The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-09 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH•

(Sittings in Banco.)
hhaoi in
du
sceirindlele,rhtetoor
etphhreoi
irlnh
soolti.Ati feseer"fr:
away from her residence, under the
byh i
st the
wife
had
care
el(ecvimuea
question
following efi
producellrA :oho:,
bodyrttus
ofm moved the
lady, who
C ohuardt
beenfor aeosnvyriety.rtA°
se,
pdaTes ichnrtecaasbdni
lteleapi
nffiogfnde:amnvaati
:ties,
~:stirst.niivoir...,..
sbstftlanliyeoatdnfaarill,ilen into a state of niiie:r
etsrecoveryavidthmeeiecdsasit,ptlarupnatnl "chi
deegeahesertlmi
a‘otdhnhyhnea.titdvichal ands
takentmade,h a
tthoat
joined in the affidavit. The persons against 8/P s'.o
cibly taken her away, without the consent or "11-Isiler
ledge of her husband, whose efforts to discover ent
place of concealment had been, up to the Ares
moment, entirely unsuccessful. a 1#
The names of the parties were not disclose
the Learned Counsel. s t°
The COURT ordered a writ of habeas corPli
issue, according to the terms of the motion.

CRIM. CON.
WILSON V. LEIGII.
This was an action for criminal conversation with.
the plaintiff's wife, and was tried at the last Assioe!
for Warwick before Lord Ttiiterden, when a vertlieL
was found for the defendant. r
the
Mr. CLARK now moved fora new trial, on
ground that a material witness on the trial had 111;i
apprehended an important question, and answer t
under that misapprehension., The witness stated fhse
she had seen the plaintiffs wife go into an outhollie
in a yard, where only the children of the house O'erd
in the habit of going, and that the defendant follow
and remained with the lady for above a quarter of ;
hour. The witness was asked whether she had era
seen the parties together before, and she coneeirtVe
the Counsel meant whether she had ever seen
parties in the outhouse before, replied in the nes;l
tire. The fact was, however, that this witness et
several others had frequently seen the defelhe
and the plaintiff's wife in company before. :ho
Learned Counsel entered at some length, and Wltoic
gravity which provoked universal merriment, 'oftl
the condition of the unfortunate husband, who ssf"
be saddled for his life with an adulterous °!iti.
unless he could get rid of her by a .11 ell trioo,
He stated that the plaintiff was a very young "'the
and had been married to the person who svii:rved
subject of the action only for a year. The Le-lod
Counsel then reflected on the condUct of is
on the trial, and contended that no man could 1-',,tbe
the purpose for which the plaintiff's wife altuhoar
defendant remained together for a quarter of arl habit
in a filthy place, which they were not in the
of going to for any lawful purpose.—(Laughte%,ll
The COURT granted a rule to shew eat° ihstv
there should not be a new trial or a nonsuit
tituted for the verdict for defendant.
ESTELLO V. JACKSON. before,
This was an action tried at Nottingham/ goo,
Mr. Justice Houtovn, to recover 201•
deetie
with the defendant, Jackson, to abide the i 54 the
a pugilistic contest. A verdict was taken for
plaintiff. coo
11°
Mr. READER now moved for a rule to shoo obit
why a new trial should not be granted, or a
entered. The contract between the plantolieit
illegal, and it was a question of pubic Pnot
whether the Court would assist a man in reeo'frepse
under an
reillegal contract. The facts of theced
simply we, that two stakes of 201. were Piriaid pI
the defendant's hands, one 201. having been P"