The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-06 00:00:00

ABRAHAM AGAINTSVABRAHAM.

Thi•was a, cause o divorce, or separation from
bed, board, and noe ual cOliabitation, promoted-on
the part of Thoma 4 Abraham, the husband, against,
Susannah AbrahaM his wile, by reason of, adultery.
It appeared • in this ease 4,hat,,the marriage
place between the parties at St. Maryls Church, Is-
lington ; that soon after Mr. Abraham had occa--
sion to go to Devonshire, i.e. .during- his absence
Mrs. -Aur,diatti contri,ved -to introduce person as
her uncle into the house, by the fictitious name of
Mr. C. who turned oat to be a person of the name
of Couli hard.

..The ta6ts of adultery being 'clearly established,
the Cpurt pronounced the usual sentence of separa-
tion. -

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, TULSDAY, JULY Se

ASSESSED TAXES.

PARRY V. HORNE, AN,D HANE.INS V. lIANLET.
Thee were several penal 2ctions, brought under
the late Aa,o-f Parliament, instituted
.by the Parish
of St. Luke, Oldstreet, against two of the Coliec-
tors.of Assessed Taxes in the said Park!), for making
an exorbitant and excessive levy upon certain 'inha-
bitants of the said Parish, wherein verdicts of 001.
had
.14ee"n' obtained in 'eacli aEt on.
Mr.WicLEY , on the .part- cf the Defendants, this
day moved the Court ;to compound their'several
ac-
tions, upon paymentofsol. and costs in each. •
Mr. ABBOT, fir the Prosecution, stated, that these
adions were brought by the Parish again4t the De-
fendants as collectors of assessed taxes, for grosi
misconduct in the colleaion of those taxes; bur they
having been since dismissed from office on tint ac-
c.ount, the justice of the case was fully answere I, and
he had inttrOtions to content to th'e present :TO..
cation..

• The Court accordingly granted the Rule.
TILE KING V. CAST -ELL AND POWELL.
A motion was made in this case to have a Writ
Of Extent, faker) out against the Defendants, .fju .died.
Mr. DAuNCEY, ow a I'm-mut- day, and Mr. ;:-.L.Tc;nr,s,
and Mr. CAllti to-oy, avguvd. that the Writ o Ex-
tent was not supported by the affidavit on which it
was granted. -That 7vas made by the
Senior and Managing Clerk of Sir M. W. itidley
and Co. who swore that the Defendants were indebt-
ed to the Crown to the extent ot
Sum, however, the affidavit afterwards s' :wed had
come into the hanis of the Delendams, th ough the
house of Sir Mathew Witte Ridley, for wnom they
acted .as general bankers in town„ without any
knowledge on the part of the Defendants that the
same arose from Government money : For, although
the affidavit bore that the sums in question, atotig
with a variety of other slims, ha. heenpai.l into the,
house of Ridley and Co. in Newca.Ale, by Mr.
Surtees, Receiver-Ueneral tor the County, and .had
by them been transmitted to thelietcrdants, the.
Agents of Ridley and Co.• in London, to be, through
the Bank of England., paid into the receipt of his
Majesty's Excheqder,. it wasno where stated, that it
consisted with the. Defendant's knowledge that this
was. the money of the Crown; or that they accepted
'of it under. the burdens which attached to the hold-
ing,of public money. The.l,sarned Counsel 'quoted
a number of cases to Spew i hat an immediate extent'
Could not he, taken out, unless where it appeared
that the; Defendant was privy to the fact: of the mo-
ney he held, or debt he owed,: being the property of
the Crown.' It was an 'established .point, that the'
Prerogative could not be used as a handle for the 're-
covery of 'a private. debt,. which, it was.. contended,
was the case in the present. institnce.
Mr. SOLICITOR G.F.NERAL CollZellded that it was
the privilege of.th(--Cl'own to follow its-t,vn tponey,
:and to demand restitotion of it from whatever hatick
into
rktol,,viitch. it might' have found its way. It wool&
iculons to suppose, if. the Crown etiipiuyed a
succession-of Messengers to carry its revenue to rite
Exchequer, that„ in the event ot the. money not ul-
timately arriving there,
-it could not apply for redress
against the person who withheld it, cut must go
through all the other persons to whom, in transit:l,
it had been entrusted, before it could recover. I t
was tio answer. to the pre-sent writ of extent to say,
that, because an extent might have been taken out
against Sir M. W. Ridley, and an extent •in aid
thereof against the .Defendants, that therefore an ex-
tent rnigut not at once be taken out against the De-
ftehteu.icairl
iwereHis
Majesty
yh hoe seof t tiled pt roo
ep
xr retr)cricslef
his discretion in • this respea, and the Defendants
would not be prejudged, as they Might
if thebyigit c
tiraaist..l7o3ef
• bring -the case before Jury, whee
the Crown 'could not be made out, their deftnco
wpuld avail them. It would, however, be peculiarly
hard, by giving etfeCtJo the present motion, to pre-
clude the Crown from any inquiry into the right
which it
Court
were asse
ofrted.
uopinion,
that the 2ffilavit was
sufficient to support the-Wtit of Extent granted.v--
The meri's of the case, however, would remain en- •
tire, and it the Plaintiticould not stiew, as-stated in -
the affidavit, that the money
and Co, to tbe;Defend was public money,
sent by Sir M. W. Ridley
' o
ants, to be by them paid, thronkh they
England, into the receipt of his Majesty's Exche..

st.
ar.