The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-07 00:00:00

• COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 6.
The avenues leading to this Court, and the Court
itself, were yesterday crowded to excess, to hear the
result of a prosecution on the part of the Excise,
against a person of the name of Minchin, a foreignir,
well known in the spirit trade. The case has been
pending a considerable time, and from term to term
postponed, to the great inconvenience of the numerous
witnesses subpcewaed, of whom there are between 350
and 400.
The LORD CHIEF BARON entered the Court a
little before ten, and on the jury being called over,
scarcely one man in ten answered to his name. Find-
ing very little probability of making a special jury,
the Learned Baron enquired whether the case was
so important as to prevent the number being made
up from the common jury list ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having answered in the
affirmative,
The LORD .CHIEF BARON ordered the summon-
ing officers to. appear. The names of the jurymen
having been called over, and a sufficient excuse ap-
peating in very few. instances, the remainder were
severally' fined 51. In the course of this investiga-
tiOn, his Lordship took (mission to observe very
pointedly on the gross insufficiency of tl jury-list.
In many instances, the - names •of • persons occurred
i who had long since been'tlia4 and in one particu-
lar case,-that of a gentleman formerly residing in
Cavendish-square, and intimately lqwwir- to the
Learned Judge and the bar,—it appeared that he
had been dead three years, awl bed-ridden nine
years previously. The Court ordered one of its
officers to give immediate attention to this subject,
and communicate the result of the investigation, with
the view to the correction of so great an abuse.
The case above alluded to was postponed to the
sittings after Hilary Term, and the Court adjourned
until 'Monday. •
To give an idea or the magnitude and extent of
the cases against Minchin, the Excise-books brought
down-its-Comt to be:produced in evidenee occupied
the interior of two hackney-coaches.

ARCHES COURT, Thic. 6.
HAIIERTON V. ITAIHEATON.

This was an appeal from the Consistoriat Court
of Gloucester, in a case of divorce by reason of athil-
tery, promoted by Major William Hamerton against
Isabella Frances Hamerton, his wife. The sum al-
lotted for alimony Was 3001., and a question arose
whether certain sums paid by the husband on ac-
count of his wife were to be deducted, and whether
an annuity of 701., possessed by the wife, should not
be included in the 300/. The Judge in the court
below had refused to allow the sums expended to be
deducted,and had held Major Hamerton in contempt.
The COURT reversed the sentence of the inferior
Court, and retained the cause.

OLIVER *ED TOLL V. HOILIRT.
This was a case of scandal in the church, brought
by appeal from the Consistorial Court of Exeter.—
The office of the judge was promoted by the
churchwardens of the parish of Beer Fertere, in the
diocess of Exeter, against the Rev. Henry Cheeks
Hobart, minister of that parish, -for incontinence
and adultery. fhe Judge in the inferior court bad
rejected the libel, and condemned the promoters of

the suit in costs.
The libel alledged that the defendant, who bad
been instituted to the living in 1798, who married
in 1800, and separated from ohis wife 13 years after,
did, 14 or 15 years ago, commit acts of adultery
with his servant, Mary Merifield ; that nine or ten
years ago he was in the constant habit of sleeping
with her, and treating her as his mistress, and that
within the last eight months, he had been guilty
of divers other acts of indecency with the said Mary
Merifield.'
After hearing Dr. Dodson and Dr. Jesse Addams
for the respondent, and Dr. Lushington and Dr.
Blake for the appellant,
The COURT gave sentence.--Under existing cir-
cumstances, pending the appeal to the House of
Lords, in die case of " Burgoyne v. Free,' the Learn-
ed Judge held that the 27th Geo. 114, c. 44, did
not prevent proceedings against a clergyman, for acts
done at an earlier period than eight months : the
situation of parishes would otherivise be lamentable,
for the object of a suit like this was to rid the parish
of a nuisance, rather than to reform the manners of
theindiiidual. The objection as to the remoteness
of the acts would, therefore, be no bar to this suit,
provided the charges had been more specific; but-
they were not sufficiently so to give the patty an
opportunity to defend himself upon so serious a
charge. He therefore confirmed the sentence of the
Court below, and allowed the respondent the costs
of this-appeal.