The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-26 00:00:00

No. 12,233.

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 26, 1831.

This day was published, price is. 6d.

CONSISTORY COURT.

mdon establishment, I have necessarily required you to
me to this hotel, at which I have lived since your con-
et forced me to breakup my establishment in Gros-

OBSERVATIONS on CHOLERA, the
MODE of TREATMENT, and the means of
PREVENTION.

NEELD V. NEELD.
(Concluded from The Sun of yesterday.) 1'
The next article pleaded, that in consequence, as
well of Mr. Neeld's total desertion of his wife, as of

tenor-square, and where I shall continue to reside during
my Parliamentary stay in London."
" I take this opportuoity to declare, and to impress
upon you, that I shall require from you that duty and
(113'eclience in all things which a wife owes to her husband,
tied which I am determined to enforce.

By T. J. PETTIGREW, F.R S., F.A.S., F.L.S.
Surgeon to the Charing-Cross Hospital, &c.
Printed for S. Highley, 32, Fleet-street, and Webb-
street, Alaze-pond, Borough.

his general treatment of her, reports got abroad to the
prejudice of her character; and that in a psragraph in a
periodical publication called the Satirist, such a re-
port was published, and in four pages of the libel
this paragraph was set fortiL It was a most extra-
ordinary circumstance, in a suit of this kind, that
such a thing should be set forth in a libel, and that
the husband was to be criminated because it was al

ARTIFICIAL TEETH FIXED ON THE PARISIAN
PRINCIPLE, AND FILLING DECAYED TEETH
WITH MINERAL SUCCEDANEUM.

" Your calumnies against me hr,ve imposed upon me the
necessity of withdrawing from that style of living which
otherwise I should have adopted. You must be contented,
therefore, to submit to that quiet and retired situation of
'l;fe to which you have subjected us; and I distinctly ap-
ize you, that if you persist in the extravagant and
vexatious expenditure of money, which (in order to annoy
me) you have lately pursued, I shall insert advertisements
in all the daily and weekly prir.ts, cautioning tradesmen
against trusting you on my credit.
" That you should have adopted the proceedings which
have given rise to the communication is much more dero-
gatory to you than annoying to me. You well know the
.yise and slanderous aspersions you have propagated against
me. If those statements had. been true, it would have
)apen disgraceful in you to have sought further cohabitation
me ; to have done that would have been to aTow
openly that the temptation of a large income would induce
vi,,. to disregard every principle of delicacy and womanly
honour, and to live with a man you ought to despise. The
only other alternative for you is, that your statements are
(as you well knew them to be) absolutely false; and that
you would acknowledge their falsehood, and return to coha-
bitation with your slandered husband. That alternative

iES SRS .J. and M ALLAN, SUR-
v
GEON-DENTISTS, 9,HALF MOON•STREET,
PICCADILLY, grateful for the high and EXTENSIVE
PATRONAGE which has so eminently distinguished their
professional exertions since their arrival in the British Me-
tropolis, beg have to announce to their Friends and the
Public in general, that they still .CONTINUE to RE-
STORE DECAYED TEETH,withtheirCELEBRATED
MINERAL SUCCEDANEUM, so universally recom-
mended by the Faculty of London and Paris. The Ope-
ration is PERFORMED IN A FEW SECONDS, with-
out the SLIGHTEST PAIN, HEAT, or Pressure, and
allays the most EXCRUCIATING PAIN, and lasting
for many years ; they also FASTEN LOOSE TEETH,
WHETHER ARISING from AGE, NEGLECT, or
DISEASE in the GUMS.- INCORRODIBLE MI-
NERAL and NATURAL TEETH, from one to a. COM-
PLETE Set, which are INCAPABLE of DISCO-
LOURATION or CORROSION, and fixed without the
incumbrance of Wires or any other LIGAI URES, and
answer every PURPOSE of ARTICULATION and
MASTICATION. Charges as in Paris.

leged he took no step to prosecute the offender. He
(the King's Advocate) repeated, that these facts
were taken as true, merely for the, purpose of dip-
cus!•ing the admissibility of this libel. It went on
to plead, that Mr. Neeld, though aware of the pa-
ragraph, took no notice thereof. He was not quite
certain that this was not the wisest way of trettink
it, and whet-. applied to by Lord Shaftesbury, on the
propriety of vindicating the honour of his wife; 43r,
prosecuting the libeller, he refused to take any stets'

_
or to interfere; that Lord Shaftesbury thereupon
took measures to prosecute the party, and this hay-

ing come to the knowledge of kr. William Ashley,
the second brother of Lady Caroline Neeld, (and
here he called the attention of the Court to a most
improper passage in the libel, which must hare

All Operations performed on the Teeth.
N.B. One of the above firm may be consulted for a
short period at No. 58, Bold-street, Liverpool.

crept in through the inadvertency of his Learned
Friends), that gentleman being indignant thereat, in•
sisted on Mr. Neeld's taking up the prosecution in-
stead of Lord Shaftesbury, on pain of a certain al-
ternative, which ➢'lr. Neeld not choosing to en-
counter, he consented to prosecute the libeller. It
was not stated what the alternative was; but the
Court must agree that this was a most improper cir-
cumstance to creep into a libel, and would feel in-

you have adopted. Your own record at Doctors'-commons
establishes the falsehood of your accusations against me ;
your own process is conclusive evidence against you.
" But do not imagine that these disgraceful proceedings
deceive me. That they were founded on any conjugal
affection, or arose out of any actual desire for cohabitation,
lam not so foolish as to belie% e. That they were insti-

THE CHOLERA MORBUS.

tuted with ulterior views I well know. But be assured that

Persons interested in the coal trade are busily employing
themselves in keeping up the alarm about the cholera. In
the Coal Exchange to-day these gentlemen, we understand,
did their best to keep up the game, but, notwithstanding
all their efforts, coals are rather lower. By the way, the
official doctors at Sunderland appear to be determined to
make the best of their appointments. They are evidently
(no doubt quite unintentionally) excellent abettors of the
speculators in coals and drugs. It is not indeed surpris-
ing that they should look upon the disease with some ne-
gree of favour, or, at any rate, with very different views
from those of the public at large. To the doctors the
cholera may be considered as a regular God-send. They
not only make money by it, but, what is to many of them
of quite as mach consequence, a vast deal of fame. Who
would ever have heard of Dr. Daun, of Dr. Gibson, of
Dr. Russell, and of many other doctors, if the cholera had
not brought them into notice? We would wish, how-
ever, that these gentlemen, for their own fame's sake,
would, in their communications to the public, pay a

I will take good care to disappoint those views. I will not
be impelled by such acts as these to gratify the mercenary
motives in which they have originated, and you shall not
have any success of that kind to console you for the de-
gradation of character which must be the result of your
spontaneous return to cohabitation with a husband whose
character you have so foully aspersed.
" What my future conduct towards you may be, will
depend entirely on the propriety of yours towards me.
" Re-peruse this letter, and then ask yourself what cause
you had for the exulting exclamation you uttered upon
entering my room in the morning Now I have triumphed,
I knew I should bring you back to me.'
" Yours, 4t J.
This letter, the Learned Advocate contended, con-
tained no unkind caution. It was then alleged that
Mr. Neeld drew up a statement respecting this suit,
and caused copies to he made of it, which, though
not published, were circulated amongst his friends;
but this was not to annoy her; it was to vindicate
his own character, which he was justified in doing.
The 22d article pleaded, that the day after the re-
turn to cohabitation, as Lady Caroline was sitting
with Lord Ashley, her brother, Mr. Neeld came
into the room, and without any observation or pro-
vocation given, in a violent tone of voice ordered
his Lordship to leave the room; that he rung the
bell for the waiter so violently, that the bell broke,
and ordered the waiter to turn Lord Ashley out ;
and called upon the waiter to bear witness that
Lady Caroline had called him a villain and rascal ;
the first of which epithets her Ladyship admitted
she did use in a moment of irritation. All this, if
true, might be harshness, but was no foundation
for a suit for cruelty. The 23d article pleaded that
the apartments at Coulson's hotel were " compara-
tivel( dirt and ill-furnislicd, tit 4 agree-ciljt al
scan gu UCLLCA ,-c u
pied. The 24th article pleaded that Mr. Neeld,
in terms of great harshness and asperity, refused
his wife the use of a britschka she had hired,
and suffered her to go out in an old green chariot,
the footman and coachman wearing blue trousers and
boots. The 25th charged Mr. Neeld with refusing
her a guinea to pay her physician's fee, which fee
remained unpaid. This might be cruelty to the
physician, but not to the wife. The 26th, pleaded
that hlr.Neeld told her he was going into Hampshire,
and that if she accompanied him, she must travel
five in a carriage with a pair of horses, and
wait upon herself, as he could not incur more ex-
pence, by reason of her extravagance in burning wax
lights. The 28th, amongst other things, pleaded
that Lady Caroline seldom went out, and then only
to visit her family; and that on one occasion Mr.
Xeeld returned home at ten o'clock, and finding her
out, flew into a passion, and said that it did not
follow that she was gone to her father's or her
sister's, though she said so, " and much more to
the same effect." Another circumstance was per-
fectly ludicrous. On the 9th of August, Mr. Neeld
went out to dinner, first ordering his wife's, direct-
ing what she should eat. At dinner, Lady Caro-
line inquired if there was any soup, or tart, or pud-
ding, and was told by the waiter that Mr. Neeld had
ordered that she was to have that dinner and no
other.
He (the King's Advocate) should like to
know what the bill of fare consisted of that the Court
might be able to judge whether it was Mr. Neeld's in-
tention that his wife should be starved. After dinner,
she required the footman to attend her to her sister's;
he refused, alleging he had orders to that effect from Mr.
Neeld. She went out, however, and Mr. Neeld went
after her, and driving in his cab to her sister's, Lady
Harriet Corry, ordeled his wife to come out, and
although a close carriage of her father's was coming
for her, obliged her to get into the cab, rudely
forcing her into the seat, and slapping down the
wooden apron, to her personal injury as well as
alarm. He drove at a furious rate, and by a circui-
tous route, although it rained in torrents, with
thunder and lightning, and on her Ladyship saying,
that if he did not drive straight home, she would
cry out, he exclaimed, " Be quiet, or I'll be -
if I don't drive you into the city !" This might be
an improper threat, but there was no cruelty, for it
was not pleaded that there was any marks ott her
person, or that her clothes were wetted,. The next
article pleaded that Mr. Neeld threatened to lock
her up, ading, " Such a wretch as you must stay at
home ;" that he called for the keys, and, in the
presence of the waiter, locked his wife up in her
sitting-room while he went out. The 34th article
pleaded that Mr. Neeld returned in two hours,
which was the term of her confinement; that Lady
Caroline then fastened herself in her bed-room,
which Mr. Neeld endeavoured ineffectually to
break open, calling on her to come out and
make tea for him, " and more to the same
effect." Lady Caroline came out, and de-
clared she would go to her father's, but Mr.
Neeld took hold of her and dragged her into the
sitting room, telling her she might go next day. The
35th article stated, that at eleven o'clock ott the
same evening, Lady Harriet Corry, her Ladyship's
sister, came to Coulson's Hotel, and saw Lady Caro-
line ; that on her departure, Lady Caroline was
seeing
her to the door, when Mr. Neeld took hold
of
her with violence to draw her back, and left
marks on her arms, which were seen by several per-
sons ; that he ordered two pillows to be put on her
bed, as lie said lie intended to sleep there ; that her
bed-room door was bolted by Lady Caroline, who
lay down in her clothes, and was disturbed till two
o'clock by Mr. Neeld's attempts or pretended at-
tempts to force the door ; that in the morning she
left the hotel, and never returned; and on that morn-
ing the citation in this suit was served on Mr. Neeld.
Here were certainly a number of petty circum-
stances calculated to annoy and distress Lady Caro-
line Neeld, who might have entertained, on her mar-
riage, the intention of participaitng, to the full ex-
tent, in the luxuries which the fortune of Mr. Neeld

dignant that its records should be made the vehicle
of a reflection on the character of two individuals—
Mr. William Ashley, Mr. Neeld, and even of Lady
Caroline Neeld herself. The 12th article pleaded
that Lady Caroline came to London to negative the
truth of the libel, and went to Mr. Neeld in Grosve-
nor-square. He (the King's Advocate) should be glad
to know whether the bills in the window had been
taken down, which had been the cause of so much
offence to her Ladyship. In a letter which he sent
to her, he objected to her remaining there; but as
he offered her no other residence except a hotel,
Lady Caroline persisted in residing there. That
word " persisted," ha thought showed something.
But here again, where was Mr. Neeld's letter ?

Having ordered the carriage, she waa informed that
_ _ . .

le more attention to consistency, and common sense.

Mr. Neeld," in anticipation of such an order," had
locked-up the coach-house, and refused to let her
have the use of a carriage. This, if true, might be
harsh, but it was no act of cruelty; and the fact
alone could be pleaded, not that it was "in antici-
pation." In consequence of this, (it went en) Lord
Shaftesbury wrote repeatedly to Mr. Neeld, who
returned no answer. Was this cruelty ? Mr.
Neeld thought himself a better judge of the pro-
priety of his wife's using a carriage than her father.
In consequence of this refusal Lady Caroline suffered
great inconvenience from confinement to the house.
This confinement was from the 19th to the middle of
the 20th of May, or only part of one day. On the
24th Lady Caroline received a letter from Mr.
Neeld, stating that he required her to quit the house
in Grosvenor-square (this letter was not produced),
and that she should return to Brittleton ; that Lady
?:Korcsscd, her readit,eFs. to ryn TherN. it he.
wpm acco:npany ner ; out that she could not return
alone, " her character having suffered by his open
and ostentatious desertion of her :" ;this was a new
expression, which probably had a peculiar meaning.
The article went on to allege, that he threatened that
if she did not leave the house by a certain day, he
would send an upholsterer and unfurnish the house;
and lie did so, even to Lady Caroline's bed; which
was taken down ; but was put up again, the uphol-
sterer's man judging it was a mistake, whereas he
was told of it at the time, and replied, "he knew
what lie was about ; he acted according to orders."
Orders from whom ?—From Mr. Neeld or the up.
holsterer ? Was this cruelty ? Then it was said he
had directed the porter not to wait in the hall, or-
dering the upholsterer's man to wait in his stead.
This was too ludicrous to dwell upon. the next
article pleaded that Mr.Neeld had forbidden the post.
master at Chippenham to let her Ladyship have
post-horses. This might or might not be harshness,
but it was not cruelty ; it might aggravate cruelty,
if cruelty was proved ; but such petty annoyances ,
could not found a case of cruelty. In this case
Mr. Neeld was perfectly justifiable. He had left his
wife a carriage, and if she wished to have four post-
horses, merely to annoy him, he had a right to pre-
vent it. Now, after all this series of "injuries, in_
sults, and indignities"—for he doubted if the word
cruelty appeared at all—what was the result ? Shp
takes out u citation in this Court for a restitution of
conjugal rights, not to pray a separation. A libel
was given in ; he is advised to give an affirmative
issue, and the parties return to cohabitation loge_
ther, she showing no disinclination from fear of life
or health. This cohabitation, it is alleged, was only
so far as sleeping under the same roof; for, so far
from treating his wife with conjugal affection, Mr.
Neeld treated her, from the 14th of July to the
11th of August, with great harshness and cruelty,
so far as to compel her to separate herself from him,
and to commence this suit. The 16th article pleaded,
that on Mr. Neeld's giving in the affirmative issue,
he, on the 14th of July, wrote a letter to his
wife, Who was at the Pulteney Hotel, stating
that lie had consented to renew their cohabita-
tion, and directing her to come to him without
delay to Coulson's Hotel, writing at the
same time to the keeper of Pulteney's Hotel,
de=icing him to let her have apartments there no
longer. This letter was produced, and there ap-
peared nothing objectionable in the letter : it stated,
that for reasons he should hereafter communicate, he
had determined to affirm her suit in Doctors' Com-
mons, and to return to cohabitation : concluding
"my dinner hour is seven o'clock." The 18th ar-
ticle pleaded, that Lady Careline proceeded to
Coulson's Hotel, accompanied by Lord Ashley, and
found Mr. Neeld there: Lord Ashley withdrew,
and left them together. It is stated, that on Lady
Caroline's asking for the chamber-maid, to show her
room, Mr. Neeld showed her one, and in a surly
tone said, " That is the room you are to inhabit ;"
adding that he did not intend to sleep with her.
This might be a ground for coming to the Court to
pray that Mr. Neeld might not be dismissed from
the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, but it was
no act of cruelty. The next morning it was pleaded,
he desired her to send her maid to him, and gave
her a letter, improperly reflecting upon her (Lady
Caroline Neeld). The letter had been produced—
it was as follows :

De. DAM), for instance, on the 14th of this month,
intimated, in the most direct terms, that he had
seen no unequivocal case of the cholera at Sunderland.
But mark : in a letter to the Guardians of Birmingham,
dated only one day later—namely, on the 15th, he states
that if " a similarity of symptoms during life, and of ap-
pearances after death, be sufficient to establish the identity
of the two diseases, that which has recently appeared in
Sunderland is unquestionably the Indian or spasmodic
cholera." Take these two statements as specimen of the
Doctor's consistency. In another part of the letter alluded
to, Dr. Dann recites a fact, which, in our humble opinion,
goes far to prove that the Sunderland disease is not the
Asiatic cholera ; or, at least if it is, that it is so far mo-
dified as to scarcely deserve the name. He says, and the
information is important, " The number of cases is sur-
prisingly few in a place where, from the filth, poverty, and
density of the pauper population, in many parts of the
town, it might have beet!...-4;si.:Led (co;ssideriug the rapi-
dity with -,t;.1. spread in & ecr y tow,. ,•to,
Cootinent of LG the soh ase
Et as 'well as Asia, aLt.:r it had appeared
in it) that there sl-anild nave been, by this time, as many
hundreds of the inhabitants of Sunderland attacked
as there have been individuals." So much for Dr.
Daun's consistency. We have now a word or two
to say to Dr. Daun's colleague, Dr. Gibson. We
observed, in the beginning of this article, that the
cholera may he considered as a regular God-send to the
electors, That Dr. Gibson looks upon it in this light is
evident from the following extract from a letter of his,
published in the Courier. " Had the report," says the
Doctor, " only included a column for malignant cholera. I
am persuaded we should have hail blank returns sent in by
many ; it was therefore necessary to spread a net large
enough to catch all thefish." So, then, Dr. Gibson looks
upon the cases of cholera as a fisherman looks upon fish—
that is, as a sort of prizes. But mark the delicate slang
employed—the jocular way in which the horrid sufferings
of the unfortunate wretches is treated : the language puts
us in mind of that employed by the body-snatchers ; like
theirs, it is only calculated to excite disgust. Dr. Gibson
may, for aught we know, be a very humane man, and he
probably is ; but we can tell him that if, in writing upon
medical subjects, he cannot find more appropriate terms,
he ought to imitate the physicians of old—wear a large ,
wig, carry a cane mounted with gold, shake his head, and
express himself only in monosyllables. Let him do this,
and he may be considered a wise man : he will certainly
not expose himself by his language.
While upon the subject we may be allowed to remark
that certain of our cantemporaries appear to us to have as-
sisted not a little in keeping up an unnecessary alarm in
the country. In our humble opinion, it is the duty of the
Press to endeavour to allay alarm, rather than to excite
it. At the same time they ought, instead of praising the
; exertions of the Parish Board of Health, to excite them to
do their duty—which we have good reason to know they
; do not do. With the exception of the City Board of
Health, these bodies in the metropolis appear to us to be

generally inefficient.
A fact ha. come to our knowledge which, if well
founded, proves, almost beyond a doubt, that the disease
of Sunderland is not of foreign origin, but indigenous.—
A book, we understand, was published by a Sunderland
physician about thirty-five years ago, in which he de-
scribes a disease as common in that place, the symptoms
of which correspond with those of the malady now preva-
lent there. We have further been informed that a gentle-
man resident near London, a natire of Sunderland, states
that he recollects that, thirty years ago, it was invariably
the practice of his family to leave that place about this time
of the year, on account of the sickly state of the town.—
Mor ing Herald.

We are happy to hear that Lord PALMERs-
TON, after having taken the opinion of the Law Officers
of the Crown on the subject of the claims preferred by
several British subjects for compensation for injuries and
outrages inflicted by Don AlicuEn, has instructed our
Consul-General at Lisbon to demand reparation, and
to state that it will be insisted on. We understand that,
in the event of refusal on the part of the Usurper, active
means will be immediately resorted too to enforce the award
of the Law Officers.

The LORD CHANCELLOR will leave Ber-
keley-square this day, for the Regency Hotel at Brighton,
where Lady BROlTilliAli and her daughters are at present
sojourning. Since the return of his Lordship from the
North he 11:-.5 made short visits to his family at Brighton
every Saturday, returning on Monday to resume his duties
in the Court of Chancery.

TURKS IN THE FRENCH ARMY.---About
two hundred Turks in Oran, where the French expedi-
tion army is at present, have requested leave to enter the
Christian service ; a difficulty, however, has arisen, as
they insist on being allowed to wear the Eastern costume.
A gentleman walking through the streets on a
very cold day, who could not boast of his stature, passed
a very tall man, upon which he observed, " I wonder what
the temperature is up there."
It is said that eight of the vestry of the Rev.
EDWARD laviNG have left his church, and sent in their
protest against the humbug of new tongues. This vestry
c ,nsisted of ten members, who are either elders or deacons.
There are now only two members remaining.
We learn from the German papers, that a
weekly newspaper has been published in Constantinople,
in the Turkish language. Officers of State are appointed
to manage it; and it is to be translated into some of the
European languages.

" Coulson's Hotel, Thursday Night.
" Counsel have advised me, upon deliberate considera-
tion, that nothing short of an act of adultery on your
part, or acts of personal violence, or some other acts
which they have intimated to me, would enable me legally
to refuse your claim of cohabitation, they had all your acts
of misconduct towards me laid before them, and they have
advised me that, however unworthy your conduct might
have been, you had net legally forfeited the claims of a
wife. Under these circumstances, I consented to take you
back.

" In obedience, therefore, to the Doctors' Commons de-
cree, I have consented to take you back; but as I have
not any habitable house in London, and as it is doubtful,
under the circumstances in which your behaviour towards
me has placed me, whether I shall ever hereafter keep auy

~.
' • :‘ '
.2,-- ------•-..;_. .."-NT J I: ... , . :
....),,,,„.-,-,,,..., -_,N,
--- ,' ‘, 4...:.• . ~).. . ,
( r - ~*; . , fife --'.
~..,- --....t.,;(..i
....- ~
i
7-:-' ',.4riv,,,A.—//
- • N,',. ~4., -../.,,... I
.1:::•'-i'v_4.,.
~,„,„' 'r.s:l) '''':-.. , , ',.1----",-;.: : -:.::--„s\''.4 : , Z.,. I **-. 1 ... . t(...'-'-'-___._,------,,,,,:,,,, L- '---.. At:
,--:::,'i::
.• . 4,..5..\-•.:.,, ',1,. k N.,
.k„it 4.,,, , • ..., 14
, f....-
',::.1:4m ) I,' ):4 ''..„' >- t. 1, - —m4 -i '- 074-IL :,•i=---= ' 04., •x:,,A
\,:-.,, ,007 .2, -i...," ,---c ' .e,7•3 v. -0.,
~.,,,.
..,,, ~. - ,ailipitm , ~/_, ~
- )it,.i,,, il _ : • ----.---A:..::.y._,, ..4.,..,,k., ----<,l_,--A• -

PRICE 7D.

promised her the enjoyment of. The marriage turned
out unfortunate—by whose fault it was not easy
to ascertain. There might be fault on both sides ;
Mr. Neeld, for some reason, might have con-
ducted himself with some degree of harshness to-

wards his wife ; but, except the act of locking her up
and the bruises, it is alleged she received, there was no
personal violence on which a sentence of separation
could be sustained. But the 37th article was a
novel one ; after all the specific acts were charged,
they were summed up in a general plea—that, as
well in the above instances, as in every other in-

stance, during their cohabitation, the said Joseph
Neeld had used every means in his power to vex

and harass his said wife; that he grossly abused
her; that he frequently treated her with sullen si-
lence and " pretended' contempt ; that he abused
her family, and said they were a set disgraceful to
be connected with, and declared that he would bring
her down " lower, lower, lower, still." He (the
King's Advocate) was satisfied that he had said
enough to show, that if every circumstance pleaded
in the libel were proved or admitted to the fullest
extent, there was no ground for the Court to hold
that the prayer of Lady Caroline Neeld ought to be
granted on the plea of:cruelty, ud that in respect
both to form and substance t)-* libel ought to be
rejected.

Dr. PHILLIMORE followed on the same side.

Dr. DopsoN began by justifying the reintrodue-

tion of the facts which formed the ground of the
suit for restitution, which, though condoned, if
followed by other acts of cruelty, were revived
thereby. Lady Caroline Neeld was therefore en-
titled to set forth all the acts of harshness and se-

verity which had begun from the moment of her
marriage. It was necessary that she should repel
the presumption which might arise from the cessa-
tion of the suit, and to show the peculiar circum-
stances attending it. It was tot because this noble
lady expected to be treated with kindness and
tenderness by her husband, that she desired to be
restored to his society, but for the pi eservation of
her character, which was dearer to her than life, and
which had been grossly and slanderously assailed.
She had been charged with giving birth to a child
six weeks after her marriage; that she had declared
her husband was not the father of the child, but an
officer in the Guards. And what was the conduct

of Mr. Neeld, whose duty it was to put an end to
the slander ? He openly and ostentatiously deserts
his wife, obliging her to Lye in a manner in

which the wife of a wealthy man ought not to
live, thereby countenancing the calumny. The
King's Advocate had treated the facts in the libel as
ludicrous, yet lie deprecated their going forth to the
world ; but the strong manner in which he depre-
cated this, was an argument against their being ludi-
crous, frivolous, and trifling. With respect to the
law of cruelty, no strict definition had been given ;
it had been said what cruelty was not, but no affir-
mative definition had been given. He admitted that
to constitute legal scevitia, there must be reasonable
apprehension of something affecting life, limb, or
health, and he submitted that the facts stated in the
libel came up to that definition. The Learned Ad-
vocate then went through the articles one by one, re-
plying to the objections made by the two Learned
Counsel who preceded him. With respect to the
separate beds, pleaded in the fourth article, it was
said that it ought to be pleaded that the separation
was by desire of Mr. Neeld. So it was. It was
alleged that it was no fault of the wife's : whose
{49.1,t .Ylkk is Om:I.-But acsirrai JO JIM
There was a fallacy in the whole argument on the
other side. They assumed that because each
fact in the libel was not an act of cruelty, it

could not be put in plea. But they might be pleaded
in aggravation of other acts. In respect to the Sth
article, the King's Advocate had said that the secret
was out—that the object of the lady was money,
and nothing else. But he had not read the words,
" as by so doing she should compromise her own
character, which had been so severely attacked."
Had she consented to such a proposal of such an
allowance from a gentleman who was the rich le-
gatee of the late Mr. Rundell, there would have
been an end to her fair fame, and she owed it to
her friends, her family, and herself, not to accept
thor e terms. Her character was dearer to her than
all the worth of Mexico and Peru. But the object
of Mr. Neeld was to get rid of his wife as cheaply
as he could, as might be inferred from all the circum-
stances of the case. The Learned Counsel then
contended that the circumstances attending the
breaking up of the establishment in Grosvenor-
square, were insults and indignities offered to the
wife, with a view of vexing and annoying her, in
furtherance of his object to oblige her to accept an
inferior allowance.

Dr. LUSHINGTON inquired how he was to take
as evidence the contents of letters not annexed to
the libel; and declared he should find some difficulty
in giving his opinion of the libel as it now stood.

„ .
Dr. DODSON and Dr. ADDAMS said, that as only
isolated passages of the letters were referred to, they
thought it unnecessary to exhibit them, but they
should be annexed.

Dr. DODSON continued.—He insisted that Mr,
Neeld's conduct with respect to the carriages and
horses, was for the purpose of annoying his wife.
With respect to his behaviour when the paragraph
in the Satirist appeared, what individual with the
feelings of a man would suffer such a degrading in-
sult on his wife ? This was a cruelty indeed, for it
inflicted a deeper wound than a mere bodily injury.
Instead of refuting the charge and punishing the
libeller, Mr. Neeld had acted as if he believed the
charge was true ; and it was not till the application of
Mr. William Ashley, that he condescended, on pain
of a certain alternative, to take up the prosecution.
It was said that it was a shocking thing to bring
such a circumstance before the Court ; but if the con-
duct of one party was so atrocious, it was necessary to
do it for the relief of the innocent party. Persons
without courage themselves were addicted to cruelty,
and especially cruelty to women; and when Mr.
William Ashley applied to Mr. Neeld in a way to
bring the matter home to himself, he consented to
prosecute. The Learned Advocate here pointed
out in the remaining articles, the proofs of Mr.
Neeld's systematic annoyance of his wife, with a
view, as alleged, of compelling her to a separation on
his own pecuniary terms. It had been said that
Mr. Neeld's ordering Lord Ashley to be turned out
of the hotel was what he had a right to do. But if
such right was exercised in an improper manner, it
became marital tyranny. No offence or provocation
whatever had been offered by Lord Ashley, yet he
orders a waiter to turn him out of the house. The
objection to incurring expense on account of Lady
Caroline's extravagance in burning wax candles, al-
most induced a suspicion that insanity was mixed up
with the case. If all these facts did not bring the
case withing the legal definition of cruelty, he did
not know what could. If there was only one act
of cruelty, or no act at all, but a reasonable appre-
hension of violence, that was sufficient to found the
sentence of the Court. Here they were coupled
with a great variety of circumstances of aggrava-
tion, ane if the statements in the libel were borne
;nut by evidence, Lady Caroline Neeld was entitled
to the sentence of the Court.
Pr. LUSHINGTON directed, that before next court-
day the letters referred to should be exhibited.

COMICAL ANNOUNCEMENT.—.III the Wor-
cester Paper of last week we find the following comical
announcement A rascAl in our next."