The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-09 00:00:00

LAIDLAW V. ELLIOT.

Mr. Bnoucatast moved fur; rule to whew cause why the
verdict for the plaintiff should not be set aside, and a nonsuit
entered. It was an action to recover 2001. from the defendant,
an sttorney, on the ground of a loss to that amount sustained
by the plaintiff through the negligence of the attorney. The
Learned Gentleman contended at length, that, admitting she
alleged mistake, it was upon a point so obscure and doubtful,
that the defendant could not justly be held liable as having
acted without due skill or due diligence. He also moved on the
ground of excessive damages.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 8.
The Court met this morning in basica at 11 o'clock, and was
occupied till 12 with hearing motions of course. It then rose.
The Loup CHIEF JUSTICE would have sat at Nisi Prias
this day, but there were no causes entered for trial ; he there-
fore adjourned without entering upon any business.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 8.
(Beibre Sir C. Ronnisoiv.
MONTAGUE V. MONTAGUE.

This was a suit for separation by reason of adultery, pro.
moted by G. C. Montague against his wife, Margaret Green
Montague. The parties were married at Gretna Green in 1803,
and in May last, Mrs. Montague cited her husband in this
Court for a separation by reason of adultery. Mr. Montague is
possessed of a life interest in a considerable estate by virtue of
his grandfather's will, which on his death is to devolve on his
male issue, and in default of which to his two sisters.
Dr. ADAMS, on behalf of Mrs. Montague, said that if Mr.
Montague should object to the validity of his marriage, which
must of necessity be proved before the adultery could be de-
termined, and such objections were held valid, then the chil-
dren, of whom there were three, would be declared
mate, and they would be deprived of their paternal property,
which would go to Mr. Montagues sisters. ()n the other hand,
if the marriage be held legal, then the property would descend
in tight to the children. The Court would therefore perceive,
that Mr. Montague's sisters would be materially affected by
the decision of the marriage, and he therefore hoped the Court
would see the propriety of the sisters being made parties to the
suit.

Dr. ARNOLD, on behalf of Mr, Montague, opposed the mo-
tion. Such an application was without precedent ; the case of
the Marquis of Donegal did not hear at all on the question ;
chat suit was proceeded in nominally for a nullity of marriage,
but it was in order to put the validity of the marriage in the
'Muse of' trial ; the issue there was on the nullity or validity
bf.the marriage ; here it was on the adultery—the cases, there-
fore, were extremely different—the issue to be tried of, one was
the nullity or validity of the marriage; of the other, the adul-
tery. In order to find a sentence of adultery, of course the
marriage must be proved, but that was only an incidental point
of proof, and ant the grand point at issue. Mrs. Montague
wished to bring into the suit certain persons whose interests
might be affected by contingent events; but the Court surely
would not entertain so novel an attempt to convert the suit of
adultery into one of nullity of marriage.
Sir CHRISTOPHER RODIN/SON said the case was certainly
novel, and presented many inconveniences; he would read the
libel, and give his judgment on a future court day.