The Sun.
London, England, 1826-04-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF' KING'S BENCH, APRIL 21.

THE ZING V. WM. BRYAN.

The defendant in this case, the printer and publisher of the
Common Sense Sunday' newspaper, appeared on informations
filed against him at the prosecution of Robert Fitzhardinge
Berkeley, of Berkeley Castle, and Alfred Bunn, Biqa, for
hiving published in that paper divers false and malicious libels of.
and concerning the prosecutors. To both the informations the
defendant pleaded " guilty," and threw himself on the mercy of
the Court and prosecutors
• Mr. Justice BAYLEY, having inquired if there was any
gentlemen on the part of the prosecutors instructed to move for
the judgment of the Court,
Mr. BALNEwALL, in the absence of Mr. BROUGHAM, the
defendant's counsel, stated, that he was not prepared to pray the
judgment of the Court.
The defendant was then remanded to the custody of the goaler
of White-cross street prison.

CONSISTORY COURT, APRIL 21.

THE MOST NOBLE THE MARQUIS OF WESTMEATH r. THE

MARCHIONESS OF WESTMEATH.
This case came on to-day for judgment. It way a suit insti-
tuted by the Marquis of Westmeath against the Marchioness, for
the restitution of his conjugal rights, in which citation was taken
out in Hilary Term 1819. The facts have been so frequently
before the public, that it will not be now necessary to enter into
theM. The ground upon which the Marchioness declined living
with her husband was on account of alleged adultery and cruelty
on his part. •
Sir C. ROBINSON, in pronouncing judgment, took a full re-
view of the evidence as set forth in the affidavits. The alleged
acts of adultery he considered not to be established. With
respect to the acts of cruelty with which the Marquis was
charged with having committed, previous to the deed of sepa-
ration and to the reconciliation, the Court was inclined to be-
lieve them to have been fully made out; but the difficulty which
then presented itself was, whether the reconciliation and subse-
quent cohabitation did :not put it beyond the power of the CoUrt
to interfere in those specified acts. As to the charges of
cruelty brought forward, stated to have happened in 1817 and
1818, they did not, in the estimation of the Court, amount to
;'that species of cruelty which justified legal interference. With re-
spect to the particular facts of alleged cruelty in 1818 and 1814,
evidence had been offered which showed that the Marquis had used
extremely violent language towards the Marchioness ' • that he bad
struck her several blows, and that lie had threatened to disinherit
his daughter, Lady Rosa. It was likewise proved that in the
year 1818, when on the road to Paris, he struck her in the pre-
sence of Miss Wood and a female servant, and used exceedingly
violent Language towards her. In September and October of 1817
he addressed several letters to her, written in a very impressive
strain, in a tone of self-humiliation, acknoWledging in general
terms, his having acted with great harshness towards her for which
he expressed great contrition. The Court thought that there was a
defeat of evidence, which might have been supplied by the
friends of the Marchioness, which would have shown on what
terms she was living with her husband, both before and after
the reconciliation. The deed of separation, which was executed
the latter end of 1817, gave her a provision of 1,800/. a-year, and
800/, a-year to Lady Rosa. In 1819, several quarrels were stat-
ed to have taken place between the. Marquis and Marchioness, re-
specting the terms of the deed, and ou one occasion his Lordship
was said to have entered her Ladyship's dressing-roan (when she
was preparing for an evening party), in a violent rage, declaring
that he would not have the income given her which had been agreed
upon. Sir Christopher Robinson said, that the conduct on the
part of the Marquis, subsequent' to the reconciliation, amounted
only to violence of temper; hilt his conduct iu 1814 and 1615,
if' acted upon then, might have subjected him to a divorce by
reason of cruelty. No steps being taken at that period with a
view to obtain•-such as object, and the parties having afterwards
become reconciled, he WAS of opinion that the former cruelty,
insisted upon by the Marchioness, could not avail her, it not
bring new open for her to -pursue that course. The Learned
Judge said he had the gratification of knowing, his judgment might
be appealed from, if the parties thought proper, and the best con-
clusion to which he could come, after a mature consideration of
the subject, was, to pronounce in favour of the prayer of the-Mar-
quis of Westmeath.
, A decree to that effect was then taken, and the Marchioness
of Westmeath was cited to return Leine and reside with the
Margins: •
It is understood, that there will be an appeal from this de.
vision to the Court' of Delegates. •