The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-19 00:00:00

adt the
:h- casei
tnt
mow
sahtkli
pc inshp
pose of remaining silent. Had my Learned Friend made out
o suppose
eeu
he
th ad 1 si
acmsa
care
made
oeni, out,all against
hwmei without oocuul
ilte_nt
do
oa t observation,Bn:ia
gt
atigraivi ea ti
tractol imnaigdlenthhaavt eresiunpaprko,setals ti,l,teatit
has
se
clailaldednio.otr dhoenaveyadllamheaaceosu,lld as
or three days after this, I saw the lady in a great chair sitting she said if he would allow her to go on board a boat in the river
she would there consider the proposal.
on the gentleman's knees, with her arm over his neck.
Where did the party go from Nourdowleali ?—Back to Fut- She obtained a boat ?—Yes, a budgerow.
She went on board ?—Yes.
teghur direct.
Did the defendant go with them ?—Yes. "proposal?
Before her going on board did you press her to consider the
of them. lam not here, my Lord, to jus'itifdy tl:ie crime coin-
Sir by my client, for no man can more deeply repent it than,
I believe a short time after she left her husband's house?— 'Proposal? I went on boardand gave her from Mr. Swetenham
Yes, and has not returned. 1000 Rupees; and again urged her to reflect on his proposal_
henl does.. Had I been instructed indeed to defend his conduct,.
she said it was now too late.
it would have been my duty to have attempted it ; but so far
Captain ADONTAff Salmi examined by MT. TURTON. !
Q. You are brother-in-law to Mrs. Swetenham—married to I Sir ANTHONY BULLER—This:is not evidence. His Lord-
' Allathen-asked if the depositions now taken down could be act. •
his sister ?—A. Yes.
ed upon by the Lordsh .(Hotise_of Lords.)
lllr. MACTIER—OiI no! My Lord, they cannot. is this from being the case, that the very first instructions I
You lived near him ?—Yes,; our doors join, and the houses
are in the same compound.received with my brief were not to attempt to say one word
Did you become acquainted with Mrs. Swetenham soon after The ADVOCATE-GENERAL, no my Lord, evidence for that againt Mr. Swetenham, for that he was a most honourable.
the marriage?—Yes, about two• or three months after. purpose must be taken by commission. man—but the observation of my Learned Friend peculiarly
From that time to the time of the elopement were you. on Mr. TunToN observed he did not believe it would be acted calls for, from me, a claim for mitigation of damages. The
terms of intimacy with them?—Yes, very much so. on, but thought there was nothing to prohibit the Lords from whole case, my Lord, shews only in this affair the acts of Mid.
On what terms did they live ?—They appeared to live parti- acting on it if they chose. Swetenham—no arts of seduction—none of those arts employed
cularly happy; I never saw a couple more so. Cross-examined H
by Mr. MONEY—Ow long had you been to ensnare and betray, which usually form the ground of a
Did he appear fond of her P—Particularly so.
acquainted with the plaintiff and his wife ?—Before my own claim for heavy damages are here exhibited ; on the contrary,
Did she appear attached to him P—Very much. marriage. a witness has been put into that box, who proves that the
Is Mrs. Swetenham handsome ?—Very pretty, I think. I think you said the third time they went into the Mofussil defendant never saw Mrs. Swetenham till he went to
And he treated her with affection ?—Yes, with very great was in November ?_....yes, it was in the beginning of November Futteghur. Your Lordship put a question which I did
affection indeed, or end of October. not like to ask, but which I knew must produce a great effect
Do you remember Mr. Swetenham going on a visit to Cawn- I think you have said that the first time you ever saw Mr. whichever way it might be answered. It was stated by the
pore in September last?—Yes. • Mr. Macnaughten was the day before they went into the Mo. witness that the defendant never was at Futteghur before the
How Tong were they there ?_....1 think they returned to putte. fossil ?--No : I think I said, I saw hint first in the district after time the party went out into the district.—[ The Advocate-
ghur in about a month ;it was either in September or October. leaving Futtehur the second time. General denied that this was in evidence.]—l say there is no
umssatuwhstativlheeabdveeeefeknnnd(olaarinlnyt
A few days
amttehhtvaeaitctntillelech,niberclevechfhoaotormhueiases;et
lt
brltheyyiellabssrhadoyatehde invitation,eltareh r_vaieentdn_i
.sataaeiwilen)at,ndat
aihnnhti
therefore
irwlnle before;—[againhieftovohre,mer_u,
howas v
cry
I.n objectedt:.
into the district on some business ?—Yes, a few days after; I Two or three days.
can't say exactly how many. How long did you remain? Not more than a day.
Was Mr. Mangles with them when you joined ? Yes.
before he saw,him in the. district with Mrs. Swetenham. I say,
Before their departure did you receive any intimation that
therefore, that it is a fair inference that he the defendant never
the defendant was coming ?—Yes Mr. Swetenham told me he Did he continue with them when out in the district ? yes ;
twdhheai
antdhte
dente
efhtehenalanntay3tt
ilaiFlrr u.t3st3toolergar
n4l:
guedldreaubsycewstfioeorbnneet, f
owhorairetdh thatttibilleeeeii
rnpf
arhrtetel
tsyueh,
rdant,dh,
that
othe
he
Fiennurueetyst
emte
grahli
liansuvaerded: •
was coming, and begged that if he should come, during his but returned before them 3or 4 days probably.
been on terms of intimacy with the plaintiff; yet it is in evi-
abaence, I would receive him. - Was any body else with them ? Captain Parsons was with
them at the time I was, and returned I think with them.
Did he arrive ?—Yes ; but. I was not present the day he ar-
Do you know any thing of Mr. Macnaghten's circumstan-
rived : 1 was absent during the day, and returned in the even-
ces ? No Ido not.
saenetni lived
them. with
vitrhheym
ing, when I found he had been at my bungalow, and gone to
Ifis allowances are small I believe? I understand 300 rut
hemuch not a s
ti nh
ye
n c l putienei ta:tiai
utntNsooeostwuihncahl-yt mainabiro,tex arcs
were:aaninedd
join Mr. Swetenham.
wasas
pees per month, besides his pay and allowances (of his rank,)
Did Mr. and Mrs. Swetenham return a few days after that ?
from the Company.
examined Friend
kn
paws
that tto thhea t
wouldfa c t ?
havet '
—Yes.
He is generally considered a needy man ? Report says so :
Were they accompanied by the defendant ?—I don't exactly
h y'
provedbi it
that I don't know. recollect : Mr. Swetenham left Futteghur again immediately tt '
eat r. TURTON. Has he no income besides ? I don't know. a-
after their return, and on the day after I followed them ; and
The Coun• Do you know his age 2 I don't know it • but ll3en• But it does appear that a few days after the party went
then.' saw the defendant : I did afterwards hear that the defer- l.— his • ' into the district, thisact • 1, - I,
, , was committed— objected y the-
pose him, from appearance, to be two or three and . .
dant was at Futteghur when they returned there, but I don't
Thirrt plaintiff s Counsel that it was after Mr. Mangles had left the
y• recollect seeing him.
party and returned to Futteghur.) I can
only say that Capt.
Captain JAMES DUCKET PARSONS examined by the AD- Parsons stated that 1
It r. Mangles had left them three or
Who was with them ?—Captain Parsons (who is married to,..,has t
VOCATE-urENEHAL. four days only, before the party returned ; anti the act of adul-
another sister of Mr. Swetenham) and Mr. Mangles.
Q. I believe you are a Captain in the Company's Military tery proved, •• is sworn to have been committed a few days after
When did they return to Futteghur the second time P—About Service ?—A. I am. they went into the district—(objected by else plaintiff's Counsel
the middle of the month of November. Do you know the plaintifF9—Yes, I do. that Captain Parsons was not examined to this point).--Well,
Was the defendant still with them ?—Yes. Have you known him for any length of time ?—Since about then, it w s • , a. either him or Capt. Smith ;—it was Capt. Smith,
How lona did he remain with them ?—He remained with 1818.
and I will take his evidence • in preference to that of other wit-
them till the 23d or 24th of November. Have you had occasion to observe how he lived with his nesses on this point as it stands, or I will give •
even a further
During that time was Mr. Swetenham obliged to leave Fut- lady—whether in an affectionate manner ?—Yes; very much ' time, and say it was five or six days before the return. of the
teghur again 9—Yes, he was. SO. party that Mr. Mangles left them, which taken with on
When was that?-1 think he wished to leave Futteghur to Were you on duty at Futteghur in September and October? deuce of the Choo tt ewillskew' that ,'
- ' ' the
*-
pras. ee,
go on the district about the 15th. Yes, I was, spoke to, must have happened after illr. Mangles left. I say,
Do you know why they returned the last time P—l heard Are you in any way connected with the Plaintiff' hY mart therefore, that if any of' those arts, or that conduct which' •" .
that they returned the last time in consequence of Mrs. Sweten- riage ?—Yes, lam ; I married one of his sisters—Capt. Smith flame damages, had been practised, he must have kno • in-
ham
it.—
ham requiring medical aid, married another.
Does it not appear then, my Lord, from all these circum-
Why did Sirs. Swetenham not accompany him the last time? Do you know the defendant I—Yes. stances, that the lady was always forward ?—(The Counsel for
—Because she still complained of requiring medical aid Do you remember the plaintiff; Mr. Mangles, and the de- the plaintiff denied this.) Does it not appear that a few days
You say he wished to have left about the 15th, why did from Futteghurd?—Yes : I ac-fendant going on an excursion
companied them..
he not P—On account of Mr. Macnaghten not being able to go,his knee with her arms round his neck ? Captain Smith said
Did you remam Lang
1 with them ?_.Four ror five days. I that it must have been either in the 1 • •
Ile (The defendant) said there was some mistake about his
the time of theparty teginning of November or
Bawl; which he had fixed fbr the 15th, and Mr. Swetenhain • Do you remember
they returning ?—Yes : in the latter end of October that they went away. Now it
think it wasin November returned, I ant not quite sure
therefore delayed his departure till the 17th.must have been before the 15th of November that
they return-
Was the 17th also fixed for the Defendant's departure ? complained of ill health, which was the cause
of the date. She , ed, because it was that day that Mr. Swetenham had fixed for
of their return. Yes, it was.
his departure again after they had so returned. I'll take,
Did he go on the 17th P—No, he wrote me saying there had Do you recollect the plaintiff leaving Futteghura •
20th I think. again ? therefore, Captain Smith's evidence, and e ten say that they,
been some mistake regarding his dawk, and he had been oblig- Yes about about
knowtlte
went away in the end of October, and returned in the middle of
if Captain Alaenaghtenhad then fixed to leave
ed to put it off.
them Do
r"I don't know* except from h
Was Mr. Swetenham obliged to go on the 17th ?—I think .
1V as he to have left about the 20th !—Yes : he that time, they had been only one week together when the act
was about
he said that his business was very urgent ; but he would put itwas committed.—(Objected to ;—urged that it was 20 days
20th. l7 h but as soon as Mr. Swetenham 1
the
off till the 20th, owing to I.llr. Macnaghten not being able to gothey had been together.)—l say it is so. But, my Lord, my
have one. .
on the 17th, but understanding that he would certainly go on to g
Captain Smith's Learned Friend shall have a fortnight if he pleases. Taking,
Do you remember return to Futteghur ? however, the middl f 1e o tae periods stated, 1 say it was only
that day.
t the 23d of November.
Did 111 r. Swetenham go on the 20th !—Yes, he did, at least Yea, abourd
0.
about a week when this act of adultery was committed, and
a dine that day a At M S ha 's—
Where tr. y r. weten m
I think it was the 20th ; but am not certain, for it might have h and Mrs. Smith Bitted there taking into consideration the great probability that the first act
Captain Sind there, and the defendant
been the 21st. of adultery was not immediately discovered ; and that that rc-
Didwas also there. Did Mr. Macnaghten go on the 20th ?—No,
any thing • rated in evidence was therefore not the first act of adultery,l
you observe a particular after dinner in the do think it extremelyprobable in•"
that. three orhour clays only,
Did he make the same excuse to his Bawl: again ?—I don't evening in the conduct of Mrs• Swetenham ?—Y es, I did, I c 1-,
Dater the were to .
know what excuse he made, as I accompanied Mr. Swetenham observed her write a note and hand it across the table to Mrs. . _
~..y
rm., Lo.d, is the slender ground on which your Lordship is
to the district.
Smith.
During the whole time you have spoken of, did Mr. M called on to stamp my client by an award of heavy damages, as
Mac- Did her manner appear as usual 9—No : I saw that some-
say, my Lord, that from the
naghten continue Dlr. nwetenhanles guest ?taxes : as far as I thing particular had occurred ? but could not tell what. She a cool and deliberate seducer. I • which I
negative evidence to bare alluded, I have a right to say
saw : he was always regularly at table.
left the table after writing the note.
that he is not so. My client is as carry -
3: as any man can he for
Where did he sleep ?-- He slept in a small bungalow at some Did you return t• Cann Smith's where you lived, in the even- • he i ' .•
the crime has Committed , there is, indeed. only one excuse
distance from the estate. log ? Yes; and retired at about 11 o'clock.
for him : he is a young man, end he is left
Did Mr. 'Mangles also live in Mr. Swetenham's bungalow Was there an alarm that night about an attempt to elope ? with a young and beautiful woman. God forbi a,
raenyt• a ma-
and dine at his table ?—Yes, he did, there being no bungalow Yes, there was: I heard that after I went to the house she was that I should impute any blame to the plaintiff' ford this Lcoorirfi,
val
believe
Mrs. morninge.
instructed to say, a manor the highest boncur and worth—no
tour ?—Yes. Had Mr. Swetenham arrived ?-11e arrived after she return- shadow of blame can attach to him. He has, by no act of his
Before you went, was any arrangement made where Mrs. ed to the house; but did not see her, and she left the house in merited the heavy •f ' '1 d 1'•
-• • • ,
re nus ortune--1 se eep affliction which has
Swetenham was to sleep ?—Yes : I think Mrs. Smith invited the afternoon of that day.
fallen on him through the conduct of i
ity client• I most wil-
Sirs. swetcnham to live in our bungalow during the absence of Did he appear a kind and indulgent husband ?—I never saw tingly admit all tl • L d •** -
this, my or, , but I will put •
it as in mitiga-
Mr. Swetenham and myself, and she accepted the invitation. one more so.
Lion of damages, that they were thus leftalone from day
Sir. Macnaghten is a British subject in the Company's aer- Cross-examined by Mr. MoarEY Do you know the defend-- owing to
vice in the army. ant ?-1 do.unavoidable circumstances. Were the damages to be
What is his rank ?—lle is a Lieutenant, Capt. Smith has said the defendant dto be about 33 appeare proportioned '
P to the measureinjury sustained—could they
of
compensate for the sufferiofan injured husband, I should
ngs
He also holds same other situation a_ _Yes he is Deputy Judge years old, I understand he is only 25 : how do you reconcile id d ' '
Advocate General. that P—l was just mentioning to a gentleman a little while ago, nee admit that heavy damages were ustly claimable. But
I say, that theplaintiffhere fill his
does not come to pockets,
I believe you accompanied Mr. Swetenham ?—Yes. that 1 thought he was about 30.
but toget rid of a who has disgraced him, and er
When did you return I—On the evening of the 23d of Examined by the COURT—He had not been at Futteghur , woman . ., 11 -
naps to form another connection in which he may seek for that
November. before as a visitor of' Mr. Swetenhamns. he has last in this. I say a 'air that no blame can
Did you find that Mrs. Swetenham had lived at Mrs. Smith's CAPTAIN lIIWEN MALIN°, Examined by Mr. TURTON.
attache happinesshim—that.'
'
No :on the contrary I found she had only been there by invi- Q. You are a Captain in the Company's Service ?—.l- I am. to no mar_ con be more free from the most
tation. Are you Paymaster and Postmaster at Cownpore ?—I am.remote melon of any ii 1, te connivance or even neglect.
Sus tl ng i
But the injury has out of accidental circumstances which
Did you find the party at your house going to dine at Mr. Do you know the plaintiff and his wife ?—Yes, very well. left
in , arisen. _
the persons situations in which I say. a very large portion
Swetenham's ?—Yes : and I dined there also ? On what terms did they appear tolive ?—Extremely happily,
of mankind would have been unable to resist the extraordinary
Did the defendant dine there also ?—yes, as far as I ever observed.
temptations to which my client was exposed. With respect to
You knew Mr. Swetenham before was married 2—Yes
When you first saw Mrs. Swetenham on your return that day, the time they landed. she
• * ' the evidence, as far as it goes to the claim for heavy da-
did you make any observation as to the conduct of Mrs, fromNVhat was her conflict since her marriage ?—I have seen
. in mages, I must say I never saw a weaker case. But even
Swetenham P—Site appeared very much astonished at seeing me .
andhusband admitting it to be stronger, what is the situation of my client ?
tier herevery year nearly : they have lived my
so unexpectedly.
He is a Lieutenant in the Army, 1 • laving only three him-
had she make any observation ?---She asked is Swetenham and always appeared to live happily.
house
in
dyed rupees per . . .
mouth, besides his pay and allowances for
Do you remember October last the defendant's leaving
had come in with me.
e' that rank. It is in evidence that he is a needy man, and the da-
etogo on a visit to the plaintiff? Yes I
You observed nothing extraordinary till he left the house at Caivnl?• did receive p ' do.
mages that may be awarded must fail with severity on him--
10 or 11 in the evening ?—No, nothing. In November you any letter from him about the
' 'd be shew '
some lenity, I think, heavysaout • nin consideration of these
dawk ?—Yes, about the middle of the month he made a re-
Did you go to bed ?—Ves•
circumstances, but if damages are awarded he must go
for a dawk for himself about the 17th, which I imme-
Were you called up in the night 1— yes : a servant came quest
. to jail, for his circumstances will not enable him to pay them,
diate y ordered.
1
over to request I would go to Mrs. Swetenham's, as they did
nor do I believe that he has a friend who will come forward to
s it countermanded ?—Two or three days I
not know what was the matter. This was about 10 minutes Vl''''
ondo so.
the same day two letters, the first it for afterwardsthe
ordering
after I returned. (Being requested to detail what passed, the received
19th,and the last letter for the 21st. Sta. ANTIIONY BULLER.—Certainly the only question
witness proceeded thus) I paid no attention to the first sunlit_
Si ANTHONY Bu aLE R observes} that parole evidence could here is as to the amount of damages : as the cause went on I
mons, but shortly after received. another by. other servants that
made up my mind as to the damages, and nothing I have heard
came. When I went over I found Mrs. Swetenham dressed, not he received respecting a letternot
m,
e, _ produced.
it off in the speech in mitigation or defence, has at all tended to af-
h • fterwards go by dawk P—No •he put
and leaning over her child which was asleep in a cot. I asked
feet the decision I had come to. I believe indeed that that de-
offrom the 21st to the 23d, and didnot finallyagain by dawk.
her what was the matter that she was out of bed at that time _Thentie
did
him
ar-
fence is a defence of Counsel unauthorized by instructions : I
you see at Cawnpore ?—The day of his
night ? When
I think the 0 1 do certainly mink that the plaintiff comes here in a situation
Well, what was the ma •
tter 2—(Mr. Money objected to the rival—it wasre 24th or 25th.
In his order for the dawk, did he order it for one person or the most favourabletocommand
damages. We have the
conversation hieing repeated.)
d`,
two ?—ln the whole of the dawks he ordered, bearers enough strongest evidence of the happiness in winch the parties live
Did she appear distressed in mind P—She did.
prior to the adultery, and the father of the unfortunate young
for two travellers, viz. 18 bearers.
Did Mrs. Smith and Miss Swetenham come over after you ? When your saw him on the 25th, what did he say ?—I in- woman gave his evidence in a way that must have appealed. to
Yes they did. formed him of his dawk being still on the road, and he ordered every feeling heart. I cannot exactly gather from the evidence
Did you press her to go to bed ?—Yes, I did ; I requested it to be taken off immediately. how long the defendant had been acquainted with the plaintiff;
the ladies to get her to do so, and left the room.
Did he say any more ?—He said he had come down by but it would appear some time before they. went on this excur-
When you left the room did you discover that any of Mrs. water, Inc did not know how ; that there had been a break up sion ; because he came to Futteghur by invitation of the hus-
Swetenhands things had left the house ?—The servants inform- or a great row at Futteghur. band, who left instructions with Isis brother-in-law to receive
ed me of it, and I afterwards discovered their information to After that, did you at any time see him with Mrs. Sweten- husbancl's)a
him at his house during his (the , bsence. He came
be correct.
ham ?—I may have met them ; but I saw them on one occasion according to that invitation and arrived while the plaintiff wars Where did you find they had been removed P—To a boat on walking in the verandah of the defendant's house at Cawn- absent ;he did not however stop at the house of his (plaintiff's)
the Ganges, hired by Mr. Macnaghten,
pore. brother-in-law, Captain Smiths, but proceeded to join the party
You then sent Mrs. Smith and Miss Swetenhain home?— Did you not see him afterwards ?—I did not. in the district. According to the evidence of Monaca) Chore-
Yes; I requested them to go to my bungalow.
'When did you see them in the verandah ? —ln the end of ssee tile crime was committed twenty days after this.—
toPRe r is' indeed direct' evidence ' •
e
Did you then endeavour •to persuade Mrs. Swetenham not January.
pursue the plan she had formed ?—Yes, I did ; I told her CHOOAR AYAH—Examined by the ADVOCATE-GE- for this in a like
case this, wnere it is proved that the partiea I had discovered it, and endeavoured to prevent her adopt- lived most hl together, in the greatest affection until this
NE RAL.
•1
crime was committed? The only thing late an argument. in
ing it.
Q. In whose service are you ?—A. In Mr. Swetenham's.
Did you endeavour to persuade her to go to your bungalow
till Mr. Swetenham should return ?—Yes, I did every thing I
Do you know the defendant ?—Yes. mitigation, is, that the lady may have fallen too easily, that
Did go Sir, and Swetenhamand the defend-you with
could to get her there.
petted in her case. But when it is considered that she was then
ant in a party from Futteghur, about ten months ago ?—Yes, , •
But I believe she refused to go ?—Yes ; and I only succeed- last cold they took with them.
ed by carrying her to my house by force.
Do you remember Mr. Swetenham's going away ?—Yes ; lie3o, think,even this
I that
You then sent for Mr. Swetenham ?—He was sent for ; but that the damages I have made up my mind to give will not be
duty Aher behind.
went on ant left
not by me.
Did you see any thing pass the day after Lieutenant Mac- .
thought excessive. I shoult be sorry in such a case to give
Did Mrs. Swetenham, make attempts to escape from your naghten returned to Futteghur ?—Yes, I saw. damages that might be thought too small, and I would at the
bungalow ?—Yes, she did ; twice.
(She also swore directly to having witnessed the act of guard, .
same time against awarding such 44 would incarcerate
Mr. Swetenham retuned about seven in the morning of the ' the defendant in jail for life. I scarcely know, however, that I
adultery.)
am even at all in this case is taking this into con-
In24th ?—Yes, about sunrise.
Have you seen Mrs. Swetenham, since ?—Yes, at Cawnpore, ~ . justified . . I
the mean time you had removed Mrs. Swetenham's
I had gone to an ayaii who owed me some money, and saw 1
sit eration. Under all the circumstances, therefore, pronounce
at
things from Illacnaghten's boat ?—No ; Captain Parsons Mrs. Swetenham and the defendant walking in the garden at a verdict for the plaintiff=-;Damages, q ..-'WELVE THOUSAND
had. RUPEES.
the defendant's bungalow._____
Mr. Swetenham on being informed of what had taken place
refused to see her again 9—Yes ;he refused ever to see her How long ago ?—lt was two months and a few days ago.
again. Were they living together ?—Yes.
Captain ,'haling called again to prove the jurisdiction in
that she should have a choice of where she would reside ?
Did he authorize you to propose to her an allowance, and March last.—(lt was proved by another Officer in Court .;*
but as he was not pat into the witness box, but examined
Sir ANTHONY BuLLER.—Is that evidence? where he stood, our Reporter could not distinguish whether it
Witness—Yes, I did. was one of the witnesses or not.)
Did Mr. Swetenham offer to send her to England ifshe would SPEECH IN MITIGATION OF DAMAGES.
reside there ?—Yes, or any where in India. The evidence for the prosecution being closed, Dlr. MONEY
Did he make it a condition that she should reside alone ? declined calling any evidence, but rose and addressed the Court
Yes, he made it a condition she should reside alone, and offered in mitigation, in substance as follows :
her on these terms an allowance of 300 rupees a month. My Lord, it was not my intention to have addressed your
Mr. MONEY objected that this was not evidence. Lordship at all in this case, and but for an observation of my
Learned Friend, calling on your Lordship to award heavy da-
The ADVOCATE-GENERAL submitted: it was evidence as mages against my client, I should have adhered to my pur-
to the conduct of the husband, and that she had not been driven
by necessity to the course she subsequently adopted.
Mr. MONEY considered it irrelevant, but thought it would
do no harm.

We are desired to state that Mr. BELL does
not intend to retire from the Profession altoge-
ther. has declined taking any more Court
business, and intends to confine his practice to
Chamber business.—(Times.)
John Lay, a native of Tipperary, was appre-
hended near Black Church, charged with the
murder of John Fitzgerald, who was found with
his throat cut in his bed. The description of
Lay was given by one of Major TANny's Police
to some workmen employed on the road, who
apprehended him. They were assisted in es-
corting him to Naas gaol by a Gentleman tra-
velling in his carriage.—(Irish 'Times.)

* The jurisdiction was never denied by 114. iUoney, but ad-
mitted from the first.—It was deemed important, however, to
prove it with a view to reference to future proceeding...ae_
porter.

She said she would consider his proposal ?—Yes, she did :