The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-29 00:00:00

Air. Justice. PAR C—lf this Was a common application bran
ordinary case, the Court would certainly indulge it and enlarge
the rule. • But as the affidavit of the defendant discloses
enough to chew that the Millen: had been improperly
obtained, we cannot possibly interfere. The Fleet is not a
prison for criminal process, and where a prisoner has been sent
for criminal process to another prison this Court has no power
to remove him.
Jacobs te Jew attorney, here mood forward, with A paper-
in his hand, and said, " Ily Lords, I wish this affidavit to be
read."

Mr. Justice Ilunnotrau.—You must hand it to your
Counsel.
Jacobs.—llly Lords, my name Is Jambs.
31r. Justice Nax.—We cannot hear you. 1 thouht ou
were the party from the anxiety you showeck—Bule ma g y
deal)»
solute.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 20,
SIAYWARD V. HAYWARD.
INS was a snit of separation and divorce by reason of aclui.
tery,: brought by Mary, the wife, against Win. Hayward, the
husband.
Dr. BURNAHT stated the substance of the libel, which
pleaded the marriage of the parties in the month of March,
MU ; the departure of Mr. Hayward, in a tbw months after-
wards, for Lisbon, leaving Mrs. Hayward in lfoigland ; his
subsequent return and cohabitation with his wife, to whom
he was a second time married, under an apprehension that
the first marriage was invalid, by reason of .an improper
timliption of the lady's name; and the commencement of
the husband's acquaintance with the party with whom he has
since cohabited, under various namea, and at a variety of places.
The adulterous connection with this person was abundantly
proved against the hitsband, who employed no Counsel and
made no defence.
Sir CifilisToPil En, 'tont Nsolit after severely animadvert-
ing on the conduct which Hayward had pursued in the matter
or this suit, and the strong indications which the course he had
adopted, in employing no Counsel and making no defence, al..
forded of a previously concerted intention and desire of being
separated,•ponounced the sentence of separation, as prayed for
by the wife.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DUBLIN, Nov. 25
I'
Yesterday Mr... Thomas LANAGAS, of Sligo, applied
personally to this Court to obtain a conditional order for a cri-
mina! information against the Iron. Henry King. He hed
that the Gentlemen of the Bar would not be offended aot phis
making a motion in that Court. In doing so he meant nothing.
disrespectful to the lion. Gentleman against whom be moved
lhr a conditional order. He had consulted the Speaker or the
Douse of Commons, and the agent who bed conductrd Mr.
Spring Rice's petition, and they agreed that he was entitled to
twenty-eight days to enter into recognisances. On the lath
day' however, the Speaker of the House of Commons
said, that only flotriten days were allowed in Engla
and that fourteen days more were extended to Irelandnd,
.
The Speaker then ruled against him, and, by-the-bye, he af-
terwards admitted that he did not rule very
Juatly. Ile Wk.,
aware of the necessity of coming into Court with clean bands,
but he would be a traitor to his country, to himself, anti to the
inhabitants of Sligo, who had entrusted their petition to his•
hands, did he not make the application to the Court.
Here the Court inquired of Mr. Flanagan what WAS the na-
tare of the motion, and what were the grounds on which it
was made ?
Mr. FLANAGAN said, that he moved the Court for a ride to
spew cause why a criminal information should not be ±iled
against the Hon. Henry KIM. His motion was grounded on
an affidavit which he held in his hand.
The CHIEF JUST/ClL—Let your affidavit be read by the
officer of the Court.
The affidavit was accordingly read. It alleged, that, dtiring
the election at Sligo, on which occasion the Honourable Henry
King was returned as a Member of ,Parliament that'
Meat,
drink, and entertainment was given to several persona for the
porpose of influencing them to vote for the flonouralile Henry
Jun.
Alr. FLANAGAN then stated to the Court, that he held in-
his hand a letter from a distinguisluai Member of Parliament,
which he would read to the Court.
The Clines Joivrtor,--We cannot hear the letter read....._
We will hear any arguments fromyourself in support of your
motion, but the Court cannot permit you to read the letter.,
Mr. FLANAGAW.—My Lord, I wish to read the letter, be.
cause I ion anxious to state the reasons why:-....
. CurF.s. JUST tox.—We cannot hear it. State the grounds
on which you proceed.
Mr. FLANAGAN.—I proceed, myLord, upon the abstract of,
principle of the law. My motion is grounded on the 35th of
Dm ad, chaps. Wand lii.
Mr. FLANAGAN then read extracts from the Act to'whith he
had referred, in support of his motion.
The Come refused the motion in consequence of its not
having been made within a reasonable time, and the all davit
not having stated the cause of delay.
Air. FLANAGAN intimated to the Court that he should apply
for an order against the officer of the Court for having retpitred.
him to stamp tt, Lit of paper..

would not be effectual. Some rule might he adopted, but tat
that was done the practice must remain as before.
LEVI V. WRITTAIAND.
Serjeant PELL showed cause ateainst the rule which
had been obtained in this cause for removing the defendentlkoiri
the custody of the Warden of the Fleet to 'Whitecross.street
prison. The rule had been granted upon an affidavit, stole*
that the writ of Ilubcas Corpus by which the defendant lied go
himself' removed to the Fleet hs the first instance had beet surreptitiously obtained, he having been remanded to Ni'llitec.ress.
street prison for 14 months by order of the Cominiissio*N of
the Insolvent Debtors' Court, for fraud in making out his
schedule. The //earned Serjeant now applied to the Court to
enlarge the rule till next Term, and foundean d his ap on
•aflitlavit by the defendant ; which stated that be held not
not
been served with notice of the rule till after nine o'sleck on
Wednesday night, and that from the shnrtness of the time it
was impossible for him to obtain an office copy of the Stf-
fidavit.
Mr. Justice PARE (addressing himself to Mr. Brown, die
Warden of the Fleet)—Mr. Warden, have you the writ of
Haheas Corms
C. Brown here handed it up.
Mr. Serjeant Plet.l then co shored to read the affidavit,.
The deponent stated that he had employed a perstm minted
Jacobs, as his Attorney, who had deceived and dived hint
in every respect. Ilsving been taken ill in \Vhitecross.:
street prison, he applied to Jacobs for his advice how to
act, and the latter told him that if he would give him 4!.
he would get him removed by Habeas to the Fleet. Ace
eordingly he paid the money, and was removed on the 13th
Nov. under the circumstances stated. The deponent further
stated that he had but just arrived front Ireland, and watt
not aware of any illegality in his removal to the • Fleet. On
being served with the notice on Ilrednestlay night, he found it
impossible to see Jacobs at the moment, but he applied to hints
early yesterday morning, as to how he was to proceed. Jacobs
told him to rest content anti that he would call again, but he
never kept his wotd, and the deponent then mentioned. the dr..
cumstance to a fellow prisoner, who told him that belied placed
himself in bad hands, and that it was now too late to answer
the rule. The same prisoner advised the deponent to make an
affidavit of these facts, and to apply to the Court to enlarge the
rule.
Mr. Justice Ilunaounir said, that upon his own affidavit
the defendant admitted that he was in custody by order of the
Insolvent Debtors' Court. How then could this Court inter-'
fere in a case of that kind ?
Mr. Serjeant PELL said that he was not disposed to go inter
the general merits of the case his only business being to move
that the rule should be enlarg;d. He saw quite enough on the
face of the transaction to suppose that the defendant had been
grossly imposed upon by Jacobs, and it was much to be re-
gretted that such persons were allowed to pillage and plunder
poor prisoners of their last miserable penny.
Mr. Justice 13unnonGx—The only question is, whether
was not imposed upon in the first instance. I signed the natear
Corpus, and had I known that the defendant *min Custody by
order of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, I certainly should not
have done so.
Mr. Serjeant PELL expressed his hope that the Court would
feel disposed to enlarge the rule under the peculiar circum-
stances of the case.
Mr. Justice Bunnonott.-11rother Pell, if you can suggest
any probable reason why the rule should ultittiately be dis-
charged, I think we ought to enlarge it, but you have not seg.,
gested any such reason.
Mr. Serjeant PELL referred again to the affidavit which can:
tradicted some of the allegations upon which the rule had been
obtained, -