The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-26 00:00:00

LIBEL ON THE QUEEN.'

THE KING V. TIIE.REV.W. 1114AC0W.
Mr. nROUGHAM was heard in reply to the cases cited by
Mr. PARKE. The Learned Counsel contended that his Rule
for a Criminal Information ought to be matle.absOlute:
Mr. DENMAN was also heard on the same side, and
,the
Court took time to decide upon the application.

CONSISTORY COURT, MAI, 25.
LORD ERSKINE V. LADY ERSKINE.

Some time since proceedings were instituted in the Spiritual
Court by Lord Erskine against his Lady, he praying for a di-
vorce by reason of her adultery. On the part of Lady Erskine
a responsive allegation has-been given in, of a recriminatory and
defensive nature, retorting uponhis Lordship charges ofadul-
tery and of cruelty and the case was assigned to be treued.
This day an application was made by the Proctor of his
Lordship, praying, on his behalf, that the Court would be
pleased to dismiss all parties from further obserVance of the
suit. The application was opposed -by the- Counsel for Lady Erskine, and by her proctor, who prayed the Court to admit an
affidavit (sworn to by himself and clerk) to be read, which, be-
sides setting forth -a conversation (of which the particulars did
not fully transpire) between the proctor and the mother of a
witness (the niece of Lady Erskine), which conversation was al-
leged to be of the highest importance to the case of the defend-
ant, went to impute to Lord Erskine an attempt to keep back
the testimony of the said witness. It farther declared, that the
evidence of this person, a young woman, was materi:ll"to prove
the adulterous connexions which his Lordship was said to have
farmed, and the fact of her being taken by Lord Erskine in a
carriage, for the purpose of being carried to a house cf an un-
becoming celebrity.
Dr. SIVABEY objected to • the affidavit being read, aq a pro'
ceeding altogether irregular. He objected also to the hnl'ut='"
tion thrown out against Lord Erskine, relative to an -attetiiPt
to withhold a material witness from this cause; the fact was,.
that she had been served with a compulsory (this is -a species of
peremptory citation), and had been produced in consequence.
He owned it did appear extraordinary to him that this witness.
could depOse to the particular house to which they were
in the carriage, seeing that that very circumstance was likc't
'to prevent her knoWing. Moreover, these facts should ha"
been introduced into the cause, not in this irre&ular manocr'
but by. plea, which would have afforded Lord Ltskine an tiP".
portunity of replying to it by a counter plea.
Dr. LUSTEINGTON contended that the affidavit was 'perfec-41:
in point, to show that Lord Erskine had endeavoured to lue'r
this witness out of the way.
Sir WILLIAM ScoTT thought that this affidavit could 13:1
be admitted. The proceeding was irregular, and if the f5..,,c7
were meant to be pleaded at all, they ought to be put in a LP'.
ferent way.--

The affidavit was therefore rejected.
Dr. ADAMS and Dr. JF.XNER, fa Lord Erskine, and Viera
SWABY and Dr. LUSHINGTON, for Lady, then plocetucti
to argue the question on the dismission cf the suit, as pr!Y
by los Lordship.
Sir W SCOTT said he would take time to consider the
bet and allegation, and give his judgment on a future day.