The Sun.
London, England, 1810-11-15 00:00:00

, . .
ati'd an -aliegltiou cf the ,--...pcu.L.ot having- liecd
connection witl► her, subsequent tO his knowlOoe
Moil" het` coniesiiion of her •
The Personal answer of respondent Nvas requited
to this Oeading.. •In this answer respondent, on his
oath, denied the trud,j of the. allegations of this
pleading, and swore that, appellant's contessi •tz of
her crone was free, feel:, and volutviry. _
A second plea&ng was exhibited on the part ol
the appellant, oil Ike 241 h day of Nowetniw, 1809;
of nearly tIA; same. import of the first pleding ;
and .on respondent's personal answer being re-
quired thertO, it . was immediately and fully -an-
swered:. .

The appellant 'produced and examined some wit-,
nes,iis to certain articles of her pleadings, but in no
wise to the proof or establishment of her defensive
mater, or a., y thing connected theiiwitit or ;,,leading
thereto; and iibiication. having pasted in toe
cayse, the satlle came. to be heard the 1 tth day of
May lasi.

On the hearing of the cause, the respondent esta-
bltshed by distinct, positive.,_and legal evidence, the
several fads of adulterous intercLurse, and evidence
thereof, as "allege'd tits libel and appeariug on the
tianstniss of the pleadings, proceedings add proofs its
this cause; -and then offered in evidence the letters
Of the appellant, which vt eie proved in this'cause,
as continuator-5r evidence of the untie, and distinct
proof of a ti6e.. and voluntary confession.'
On the pert Of the appellant an objeelion was
taken to their 2dmissaitlity, on the ground that such
evidence', as being a sole confeSion, was against
law, and againSt the Canons of the Chtitch, as by
taw establi,bed.

On:the parrot- the respondent it was argued, that
the 'evidence wks admissible that it was not a sole
Corrfes,i(;n, iirt a confe.ssiOn shewn as a coofirmatory
vr subsidiary t..;•?60f, not in itself 'relied on As single
evidence of her guilt, blit eolitiraied and corroborat-
ed by the otter i.r Drools 'in This cause.
On these grounds the Court 'ov,erruled the objec-
tion and-uhder•the tircuinstinces 'of this • ease; as
prot ed, admitted the at:Tenant's -confession, in her
own hand-writing, to be admisßible evidence. _Tilly,
the ProCtor of the appell:nt, dissenting, unclz.r a
_pre-
text of appealing:

The letters Ot the appellant '(as-now appearing on
the :ransmiss) were rend; and the case was then dos-
! ed on the part of the respondent.
On the next Court day an appeal in Writing from
the -alleged grievance was eoaibited on the part of
the appellant; and the'lludie, in the C'ourt below,
having required the appellant tb proceed'in. the cause
and on b.. 17 Idelence the appellant .declined, statiog
her case, as founded 'On the ,llegation of the plead-
. ings'or evi4nVestyrodnted. to.the same, or,any other
ground of defence, against the case stated and esta-
blkhed in emidenee on the, p.art, ,of the respondent ;
and theregpOn the Jude pronounced hiesentenee
in this cause itr favour of teipondent, and adjudged
him entieled.Jo, a sentence of divOrce and separation
from appellant., on a,ccount of t heclear.4o: establish-
'ed adultery of'appenaut, from tied and, board, until
'they rkonciled; ThAz At','hbishop of D•ablin
ing •previouslyiconsented•theret6; and Skciit, the
respondent's Pruaot, ha,v in g: c:i.laipi,t,ed • the,. usual
bond with the applobalion and consent aforesaid,
signed his sentence Accoeditngly on the 15th.day of
Nay, last—the appellant protcsting at thd ael, and
.appealing from tlie•sentence.