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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 23, 1652.

learned gentleman that this bill, so far from giving satis-
faction, would excite disaffection and dismay, if not dis-
turbances in the most industrious and prosperous part of
Ireland. (Oh.)
Mr. GEORGE approved of the bill, and believed it
would give satisfaction to all honest and right-thinking
men.

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 marriacre 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 lz.ing 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 niensa et thoro. Against
this decision the appeal now came before their lordships.
At the conclusion of the argument, their lordships
postponed judgment.

Mr. KIRK thanked the right hon. gentleman for the
tone and temper of his observations, but regretted that he
had not grappled with the question of tenant right. It
should be recollected that the occupiers in the north of
Ireland were the sole improvers of the land, and built the
gaols, the workhouses, and made the roads. Notwithstand-
ing all this the landlords had refused them any abatement,
until in desperation, when refused justice by the landlord,
they shot the agent. He was sorry to add that then what
had been refused to justice was conceded to terror, and
abatements were sure to follow in the vicinity of a murder.
Every one must deprecate such a state of things, and he be-
lieved that the only remedy was a legislative provision.
Mr. P. URQUHART approved of some of the bills, but
agreed with the hon. and learned member for Kilkenny as
regarded the last bill. He had little faith in any measure
that did not provide full and fair compensation for tenants'
improvements.
Lord NAAS denied that the bill of his right hon. and
learned friend was a copy of Lord Stanley's bill, with the
exception that both bills were intended to give compensa-
tion for improvements. In machinery and details the bills
were totally different. The bill of Lord Stanley provided
intricate machinery for ascertaining the value of improve-
ments, and left an opening for protracted litigation. In the
present bill all these inconveniences were avoided. He was
not surprised that gentlemen opposite could not find any
recognition of tenant right in the bill. He believed that
every attempt to give legislative recognition to tenant right
would be a failure. It varied upon different estates and in
different parishes, and was, be believed, quite unmanageable
in an act of Parliament. He thanked the house for the feel-
ing with which they had received his right hon. and learned
friend's bills. _

Leave was then given to bring in the bills.
The house adjourned at half-past nine.

SOUTHIVARg.--PUBLIO, DINNER TO JOHN

BRADY, ESQ., M.P

A very numerous and highly respectable assembly met
on Wednesday evening in the Borough of Southwark, to
express their feelings of esteem and respect for John
Brady, Esq., M.P. for the county of Leitrim. Apsley
Pellatt, Esq., M.P., very ably presided over the festivi-
ties of the evening. 'After the usual loyal toasts, the
CHAIRMAN rose to propose the toast of the evening—
" The health of the guest whom they had assembled to
honour." He called the attention of the company in
very complimentary terms to the many claims which
their guest, Mr. Brady, had on the esteem and affection
of th6peo/ile of the Borough, where he had in his private
and professional capacity earned for himself the respect
of all good men,—the poor followed him With blessings,
and the rich valued him for his straightforward and
honourable conduct. The reception of the toast was
most enthusiastic.

QUEEN'S BENCH.--Nov. 22.
ACHILLI V. NEWMAN.
(Continued from our Third Edition of yesterday.)

Sir Alexander Cockburn then moved for a rule to shim
cause why a new trial should not be granted in this ca'e
on the ground of misdirection, of the verdict being
against evidence, and of the exclusion of evidence.

-The Attorney-General said he thought his learned
friend was out of order in moving for a new trial now.
Such an application ought to have been made within the
first four days of term.
_ _

Lord Campbell said that it was never too late for jus-
tice to be done. In the present case the Court would
overrule the objection, but it was most desirable to main-
tain the rules of Court, and all applications in future
must be made within the usual time.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

SOIITHWARK.—In the course .of the day Mr.
Phillips, the patentee of the fire annihilator, waited upon
Mr. A'Beckett for the purpose of soliciting his advice
under the following circumstances :
The applicant said that within the last few days he
had received information that the company formed for
the manufacture of the fire annihilators had premises in
Great Suffolk-street, in the immediate vicinity of this
court ; that the ingredients, which were of a highly in-
flammable nature, were permitted to lie about in so
negligent a manner, that danger was to be apprehended
of an explosion, if great care was not taken. Acting
upon the information he had received, he called at the
manufactory that day, with the view of inspecting the
place where the materials were deposited, and pointing
out to the person in charge the necessity for the utmost
caution to be observed, especially in such a crowded
thoroughfare. He, however, was refused admission, and
had therefore determined on calling at this court, in order
to acquaint his worship of the circumstance, and to
ascertain if proceedings could not be adopted to prevent
any casualty that might arise from carrying on such a
dangerous process in so populous a neighbourhood.
In reply to Mr. A'Beckett, the applicant said that he
had reason to believe the man in charge of the place of
which he complained was totally ignorant of the chemi-
cal nature of the materials used in the manufacture of
the fire annihilator, and that therefore he would not be
expected to use that degree of caution which it was so
necessary to observe.
Mr. A'Beckett sent Sergeant Baker to request the
foreman of the manufactory to attend, and on presenting
himself, in reply to the questions put to him by the ma-
gistrate, he said he was foreman at the place in Suffolk-
street belonging to the company; that he did not under-
stand the chemical properties of the fire annihilator, buf
that he was aware of their explosive nature in the event
of any fire coming in contact with them in the course of
manufacture.

Mr. Phillips repeated, in the hearing of the foreman,
the great caution necessary to be observed where any
portion of the manufacture of the ingredients composing
the fire annihilator were carried on, and
Mr. A'Beckett pointed out the heavy responsibility on
the foreman in the event of any accident arising after
the caution he had received.

The applicant having thanked the magistrate, then
withdrew.

RAILWAY INTELLIC'ENCE.

MONMOUTHSHIRE.

The half-yearly meeting of this company was held on
Wednesday at Newport, Mr. T. W. Booker, M.P., in
the chair.