The Sun.
London, England, 1825-02-10 00:00:00

A FEME COUVERT.

Mr. 111 En aIr.WETHE a showed causeagainat a rule obtained
by Mr. Taunton, to set aside proceedings in.an action for goods
against a lady named Frances Potts. The rule had been ob-
tained on the ground that the lady sued in the tanie'of Fanny
Potts, was a femme convert.
The plaintiff's affidavit was read by Mr. MERRIWETHE
It stated that at the time he gave the lady credit for the goods,
he had never head of her marriage, anti he did not believe she
was married. She said from time to-time, she would give him
a draft on her banker, and appeared to he a single woman.
Justice LITT LEDALE—Does your affi.lavit say she repre
.seo ted herself to be a f.,:mnze scul
Mt. MEnnuweTnEtt said it did not., and on that account.
he was apprehensive the rule must be absolute; but he sub-
mitted it ought to be without costs.
Mr. Tau Terox, in support of his rule, contended that the
Court had held in several cases that it was contrary to practice
to refuse the discharge of a married woman, where she had
used no deceit by representing herself a femme seal. The
Lady in this case was entitled to be discharged on finding
bail.

Mr. Justice flavymr.—Have you an affidavit stating that
she was married, and that her husband is living ?
Mr. TAusToN.—Yes ; she says she is the wife of Henry
Potts, who is now living. . .

Mr-. Justice BAILEY said, the rule must be absolute.

Mr. TAIT icToN then suggested whether it was not a con-
tempt when the plaintiff in his affidavit said he did not believe
she was a married woman ?

Mr. Justice BAY LEY.—No : the plaintiff in all probability
has suffered enough.
The Rule for setting aside the proceedings Was made
absolute.

IN THE MATTER OF TILE BOROUGH OF EAST LOOE.
This was a rule, obtained by the Attorney-General, calling
on the Mayor of die borough of East Lim, who is also steward
of the court-leet of the manor, to show cause why a mandamus
should not issue, requiring him to enrol a resident householder
in the borough, and to swear him a burgess of the corporation,
in order to give him the privilege of voting for members to
serve in Parliament.

Mr. ADAM and Mr. COLERIDGE showed cause against the
rule, and produced a decision of the House of Commons, that
the right of voting was in the burgesses only, and not in the re-
sident householders, and contended that a resident householder
could not, merely as such, claim to be admitted a burgess.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. Al ER REWETHER, in
support of the rule, urged that there was sufficient ground laid
in the affidavits to render it questionable whether the right of
voting was not originally in the residents, and had been usurp-
ed by the select body; and that the terms of the charter were, at
least, open to the construction that all resiants were entitled to
become burgesses. As, therefore, there was doubt, both as to
the fact and the law, they submitted that the case should be
placed in a train of further inquiry.
The COURT, however, thought both points clear against the
rule. They believed, and in that belief they were confirmed
by the admission of Mr. Merrewether, whose knowledge of
corporation law very extensive, that there was no corporation in
England to which mere residency gave a right of admission.
To hold that the charter conferred on all residents such a right,
would be to alter the constitution of numerous corporate bodies,
with which the Court had no power to interfere.—The rule must
therefore discharged.

CONSISTORY COURT, FEB. 9.
PALL ✓. BALL.

This cause, which was a suit for a divorce, by reason of
adultery, promoted by Mrs. Sarah Ball, against her husband,
Mr. George Ball, a brewer, residing in Drury-lane, has been
several years in progress in this Court. This day it came on
for ud gm en t.

Sir C. ROBINSON said the pleas in this cause had been very
numerous, and the case was altogether of a very complicated
nature. The libel put in on behalf of the wife pleaded the
marriage in 1812, and subsequent cohabitation ; the lady was
the widow of a brewer in Drury-lane, by whom Mr. Ball had
been long employed in a confidential capacity, and he had ul-
timately married the widow. Mrs. Ball had a niece residing
with her, named Penny, to whom she afforded her protection
in consequence of Miss Penny having been left an orphan. In
1813, Mrs. Ball had a female child, which was placed in the
care of Miss Penny, as nurse. The libel charged Mr. Ball
with having very early exhibited signs of disaffection towards
her, and estrangement of his affections from her to Miss
Penny. . This charge was met, on the other side, by counter-
pleading; and from the evidence of all the witnesses, it seemed
that both Mr. and Mrs. Ball's disagreements were originally
caused by the dispositions of each party ; the witnesses de-
scribed the blame to attach to both parties. Mrs. Ball's dif-
ferences were chiefly occasioned by money matters, regarding
the fortune which was to have been settled on herself and
children : this was not settled until 1821, when, upon the ap-
plication of Mrs. Ball's trustees to the Court of Chancery, Mr.
Ball was compelled to refund the money. The first proximate
act, pleaded to have taken place, was in August, 1819, when,
in consequence of the frequent disagreements between the
parties, Mrs. Ball left her husband (she had previously, in
1813, left her husband, but returned to him again) : in April,
1820, she returned to him again, and, in the interim, such facts
were pleaded as, according to the argument of Counsel, called
on the Court to come to a conclusion of adultery. It was stated
that Mr. Ball had, during that time, acted with unbecoming
familiarity towards Miss Penny : to support this charge,
Margaret Walters, a servant, stated that on one occasion she
was passing the parlour window, and on looking in, she saw
Mr. Ball and Miss Penny playing like children together,and that
she thought it improper. On another occasion, while passing Mr.
Ball's room, she saw Mr. Ball taking improper liberties with
the person of Miss Penny ; this might not perhaps lead to a
conclusion of adultery, hut it might (considering the habits
and ages of the parties) very naturally lead to a conclusion that
there was a personal attachment not consistent with the relative
situations of the persons. The house wherein Mr. and Mrs.
Ball resided was only one story high, end had three rooms on
the first floor, to which there were only two entrances, so that
there was an intermediate room, and it was charged that Mr.
Ball often required gruel at night after he was in bed, and he
insisted on Miss Penny's bringing it to him ; she did so, and
on such occasions Miss Penny was sometimes as long as two
hours in Mr. Ball's bed-room, during which time it was charged
that he committed adultery. Subsequently, she went to reside
at Kentish-town, the lodgings having been taken for her by
Mr. Ball, This witness's evidence was throughout pregnant
with inferences, but all of the circumstances were denied in a
counter-plea to which Miss Penny had deposed. Miss Penny
added, that Mr. and Mrs. Ball disagreed a few days after their
marriage, and that the feuds continued, but attributed all the
blame to Mrs. Ball, exculpating Mr. Ball from any blame
whatever; she denied that Mr. Ball had ever taken any im-
proper-familiarities with her whatever. This seemed to be a
very unnatural mode for Miss Penny to pursue towards her
aunt, Mrs. Ball, who had so long supported her, and seemed
as if she was making herself' a party to the suit. She, how-
ever, admitted that Mr. Ball took the lodgings in Kentish-
town for her without Mrs. Ball's knowledge, and she re-
turned to the brewery in November following.—Ann Tuppy,
another witness, was also a servant to Mr. and Mrs. Ball, and
deposed to the same facts. It was also charged that Mr. Ball
took lodgings fo Miss Penny, in Russell-street, Bloomsbury, at
the house of a very respectable family, named Kocher.—Mary
Bristow was a servant to Mr. and Mrs. limber, and she de-
posed to having, on several occasions, seen Mr. Ball and Miss
Penny together, in exceedingly unbecoming situations. Mr.
and Mrs. Hocher, as well as Mr. Antonio Rocher, had also
been examined as witnesses, and their evidence chiefly related
to certain expressions which Mary Bristow had made use of re-
garding Mr. Bother's house. It did not appear there was any
room to question the respectability of Mr. Rocher's house, or
to imagine that any of that gentleman's family knew of what
wag going forward. In the shape of an affidavit, a revocation
of Mary Bristow's had been presented to the Court, by which
she deposed that all she had charged Al r. Ball with was false ;
that she had been induced to give that testimony from
.the pro-
mises of advantage held out to her by Mrs.. Ball; and that she
made this revocation voluntarily, without any communication
from Mr. Ball, and entirely from a conscientious feeling that
what she had before sworn to was improper. Upon looking at ,

all the circumstances, however, the Court could come to no
other conclasion, but, that this affidavit was procured by the
initrumentality, and ,in consequence of a communication from,
Mr. Ball ; and, that the means which were proved to have been
used in tampering with the witnesses, one of whom Mr. Bail'
had 'called by-an abusive epithet, anti threatened with prosecu-
tion and pillory, deserved the strongest reprobation.
Sir C. ROBINSON concluded a.very long anti able speech by
declaring that Mrs. Ball was entitled to the relief she prayed
for„, and decreed for the divorce accordingly.
lt was understood (so determined are the parties) that the
case will be the subject of an appeal to a superior Court.