The Sun.
London, England, 1823-08-05 00:00:00

GILL V. GILL.

- This was a petition from Mrs. Gill, praying for lunatic in-
quiry on behalf of her husband. The allegations in support of
it chiefly related to an unconquerable delusion into which Mr.
Gill had fallen as to the fidelity of his wife. He had brought
two actions for criminal conversation with his wife against a
gentleman of his own county (Hereford), which were tried in
Lancashire, and in each he was defeated without any evidence
being called for the defence. Mrs. Gill had afterwards pro-
ceeded against him for the restitution of conjugal rights in the
Court of Arches, and obtained a decree in her favour. The
main evidence of his insanity was derived from his own letters.
The Loan CHANCELLO It having heard the pleadings to the
end, proceeded to comment upon the merits of the petition. He
distinguished between the writDe inqui rend° lunatic°, whichthe
petition prayed, and the issuing the commission of lunacy upon
the return of the writ. He observed that it was now a staled
point of authority, that except the writ of inquiry returned the
party in express terms as being of unsound mind, the lunatic
commission could not issue. There seemed to be a very ma-
terial defect in the evidence, and it was one which he did not
conceive it was possible for the Court to get over-s.there was no
affidavit to bring circumstances of the insanity up to the pre-
sent period. With respect to the circumstances set forth in the
affidavits, they seemed to resolve themselves chiefly into one
particular delusion which possessed Mr. Gill's mind as to the
supposed infidelity of his wife It was very easy to see that a
sane man having got it into his mind that he was wronged in the
most tender point, would not regard the conduct of his wife
with the same feelings and views with which a Jury would
consider the facts of that conduct put in evidence before
them. His pertinacity in bringing the second action for
the same affair, Mrs. Gill's innocence notwithstanding—
and every thing went in presumption of her innocence—would
be no proof of unsoundness of mind. But this was not all.—
.Mrs. Gill had proceeded in the Arches Court for the restitu-
tion of conjugal rights, by which she seemed to seek to re-asta-
blish a community of interests with her husband as with a sane
man. Ile did not say that her suit in the Ecclesiastical Court
was to debar her of a remedy here, if the lunacy could be esta-
blished : but the law was always tender of allowing wives to
petition in lunacy against their husbands. How was it that this
lady could find no relation of the family to bring this peti-
tion ? He did not say that the Court would in no case admit
the petion of the wife; but where a wife had manifestly treated
her husband as sane, the Court must hold the matter in
doubt, especially with that defect of evidence which he had be-
fore pointed out. There were circumstances connected with
this case which had come to his knowledge by another channel
and which rendered the subject very painful to his feelings. It
appertained to his office to affix the great seal to the commis_
sions of the peace. On the renewal of the connnission for the
county of Hereford the last time, the name of Mr. Gill,
which had always been in the list before, was omitted. It
was customary for the Lord Lieutenant, on remitting the lists,
to assign some causes for the omission. But it so happened
that there was a necessity on this occasion for instantly affixing
the seal to thecommission, and the matter was left to after expla-
nation. He had received letters from Mr. Gill upon the subject
since, which were written with perfect propriety, and did ho-
nour to his capacity. lie had also acted as under-sheriff of the
county of Merioneth the year before last, which was consider-
ably after the period of the alleged insanity, with much credit to
be
withdismissed.niore ee
himself, as his Lordship had been given to understand. Under
haaltl,egliaotwioenvse,r,anwdomulodrepoint pcorenjfuodniicelityany other
all these circumstances, he was of opinion that the petition must
case which might be brought before the Court, accompanied
rtarlin‘ with the
administration of justice in this particular branch of the Court's
jurisdiction.—Petition dismissed.

VICE-CITANCELLOR'S COURT, AUGUST 4.

EX-PARTE WYKJIAII, IN RE CROCTET.
The VICE-CIIANCELLOR., on this bankrupt petition being
called on, stated that he had read all the very voluminous'
affidavits.
this case, and he had no difficulty in saying, that
in all his experience for the last 30 years in bankrupt petitions.
he had never read so shameful, so barefaced, so infamous a
case. He regretted that such a case should have come under
his consideration ; but he still more deeply regretted it, be-
cause an attorney of the Court was connected in the transaction.
His Honour stated that he had most attentively read the whole
proceedings, and he had satisfied himself on which side the
truth rested, for it was utterly impossible for any affidavits to
contradict each other more flatly ; and he was convinced that
if a criminal proceeding were instituted before a Jury upon
those affidavits, there would be little
.difficulty in finding a
verdict. The strong impression upon his mind certainly was,
that a combination bad been formed between an attorney of
this Court and other parties to release the bankrupt. His
Honour then went through the various affidavits which had
been filed in the case.

Mr. TRESLOVE stated, that he had appeared only on. behalf
of Mr. Sadler, the attorney. The affidavit only which affected
Mr. Sadler was that of Mr. Kitchener, and it appeared to the
Learned Counsel that there were no allegations of express facts
charged against his client.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said it was impossible to read this
case without seeing, if the affidavits were to be believed, that
Mr. Sadler was connected with all the fraud subsequent to the
issuing of the commission, viz. that most gross fraud of crest.
ing fictitious debt. The affidavits contmdictineeach other so
flatly, the question was, to whom credit was to be giten ? Mr.
Kitchener, whose affidavit was the strongest against Mr. Sad.
ler, was a gentleman who was proved by two Magistrates to
have practised for twenty years with the utmost respectability.
Two other individuals also proved that Sadler had perjured
himself with respect to the transaction. Under these dream.
stances, he must supersede the commission with costs, to be
paid by Stanton, the bankrupt, azid Sadler. It was his decided
opinron that it was not safe for the public interest to permit
this matter to rest for a month without being made the subject
of a criminal prosecution. It was absolutely necessary to check
such attempts by example, and by instituting immediate cri.
mmal proceedings.