The Sun.
London, England, 1824-12-16 00:00:00

PII'7'V.II,LINGT-OFFICE. Nor. Hp 1,424.

THE
COMM ISS TO NE RS fur V IGT-Grd L
1, !NG His 3/.4.1 EST Y'S cYr.:d" hre'6l- girr
Notice, that on,•Taexday,-.llw-ebth January-nest, they will
be ready to receive Tenders in writing (resist/ up), and treat
for the
_following' goantitit4 muric and QUEBEC
sTAvEs:, .

•
r pc
CROWN DA wzic Onindy. .
t I Ingsbead
EM EL Pipe
Hngsbrad 90
20

sTErrIN
I Parcel
A Long Heading . 341
QUEBEC Pipe
.!/I the Quebec Staves, and one-half of the others, (o le de-
livered at Deptford, and the other half, in equal 'unities, at
Portsmo,tth am! Plymouth ; the Quvbce Stares to he a/I de-
livered by the 30th Septemher, and the others, ope• half by the
80th September, and the other 4alf by the 0131 Lie.""bet,
ols .;,,,
1413.• r 114 Atigi

7'he Conditions of the Contract rnati.he seen at D Ore:
Each Tender .mitst specify Me Price in word* nt length,
anti he delivered ~before One e'Cloch on the (lag appointe :
and thc•Person rrlra ntahrt" the Tender, or some Persrm on his
heAnguntsist
rivrioNEßY OFFICE, LONDON, -DeC. 7,152 i.
TUE COMP'rROLLER. of the srA=
TIONERY OFFICE is ready to receive TEN oFits
for ditrc, "it ticsciiPtions of PA4OIMENT and VELLUNI
required for the Public Service.
The quantities ju be contracted fur, and the periodi of,
their delivery, will be specified 10 the Particulars of Contract,
which can be procured, and Samples of the Art Meg •rievri-d;
at the Stationery °dirt:, from Monday, thi VOll. of Decem-
ber, to Saturday, the 29th of January next, between the
hours of Ten and Three.

,11....1 f,

The Tenders to he addressed to the Comptroller of his flu
jesty's Stationery Office, 'James-street, Buckingham Gate,
and to be delivered byTwelveo'Clock in the day, on Monday,,
she 31st of January, 1815, marked on the corner " Tender
for Parchnient and VellOm," after which day and hour no
'render clot be received.

. ENGLISH GENTLIM AN.
ON SUNDAY, the tOth iastattl, a NPW
Journal, under Ow Style and 'ritle of the " ENGL.'S t
OF,NTI,KMAN," will be first published, by lE,DWIto,
DIXON I'OtICIIEF., at N 0.7, iirykes-street, Covent-gar-
.lell.—To be had of. every News•vender, price Sereopeoce,

TO BM SOLD BY AUCTION.
By Mr SOTHEBY. at his Huisse. No. t, WELLINGTON•
STREET, STRAND,on FRID.
AY, December 17. ISM and
Four following Days (gutitlay excepted). at Tiv.lve 01100,
E AIICIIITECT URAL IA BR A ItY I.
THOMAS AYFERR, Etat . retiring from Dosines,
to which is added, the SMALL. LIBRARY of im CLERGY-
MAN, deceased, including
.Folio.—Speed's Britain, with maps, '2 vol .; Stukeley's
fltonehenge and Abitry. 9 vol. in 11 Dogilale's History of
: Brandt's History of the Reformation, 4 vtd.;
Ar-
chitectural and Monumental Drawings; Dopiti%; Ecclesiasti-
cal Writers, 16 vol.
.(Itoitto.—Brittutt's Architecluenl Antilinit'es of England.
conipkte in Numbers; Holy Bible, by Doyley and Mato 16
, Parts, latge paper ; Holy Bible, by Ilewlet, 3 vol ; Con-
prirre's Universatllingraphy, &e. &c.
Octavo.—Roscoe,s Life of Lorenzo de Medici, 4 vol.; Mi-
chaelis' on the Testiuttent, by Marsh, 6 vol. ; poddeidg,', Ex.
positor. $Ol. Ste.
Together with a toad Collectilfen of Class 'cc
To be viewed, and eatalogsses (price Is, 6d.) had at the
Place of 641 c.

A NV I N 'r ENC E.
COURT OF CHANIJARV, DEc. iii.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. AT Tim RELA-
TION OF THE CORPORAIiION OF LIVERPOOL.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL Malted for un injunction to re-
strain the defendant from enektaing about three acres of marsh
land, which are washed by the flux and reflux of the tide on
the banks of the river Mersey, and thereby tending to prevent
the .waters from scouring the bed of the river.
Mr. HORNE and Mr. ROUPELL followed on the same side.
Mr. SHADIVELL Mr. SPENCE opposed the motion.
The holm CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the argu-
ment, gave a luminous outline of the general doctrine. The
King held the right of highways and of flyers as a sort of high-
ways on the waters for the benefit of the whole community.'
There could be no right set up against his title, which was to
hirn for all his subjects; nor would ever so great is number of
pOrpresillrer whether legally or illegally advanced, or project-
ed, upon the banks of a stream, for any body of precedent or
doctrine against that paramount title. What might be stiffer.:
ed, or what not, within the limits of this right, was another
question. According to the judgment of the Attorney-Ge-
neral and Johnson," which Was a ease of encroachment on
the Ranelagh side of the banks of the Thames, the nuisonep
was found, although
.pourprertures of a character manifestly
encroaching prevailed on both hanks trot above that point as
far as the Isle of Dogs. There was is case now pending which
would be argued with a view to new trial, in the Court of
King's Bench next Term, where the question of an exec=
tion on the hanks of the Tyne to facilitate the loading
of, coals at Newcastle. The defence was, -that the build.
ing was one of public utility, and that there was free, and
uninterrupted, and ample room left for the navigation of

vessels going up or down. Judge Bayley •had given his no-
tion of the general doctrine in ,a -manner which corresponded
with 'the high respect which was paid to his opinions (no• one
felt higher respect for them than itimsemiheliord ChanC.ellor.)
His opinion was; that the question of nnisanee where the King's
right attached merely for the public benefit Coal only be de.
termined by. the convenience or. damage of the public. • And
certainly.* notion' had got into his (the teriteletticellor'o head
' upon tuat•case of" Attorney General v. Johnson,"•• that there
could not be any safe ground for procetxlings
nsture in these cases without first suing out a writ of qupd
thimmint in the first instance, in which the King, -as the' repre-
sentative of the. whole people, was made prosecutor,' Por •as
to the right of individuals to prosecute itt such tuir Merely
because their. purses were !Ong enoug,h to harrass tors, that
could riew6te allowed, considering fiOW encroachments
of that kind were tolerated without calling upon the parties to
show their legal rights. This injunction .ought to go on con-
dition that the Attorney-General would undertake to •submit a
case to the decision of the common law trlit'anals, with a view
to determining the legal right by the verdieref a' urwind. that,
toq,.t9.* (*.p.a.% owly Las poseiqle. 41 it were—to:Oohs on at
tie dent Chester assizes, the parties woult: onvv the.betiefit of
the argument •antillecision upon the Newcastle case in the next
term, to facilitate their cudeavours. A case might easily be
framed, admitting the erections, with power to exclude the
contrary evidence, leaving..d.te nuisance as the only question for
the jury. • '
The. ,S(-) T. ICI T on-GEsi r7l.'A t. said that Aerie* &old consult
upon the most proper case for the jury. . • . •
SuanwEL t. said, that there was a company projected.
for erecting, way which was to cover nearly one whole bank of
the Thames,

LOAD CHANCELLOR said, whether the picot was ad
.quad damuum or ad (pod Lmnia, he did not knpiv. It could
not be entered upon without an Act of Parliament, which made
the MSC quite different:

~~

*NO* ,Pwroti

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Prc.ls.

ill BE .111CIIABPSON, A BANKRUPT.
This was a case which had been frequently before the
Court, and the present petition rehted solely to the question of
costs, on which subject the Counsel were to-day heard at some

The Vicr-Cat A mcEr.r.o tt, in giving judgment, said that 'the
case had cone before the Court on the petition of Mr. jtawlin-
son, an assignee under a commission of bankruptcy that had
issued against James Itiehardaon. But the commission having.
been subSequently superseded,: on the ground
.that it. had 'leer'
fraudulently concocted between the bankrOpt nd.Alt% Buckley,
the solicitor under the commission, the. bankrupt anti his sole.
char haying on that occasion offered no defence, the Court wag
hound to look at the case made in fivotir of the supersedeatt ;4:
proved, and consequently decreed the cost's against certifn par-
ties, one of whom was the solicitor,,.Alr. littekley.. Air. Raw.
linson, after having in his petition:set out these litrEs, egtoieue4,,
to say, that the Solicitor had, notaitfoitatiling; -coretneneed an
action against him, as assignee!, for the 4c this under the
missien, an th at the Messenger, to the Commas"; ion had al sti
brought
.another action for his cost's. The petitioNr.alleged,
that as the Solicitor was a party to the fititiel unotfivhlelithe Court
ordered the ComMissind to be aupertetleal; lie Was DO lit'A
dition tai gron n d any det nand, in a m atter that bad procaxletk from
his own Wrong.: and therefiire that' he(Rawlinson,) Op wtiqqt;
the office of assignee had been'threeit, ,in• total ignbratiee eny
collusion, might- to be discharged front all liability. • The isaute'
argument Moils liebtwith regard to the demand made by
son, the messenger,' When the last petition was debated, the
Court, Inasmuch as by formally ordering. Hackle): to pay the
cost, h'ael decided that he was a party to the fraud, it would not
now permit'him,toraisG, a claim arising. out of that fraud; and_
at once ordered tilt!. proceedings to he staid. He then had no
doubt as to the legal Aorisdiction of the Coon on that point.—
Gibson, however, .‘
tclioncartitt424, :14`ti tom iniu and
Mr. Rettlinspft,br,..4l!;e- !Attor,..ifie4on" woeld be brought to
fre•ftieilefenoeitinda he just Wit ,goad in law as
iii eriti4;talld'ttt 'vivo rOCa''eigarniontion of witheNses heing
a better Mode' of . trothAmn the affidaviiK of parties,
the Court Would leave the 'ittletßon to be tried, and reserve.
the matter of costs till. after its termination. Buckley still
persisting ttrhis iirtinn, he must take it a, proved to the satisfac-
tion of the.Jtalge,arod.l.ur, that GibSOllWlO a party to•the
Now tame the'question o.f costs, which. ,he had reserved on
firmer ticbtiShinl not in aceount'of 'any doubt • that he had
with regartltd the jurisdiction of the Court,' but hecanse he did
not wish to give any decision until the 'outer had received
its fullest runt most impartial consideration. It was now quite
clear that the tlourt bad bitt one why'Of proceeding with regard
•to Buckley, although, riineothe trial; and the last hearing of
the petition, it appeared that ailielavits had been filed, under,
the hope of inducing the Court' !.o alter the
;decision it had felt
It its duty tricometo.- flowever. anxious the Court might be
that every case should he thoroughly investigated, yet it was
also necessary foe the general ends of justice, that it should he
bound by certain rules.. It was for this reason that he could
• not now look at the affidavit*, more especially as no applica-
tion had' been made to explain any part of the case, ant the
Court would not now permit it to be altered, when the only
'gnes'ion remaining for decision was that of costs. . lie was of
opinion that Buckley, the solicitor, must pay :the costs. Ilc
also assumed that' Gibson might. have been at party to the
fraud ; anti many doubts had been expressed as to the juris-
diction of the Court with rcgard to this Mw,enge.r ; but he
thought that the (heat Seal had plater to deal with all parties
.who were the instruments'Of the Court in cases of bankruptcy,
•nt.l lie therefore did not consider that any rational &milt eauld
be maimained as to that point. lle, however.. slieuld, not tie.
cree the costs against him, as the action had been commenced
by him when Rawlinion filed his petition.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEc. 15.

GA MRI.ING-11plItiES.
[Further P3ltihlißll4.l
TIFF XING V.

This was an indictment against the defendant, for keeping
the establishment which has been recently the subject: of much
public obse r v Odom
A full *pee:llA jury aneseered to their multi:is, and were sworn.
The A TT 0 UK EY.-OEN nit:t 1, rose,. on the, part of the de-
fendant, and. lookingyound, inquired if Isitypf his learned
friends Were instructed for the prosy cution. flticeiving nu. ulk.
iswa, 116 skid. 1 believe no one appears to prosecute, and there-
fore the•defemlant is entitled .td an rtequittal.
• The Loop (in .lust'tci. dip addressed the Jury.—
"' tientlemen, this is an indictment charging the iletenthmt wick
a misdemeanour.. Tel one appears to, prove that lie is guilty,
and therefore all you .can do is to Km* him',
The Jur., accordingly .returiivd a; verdict of Not (ii‘qty.
Oil
M F. v. (.119CK I, RI)„ •
Thi‘4 Actioit against the tlefendant in the last prosecu-
tion founded rm the statute of It Ann, c.. 14112, which gives to
the loser of uny s,em exceeiling Itt, at ono sitting, a power of
romeering it hack within three tlis ; and whieh.enables any
person atter the expinition.,of 'that time, trithOut action on the
part of the loser, to suc.tbr the *urn Wit, and treble.. its amount,
from the winner, 0ne,411.111%,.5.1 his .0 wn,usa, and the,ettotr to
that:of the poor of' the pa s where the (genes; shall he coin-
inittcd. The plaintitr in thivcase sued on the latter Clause, for
cour.times the value of the eliontlY Itlst bYleeeiral personi to the
defendant, on,k)elkalftif the itifiltn,g Apc.t!lielmor of thepariali
'lif G cOrgei, -1-frindVe r.squ:ire.
Tell Vecial'i urn* were:sworn: " " - • • . ,
No tifler being tintyed for the plaintiff, the .41TTO nwr
writ .0. rove, anti prayed it lairs for the de fen,o alintuo
junws were sectirtlingly sworn.
The Arv'olttietv,.ltr t:>rstetrl titan amt a short pat ,R „mtim
which excitOsonic,stirilisu.„ill it,was- known that Ur.
and 111 r... ilistteson were ufstructea for the
The • LORI) Clll StysTryi.: —Tit) appears foi the phon..
The ATTORNEI*-(;.E.Nr4tAL--It doesnot
nti
it;sl;et instructed.
.1;t1 11Tre.rrl'uteson wen;
that Itll y4OP
. r
.t
1 herd if:111:31: Pli 11 i
The Lonn,Citir.V si-ns.ric.E directed that thosegentielnesi
slionld he sent for, as they bad Vecii itistrucio tel
p
• ' The A .oTottNrY•th"•447oi.HPc44llis,' my Lord; che.T.
haVe been instructed it disalear.—(A laugh.) . 'I..- • •
111 r. Pll 1 i.1.11.$ Mri 1 1411Ekto,N now came inter Cantle
and Were infurima "that tt tier's hall beet) prat,,d, and the Jury
sworn.
111 r. Pit mr.ips.-111y Lora, t.WaS quite unconscious' that the'
cause was ailed on. Ali Learned Friend and myticl,l'Yere
.cobsulting with our client in the Bail-court on the propriesY
withdrawing the ceord in consequence of the absence of Pin'
cipal witness i and I had recommended that this cause should '

be taken. I hope the Attorney-General will allow.us to with-
draw it now ; if not we shall be driven to indict him.
The ATionNEY-GENEitax.,:—l hope I mu not liable to be
personally indicted--(A: laugh.): '
Mr. l'inwvs—Olt •no ! I mean your,client.. I hope we
may still withdraw the record. :
The AT To RNEY-GENERAIJ—T hope von may be nonsuited.
Mr. Put r.Lies—lf your, Lordship wishes en affidavit of the
facts, it can be made directly.
The Loan CittEr J usTicE,LI have' no ituthority allow
the record to be withdrawn without consent, after the Jury are
sworn. If you should be nonsuited, oil think you hove grounds
for !getting the nonsuit aside, you must move the Court. I
do .not mean to • intimate that you have any such grounds,
or that the Court will assist you ; I only say 1 cannot assist
you here.
Mr. Pit ti.t.trs and Mr. PATT!,solgr called their client and
spoke • , After which
Mr. PATI*SOS said, Lord,.we are very unfortunate;
our abience,frOm the Court was quite accidental; and haul
been hero; We 'certainly shOiild not blive n11(40 the Jury to be
sworn,” , •• • -
The Loan crITEr JTIOTIcE—T an sorry for it, Sir; but I.
cannot assist you, unless the Attorney-General will consent.,
All I could do would be to discharge the Jury ; and I have
never done so in such a case; nor do I think there are grounds
to justify me in adopting such a course in thix. A.juror may
be withdrawn, and the record afterwards withdrawn by
consent.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lord, I do not consider
myself' authorized to consent to any thing. in this case. It ion
penal action.
- The LORD CIIIEF Jos-mg—l cannot desire you to do so;
I have no power to interfere,'exdept by discharging the Jury,
and I do not think I ought to do that under any circumstances
presented to my notice.
• Mr. RAl:Ts:sox then.proceeded to open the pleadings. The
declaration stated, that one Lane Fox, Esq. in February, 1104,
lost 6,000/..t0 the defendant ; that he did not sue for the same
within three months; -and that thereupon an action accrued to
the plaiutiff to recover. for himself and the poor of the parish of
St. George, Hanover-square, the said sum and three times its
amount; in the whole '.10,000/. There were other statements of
losses by other persons of the same nature ; and four counts on
eacletransaction., The entire sum sought to he recovered was
about 1110,000/.
Mr. PHIL Ors saidit 'would he am unpardonable waste of
the time of the Court if he should mate a case which he did
not. know „that he should be able to prove. A number of. wit-
nesses hail Veen' subpeenaed on behalf of the plaintiff; and it
was a ditty they owed to the Court, as well as to the party, to
appear in aid of public justiee. If they should not appear, Mr.
1 hole would hive his remedy against them ; if any of them
slieultl appear, they would prove the case more fully than lie
could State it.
41r. PATTESON then called the Right lion. Horatio Earl of
ierford, and the officer began to call hint aloud.
The lions) CHIEF JUSTICE—Before names are called out
in this way, you should band in your subpainas.
Mr. I'ATTI:m.)I4,4)Iy Lord, we cannot tell that the witnesses
will, not appear.
;11r;.Orme,.the plaintiff, an elderly man of respectable ap-
pearanere, then handed in. a Rubptena.
The Noble Earl was, then called three times,And did not ap-
3Protr;re Auj•re"reElclilvlalin•di Hughes
Bstatiillixtinuagsi,esbutucillidilinri;t EdwardaivL.r
`lllr...Thomas.Cliappell wits called, anAlimfdttr," that' he' was
locally
prise, of the Court ;
the ftwiveirttltititiiet,tri
his client, said
meo‘ulidywpeak to ma.
terial
have sai V
tta,ly called
the parish
not think
:vet V4114,l men suopirnas
st;ltatuot:art.te,plettli4r:wlrt:s'tia.;',:s:ait;tielifinrtleee:rf.tpowlcretoeillillsiit:stelilsgtoispwan";lll.:ie'Wlitthwin.wohto
" Mr. Pult.ws.,--No, in,, Lordd
'flit' Loan CIIIEE usTlCE.—Theal Call the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was accordingly ntinsuited:
you!' Lordship certify
Special Jury ; the suns
11:10eit;;;tbeheillelli:WelsIsnote:,'-le::;4lcylt;a:sisislirs:l•4-itet..EltlotWrosbrt.terigtstAicirtlir.e.td.-0-I:cey:notialiftyi.ng merely to the re-
The ATTOIt X t: ENE RAL.—Net after your Lordship has
heard the names of the expected Witnesses ?
The Loup Cut .IuSTICE.-1 think not, Mr. Attorney.
Here the matter dropped.
Lord Sefton and Air. (Ireville ast on the Bench, and the
Marquis of Hertford, at a subseqUent period, entered the
Court, and • after speaking, to the Lord Chief Justice, sat some
time on the Bench; but no allusion was made to them in the
course of the day. . .

CHIN CON.,
GRAHAM. V. WRIGLEY.

Mr. SCAIILETTTsaid the plaintiff hail married in 1016 the
lady who was the cause of the present action, and he being at
that time in possession of a small pension, not more than 1101.
per annum, which was not sufficient to procure for' himself and
his wife more than the necessfirin of life, went to India for the
purpose of getting employment as a portrait painter. Having
been unsuccessful in his professional pursuitsm India, the plain-
tiff and his wife' who had accompanied him to India, returned
ti, England in September 1020. In December Itl2o, the plain.
tifr having occasion to visit friends in Scotland, front whom he
had considerable expectations, proposed to divide lAN pension
with her during his absence.• Tins arrangement having been
entered into, the plaintiffwent to Scotland, And his friend Mr.
Laing regularly paid to Mrs. Graham 15s. per week until lag
June, when lie learned that Mrs. (inthani was living with the
defendant as his wife. Having proved those filets he should be
entitled to their verdict. lie did not mean to Kay that this was a
case which called for heavy damages, because he could not
'llifir :II
f
inoyevidence to chew that the defendant had any know-
ledge of the existence of . the plaintiff, or that there was any
hospitality on the part of the defendant. lie would
admit that in ihe case of the plaintiff end his wife, the proverb,
evert)! coes in at the door love flies mit of the
dow" was verified,m and that they did not agree as well as, be-
fore they went to India; but notwithstanding this, the defen-
dant was not justified in having had criminal intercourse with
the plaintiff's wife. The doctrine that a person separated
from his wife could not maintain an action of this kind, which
as for a long time sanctioned by this Court, was now ex.
ta oiled ; and therefore if the act. of, adultery should he proved,
he datylof the Jury would he to award to the plaintiff such
damages as would in their opinion compensate him for the in.
inry which he had sustained.
David Laing--I know theplaintiff and his wife. I was pre:
sent At their marriage at St. Martin's Church The plaintiff
was a portrait-painter.- M rs. Graham's maiden name was Caro.
line Keaisslini,. She was a tbreigner, but I (1(10 know of what
iangne_atitviele.yThey lived at niy house for some time
atet:ltriel:riletitr)itlillellittrOrs. After thewirenrtett)uurtntQthjenydilandighedlBiinn'V' fTlliusrad 're:
street in the Strand until Dee. 1020. Alr. Graham then
wenetirScodand, and Airs. G. remained in London. Mr. O.
desired me to pay Alm 0, 15,1. per week, and I paid her that sum
regularly up to June last. At that time she was living at No.
5, Albany-road, Walworth. I first knew the defendant in the
latter end of 1022, when ,Mr. G. told me that he was her
Mugger. . I called her Mrs. Graham in his presence, Not hav-
ing remarked the number of the house when I first called, .1
Vie neighbourhood on nit second visit for Mrs. G.,
intquirebionseribed'lW a foreigner, and I was then informed that
s''',.l°.ln. ~ Loy, named Wrigley, lived at No.'ll, Albany-mad.
a "'Rik'
WIPP! ,vent to No. 5, I found ,that Airs. °minim and Mrs.
wftle it4Ore o. A' •
one and the same prawn.
,e,to.examined by-Mr. MESSMER—I did .not knnW where
Airs„o; lived before her marriage. ,1 first knew Mrs. G., in
~,,n..iequence Orher coming to my }house to sit for her portrait.
.Wherrlllr, andtlifrs. G. Separated in IMO, he told me that he
bail received at letter tVom India, tuntaining very unpleasant re-
Torts.relidive to his wifto!s coquet in Intlift. He desired mu to
go fehis clothes and he then told me that, lie did not intend to
live with her any longer Idikontirmed her weekly allowance
in June last.. ~Ldou'r know that Mrs. U. Orti saw Mr. G. since
lie left London for Scotland.
James hedger—l lodged at No. 5, Albany-road, Somerset-
Place, \%'alworth, in April, 18'23. ' The landlord and his wife
iw;ed hy,the runup of Al r. and Mrs. Graham. The defendant
wes'the landlord. Ihere were•but two bed-rooms in the house.
I occupied one, and the defendant and Airs. G. occupied the
other room t thqaPPeliced to me to bo man and wire. I have
seen Mr. Laing at the h0w.... Mrs. U. told me that the de-
fentlant'Wati her second husband.
Crowesamined-1 understand that Mr. Wrigley had a pen,
lion from Government.
By the Cou we—The defendant
the did not keep a servant.
defendant's house in the
Henry Lyons--I lodged at

Albany-road. ' He passed by the name of Graham: "On ono
qeession when I was out late at night the defendant let me in,
and then retired to the room in winch Mrs. -Graham slept. The
defendant told rue that he had been in the Navy for 20 years.
crass.examinad—The defendant never told me that he war
a .purser, and had 3s. a day half-pay. He thought he was a
Captain, • •
Mr. itiCAßLETi—To.shve' trouble, I admit that the defend.
ant is n, purser on half pay.
Thennatt Saunders swore that- he lived at the defendant's
house; and that he and Apra. Graham passed as man and wife.
Mr. Tuussrot itistannitted that the plaintiticould mat main•
min this action (which was founded upon the toes of hie wife's
society), because he had abandoned his wife for 4 years, and
had declared tit the tithe df separation that he had determined
never agaiu to,liVe with ' , • y -
Ilis.LOUDsinp was ofminion*, that the, separation between
the plaftitiff and Iti4 wife was. 'licit so complete aaeparation us
would barthis action.
.Mr.,Tlx!ssiOElt thert addressed this Jury *lite defendant-.
Tbe-iandour with which the Learned Coonsel-for the, pisiniir
had tidniitted that this was not a case which Called fin heavy
datnages,'renderedkit unnecessary for him to Make Many ob.
servations, .werp it not for the opinion which had been pronoun.,
ced his Lordship; he should. have thought that, the verdict
ought to pass for the defendant. The province of the Jury was
not to punish the defendant for any breach of morality, but tO
award to the pla!ntiff a compensation for the loss of society
of his wife., Ile should leave this case in the hands of the Jury,
upon whom he called to bear in mind that the defendant was a
hall.pay purser upon a very small pittance.; dint there was no
eVidence,to shew that he knew that the lady with whom he co-
habited'wei the wife of the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff had
in Weembet 11120 expressed his determination never more to
live with his wife, anti had then.promised to her a miserably .
weekly pittance, which was discontinued in June last. •
Ilia 'ldonnsitti. summed up,, and the Jury immediately
found a verdict fortlie plaintiff—Damages One Shilling.