The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, F. 14
cAminGF. v. ALLENBY.

This case, which was argued at length before the Judges, has
decided a point of much consequence to the public.—The plaintiff
sold to the defendant corn at York market, on the 10th of Feb.
last, at three o'clock in the day, for which the defendant paid him
in bank notes of the Huddersfield bank of Mess. Dobson and Co.
—The Huddersfield bank had, in fact, stopped payment on that
morning at twelve o'clock, but the stoppage was unknown both
to the plaintiff and defendant.—The plaintiff hearing of the stop-
page soon after did not think it necessary to send the notes to
Huddersfield, which is forty miles from York, for presentment,
but he met the defendant on the 17th of February, the following
Saturday, at York, and then called upon him to pay for the corn,
and offered to return the notes, which had become useless, in con-
sequence of the stoppage.—The defendant refused, and the plain-
tiff brought his action, which was tritd at York, subject to the
opinion of the Court of King's Bench.
Mr. Donn, • for the plaintiff, argued that the plaintiff was not
bound to present the notes, since the bank had actually stopped
before he received them, and bad never resumed their payments;
and, consequently, a presentment would have been useless and
nugatory—and he had done all he was required to do in offering
to return thein the following market-day to the defendant.
Mr. CRESSWELL, for the defendant, contended that the plain-
tiff had been guilty of laches, in not presenting the notes to the
bankers, and giving due notice to the defendant that they were
not paid.—The defendant had a right to have them returned as
FOOD as the plaintiff learned that the bank had stopped—in order
that the defendant, if he chose, might proceed against the hankers
immediately. The case was like an indorser of a bill of exchange,
who was entitled to due notice of the dishonour of the bill.

The Learned JtTnGrs delivered their opinion, that the plaintiff
had been guilty of negligence in not presenting the notes, or, at
least, in not returning them sooner, and, consequently, the pay-
ment was a good payment of the price of the corn, and a nonsuit
must be entered:

CONSISTORY COURT.-FEB. 14.
NOGG AGAINST NOGG.

Dr. JENNEI stated that this was a suit for a divorce promoted
by Mr. Hogg against Susan Hogg his wife, on the ground of
various acts of adultery committed by her with divers persons, at
houses of ill fame.

Dr. ARNOLD, on behalf of the wife, could not deny the acts of
adultery, but should contend that the conduct of the husband had
been such as did not entitle him to relief.

(A discussion here took place as to the reading of the evidence,
which, it was intimated, was of too disgusting a nature to be
he publicly exposed. It was decided with the consent of all parties
that the evidence should be taken as read, and that the counsel
might refer to such parts as they pleased.)
Dr. AalloLn observed, the outset of the history was this:—
His client, the child of humble parents, described as a poor, un-
educated, ignorant girl, was prevailed upon by the plaintiff to
leave her home and parents, when only 14 or 15 years of age,
under a promise of marriage. The plaintiff carried her to a no-
torious brothel, where he lodged her. He made this place her
home, where she was exposed to continual scenes of the vilest pro-
fligacy. If her principles became corrupt, who was the corrupter?
If she was polluted, who was the author of her pollution? The
husband himself was the cause of all the subsequent mischief of
Which he complained, and was not entitled to lay it to her charge,
or to ask the Court to remedy what he had occasioned. Af4er
cohabiting with this female for some indefinite time (for
there was little information on these points), the Court found her
turned adrift, and living with a young woman in a }tense where
the most profligate conduct took place. In July, 182% the par-
ties married. In ordinary circumstances it might be said, that
this fact put an end to what preceded it; and that when the plain-
tiff became her husband, he must be supposed to have taken her
to a different kind of place, and exacted from her that modesty
and chastity, and those duties, due from a wife. But the facts
which transpired in this cue, stated by the plaintiff's witnesses,
proved that he took her, on returning from church, to the very
house of Griggs, in Eagle-street, where she had lodged; and the
character of that house was shown by the shameless, unblushing
admissions of the owners. Here then was a sanction given to her
for an acquaintance with the persons and scenes at that place.—
Here was a case, not of connivance merely, but of open en-
couragement given to a wife to be acquainted with persons of
infamous character. The consequences were the necessary
fruits of the husband's sanction, thus given. The parties after-
wards went to Norfolk, and subsequently to Tenby. No charge
of any thing criminal was alleged against the wife, until the end
of 1824, when the parties were living at Ramsgate. The hus-
band then, for some cause not stated, quitted her, and informed
her he did not mean to return to cohabitation; and that she was
at liberty to go where she pleased. She was at that period ut-
terly destitute. After a time, a miserable pittance of 255. a
week was allowed her ; but no care, no feeling, was evinced by
him respecting her. Application having been made to him for
payment of a debt incurred for lodging her, he had resourse to
this Court to release him from the burden of maintaining her, on
account of her misconduct.

Dr. JEssE ADAMS, on the same side, made a few observations
in addition. The husband, at the time of marriage in 18'22, was
between 40 and 50 ; the wife between IS and 19 ; a son was
horn in 1823. The wife had been treated with great cruelty by
her husband, having been flogged by his orders, as stated by his
own witness.
Dr. JENNER, on behalf of the husband, urged that the facts
charged in the answers to interrogatories ought to have been
pleaded, in order that the husband might answer and refute the
allegations. There was nothing but the vague statement of a
witness connected with the wife, to show that she was seduced
.by Mr. Hogg, or that he cohabited with her before marriage.
He had no reason to know the character of the house he took his
wife from on the day of marriage. He conceived she was re-
siding with her brother, whilst she was acting the profligate at
Griggs' ; and, when he knew the fact, he commenced the present
suit.

Dr. LUSNINGTON, on the same side, remarked, that what had
occurred previous to the marriage could not be admitted in plea.
Sir C. ROBINSON said, the fact of adultery was fully proved ;
but the Court could not throw out of consideration the conse-
quences of separation to the unfortunate woman. After referring
to the early connexion of the parties, to the circumstances of the
marriage, to the manner in which they separated at Ramsgate,
and to the conduct of the plaintiff in leaving his wife in London,
where such a woman would be sure to fall into evil, and resort to
her old habits, the Learned Judge said, that the only question for
the Court to consider was, whether it had any moral discretion ;
no person could doubt, that in such cases as this the Court had a
moral discretion, under which, and looking also to the conse-
quences of separation, he must pronounce that the husband was
not entitled to the relief he prayed.

MA RYLEBONE PARISIL—On Saturday came on
the appointment of a Sunday Evening Lecturer, to the Parish
Church, vacant by the resignation of Dr. Bustleld. The appoint-
ment is in the Vestry. The Rev. Mr. Scobell, 56—The Rev.
Mr. Birdwood, 26. Majority in favour of Mr. Scobell, 30.
N.B.—Mr. Scobell has been many years a Vestryman ! On
Tuesday last, Mr. Burchell resigned his office of Clerk to the
Commissioners of Land and As.;essed Taxes for the division of St.
Marylebone; when the Commissioners appointed Monday, the 2d
April, for the election of his successor. The candidates are—Mr.
Burgoyne (a Commissioner); Mr. Hall; Mr. Lord (son of a
Commissioner); Mr. Tilton. The appointment is in the Com-
missioners 1 ! Does not this smell of a job ?—Morning Paper.
On the news of the birth of a son and heir to the
ancient family of Stobs, reaching the Barony of Hadden, one of
the family estates, the tenants, Messrs. Brodie, and nearly the
whole population of the Barony, proceeded to the highest point of
Hadden-rigg, where a large bonfire was lighted in honour of the
occasion, and the healths of the young heir, and of Sir William and
Lady Elliott, were drunk with every demonstration of kindly feel-
ing. The rustic party afterwards enjoyed a cheerful dance at one
of the farm-steadings, and spent the evening in high glee.—Kelso
Nail.

EXTRAORDINARY ESCAPE.—Last week, as a
party, of carbineers, stationed at Nottingham, were escorting a de-
serter to Loughborough, a young shoemaker prevailed on them to
stop, that he might take a glass of ale with the prisoner, whom he
recognised to be an old friend. At parting, the deserter told the
corporal that the shoemaker was a deserter from the same regi-
ment. The corporal attempted to take him, but the shoemaker
extricated himself from the party, and ran through a field next a
river, into which he dashed, and swam towards the opposite bank.
Three of the soldiers ran along a bridge which was close by, but
observing he was
little chance of intercepting him,
they fired their carbines at the
gaining the opposite bank, and that they had
unfortunate man. Two of the balls missed him altogether, the
third struck him in the fleshy part of the arm, and he was ob-
served to turn upon his back. By dint of exerting himself, how-
ever, he gained the opposite bank, and landed on the wharf. Three
men who were at work upon the wharf advanced to seize him,
when a liberator appeared in the person of his shopmate, who
kiiicked down the three men one after the other. The two shoe-
makers then jumped into the canal, crossed into a meadow, and
succeeded in escaping into town,—Zreter ,Alfred.