The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-05 00:00:00

ARCHES COURT, SATURDAY. JVNE 3.

LADY AMIENS V. LORD AMIENS.
In thin suit, which was brought by Lady Amiens against Lord
Amiens, for a divorce by reason of adultery,
Dr. LUSIII ROTOR moved that the allegations should be admit-
ted. The marriage of the parties took place in Scotland on the 2d
August, 1804, and the parties cohabited together until April, 1810.
when Lord Ameins eloped with a Mrs. Newcomb, with whom he
has since been living in London and elsewhere.
Dr. JEN NER, on behalf of hoed Amiens, objected to the admis-
sion of the allegations, on the ground that the solemization of the
marriage was informally pleaded. The marriage cerentrony was
performed by the Rev. Dr. Muter, in a private house in Scotland,
and the entry of this marriage was pleaded in the same form a• if it
was a regular entry in the bookie a parish in this country. There
was nothing, however, to induce the Court to believe that the copy
of the registry ought to be considered a public document. Another
objection to the libel was, that an unnecessary delay had taken
place, for which it was neglected to account. It was pleaded that
Lady Amiens was residing at the house of her father, a Mr. Tandy,
an attorney-at•law, in Ireland, and that she had received no main-
tenance from Lord Amiens since Iris elopement with Mrs. New-
comb; It was also pleaded that Lord Amiens had been living in
open adultery with Mrs. Newcomb since 1810, but no reason was
given why Lady Amiens had not commenced proceed,ngs before,
and why she had taken the present occasion to sue for a divorce from
her husband; after having acquiesced in a separation from him
from 11110 to the present time. lie therefore submitted that the
libel should be reformed on the particular points to which he had
adverted.
Dr. Donsow followed on the same aide, urging the inadmis-
sibility of the allegations, on the same grounds as were stated by
Dr. Jenner. _ .

Dr. LusitirroTog, in reply, contended that the delay which
had taken place in this suit, was fully accounted for, and could not
be construed Into an acquiescence in the adultery. Lady Amiens
was supported entirely by her father, from the elopement of Lord
Amiens until recently, when the father of Lord Amiens became
Lord Aldborough. since which he bad contributed to the support of
Lady Amiens. In fact, until within a very short time, Lord
Amiens was in such a condition, that there was nn chance either of
alimony or costs; and this circumstance, together a ith that of
the residence of the parties—Lord Amiens residing in England,
and Lady Amiens in Ireland—sufficiently accounted for the delay
which had taken place. With respect to the objection on the
grounds of informality in the pleading on the marriage, he had no
objection to consent to alter the libel in the manner proposed by
the other side. _ _ .

The CouRT was of opinion that the registry of the marriage
was informally pleaded. It should have been pleaded that the'entry
was made in the register according to the law of Scotland, and the
libel must be reformed in this particular before it could be
admitted. _ _ .

The business of the Arches Court having been disposed of the
business ofthe Prerogative Court was entered upon, and the Court
occupied the greater part of the day in hearing the allegations and
exhibits read in the case of Rose v. Fountayne, the particulars of
which we shall lay before our readers when the case comes on
for argument.