounted for,
by the way In which the Marc'hlooess proceeded, and by the new
change which 54.. e attempted to set up at so late a stage of the pro.
Paling. On the part of the Marquis of Westmeath he was
desiro-is of meeting the insinuadoo thrown out on the other side.
that in prosecuting this snit be was actuated by the motive of
washing to get rid of a deed of separation executed between hint
*d the ilerchioness. lie disclaimed such a motive, he denied
that he was originally induced by such • motive to commence the
win nor had tuck been the Marquis of tVelstmeath's wish. Was
it at all necessary :to apply for the assistance of an Ecclesiastical
Omen for the trustees could never recover under the deed of sepa-
ration, followed as it was by the subsequent cohabltion ot the par-
ties for above a yeas. The real and the only motive of the Mar-
gins eneeto recover the society of his wife, who had broken a so-
Prim contract. The ter guts of the case proved that the 310quis
Pert always been desirous of avoiding • separation, and at all time,
wig meanies for • renewal of that nuptial union which
had been so unhappily broken. This anxiety on his part
still continued. Ife wished nothing but a renewal of
emotillenet and othshitation. lie speed with what fell from Dr.
Lusliingioii, that the Court was bound to order the comptilsatory
return of tire March:one's to a cohabitation with her husband, or
so pronnunce a divorce. He contended, however, that the charges
Ai adultery and cruelty were not proved in such a manner as should
induence the Coon to come to any other decision, but that the wife'
mast teturn to the protection of her husband. The instances of
cruelty moved were not deliberate ; there was no evidence of malice
In them ; and if bodily injury was the consequence, it had oc.
coned rather from accident than design. It wire produced on
every occasion by the reproaches of the Marchioness and her cg.
raveling conduct with respect to two natural children which hoed
W,,mtmentli had before his marriage. Taking the evidence in su p-
pact of the allegauons brought for the Alarchioness to be true, it
anabbsited that there was no Intention to commit personal injury,
sad, that no personal injury had been committed, to that extent
which would justify the Court lit pronouncing for a separation.
!see ',earned yardman bore entered into a minute review of the
evnitbc for both patio, commenting upon the mat striking

Diu