The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-27 00:00:00

could not SUStain his rule, which was accordingly discharged,
but without costs.

THE RING v. SHERWOOD AND AI{OTHER.

This was a rule obtained in last term, calling on Messrs.,
Sherwood and Jones,' booksellers in Paternoster-row, to show
cause why a criminal information should not be exhibited
against them for publishing a pamphlet respecting the late
John Thurtell and his associates, tending to prejudice them on
their trial.

Mr. CHITTY, for the prosecution, said that he was instruct-
ed to consent to the rule being discharged on payment of costs
by the defendants.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendants, said that he was autho
rised to agree to the terms suggested.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that the Court had
no power to compel a party to go on with a criminal informa-
tion if he chose to decline it. The rule, therefore, must be dis-
charged on payment of costs.

ARCHES COURT, JAN. 26.
JOHN V. JOHN.

Dr. SWABEY said, this was a suit for the admission of libel,
for divorce, instituted by Samuel John, Esq., of Cornwall,
against his wife, by reason of adultery.
Dr. JENNER, on behalf of Mrs. John, stated the nature of
the libel as pleaded by Mr. John, and took various objections
to the several articles contained therein. On the 23d of Jan.
1810, the parties were married, and on the 24th of March
following, Mr. John left his wife, for the purpose of attend-
ing his duties as Under Sheriff', in a distant part of the
County. While he was absent, he learnt that Mrs. John
had been delivered of a female child, at the house of her
father, a gentleman of property and respectability, on the first
of April ; and she admitted that her husband was not the
father of the child. The parties contracted the marriagefor better
for worse, and it must have been quite competent for Mr. John
to have ascertained her pregnancy previous to the marriage, so
that no deception was practised upon him, and therefore the
present libel could not be sustained ; the Court in similar cases
have already put that question to rest, particularly in the case
of Perrin against Perrin (Dr. Adams's Reports, vol. 1), where
Mrs. Perrin, previous to the marriage, had been delivered of two
children, and she was actually receiving for their maintenance
from her paramours the sum of 400 k; but the Court held
that the libel was inadmissible, because the fact of the marriage
was a waver of the husband's claim, and any act committed pre-
viously would not justify, him in suing for a divorce. In 1811
articles of separation were agreed to between Mr. Grill (on be-
half of Mrs. John) and Mr. John, by which the lady's fortune
was restored to her, and her father was to maintain her. The
deed of separation was intended by Mr. John's Counsel to be,
produced in evidence against her;. but he (Dr. Jenner) con-
ceived that it ought not to be received, because Mrs. John had
not signed it, or been present at its execution. The father's
will bequeaths 1501. per annum to Mrs. John, and 501. to the
daughter, born in April, 1813. Mr. Gill subsequently sent his
daughter to reside with the Rev. Mr. Palmer, where it is pleaded
that she became acquainted with George Robert Forster, and
frequently spoke of him in terms of great affection, sometimes
feigning herself ill for tbe purpose of seeing him. They used
to meet at the house of one John Smith, whose wife was MrS.
John's servant, and letters used to be left there for each other.
On one occasion, when Mr. Palmer refused to send for Mr.
Forster, she flew into a violent passion and broke the glasses on
the table; this was stated on conjecture from their refusal to
send for Mr. Forster, but Dr. Jenner contended that was not
sufficient to establish acts of adultery. The libel lastly pleaded
that Mrs. John got acquainted with Mr. Weyland, a Curate,
who was discovered with the lady in her bed room in such a
situation as left no doubt of the adulterous intercourse : now
this important circumstance, Wit were true, ought to have been
specified by a certain date, but in what year it is not even
stated, and was therefore too vague to sustain the present libel.
Dr. ADAM followed on the same side.
Dr. SWABEY, for Mr. John, contended that the articles
charging the adulterous intercourse were as specific as was
necessary to support the libel. It was urged as an objection,
that as this sort of conduct in the lady was stated to have con-
tinued for some years, why was not the present suit instituted
before 1821 ? his answer was, that Mr. John only received an
intimation of the facts in that year, and having satisfied him-
self as to the grounds for the charge, he prosecuted it with as
much dispatch as was possible.
Dr. Ix soIN a roar followed on the same side at cOnsider-
able length.
Sir jo,* Nicol., ordered the libel to be reformed.