The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-21 00:00:00

LAW ISTELLIGtNCE.-(THIS DAY.)

• .COI.TRT OF KING'S BENCH.
. , ESCAPE. • .'
sflltrt OTHERS. V. .401415. '
Mr. III:TC14114,5014 opined tht pleading?. ": •-•-• - • 4
Mr. MARitalmivitiiiied thil•case. , „ •

lhis was an action brought against the Marshal of the King's_
Bench 'prison,' I'4 t6ci-of etintp&isatiOttin:•-damtgei fort the injury
ifaskkich the plaintiffs sustained in consequence of hir3 permitting!,
Vie Situnidns, Who AViS in his'tqlstodrAit theekultrofTheplaintiffifta.
,escape.: The plaintiffs, Smith and Perring,were woolfen-draptsit, who -I
.recovered judgments In 'three fic,vttral actions Ifgaitilt"Abmhatri',
.tiliminotit,-,a;, Eh**, jersteloeiettiffritwallWtWOOMstif A241'44,- ACP
;fog' whiehAlserhad 4ittstSartbetedo .aiscb•Rxiged-,4, tifEw'Ktitsg4v
sl3ench •Prisou..:in-4/46.,; Sitbittoneezbeiegg4thriitted to4hetrirt,es,
:of the 'Beadt,..sits:,trirt by leer's alsbelatcoodber )'Lon.-
den4roadt '. where -le :.coritlntsed,' td carry ,on basinesic:klemr,'
to -the -bringing 4of this action ~- - The ,plaintiffs being . in,
formed that . Simmons ':'as •in the habit of . transgressing
the rules, emplo:ed a person to watch. his movements; ou one oc-
casion he was seen without the rules; hut. he returned again
within tH bounds before a bill could be filed; and, unless it
could be proved that the prisoner was out of the rules at the period
of the filing of the bill, an action for an escape could not lie ; but,
on the 3d of October last, he was seen to
..-,-_, I.': •:_`.e hc...:::z of a Mr.
Hart, in Mount-row, Lambeth, which is without the rules, where
a number of the persuasion met, to mien: ate a Jewish festival;
there he remained until ten minutes before twelve at night.—
when he was seen going home along with his wife. The plain-
tiff's attorney being informed of the circumstance, went imme-
diately to the King's Bench Office, in the Temple, and filed a bill
at five minutes before eleven exactly. The defendant ti.:iiied that
Simmons had been without the rules at the period when the bill
was filed, and the oily question for the consideration of the Jury
was, whether lie was or not. _ . . .... . .

A clerk from the Declaration Office proved that the bill had
been filed at the time above-mentioned ; and three witnesses de-
posed tliat they knew Simmons, and that they saw him
at Hart's house in Mount-row (which was proved to be without
the rules), at ten minutes before twelve u'eloCk on the 3d of
October.

Mr. SCARLETT aci,!,:ssed the Jury for the deferlaut. The
witnesses, he obser.,_d, must have mistaken a brother of Sim-
mons', who was very like him, for the prisoner, as he would
prove that Abraham Simmons was not at Hart's house that night_
John Collier, examined by Mr: GuaNar—Deposed that lie
spent the evening of the 3d of October from seven •'until twelve
o'clock, at the house of a Mr. Lewis, in Helena Place, Surrey,
which is within the Rules, and that Abraham Simmons was there
all that time playing cards•!--that Elias Simmons his brother went
out along with Abraham's wife about eight o'clock, and did not
return that evening ; two other witnesses deposed to the same
effect.

Mr. Jones Hart deposed, that Abraham Simmons was not
in their house on that night, but that Mrs. Simmons and Elias
Simmons were. Four other persons, who spent that evening
at Mr. Hart's house, corroborated the last evidence.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up the evidence, left

it to the Jury to decide on such conflicting testimony, whether or
not Simmons was at. Hart's house on the night of the 3d of Octo-
ber. If they thought he was, their verdict should be for the plain-
tiff ; if not, for the defendant. In his Lordship's opinion, the
evidence in favour of the defendant preponderated.
The Jury, with Out hesitation, returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
The Court was occupied all the morning in the trial of causes
of no public interest. • -t,,“;

CONSTSTORY COURT.RiaitlislA •
ASTLEY V. ASTLEY.

In this case Sir Jacob Astley has instituted a suit, praying to be
divorced from Lady Astley, on the ground of her adultery with
Captain Garth.
])r. DAUBIGNY, (with whom was Dr. DousoN,) now applied
on behalf of her Ladyship, praying the Court to order Sir Jacob
Aatley to pay her Ladyship,a sum nfrnoney on account of alimony.
The Learned Counsel said he, was.not instructed to press the Court
for_ any particular sum, but of course the Court would see the pro-
priety of granting. something auf4eient to enable Lady Astley to
support herself in that rank which she was accustomed to fill, and
in which her marriage portion, as well aster husband's largo for-
tune entitled her to a place.
[lt is understoOd that Sir Jacob received 10,0001. on his mar-
riage with Miss Dashwood, now Lady Astley.]
DRS. JENNER and LUSIIINGTON appeared for Sir Jacob, and
after some remarks between the Counsel for both parties, the
Court ordered that the sum of SUM_ should be paid to Lady
Astley on account of alimony.
The case of the Churchwardens of Christ Church, Spitalfields,
against Peter Smith, in which judgment was to be given this
day, stands over to the next sitting of the Court.