The Sun.
London, England, 1823-04-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Arn.lL 28.
COUNT EICTIULEMBUita V. BOYD AND CO.

This is a case which has frequently been before the Court,
and has been argued at considerable length. his a question
relative to a sum of money due from the firm of Boyd, Benfield,
and Co., to the Count, and with respect to the delivery by the
latter of certain.debentures in his hands. It will be recollected
that Messrs. Boyd and Co. were agents in this country for the
Emperor of Austria,.and were employed to contract a loan for
the Emperor in' this country. A loan was contracted, and the
Count became a holder of debentures to a considerable amount.
The firm of Boyd and Co. afterwards became bankrupts, and
the Count now claimed the interest upqn the debentures.
His Borrow" said he had written an order in this case,
which he would read to the parties concerned. It directed that
Count Schulemburg should be paid the sum of 3,000/. claimed
by him, upon delivery of the debentures. He had framed the
order in such a manner as to prevent the payment of the money
until the debentures had been delivered up.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Axial. 28.
GILL V. GILL.
This was originally a suit brought against Mr. Gill,.a Gen-
tleman of fortune, for restitution of conjugal rights. In bar of
the suit, Mr. Gill pleaded that his wife had been guilty of
adultery. This allegation had been tried by the Court, which
ultimately pronounced a sentence not only acquitting Mrs.
Gill of the charge, but declaring that her innocence was com-
pletely established, and Mr. Gill was ordered by the Court to
take fits wife home, the sentence directing in the usual terms,
that he should treat her with conjugal affection. In March
1822, he brought in an allegation stating that he had obeyed
the sentence of the Court. On the part of the wife, it
was denied that he obeyed the sentence of the Court, and
treated her with conjugal affection. Evidence to this effect
was heard, which stated, that when she returned to his protec-1
tion, he again charged her with infidelity, and treated her in
such a manner as compelled her to leaVe him. The Court then
pronounced him contumacious, and refused to dismiss the suit.
He now appeared before the Court alleging that he had sub-
mitted to the sentence, and praying to be dismissed.
Doctor SWABE V appeared on behalf of the wife, and objected
to the dismissal ofilfr. Gill, on the ground that the orders of
the Court had been disobeyed by Mr. Gill in sending his wife a
letter, in which he repeated the charge of which she had been
declared innocent, and also on the ground that he did not take,
his wife to her proper home.
Mr. Gill himself replied.—He did so to prevent his Counsel
from the necessity of making statements disagreeable to the
Court. He entered into a detail in which he said he had done
all in his power to conform to the sentence of the Court, but
was prevented by the obstinacy of his wife, who declared she
would not go down to Rihafa. The Court sentenced him to
" love, honour, and cherish" his wife. Now this was impos-
sible. All the law could oblige him to do was to receive her
in his house, and provide her with all that was necessary for
her comfort. The Court were bout*, to act on the principle
of the Common Law, which only bound man and wife to live
together, allowing him to tell her of her faults and exhort her
to amend, allowing both to use towards each other any ex-
pressions they might think proper to adot, and him to do
what he bad not done—to beat her, provided he did not beat
her outrageously. Ile then contended that he had acted in con-
formity with the Common Law. He proceeded to read the letter
which he had sent to her, notwithstanding the admonition from
the Bench that it would be injurious to him, as it contained
calumnies against his wife and libels upon her friends. The
letter accused the Judges who had heard the charges of having
decided improperly, and upon statements made out of Court.
But Mr. Gill said,' that whatever construction might be put
upon the letter, yet he had subsequently implicitly submitted
to the decrees of the Court.

Sir JoitN ?''tenor. recapitulated the circumstances of the
case, and said he had. hoped that a former recommendation,
which he had given to the unfortunate Gentleman to accorumo-
date the business, would have been attended to; but after Mb re-
petition of such conduct towards his wife, as had been testified,
it would be injustice to her not to pronounce him ai continuing
to act contumaciously. The petition of Mr. Gill was therefore
rejected, and he was refused a dismissal from the authority of
the Court.

MR. CLARKSON.
The JUDGE to-day pronounced' that the suspension of Mr.
Clarkson (which had taken place in the Prerogative Court, of
Canterbury) for the space of 12 months, from► the exercise of
his profession as a proctor, and which suspension had been
notified to this Court according to the Judge's directions,
Should take place and enure in the Arches Court also for the
same term.