The National Register.
London, England, 1815-04-16 00:00:00

!P. 54

was an established I..ct that marriage and the birth of a child re-
eked a will. This doctrine had been established ever since the
rase of Doe v. Lancliester. He was well aware that this case went
a step farther, since here the will was made after marriage; but at
the time at the Testator's death lie himself and his wife were igno-
rant of her pregnancy ; aid, therefore, he subiritted that the truth,
tinder such circumstances, imposed such a new duty on the Testator
as, bud he been living, would have revoked his *ill, had it been made
before marriage, and ought to do so in the present ca-e.
Lord rllenborongli asked, how did it appear that the wife was ig•
morant at the time • flier husband's death, of being wills child ?
Mr. Serjcant Blossett said, that appeared from her own evidence
on the trial.
Lord Ellenborongh thought so; no other person could Lave
proved it. Ite oeilitted the expediency of the doctrine contemled
for by the Lein Deal Ser•leant.' He thought if it was established as:
law that every new moral duty which might by chance be imposed
an a testator was to invalidate his A 4 ill, it would be a law pregnant
with evil. If such 'tact+ Me were established, it might be contended•
that the birth of a 7di or Oth child had a similar t fleet, and it was
impossible to say where the doctrine worth! at .p.
Mr. Justice Bailey said, the 'testator might have entertained
suspicions, and probably not unfounded, that the children of the
marriage would not he his own.
Lord Elleitiorongli said, Ire remembered the ease of a common
sailor having made a will in favour of a vulgar, common woman,•
with► whom he cohabited. He afterwards went abroad, married a
woman at cousideration atid•property there, died without making a•
will. and the result was, that this °amnion Woman, with her will,
carried ott• from the widow and her fatuity 'the joititlyittonieed pro-
perty of the marriage. This was the law•down to the time of the
decision in the case of -Doe and Latteliester, hyleiliieti it was •esta-
blished that the marikur and the birth of a child sevolvell'a will.
His Lot dship Could not think df extending thisllole to thepreaent
ewe.

Under all the
grant the Ride.

I of Alm cose,the Court refinish to

SATURDAY.
THE RING V. GOVILDR,,EgQ.
The Defendant in this case who was a Commissioner of Assessed
Taxes, at Coventry, WRA convicted before Mr. Jittice Dailey, of a
conspiracy nit', Price, a Collector to deli and fivelieveral per-
lions residing at Coventry, of .fl 4. by charging thew with a larger
Plllll than their A.:set:4rd Taxes anionitted to.
. .

Mr. Serjeantllan now applied for a new trial on the gronndm
that the evidence adduced at the trial did not' go tio far as to prove
the participation in fraud on the part Of the riefendvit. The
Leartic.l Serjeaut slibinitted that a book had been read in evi-
dence which waif' ii;a(liniAs4l)le.

Mr. Justice Wiley stated the fact• AC the case, and observed.
that with 'egret to the book to which the Leitrned Serjeant had
elbided, it certainly was not admissible evidence. Extracts from it
had been submitted to the Court and Jury before it was clearly as-
certained what was the nature of it. In his charge to the Jury, he
cautioned them to lay the book and its contents, as far as they had
beard them, entirely out of their consideration. Whether they had
done so or not he was unable to say ; but lie klt bound to state, that
they had come to a verdict contrary to what he thought the evi-
dence warranted.

The Court, on this statement, granted the Rule Nisi.
The Attorney General said, in an ordinal). case it would now have
been his duty to move the inlatit's commitment till the Rule
just grantel by the Court was disposed af. Atter what had fallen
from one of their Lordships. however, which conveyed an intima-
tion that the Defendant had been convicted on inadmissible evi-
dence, he should certainly consent to the Defendant going at large;
and he would further state, that at the earliest opportunity be
would consult those gentlemen with wlsom he acted, and determine
whether the Defendant should have any fiirther trouble on the sub.
ject of this Rnle ; lie wonld also commnuicate to the Defendant
what that determination was.

111, Seijeant Van:Jinn, on the part of his client, acknowledged
the handsome treatment of tire Attorney-General towards him.

CONSISTO'RY COURT, DOCTORS COMMONS,
FRIDAY, APRIL 14.
EARL OF ROSF.IIKRY V. COUNTESS OF ROSEBFP.Y.

This was a cause of divorce, or separation, brought by the Right
Hu rable Earl of Rosebery, against Harriet his wife by reason
of adultery alleged to have beep committed with Sir Henry Mild-