The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-10 00:00:00

operesion.s4 May, ...me over.reachtag
datum when she expense of this board and lodging was incurred.
X the ender had be-o made previous to the commencement of this
netirsesdeere could have been no doubt. The husband hail paid
the alimony ordered by the Spiritual Court ; and if the Court
shoell not allow this to be • bar to the present action, then the
hutted would be Fable for two alimonies at the same time.
Whammy gave the ware crocus when she was living separate from
her hatband put himself in her place; he could have no claim be-
yond Vim atm bad. The Learned Counsel cited the opinion of
Lord • itaaslield in the ease of Ozattl r. Damforth, 1 Seiwyo's
279. as being in point. There his Lordship laid
it Wawa "se deer and decided law that when a husband
nod. mils live together the husbend is answerable for all such
swareories wherewith the wife May hese been furnished t bot
that Whit are, or whit are not ne;estaries.„ mu,r depend
. an. sha mink and situation of the husband that when they
Vste, the person who gives credit to the wile is to be con.
situated in her piste, inasmuch as the husband is bound
swomintato her, and the•spiritual court, er • court of equity, will
• semeget him to grant her an ailegnitte alimony. lint if she elope
°DOaher hosbaint and live in adultery, or if upon separation the
lotabsod agrees to make her • sufficient allowan,:e. and pays
Sp Su either of time eases the husband is not bound." From the Bth
of ',lay, the return of the first process, the wife in this use was en-
• oiled to call for alimony, and if she did not it was her own fault.
Ora them fasts he contended, on the authority of Lord Mansfield's
4firpinien, that the husband was not liable for her board.
The LORD Cate.? Jurrick—Suppose she had never applied
far the alimony, bow then P
• Mr. TYNDAL—Why, then it would not have been Nit!, and
we should have been liable.
Mv. Joshes HoLnoYn—Can the wife, by any subsequent act
of her own, defeat a contract which was at one time good ?
Me. rowhat.—That is the very point to be determined.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—Are we to take it an matter in evidence,
Mat if the wife had applied to the Court for maintenance, that the
sneer would ha we been made as matter of course?.
fir. TRIIDAL—I sm iolltrueted to say so, my Lord. I did
. net hold the brief at the trial, but 1 understood it was in evi-
dent-et.
Xi'. Justice Bari-or—He did not supply her with mowey, that
Is these, and therefore the question is, whether, if she had gone to
Os Spiritual Court, she would have hadi alimony.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
GRLFYITII o. IRONMONGER AND OTMERS.
This action was tried before the Lord Chief Justice at the last
Podford Assizes, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, with 1004
danisges
The defendant' are stage-masters. the plaintiff was an outside
eesse;iger on ore of their roaches, and had contracted with them
PO be set dawn *Olin a short distance of Sr. Need's. When he
got to the place, he told the coachman to pull tsp. The coachman
did not attend to hiuj, and he then made an attempt to get down,
holding by 'tie coach for some time while he stood on the iron step.
Still the coachman did not stop, and he was ultimately thrown
swell and much bruised.
.‘izt. Sergeant Float now moved the Court to set aside the m-
ein-end grant a new trial, on the ground that the coachman had
not sufficient notice of the intention of the plaintiff to get down.
Vont from the great rapidity with which the coach was travelling
(a:ne or ten roles an hour), and the indistinct intimation that was
given, the coachman had never heard hint.
The Judge's notes being read, and disclosing the feats as stated
awes. left no doubt that the coachman could not be ignorant of
els with of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had not scud wilfully and
without due caution.
The LOUD CRIER JU3TICY.-1 steno ground to disturb the
vertict.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Before I heard the votes of my Lord
Chief Justice, I was inclined to think the vsrdict wrong. It op-
pears from them that the passenger did wet get down immediately,
but put his foot upon the step and there remained for • minute, till
be Geoid bold no longer. He did not wilfully get down, but was
Mimeo down. I ant therefore of opinion, that the injury was not
done fly the wilfulness of the plaintiff, but by the negligence of the
ccachman, sod think that the verdict must nand.
tbe other Judges concuned, and the application fora new trial
sat relined.
COUftT OF COMMON PLEAS, Wroxesnay, Nov. 9.
In Banco.

This being Lord Itayoituday the Judges apresred in Court in
• full dress, and the Learned Sergeants were their blue gowns.

WALII&, CLEIIII, V. DIDOWAT.
Whit was an action brought by the reverend plaintiff against the
derandest for not setting out his tithe', and was tried before Mr.
Junk) Ilurreugh at the late Assizes for the county of Hereford,
whet the Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant IVYGDE now moved for a rule, calling upon the
Attendant to show cwie why the verdict should not be set aside and
• MrD trial had. upon the ground that the verdict was against the
evidence, and contrary to the direction of the I.eerned Judge. It
a ed that up to the year preceding that which was complained
af, the father of the defendant had occupied the farm in question,
bad been under composition for the tithes to which the
ph ntiff was entitled. The agreement for that composition
wall determined, and the tithe were set out by the farmer
ill the succeeding year in the customary manner. ID the
Porenr year notice alas given by the present defendant to the
plaintiff, that his people were about to reap the corn, and the
tultingman accordingly attended, en behalf of the clergyman, to
receive the tithe, but when he go, to the fields' the weather being
atonnv, the defendant declined to reap. and a future day wan ap-
tototed. But won after the tithmeman had left the field, the
: "Nombee Cheered up, and the defendant's men immediately began to
, pithead stereeirlatt or giving him notice to attend, and they
toga out the tithe in a manner contrary to all precedent,
, Aplomb as it was Impassible any ellat,lTU could sanction. Their
...endefof &Erg it w tots—the binder followed the reaper, w ho see
.7.olmtpheaves up into stocks or shocks as they were called ; which
• Milliabhconsimed of no particular number of sheaves, but were al.
iddoehae ir.egulaely formed, wine containing nix. others seven,
tpigltt,adpaw being regulated by no certain rule, but
rely aadder.t, or the discretion of the binder,
who this, eat a aback for the panne' ; so that there was no
monde by whirl, do r could ascertain whether lie had his
pamper tithe, galas. , be took an extraordinary degree of
vouhie, which meld by no means be required or expected of any
ginitlemsn to do.
Lord Chief Justice ligsv thought that quite sufficient had been
leased In induce them to grant the rule applied for.
Justice Bnahnuon—l tried alt I could to otitath a ver-

.1 shies for the plaintsa:7u; Tt..l,pe:,;(;);e ti;rnolitgrOssatte7r; I
• 4ner heard of to imp se upon the parson, but I could not received.
it quite dear the there was no mode by which the plairniff could
1041. whether he bad his full and proper tithe CIT not. Nu fraud.
. learever. was imputed by the plaintiff to the defendant ; he said
thaqhmurh of the trial. ae he could not speak to the fact ; but the
extraordinary mode of lotting out the tithe was the ground of ac-
me, and which was in oval respect most objectionable.
Rule granted.
MAVOR. AISLOMEIL or w. B. PYWE. a J. DYNE.
Tith wan an action for goods sold and delivered by the bankrupt
• to fist defendant. and wu tried before the Lewd Chief Justice et

tbe.dete sitting' ac Guildhall, when a vadiet was found for the
esahnif.
• .111 r. Sergeant VAIISMAN now moved for a rule, calling on the
.plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside. and
g consult entered, or a new trial had. The defendant had pleaded
.and the general lure, and secondly, a release from all actions ex-
• issuscd since the debt arose: to which the Plaintiff replied, that
/afore the exectuion of the release by Mr. W. H. Pyne. that gen-
. Menem had (dimwitted an act of bankruptcy, to which the &fetid-
or.aed agobied, that the bwkrupt had not, at the time of the exeeu-
.lismit the rzlanse, committed such net. and it was upon that qua-
Asa Arm case went to the Jury. But as the replication did not state
~aiatthe defendant knew of his brother having committed an act of
IsuNeopery previous to the execution of the release, and inasmuch
, easila commission did not issue Inc more than two years after the •
.*Urged act upon which it was grounded was supposed to have been
• segnek • the learned Sergeant contended, the plaintiff' ought not
• ailthewe had a verdict, and that his object would be to deprive him
of it, won obslaats vivediclo.
Lord Chief Justice Baer said the question, as it appeared to
fas at the tr;al, was, whether at the time of ,he execution of there.

1•
=de pr.rty was or was note bankrupt. It was insisted by the
fotterei to the defendant that he might to have gone fur.
ear, and inquired whether at the time the refute executed the
• 4sillmaisnt, to whom the release was made. know of the insolvency
of his brother, but it occurred to him that he could not go him
is t{r istrestion. What be understood his foamed timther now to
'Re/ was this—that the plaintiff's replication ought to have atated
sas‘aixoly that the person giving the release had become bank-
sir previous to its execution, but that the defendant knew that
_ .

Mr. fterp.ent VAIIGBAX thought that would have been formerly
aka mode of pleading it, but as the replication was under a
endgame it was not riecessary for him to do so, .ts it became a qua_
yea of widener. His argument was, that as them/ of bankruptcy
(supposing it he proved) was never followed up by • commission
Imo years ar•erwteds, the release would still haveeffect.
. Ni. Justice (JASNLEE mid that question could not arise upon
-.clop pleaditiga, for the issue to he tried was, whether before
Ilds7W. H. Yyne became a bankrupt he lywl released ? The repti-
.-eadoa alleged the release to have hen gteen after the act of bank.
aslopiey. which the defendant by his rererrider negatived, and maid
teleliegh.am precisely la so many words) that it was before that act
had been committed ; therefore the. question as to the eKet or the
sekteitnimkin not iestidng till two years afterwards could not be in.
• glared bun upon this issue.
bows theme Jtierres said It was itnpossible for the de.
• dalsdasit souks atkeasitsg• of the release, for when upon the trial it
-1111111111taiad tee trawslinialtivem at a well known roffee.bouse, within
she rules of the Fleet Prison he called up the h mkrapt, And asked
disasstieeter his Ismelter know of being a prisoner iii the Fleet.
• la which ho replied, that his brother did know of it, and alto kbaw
• Mat be was insolvent at the time.
• , Mfr. Beegsent VslsldtsAts bid* as rhaCnort seemed to entertain
*Mr. asilithialvsta to shimstaloa Mask, he
-"mold bow llshusf alb ams.aisd aisast saaaashsr.graist... This
was au action to mover the prim of mitaip natribrs of a wosk

4-.fflatory of Royal. meek" It was a work of
presaiddria. and the priputut contained a Icing li:A
'citing matter, which it was interaed to furnish to
.. was. to. be illustrated with.very fine engravings of
Pa Values, and it professed to give faithful annals of
_ahabits of their illustrious inmate... The work was- to
published it `4 numbers -at the rate of one number in each
o that -it would require four years before the
caruploted. Ile stated this with • view ao call the
attention of their as to how far this wasor was-not a son.
tract within the Statute of Frauds, which required di contracts not
to be executed within a year to be reduced to rtitiug, but which
no evidence was given at the trial. It was true, unierd, the plain.
tiff had taken a verdict for eight numbers only, which, it Uppestod,
ware all that the defendant hail received; yet still he submitted
r that the plaintiff could not recover fur .any of those Lumbers, be.
4/112/4 they formed parts of one integral work.
The LOIID Cu J it: lc said, that at the trial he had put
the question, as he thought, in a very clear and atalie_sarue time
correct shape. A contracted with B for Itti ott mere of corn, and
after B had delivered ten ou.t-teu, A said lie would hue no more;
could not It recover for the ten.quarters ?
Mr. Sergeant VA COHAN said, that Was not a parallel Pan with
his; for the defendant never told the bankrupt that he would 004
have any more numbers delivered to him.
The Loon Cisme JUSTICE read his notes of the bankrupt's
evidence, who stated that he met his brother and made seine strong
tedmpatations to @in on his not Imviug paid for the numbers be had
swesiesi, wben the defendant replied- that-be 'admit got, the whole
of the numbers, to which the brikrupt anstraed that lie might hams
bad them if he pleased; they were at his publisher.'; and that It
was not • part of their terms to deliver them.
Mr. Sergeant VALI/114N still contended that this-was a contract
for one entire work, and that the. plaintiff could nut maintain his
action until he bad performed die whole of hisaintract„ by the de-
livery of all the numbers. In the case of Boyden v. Drummond,
it was part of the contract that the numbers 'Mould be paid for on
delivery, but in the present cue no such provision was made. The
principle, however, fur which be was contending was recognised
by that case.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said, the point decided in the cue
of Boyden e. Drummond was, ,that the plaintiff could not go for
undelivered numbers. But Lord tfienhorough had put the ques-
tion meet strongly against that for which his Learned Scuilter
Vaughan now contended.
Mr. Justice GASELZE said there was • wide distinction between
that ease and the present ; fur there the subscribers were always in
advance, therefore it was neccuary to have a special contract: but
where a person advertised, as by the prospectus in the proseot in-
stance, each number at a guinea, did it not, ex vi termini, mean
that each number should be paid for on delivery ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—If ever then should sue you
I again, Brother Vaughan, for the remaining numbers, then you will
have a case under Boydell v. Drummond.
Mr. Sergeant Vavo rt a—Suppose a man /meted into a build.
ling contract to build a house, to consist of three stories. at a certain
price for each story; still he submitted that until the builder had
fully completed his contract he could not maintain his action, al-
though he might have finished one or two of the stories. So was it
with respect to these heavy library works. Besides. it was quite
clear this was meant to be an entire work, from the fact that the
prints which were put into one number were to have their letter.
press description in a subsequent number.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, one of the iondidons can.
Mined in the prospectus was, that the work should he published in
24 numbers—not for 24 guineas, but at one guinea each number.
And he felt that if the Court were to sanction the doctrine con.
tended for, they would be doing incalculable injury to the
public. Some of the most valuable works that ware ever pro-
duced had been published is numbers, and they were of • ve-
nire that weld not be otherwise published: Binh a work, for
instance, as the Encyclopedia Dritannica would have required
capital that no individual could have commanded for publishing h
entire before receiving any return.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN said, if their Lordships thought that
the fair construction of the prospectus was, that though it wa. not
expressed, yet that it was to be implied the inindurs were to be
paid for as delivered, then he admitted there was no wound for lila
argument.
The LORD Cum, JUSTICE expressed his opinion that such
was the construction to be put upon it.
Mr. Justice GAZELEC observed there was this distinction be-
tween the works that were published in numbers and those which
were published by subscription. Fur works of the latter kind the
subscribers generally paid money in advance, and the publisher
undertook to deliver the work as it came out: but with respect to
those published in numbers, there was no engagement made for
going on with the work ; but persons went into die 'shop, received a
number, and paid for it, and nu inquiries were made as to whether
he was a eubscriber or not.
Their LORDSHIPS then consulted together upon an objection
raised, as to the validity of the petitioning creditor's debt, which
they did not consider to be a valid objection, and deiivevcd their
opinions seriatim, that the verdict was right, and ought nut lo be
disturbed.
Rule refused.

4111111 f V. GODBOLD ♦ND .41107'HZ11.

Oo Tuesday Dlr. Sergeant Bosanquct moved for a rule for e
new trial in this cause, which was refused. The Learned Sergeant
now addressed the Lord Chief Justice, who tried the cause, and
said he had been told that his Lordship had reserved a question for
the consideration of the Court, at the request of the defendants, and
he therefore wished to know whether his Lordship had looked at
his notes, to see if suet) was the fact.
The Loan Cumic JUSTICE said be had looked at his notes,
and he certainly had not reserved any question for the consideration
of the Court. He was surprised that this application should be
made. Here were two gentlemen who had naarle large aunts of
money by this medicine, receiving VAL of their Again's looney
upon a speculation which turned out to be bad. and whu now, upon
upon being asked to pay back that money, in pursuance of their
own contract, refused to do so, and raised this paltry objection in
order teat they 'night still keep it in their own pocket. It was
most disreputable !

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, WEDNZSDAY, Noe. 9.
The LORD CHIET BARON and the other Judges took their
seats at a little past two o'clock. After lonic motion% of course,
that occupied a few minutes, the Lord blayor elect; the his Lord
Mayor, the Sheritilt. &c. &c. entered the Court. The Ileourder
then made the annual speech, in which he iii*hly etilogiard the
conduct of the Late Lord Mayor throughout his Mayoralty, and
augured the same from his successor, judging from all they had
seen of his public life.
The other customary business was then gone through, such as
swearing in the new [,ord Mayor, inviting the Judges to dinner,
passing the Shetiffs' accounts, sod other matters (a:ally umoterest-
tag to the reader.

CONSISTORY COURT, WEDNESDAY. Nov. 9.

Dc fore SIT Cu narropueft ROBMSON.
CORD LISMOIE v. LADY 1.1111.110 RY...

This was a suit praying u divorce by reason of adultery commit-
ted by Lady Limon with the Mon. Mr. Richard Bingham, second
son of the Earl of Beautor►
The libel exhibited contains eighteen articles, the lint two of
which plead the marriage of Lord-Um-tom to Lady Eleanor Butler,
daughter of the late Earl of Ornionde ; and the remaining articles,
with the exception of the 14th, plead various specific Lets ut adul-
tery committed between theparties, at Home, at N.iplec, at Paris,
and at Aberdeen, during a period extending trim 1818 to
1824. The 14th article pleads an admission of her criminality
made by Lady Limon, at the house of ties brother, the present
Earl of Ormonde, to Mr. Butler, in the spring 0t.1.c.t year.
It appeared from the depositiocts, that the parties having sepa-
rated is the year 18111, Lady Liamore went to Lausanne,. in Swit-
zerland, and subsequently went to Home, when she became as
with the Hon. Richard Bingham, second soil of the Earl
of Laren, with whom she commenced an adulterous. intercourse,
and went with hint to Naples. Several witnesses deposed to the
familiarity which bad taken place theta between the ponies. 10
such a manta was this intenrou•se carried on, that it became note.
rinds to all the domestics of her house ; and _Ursa Paton, a over-
nem residing with her, bad even felt it incessant to remonstrate with
her, and threatened her Ladyship, that it *hi did not dimootinue
all intercourse with Mr. Bmgharo, she could not remain.. Mr.
Bambini continued to visit her Ladyship on the mare familiar
uvula, sod Alias Patois fell it necesititry to leave her. Lady Lis_
more roomed to Lattemoe, and afterwards proceeded with her
retinue to Naples; on the road thither she wits joined Fy Mr. Bing-
ham. On one occasion u was fully proved, by a servant named
Davis, who had guile into her Ladyship's bed-room, that she saw
her in the mine bed with Mr. Bingham. Lady. Listnore went teem
Naples to Paris, where she resided with her brother tor a abort
titan, and soon after set off for Florence, Iseiag j.itsiod on her way
there by Mr. Bingham, with whom she lived sat.sequemly as his
wire.

The Learned Advocate having concluded his depositions, stated
that Lord Idim:el, having become seutiailited with th.s adulterous
iotervourse in the year 1624, took Me usual stens to commence an
action the damages and he submitted to the Court, that. the mar-
siege being admitted, and the tarts of adultery fully proved, his
Lordship was entitled to the remedy he *ought.
D. Alert ova, for Lady Lisnore,conunenttd on the evidence,
and contended at cousiderable length that the evidence adduced in
support of the case rota not entitled to that ezetlit which wad ne-
cessary in a case of thia kind • and that a wultn.iun, *kick was
alleged to be made by Lady Linton, to the Idea. Me. Bader, was
not of that positive nature to support the charge. Ha ,expressimis
to him, he (Dr. A.) thought amounted only to an acknowledge-
ment she had been guilty of thoughtless and foolish conduct. but
nothing like crime. The whole of the evidence was full of such
improbable statements, that it was impossible it could be credited.
Hut oven if the teem stated were true, Lord L., by his own con-
duct, in separating him self from lits wife, bad debaraisl himself
from the rnowly he sought for. The state of Lesiy LA health
was sock es to oblige her to have recourse to the benefit of a
southern chute. Lord L. was at hat averse to allow her p, hot
having, after a considerable time bad clamed, entwined to go ..with
her, they came to lawidoe for that purpose; but. Lord Vonore
again delayed their departure. Lord Lisoloic sent heck to -Irti-
hind, and he submsimeotly came over to tuilil hid lovelier of ,going
to the Pontliamt. He went as far ea ltatuagate, silvery hosing left
his /duly in lodgings, he left her, to return no more to her. Tide
extraordinary conduct was no doubt icriuneng to It to lady. in
a delicate state of. heakh, but it wag followed up gbf declarotoo
from his Iderthibig, that it alto was determined tap, she Must
go alone." The articles for a separa•ion sere then entered into;
agtl her Ladyship was Allowed br him tp go, *jape to roman
amongst the licentious capitals 'of IL: Coe t:aent, witlicut his

:IF
*Ma hand todgiss Si the defeadasea wife, there was con:4l=ne's--tai
• 367. arm waved .1a set uide the verdict, and alder a of highly in
'mime it oath thabab• booed and :axing bad bees furnished the public. It was.
lawarids tha months of July and Noyenthes, la the year lade: aU the Royal Rolm
. !hat . ist-sis• preeedieg Maya the defendain'a wife had instituted the domestic hakits o
, aanwswilierl hi the Kpiritual Courts far a divorce. On the ild of be published in 24 of
Noterrallaw the tipintual Courts had ordered the husband to alternate month; so
ying edaraway Iv-skate fire. This order had a estrouVeclive work could be comp!
ireuscen. and ecru:died back to the Rth ot May. thus over-reaching attention of their Lot
thus