The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-09 00:00:00

r

; 'I

i

!

caesowhy the WiTdiet fatelad not be eet aside, and a new trial be
ranted, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
Phis was the opinion of the learned Judge (31r. Justice Holroyd)
who tried the case. After the evidence for the plaintiff had been
pmc throuo, he said the Learned Counsel tMr. Denman), for the
iln;Dtiff, ahe intended to go any farther. The Learned lientle-
io,.7 pt-iceeded, and permitted the trial to be cone throngh. The
• platting' had, indeed, great advantages is his favour, as regarded his
loyal advisers, for hi. case was conducted by the Common Sergeant,
Nt r was member for Nottingham, and his junior counsel and soli.
t, v.,: were the Recorder of Nottingham and the Sub•Shcritf, whose
A trovince it was to summon the Jury who tried the ease.
The COMMON Sieoranr ohserred. that the case was moved
from the county to the city court at the defendant's own desire.
Mr. CLARK E—ltut had he advi.cd with me he would not have
dune no, for he does not know, as I do, the pent influence which
- the city .31embeit and city Recorder possess in Nottingham.
(A laugh.)
Air. Justice HOLIWYD declared that at the dine he thought the

vritet was not warranted by the evidence givett at the trial.
• Ile LORD Cater Justice—Take a rule to shew cause.
30XXS V. WILLIAUS.
Mr. OADION moved fora rule to skew VILNA why a new trial
should pot be granted in this case. It was tried at Shrewsbury be.
:11. Mr. Ilaron (trait ten, and a verdict returned far the defendant.
The plaintiff was a female servant in the family Hughes,
and was brought before the defendant in his capacity of Justice of
the Peace. Three points were tared at the trial :—lst, Whether
the defendant waracting as Justice ; 2dly, whether he was entitled
to net as a D: putt' Justice ; and 3elly; whether he was entitled to
annes: under the 46th of George 111. The Corporation of the town
e ref Darby claimed the privilege for their Justices of acting by de.
• put, • Out no person entrusted with magisterial power could dole.
gets that power, unless he had express authority in the instrument
- a:.vsetiag him with magisterial authority. It was decide •by the
• melte Judges, that a Lord Chancellor coidd nut act by deputy;
mud special power was given to the Iteenriter of London to act by
deputy. Bttades, it appeared that the defendant was only the de.
put, of the Justice's deputy, and could not be regarded as a person
Invested with that authority contemplated by the 4Gth George
. • The Learned Gentleman further submitted, that the charge on
*Ws the phdistif was brought before him, did not fall within his
.jurisdistiem
The COURT directed a rule to spew cause on the tint two
punts.

MIIITC r. emote.
• Mr. SCCRLETT moved for a rule to chew cause why a new trial
, i should-not be granted in this case, which was tried before Mr. Jus.
1 . nee Bayley, at the last Assizes at Yost. The ground on which he
. • - moved was that of excessive damages. The action was tine of trespass,
. and a verdict returned for the plaintiff for MAO/. The pleadings were
sery.extemive, setting forth oppressive conduct in the defendant in
- tutting into force a writ of execution which he had obtained against
I • Abe plaintiff. It appeared that the &tertian: was a banker, who
. ' *ad lent SOU to the plaintiff upon his security and that of his bro.
xtiv• This money was not repaid in due time, and consequently
• • ..the defendiint took ont a writ of execution against him. The al.
laced trespass toot place in putting this writ in force. The assault
• . was no pleaded to at the trial. but die present application was made
•a^ consequence of the excessive damages, which the circumstances'
of the case did not warrant. The learned Sergeant (Cross) who
cmdurted the ease for the plaintiff, dwelt much upon this ammo. 1
eUigleZ..bOth in his statement and reply, of having three Members of
Parliament, Messrs. Srarlett, Itroughant, and Williams, retained;
I, and whether his client was obliged to pay more, because he had
. Jens Meu.bers of Parliament as his iidvocatts, or not, be could
# . . pot •saty (a laugh) ; but the occasion was one on which he did
. .. mot think it necessary to go into a defence of that branch of the l'
7..)0461.11ttUTC•
• • Mr. Justice BATLEY said that the note which he took at the
• was not an ajeetion to the verdict on account of the damages
.
g recessive, but that the statement of the Learned Counsel, and
• the exan.inations he directed, were calculated to induce the Jury to'
rentra a verdict on false grounds.
. Mr. MCARLETT submitted that the note of the Learned Judge
• who tried the case furnished a reason ter granting the rule ter which
• )10 applied... Rule grained.

COURT OF CO3IMON PLEAS, Mosoov, Nov. 8.

The Court was occupied in hearing motions until 12 o'clock.
Tbe Chief Justice bad fixed that Nisi Prius cases should be baud
onteo'clock ; but none being entered, the Court adjourned.

CONS [STORY COURT, ...uolto*Y. Nov. &

• (Before Sir C. Boatsmen r. raightl
DOXTAGUE V. )lONTAOUC.
Ml. Atlases said this was a suit instituted for a divorce, by tea-
on of adultery. The parties were of the highest respectability,
elleml,'from the circumstances attending it, the case was of a pecu-
liar nature. The suit was instituted by the wife, Margaret Green
Montagrie„ against her husband, Ikon, Conway Montepte. They
. were married at Gretna-green in 1603, and had throe children, the
fruits of their marriage. The citation of divorce issued in Ma
.Mr. .Montague was possessed of considerable property, which
• Pet iulterited under the wil of ids grandfather, having, under certain
Imaiitations, a life-interest to it, and heirs male ; and failing them,
•. 11.5 estate passing on to his two sister'. To establish the snit now
before the Court, the first step necessary was to prose the marriage ;
• teat being celebrated out of the kingdom- it might be rather difficult,
as it depended only on one witness, and if the case was protracted
to soy length, it was feared they might !nose the benefit of his
• evidence; and it' so, other consequences might arise which would
• /effect the children most materially, as the effect of failure in proof
oir marriage would lie to deprive Mein of their right to the property,
avbich would pass over to the sisters under the grandfather's will.
lie had to more the I.ititirt that a citation would issue to the sisters
that they may be cited to see the proceedings in this muse, as they
have an evident interest in them. lie (Dr. Adams) did not believe
say objection would be made on their putt; and if so, he trusted
the Court would not listen to any object:ma coming from any other
patter.
Sir C. ROSINSON.—On whose behalf do you make the
1220t:0211?
. Dr. Awasre—On behalf of Mr& i'llontneee. who does it to
set up the validity of time marriage, and establish the legitimacy of
be:children.
Itnithw—Do you know any precedent of such a practice haying
been pursued ?
. De. LUSIIIMOTON, who argued on the same side with Dr
Adams., cited the case lately innituted,thealareitioness of Donegal
e. Donegal, where it was objected on behalf of the party who
was deeply interested, that there was no precedent for such a crane,
sag that the party, though cited, could not be bound by the
decision in the CAW. The opinion of the Learned Judge(lwod
'Stowell) who tried it, was--that if you are not bound by the de-
cidon.. there is no hartn can arise from your coming into Court,
turd .if you are to be leedal you should be cited. This was a suit
•.
atputruted by lady Dine .•41 against her husband, to establish
aulLty of marriage. Time object of it was notorious, •• to
earffiltsli its validity ;' that being the only course by which
. the could do so, and the effect in that case being the same as in
the, that other, were interested in the result. Time Court granted
the mutton made here, on the broad principle of justice, without
..loofieg
to or waiting fur any precedent. The Learned Doctor
Argued at considerable length in support of the :Donau, tawniest
important to so inany parties.
Dr. .Irterorm opposed the motion on the part of the husband,
and said, it MU a novel attempt, and without precedent. As to
the ease cited of the 31arrlitonew of Donegal, it was totally dif-
fer. .t from the resent. There it wit a suit tor nullity of marriage;
to this it is a suit praying for a divorce by reason of adultery. The
. issue of this is adultery, a:.(1 the proof of marriage is necessary to
obtain such an issue ; the marriage is an incidental, not the main
point at issue ; there, it was marriage or no marriage. Here the
proof of marriage r only an incidental part of the proceeding, arid
the motion is, to call in persons who mar be bound by proceedings
touching that marriage. Time nianitest effect of this application (ii
granted) must be. toconvert a suit instituted for adultery into •
suit of a totally different nature—into a suit to establish validity of
marriage, and give right to property. This was a course In did not
suppose the Court would establish. The Learned Dcctor sub.
ruined the opinion of Lord Chief Justice de Grey, in the jactita-
non
ease of the Duchessof Kingston, where he laid it down as a
fettled principle, •• that a collateral issue directed in one cans',
should not be issued an evidence in another." The injustice and
oppression to the husband was manifest, on account of the new
mutterer introduced by this proceeding ; it must create vast expense,
and might lengthen the cause to an irderininable extent ; and cone
eluded by Raying, it, ,- as an attempt to gain by surprise a sentence
from the Court on a point not in issue before it.
The JUTME—Was tlhc motion opposed in the case of the Mar-
cinemas of Donegal ?
Dr. Mist, INGTON—The Court granted the citation ex ports.
Dr. A asocw—Hut here the husband opposes.
Pr. IEIO I ca also opposed the granting of the citation.
DM. ADAMS and LUSHINUTOX replied to the arguments
againat the motion at considerable length. They avowed the object
eche lady In applying for the citation, was, though she gained her
suit eit' divorce, to establish the rglits of her children ; and she was
early to defray the expenses.
The Juno r —The want of precedent in this case is a great ob-
jethiow in my mind. I would wish to see the libel again, mid con-
fider what should be done.
The motion was ordered to stand over.