The Sun.
London, England, 1817-04-26 00:00:00

hintary teuratitin rtoni her httahand and She teat
not, therefOre entitled, to the remedy she now
-
Dry W,1131" jar, tbitIING'TON, in reply to
the.Plaection.,:contended, that the mere residence
of Lady Kirkwall In tondOn, did not necessaril
gives rise to the inrcrenec that she was eognizank
cat the adultery, as a large tatvO was of all Waco
the best mi.opted for 'carrying on such an inter
eourNe with secrecy; but were it otherwise, for-
bear.inet to a ,eerqtin extent %Vas justifiable, and
e'ven,eutinnerldablei-on the part of a
could not eodstitin,e bar to the reliiedy which
she might scat nitiirfioding that her Itorbearanee
had been

the facts pleaded, on!l
the nature of' tie. objection t.11;e11 ;IA cr.pressed
his opinion, (hot tie objection w,ts not sustain-ahle eithtte -in point or in point of law.
Lie conk' no; . assent to the. informer, that Lady
Kirkwall was to be
_presumed cognitaut of 'the
adultery because she lived in Lnndup, where it
took place,;, us a person in this great town moves
in a state at' comparative obscurity as 'to hii
actions, to what a person does who lives in a
le'ss ',Options plaice, where his life is open to con-
tinual observatiof) : magna ?grid, magna, solitrrclo.
There was nothing in lbe facts charged to show
that. Lady 'Kiri:W.4l"s suspicion must, of neces7
'city, have been excited, or that the adithety might
nut hive taken place Without her knowlt dge ; but
'supposing that she was acquainted with it, thotigh
a husband was bound to take prbmpt notice of Iris
wife's: incuichi y, and was liable to have his neglect
of so 'doing Urged against him, when afterwards
seeking his legal remedy, yet this doctrine was
not to be pressed against a Wile, unless in very
particular eases. liven In the (UM
not bf a hus-
band, it was ineaiiably expected that he
should shoW the time when the crime int.
puted first citine to his knowledge. It might
be prudent and expedient, for the success' of
his 'suit, that he should do so, hilt it was not
solutely necessary. t ertaialy a wife would not
be justified in living in the same house with her
husband's eallet4bine, Shilling-the turpitude of his
crime; but she might have a teasonahle hope of
his return to her society; anti 'forbearance tinder.
this 'apes re‘uperandi had neVer yet been. held to
constitute a bar to her legal -reitietly, when every
hope of that: lantisbould.he extinct. The Learned
Judge was therefore of opinionohat the objection
was neither stistainablein point of law or in poio!,
of fact, and"be therettire the libel to
proof.

court OF ityttiL
LARD"RIVrR tt. HARDINIAN:
.....
This wnean•action brought. by the
Lord of Granbaarn=chase. 'The declaration coir-
taincd first, that the defendant
brolmand'-ehteOld. that part or CranhoOrti•chase
situate in,theintrish of Hartley, and with dlovri
&c. todawfOny cl;a haatvd. Woonded,
and cat vied away, the plaint ti's deer : the secood
count, omitted. the ; and tetra third was for
taking and, ciirryfog atvity the,,goodo and ehatte44
viz. the bucks and, deer of she plmiold, #t ward
othoitted un• the trial before Mr. Justice 'A anoTi
at Dorchester, that the .place where the tetras
Ws cotataitted Was Within the nri:cioets sit the
Chase, and that Lord Rivers had no property to
that neighbriatTiod. It Was also established, thal
the :leer chased Were wild and unreelaimed. The
verdict was taken for the nlaiotill on the first
count.

Mr. CAsasno now moved for a new• trial, con-
tending, that the plaint iff, as lord.of the chase,
had no such property in the deer as to entitle him,
in the declaration, to call them his; and Conse• I
fluently; that t hr. verdict ,ought to have ticen for
the defendant. In support of this argument, lie
first feferred to the c3.,e of Swann, (7 Coke, 17 b.,
where it is said, " When a man bath savage
beasto rcitioite pritilegii, as by reason of. 'park,
warren, &c., hats not any property the
deer,. conies, pheasants, or pant ridges ; therefore,
&C. he shall not say Sims." The same was laid
down in Br. Abr. Tit'. Property, 01: 4, in-Coto,:
1)1g. Tit. F.' ph. 1t36, ,and .Lay. 237.
The Court, however, intimated.. a Strong opi+
nion against these authorities ; and others, hi
which, the contrary, doctrine ti'as held, were O.'
ferred to in lilackstone.and Lund 14aymond.. It
was also said that the practice was directly at %)it.
rianee with the argument, not only ,in easel Of
game but in Ahe-ries, where the so of a fisli6ty
called the lists his, •

CASRRIID 31111 pressed the point : whci•o
• '
the objection had been .taken. it has availed,
though the matter ' might .sopetimets pass :still it.,
/Naito,: he contended, that though the owner of
the, chase had on Undefined sort 01 property,
to-
lione loci, he h►xd. not that sole and exclusive pro-
perty in the deer, &c,.. %ilicit would enable him to
maintain t►n action like the present.
Lord ELLeNnottottott.7-After the cases and the
practice to the 'contrary, it might be attended with
dangerous consequences if the question were now
raised.--Rule refused.