The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-23 00:00:00

GILES V. GILES.

This was a suit for divorce by reason of adultery, promoted
by Sarah Giles against her husband, J. P. Giles, Esq. of Wal.
cot, in Somerset. The libel contained 19 articles, to which a
number of witnesses bad been examined, pleading the marriage
of the parties on the 13th January, 18021, the subsequent cola:-
bition' and the birth of flour children, one of whom was dead.—
Fromther commencement of the year 1821, Mr. Giles carried on
an adulterous intercourse with divers women, particularly with.
two petisontil one of whom was a prostitute, and the other, Sally
Wheeler, his female domestic, until Mrs. G. quitted her hus-
band's house, in January, 1022. On various occasions he took
improper familiarities with S. Wheeler ; upon Mrs. G. remon-
strating with him he would reply that she (Sally Wheeler) was
snore than a wife to hint. He would, after dinner, make Sally
Wheeler sit down and partake of some wine and fruit, from,
which familiarities she ashumed a consequence in the house
unbecoming that of a servant, and painful to Mrs. G. ; the lat:
der, on one occasion requested her to, quit the house which she
refused, saying, she was servant to Mr. Giles and not to Mrs..
Giles ; and, on requesting Mr. Giles to part with Sally Wheeler,
he refused, and told her she might leave the house, and take
Fanny (one of the children),. but he would not pan from his-
Sally, (meaning Sally Wheeler,) at the same time, in the pre-
sence of Mrs. G., he put his arms round Sally Wheeler's waist.
Mr. Giles then left Bath with Sally Wheeler, and they were
traced to various places, where they cohabited together as man
and wife.

Sir Jour; Nrcuor. said, enough had certainly been proved
to grant the prayer of Mrs. Giles.
The divorce was therefore decreed.

MAYOR'S COURT, Nov. 2!.

TilE COLOMBIAN GOVEIINMENT.-4101PION V. JOSE DI:

SAN MARTIN AND OTHERS.

Mr. BOLLAND, in moving that common bail be filed in disc
solution of the attachment in this case, stated, that it was Am.
Action brought by Mr. Hodson against the defendants, lately err
now styling themselves the Government of Peru. It would be
recollected, that seine time ago an affidavit had been put into
Court from Air. llodson, statinq, that the above-named defend-
ants had incurred a debt with him to the amount of 310901., for
the payment of which he considered them responsible as the
Government of Peru. The Learned Counsel here proposed to
read the affidavit, when

Mr. BARNARD, who was for the other side, said, that he was
ready to argue in the event of the production of any particular
affidavit in denial of the debt, but he considered that the timer
affidavit had already been disposed of by being withdrawn.
Mr. Bow.axn said, his object was to put clown the non-
sense that was dinned into the cars of the public, upon the
subject of the responsibility of the Government of Peru tot debt
to an individual. lie was perfectly aware that the thing was
got up to tell upon the Stock Exchange. The use he intended
to make of the affidavit was, to show that the money Mr. Hod•
-
son lately claimed from Messrs. Jose d'Ariva Aguerro, Jose de
Torres Tagle, and Jose de San Martin, as the Government of
'Peru, and winch was attached in the hands of Illessrs. Baring,
Messrs., Kinder, and Messrs. Fry anti Chapman, was now
claimed from Jose San Martin and the others, as individuals,
and not as a Government. The amount sought was tbr menu-
factored goods.
Mr. BARNARD objected to the use of the affidavit, upon the
ground that the Court had already ruled that it was insufficient
for authorizing an attachment of the property.
Mr. 80w...am contended that he was at liberty to make use
of what the plaintiff had sworn against him.
The itzconoun certainly thought Mr. Rolland might use
what had been sworn to by Mr. Hodson on the former occasion.
Mr. Dot:Latin then read the affidavit of the 'daintier, hi
which he swore to the debt, as due from the Government of
Peru. tie then submitted to the Court that no such Govern-
ment could be recognized, the highest authority having stated
to that effect; that the defendants could not be sued as it go.
vernment ; and, finally, that the affidavit, or rather that which
pretended to be an affidavit, was, in fact,'no affidavit at all.
'['he ittconnEn asked whether the affidavit had not been
regularly sworn ?
Mr. BoLLANn replied, that it had been sworn merely before
one of the clerks in the Mayor's Court, and of course was not
an instrument upon which, if it contained a false statement, an
indictment for purjury could be founded.
The ItEcoanta.—Who is this clerk ?—to what attorney of
the Court is he clerk ?—for 1 shall take care that practices of
this kind shall not be tolerated.
His Lordship was here informed that it had been a practice
of the Mayor's Court Office for many years to permit the clerks
to swear persons. Business was greatly facilitated by sucit
means.

C RECORDER desired that he should never again heat of
this mode of swearing affidavits- 'flit:did, he should certainly
adopt summary means of preventing the practice.
One of the attornies said it had been the practice ever since
he belonged to the office, and that was 26 years.
The ItEconntat said, he hoped his observation on the sub-
ject would be taken as a sufficient notice, and that there would
be no repetition of the practice.
His Lonnati IP then granted the motion to Mr. Dollar* by
which the attachment becomes wholly null and void. did
this uport the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavit; stat-
ing, at the same time, that if a proper affidavit had been tiled,
he should have given his opinion- of the Iwo other objections,
but that was now quite unneceisary.