The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-10 00:00:00

COOMBES v. SHERVILLE.

This was an scion of trespass for seizing the
plaintiff's goods under a distress for rent.
Although the action was brought and defended
in the names of the above parties—namely, the
tenant in possession, and the broker who had put in
the distress—the real parties to the cause were the
represenra,ives of the late Dr. Tice, and those of
his father, Mr. Tice, of Hatton-garden. Mr. Tice,
who had carried on business as a chymist and
druggist in Hatton-garden, died on the Bth of
April, 1819. Previously to his death he had made
his will, by which, amongst other things, he be-
queathed two leasehold houses in South-street,
Finsbury, to his son, Dr. Tice, who resided at
Bruges. The latter, who was married, died at
about five o'clock on the morning either of the Bth
or 9th of the same month, the father having died at
the hour of 11 on the Bth. After the death of Dr.
Tice, his widow having represented to the execu-
tor that her husband had survived his father, arid
that therefore the legacy of the houses took
effect, was by him put into possession of the pro-
perty, and she afterwards borrowed of a Mr.
Roberts 3001. on an annuity charged on those
houses. The interest was regularly paid until some
time ago, when Mr. Turner, the residuary legatee un-
der the will, having had reason to believe vat Dr.
Tice had died before his father, and consequently,
that the legacy had lapsed before the testator's
death, determined to try the question, for which
purpose he gave notice to the tenant to pay no more
rent to Mr. Roberts, or the representatives of Mrs.
Tice. On his acting upon that notice, and refu-
sing to pay the rent, a distress was put in, for which
the present action of trespass was brought.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
thereby finding that Dr. Tice had died on the Bth.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY 9.

THE ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. 5311TH AND ANOTHER.

The A'PTORNEV-GENERAL tiled this information
against the defendants, who are distillers at White-
chapel, for sending out a quantity of spirits without
a permit, and also for omitting to paint on their
casks the quantity they will contain, as required by
the statute.

James Eilrington went to the premises of the
defendants at seven o'clock in the morning of the
27th of last September, and saw two waggons going
into the yard. They were then empty ; but he
saw them afterwards coming out with four calks in
each waggon, and go into the rectifying distillery of
James Cox Smith, which joins the defendant's pre-
mises. Witness followed, and as he entered saw
one of the casks in the state of being racked, on
which he asked the defendant Smith for his permit ;
but Smith, after going to his bookkeeper, said there
was no permit, upon which witness despatched an
officer to the Permit-office, which was between 200
and 300 yards off, to itiquire if a permit had been
given. The officer returned and said, " No, there
bad not." About eight o'clock some of the de-
fendants' men handed witness a permit, which he
then produced. This permit must have been pro-
cured after the message to the office. Witness
seized the eight casks, and alto eight others which
were on the premises, and on examining them, found
they all contained larger quantities than were marked
upon them—about two gallons more.
Cross-ex,mined—Spirits may be legally moved
between 5 in the morning and 8 in the evening.
The permit-office is not open before 7 o'clock, and
on'y by special favour can a permit be procured the
day before the spirits ate remove]. There did not
appear any attempt to conceal.
Lord LYNDHURST observed, that it appeared the
defendants were not guilty of intending any fraud
against the revenue, although, perhaps, they were
not strictly correct in their proceedings.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would not impute
fraud, but the object of the prosecution was to mice
distillers and all persons connected with them know
that it was illegal to commence the removal of
spirits without having previously obtained a permit ;
but having effected that o' ject, he should, after his
Lordship's intimation, withdraw the record.—Re-
cord withdrawn.

ARCHES COURT, MAY 9.

SWIFT V. SWIFT.

This was a suit for restitution of conjugal rights,
promoted by Mr. William Richard Henry Swift,
against Eliza Catherine his wife, for the purpose of
substantiating the validity of a marriage, alleged to
have been solemnized between the varties at Rome,
according to the forms of the Roman Catholic
church, on the 25th of March, 1830. The libel
and counter-allegations exhibited such an extraordi-
nary conflict of assertions respecting material and
essential facts, that it is necessary to epitomize each,
which we shall do as accurately as it is possible,
under such circumstances.

The libel, consisting of 14 articles, and on which
six witnesses were examined, pleaded that Mr.
Swift (who is a native of Dublin) was the son of
the Countess de Molandi ; that in January, 1830,
he was introduced to Miss Kelly (a native of Ar-
magh), a minor, who, with her mother, resided at
an hotel in Florence ; that both families removed
from Florence to Rome, where they inhabited the
same hotel ; that proposals of marriage were twice
made to Miss Kelly by Mr. Swift, and rejected by
Mrs. Kelly; that Mr. Swift thereupon suggested to
the young lady a private marriage, and prepara-
tory thereto that they should abjure the Protestant
rel,gion and become Catholics; that Miss Kelly
consented, and Mr. Smith obtained a license for
their marriage from the Vicar Cardinal at Rome,
and on the evening of the 25th of March, 1830,
after the forms of abjuration were gone through,
the marriage was solemnized by the Abbe Ludovico

Lepre, in the apartment of Mr. Swift; that the
marriage was consummated, and Mr. Swift was re-
peatedly admitted into the bedchamber of Mr:.
Swift, and was surprised there by Mrs Kelly ; and
that in April, 1830, Mrs. Kelly and her daughter
left Raffle and went to Naples, which removal was
communicated by the latter to Mr. Smith, who fol-
lowed, and corn inued secretly to correspond with
his wife till they left Naples.
The counter-allegation, consisting of 13 articles,
and on which 12 witnesses were examined, stated
'he facts of the parties meeting at Florence and
Rome, the proposals of Mr. Swift, and their rejec-
tion by Mrs. Kelly, in the propriety of which rejec-
tion Miss Kelly agreed; that Miss Kelly did not
consent to the proposal of a private marriage, but
agreed, upon his urgency, to sign a paper promising
to marry Mr. Swift when she came of age (she was
then 19); that she never consented to abjure the
Protestant religion, nor ever did abjure it, but that
she was and is a member of the established church
of England and Ireland, and was never admitted a
member of any other church; that Mr. Swift did
not abjure the Protestant religion, or, if he
(lid pretend to do so, it was not bona fide,
but a colourable abjura'ion, with a view to
the intended marriage only, and that he is
still a member of the English church ; that on the
evening when the alleged marriage was said to have
taken place, which was without Miss Kelly's know.
ledge, privity, or consent, she was requested to go
up into Mr. Swift's apartments, where she found
Mr. Swift and three other persons ; that one
or two papers were produced to her, which she
agreed to sign, under an Pea that it was a promise
to marry Mr. Swift when she came of age, the
whole lasting only about five minutes. The allegation
concluded with denying- the fact of consummation,
and that Mr. Swift was ever admitted to Mi-s
Kelly's bedchamber, or was ever surprised there
by Mrs. Kelly, or that he procured access to the
room by a rope attached to the balcony, as pleaded
in the libel.

Dr. PHILLIMORE, on behalf of Mr. Swift, stated
that the whole case depended on a few dates. In
October, 1829, Mrs. Kelly and her daughter came
to Florence. In November the acquaintance com-
menced between them and Mr. Swift. On the 25 h
of February, 1830, Mrs. Kelly and her daughter
left Florence, arid arrived at Rome on the 2d of
March, and on the Bth a proposal was made by Mr.
Swift, which was declined by Mrs. Kelly by letter
dated the 9th. A second application was made on
the 11th arid rejected, and on the 25th the cere-
mony of marriage took place. The only remaining
point was the consummation. This was not ma-
terial; but if it was, the lady's letters, and one
especially, would be convincing upon this point.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL—It does not render a mar-
riage valid or invalid.
Dr. PHILLIMORE concluded by saying that the
case was one of the strongest ever brought before
the Court of the validity of a marriage, and unless
all the landmarks laid down by Lord Stowell were
departed from, he submitted that the Court must
consider the marriage clearly substantiated.
The KING'S ADVOCATE, for Miss Kelly, said that
this was is question of very great importance, not to
the parties merely, but to the public at large.
Fraud and circumvention had been practised on this
lady, and some persons had lent themselves to the
fraud, either to make converts to the church of
Rome, or for some other object. lit a case of this
description the Court must watch narrowly the con-
duct of all the parties. It was not necessary to
point out the facilities and temptations offered to
young persons at Rome, and other Italian stases, of
availing themselves of this nominal abjuration of the
Protestant religion, where a power of dispensation
(sufficiently extensive as it always was) could be
extended to such a degree as in the present case.
The Learned Advocate then pointed out the incon-
gruity of the asserted intercourse between Mr.
Swift and Miss Kelly, with the circumstances
proved in the cause, and particularly the arrange-
ment of the sleeping-rooms. He submitted that
the fact of consummation was not proved by the
evidence on the other side, and was completely dis-
proved by the witnesses on behalf of Miss Kelly.
The reading of the evidence and the argument
stand over till the first day of next term.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS, MAY 9.

GAMBLING. HOUSE.

Edward John Hodsoll, Charles Stockwell, atiJ
William Charles Hancock were irid.eted, together
with John Liffey Bond, Charles John Scott, and
James Harvey, for keeping and maintaining a com-
mon gaming-house.

The three latter-named defendants did not appear.
Mr. CLARKSON said that the house in question
was sltuate No. 54, Regent's-circus, six doors from
the house which was lately prosecuted. Lie should
have been able to prove that on the 7th, 9th, 12th,
and 14th of F•-bruary last, the games of rouge et-
noir and roulette were played for sums varying from
one sovereign to one shilling. He should have also
proved that on some one or on all those occasions
the defendants acted in the capacities of doorkeeper,
banker, and waiter. He (Mr. Clarkson) was in-
formed by the officers of St. James's parish that at
the last sessions there were 27 houses of this de-
scription situate therein, and out of that number only
two had been closed in the interval, but three new
ones had been opened, so that the number had been
increased, rather than otherwise.

Mr. PHILIPS said that those houses had nothing
to do with the present case. He would advise
these parish officers to go to Crockfurd's, not far
distant from the house in question, where they
would find Lords and ether Peers of the realm at play.
T. 'e COURT sentenced the defendants, Stockwell
and Hodson to 3 months', and Hancock to 14 days',
imprisonment in the House of Correction.
Mr. CLARKSON then made an application to the
Court in respect of Harvey, one of the defendants,
who had been in the Court that morning, and de-
parted without making any application. He (Mr.
Clarkson) hoped for that contumely his recog-
nizatices would be ordered to be estreated.

The COURT granted the application, and they
were declared to be forfeited.

During the trial the Court was excessively crowded
by persons connected with the various " hells"
situate in the western part of the metropolis.
Mr. John Philipson, a person respectably con-
nected, was indicted for having committed an inde-
cent offence with a man in Covent•garden.
A man of the name of Morgan, a constable be-
longing to the market, was the principal witness,
arid he was subjected to a rigid eras-examination
by Mr. Philips, when he prevaricated very much in
his statement, and admitted that at the last session
he preferred a similar charge against another gentle-
man, who was acquitted.

Mr. PHILIPS addressed the jury at great length
and with much earnestness.

A number of persons who had known the tra•
verser from 20 years downwards, declared him to be
a moral man, but of retiring and timid habits.
A respectable medical gentleman proved that the
traverser had been hie patient for years, as he be-
lieved under extreme nervous irritability.
The CHAIRMAN summed up the evidence, and
The Foreman of the Jury, without consultation,
addressed the Court in an emphatic tone, and said,
" We are all of opinion he is Not Guilty?'
The gentleman was then congratulated by his
friends, but he was seized with violent hysterics, and
made the court resound with his cries, and it was
with difficulty that four men could remove him.
His condition, and a general belief of the falsity of
the accusation, caused a general sensation of pity.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MAR YLEB ONE.

Yesterday moininv, Mary Weaver, Martha
Grown, George Smith, and ll'lary his wife, were
,gai❑ placed at the bar, having been remanded on
Tuesday last, on the charge of stealing linen and
other property, to a consnierable amount, from the
residence of the late Mrs. Kenyon, Z, Duchess-street,
Portland-place.

Tread
Mr. Searancke (Mrs. Kenyon's nephew, a gri.
hoevedrehpyosii‘tli,o.tipsh7ifliptsh.etheseevieerrakl,
after
ter; iged:olfitee
of her executors) expressed his belief that lor,
Kenyon had given the knives and forks to 0,10
vants; lie, therefore, felt inclined to exonerate
completely as regarded the stealing of those artico,
Mr. Wooler (for the prisoners) contended
deceased had always had a high respect for, ead
ever placed the greatest confidence in, her
who had lived with her so long a time, the pr the
was that the linen, together with the rest of Pbef
perty, was given to them; he submitted that t
was no proof whatever to the contrary. . tlf
Mary Weaver, the cook, who sobbed bltter't
ring the proceedings, was asked by the 1114istrs;
she had anything to say; whets she denied til.?
things found in her possession had been fraullwei;;t
obtained, and said that if her dear mis ress wa'se
she would attest the fact Slie said that sbeeed
much befriended
her long course of servitude, son
of a dishonest action, and that she had not oni,
occasion wronged the mistress who had alwa'
(pier'ilsohneer.rs in the strongest term'
nied their guilt.
intention,ne is to commit all the prisoners for trito.oo
1 y were accordingly removed in CUSIOCIY
thetttelliirae-NeirNt ha..ierriSit;%ot:•ai:lstrrst'l;e:l:eerrlitelN:klst..eo—ub si(pcelr'ehnsos t asregrettedlr facelg h t olyf that
al se pehove'lathi be 118del•e.f::' r1;111
d
he,apstasoyteienrit-le,eirntathainimilse:hsiofaujmlidies:tf,
so far") once more Fe/
Magistrate
follow up the prosecution, but he did not 06-
b
age
In a ha Oen tihttealefaastet hour after their removal fr.lti;
bar r prisoners again took their former
whNeltr'—. HOSKINS said to them—c, The roseeat°'
youthlTs ethiserreeticetadnits
announcementeitioaerxegcoei7fit:l)em.ree7d7dtefiolteirlsnietvseaakarillids:tgPnloolttit3hstisgtP-B::hotricl4°l'
are
j
all present, and the parties left the office as ect
amszed as any of the bystanders at their or'esP

escape.
UNION. HALL.
Yesterday William Richardson,
a tall, `e
formed young man, a private belong
ir
belonging t°,.!,110
Battalion of the Cold;trearn Gouda' Was
..riti;
bvfure Mr. CHAMBERS, charged wlth stes'icV
watch an,ichain, tile property of Mr. Hobils'ltBreill
m and jeweller, 142, Great SurreY's-
Blrielifriars-road.—Remanded till ThursdaP