The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-13 00:00:00

PRIVY COUNCIL-(THIS DAY).

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat to-day
at the Council Chamber, Whitehall. The Lords present
were, the Lord President, the Vice-Chancellor, the Chief
Judge of the Bankruptcy Court, Mr. Baron Parke, and
Mr. Justice Vaughan.

THE MARQUIS OF WESTMEATH V. THE MARCHIONESS OF

WESTMEATH.

This was an appeal by the Marquis of Westmeath against
the decision of Sir John Nicholl.
Dr. Lushtngton, Dr. Adams, and Mr. Crowther were
counsel on behalf of the Marchioness ; and Dr. Phillimore
and Mr. Follet appeared on behalf of the Marquis.
Dr. LUSHINGTON in addressing their Lordships on behalf
of the Marchioness, stated that he did not consider it ne-
cessary to enter minutely into the details of this most un-
fortunate case, it having been discussed before some of their
Lordships some time since, but he trusted, looking at the
whole circumstances of the case, their Lordships would
consider the case as if it had come before them now for the
first time. He would not make any 'observations either in
aggravation or extenuation of the conduct of either party, but
would simply give their Lordships a history of this most un-
fortunate
dispute. In Easter Term, 1821, the Marquis of
Westmeath instituted a suit in the Consistory Court against his
wife, the Marchioness, for the restitution of conjugal rights.
The Marchioness, in answer to that suit pleaded cruelty
and adultery on the part of the Marquis. Upon
the cause corning on before Sir Christopher Robinson,
that learned Judge, after hearing the case fully argued,
was of opinion that the adultery alleged against the Marquis
had not been proved, and although that nobleman had in
some respect appeared to have acted with some cruelty,
yet, looking at all the circumstances of the case, he thought
the Court ought to decree that the Marchioness should
return to , hei husband. Against this decision the
Marchioness appealed to the Arches Court, and Sir John
Nicholl, who gave his judgment in 1827, reversed the de-
cision of Sir C. Robinson, and ordered the Marquis to pay
to the Marchioness 700/. a year for alimony, in addition
to 5001. a year, which she was entitled to for pin money.
The Marquis, in his turn, was dissatisfied with this decision,
and took the case to the Court of Delegates, who
affirmed the decision of the Court below, directing
the alimony to be paid to the Marchioness. This
decision being 'against the Noble MAiquis, he applied to
the Lord Chancellor for a Commission of Review, which his
Lordship refused. The present appeal was brought, not
for the purpose-of obtaining a restitution of conjugal rights,
but to reduce the amount of alimony awarded to
the Marchioness. The Marquis, by this petition, prayed
that no alimony might be allowed._ to the Marchioness.
This, the Learned Doctor trusted, their Lordships would
never accede to ; if they did, they would be adopting a
course which he never remembered to have been pursued
during the whole of his long practice.
The. Learned Doctor was • addressing their Lordships
when we left, and the case appears likely to occupy a day
or two in arguing.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

GUSTARD V. WHITFIELD._

This case had been tried in the Bail Court during the
present sittings, and a verdict was had for the plaintiff for
a sum of 591. 3s. 6d. It was an action brought by a tailor
against a lady residing at Norwood, to recover the above
sum for clothes and military equipments supplied to her son,
Mr. Alfred Whitfield, a young gentleman under age. The
defence was that the plaintiff's partner, Mr. Nightingale,
had induced the young gentleman to order the goods by
representing that he had influence enough with Count
Chatelain to procure the young gentleman a commission in
Don Pedro's service. Mr. Whitfield and his sister were
examined, and it appeared that the former had actually
sailed for Lisbon with a letter of recommendation to Sir
John Milley Doyle, but was unable to procure the commis
sion which had been promised to him. It was also relied
-upon by the defendant, that Mr. Whitfield had given the
plaintiff to understand that he had an independent property
of his own, and that he must have given the goods upon
the young gentleman's own credit.
Mr. BALL subsequently applied for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had,
on the ground that the verdict was against evidence, and
also that there was a species of fraud on the part of the
plaintiff. . The Learned Counsel had stated that Mr.
Justice ,Littledalc had expressed iiinaself dissatisfied