The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Nov. 22.
APPEALS-GIELS V. DICKENSON.

This was an appeal from the Scotch courts, and
involved the question whether a wife who has ob-
tained a divorce a mensa et thoro in the Ecclesiastical
Courts in England can obtain a divorce a vinculo
matrimonii in the Scotch courts. The appellant is Mr.
J. E. Giels, the son of Colonel Giels, who was the
proprietor of an estate called Dumbuck, in Dumbarton-
shire. He was born in 1813, and in 1834, being then
about 21 years old, obtained a commission in the 4th
Light Dragoons, joined his regiment in India, and re-
turned to England in 1837, when he passed some time
at his father's house in Dumbartonshire. In June, 1838,
being in England, he became acquainted with Miss
Dickenson, a lady of large fortune, about 18 years of
age, and a ward in Chancery, and in October of that year
he married her, at Shinfield, in Berkshire, where her pro-
perty was situated. After the marriage they had no settled
residence, but lived in a furnished house, and went on a
visit to Colonel Giels, in Scotland. In Feb., 1843, by the
death of his father, Mr. Giels, the appellant, succeeded
to the estate of Dumbuck, in Dumbartonshire. In
September, 1845, the parties being then in England,
Mrs. Giels separated from her husband and insisted on a
divorce. In October, 1845, the husband instituted a
suit in the Ecclesiastical Courts in England for a restitu-
tion of conjugal rights. By the modern practice of the
Consistorial Court, if a wife resists such a suit on the
ground of adultery or cruelty, she does not institute a
cross suit, but puts in a responsive allegation, which
concludes with a prayer for separation a mensa et thoro;
and this throws the initiative and the onus of evidence
on her. This was done by Mrs. Giels, and a final decree
was pronounced by the Arches Court for a separation a
mensa et thoro in April, 1848. In May, 1849, Mrs.
Giels, the present respondent, brought an action in the
Court of Session in Scotland for a divorce a vinculo matri-
monii. Mr. Giels, her husband, the defender in that
suit, put in several pleas, of which the two first were
now in question—viz., "that the pursuer, his wife, was
a native of England, and that the marriage was con-
tracted and solemnised in England, and, therefore, that
the Scotch courts had no jurisdiction or power to dissolve
the marriage ;" and, secondly, "that the pursuer had in-
stituted a suit against him (the defender) in the Arches
Court in England, and that a sentence of separation a
mensa et thoro had been decreed by that court, which
was a bar to the action." In November, 1849, the Lord
Ordinary, by an interlocutor (which was not in the pre-
sent appeal), repelled the first defence as to the jurisdic-
tion of the court, and reserved the second defence. On
appeal to the Inner House that judgment was confirmed
in December, 1849, and the cause was remitted to the
court below to proceed on the second plea. In July,
1850, the Lord Ordinary repelled the second plea by his
interlocutor, and on an appeal to the Inner House his
judgment was confirmed—thus establishing the right of
the wife to proceed in the Scotch courts for a divorce,
notwithstanding the sentence of the English Ecclesiasti-
cal Court for a separation, a mensa et thoro. Against
this decision the appeal now came before their lordships.
At the conclusion of the argument, their lordships
postponed judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—Nov. 22.
HARRIS V. THOMPSON—SLANDER.
This was an action of slander, and was tried before
the Chief Justice at the sittings in Middlesex after last
term, when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for
1501. Early in the, present term, however, a rule was
obtained to enter a verdict for the defendant, or for a
new trial, and to-day this rule came on for argument.
The facts out of which the action arose were these :
The plaintiff was formerly secretary to the Brewers and
Distillers' Insurance Company, and also auditor of the
London Necropolis Company, and the defendant was a
director of each of these companies. The plaintiff had
some charges preferred against hinvas secretary to the
insurance company, and was dismissed, and subsequently
the defendant brought this circumstanee before the
Necropolis directors in the plaintiff's absence, and stated
that he had been dismissed from the secretaryship for
• obtaining money under felse pretences from the solici-
r tors to take up a bill of his own, and for giving an
I 0 U of his own for a petty cash debt due from the
company. The defendant on this occasion proposed that
the plaintiff should be dismissed from the office of audi-
r tor, but upon the suggestion of the chairman it was re-
solved that the matter should be investigated, and that
the plaintiff should have notice of the meeting for that
purpose. The consequence was that the plaintiff at-
tended with his solicitor, but the defendant declined to
make any statement in the presence of the solicitor,
and upon that gentleman offering to withdraw he also
declined to make his charges in the presence of the plain-
tiff himself. At the trial his lordship was of opinion
that the communication made by the defendant to the
Necropolis directors was privileged ; and he left it to
the jury to say whether the defendant had acted malici-
ously, and they were of opinion that he had so acted.
The principal point now for the consideration of the
Court was, whether there was any evidence of malice,
which was left to the jury.
The Chief Justice said he was of opinion that he was
wrong in leaving this case to the jury • and that he ought
to have withdrawn it from their consideration, upon the
ground that there was no evidence of express malice for
their consideration.
Rule absolute accordingly.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
CONSPIRACY.—. W. Jarrett and H. Keen, surrendered
to take their trial upon an indictment for a conspiracy
to defraud.
The prosecutor of this indictment was Mr. Pinnock, a
flour and corn factor, carrying on his business in the
Harrow-road, and also at the Corn Exchange, and from
his evidence, and that of the other witnesses in the case,
it appeared that he had been made the victim of a very
ingenious and deliberate system of fraud, practised upon
him by the defendants. It appeared that in July Keen
called upon the prosecutor at the Corn Exchange, and
intimated that he was in a position to recommend him
some very good customers. The prosecutor had known
him about two years before, at which time he was in the
service of a respectable firm, and, entertaining no suspi-
cion, he agreed to accept of customers he might re-
commend, but at the same time told him to take care
not to introduce him any but good ones. Instead of
doing this, however, all his customers, of whom Jarrett
was one, were men of straw, who conspired with Keen
to cheat the prosecutor, which they succeeded in doing
to a serious extent.
The jury without hesitation returned 4 verdict of
guilty against both defendants.
The defendants were then sentenced to be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for eighteen months.