Star.
London, England, 1825-06-07 00:00:00

- , .

JR' REPORT.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JUNE 6.
snme le. comma.
This was a bill filed by Mr. Hollis Soli'', a mer-
chant of London, praying an account ef certain joint
mercantile transactions skith• the' defendant; Mr; Wm;
Turner Comber, of Glasgow. It appeared that the
parties agreed in 1809 to enter into an adventure for.
the exportation of British manufactures to St. Peters-
burgh, whither the defendant proceeded to superintend
their sale and disposal. In 1812 a second adventure
took plate to the same quarter. In 1814 the defendant
came to England to adjust the accounts of the preceding
transactions, when it was agreed that a third specula.
tion, consisting of articles similar to those of the for.
tier should be made for the same de,tination. As the
defendant could not provide -funds, it was agreed be•
tween the parties that the phintiff should advance the
capital necessary for the purchase of the goods (by ac-
cepting bills drawn by the defendant), the defendant
having the whole management of the adventure. The
latter was to have one-third, and the plaintiff two-thirds
of the profits. Circumstances induced Mr. Sony to de-
cline sending the goods to St.`Petersburgh ; part of
them were after cards shipped for Hamburgh and
Genoa, and the test were sold in England, the de-
fendant superintending the sale ; but (as he alleged in
his answer) without considering himself a party to this
new transaction. The value of the goods was consider-
able, and the loss on the whole concern was 4,1621.
Ilk. lima.* and Mr. Psensaarox, for the plaintiff, eimtended that
Mr. Comber had nude no renunciation of his participation in
the concern of 5814, which was in all respects of the .ante corn-
&dont as the former, extept at to the share of the profits.
The COURT rose before Mr. ffugdeo was heard for the defendant.
COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, JUNE 6.
THE KING v. HAMMOND AND OTHERS.
This was a risk calling on Ms. Hammond, of Green-
wich, and several other inhabitants of that place, to
shew canse why a crimin it information should not be
exhibited against them ? The application was made by
the Governors of the Poor, who complained of a libel
upon them in the shape of Resolutions, and the Report
If a Committee charging them with improper condnct-
in preferring the tender of a Mr. Gosling, f)r lighting
the town with gas, to that of Mr. Hedley.
The Aivniutar•Gexteat began to shew cause against the rule
on voluminous affidavit., minutely adverting to the disputes of the
parish ; but as be was proceeding,
The COURT expressed an opinion that the publication was not
sufficiently brought home to the defendants, and that the circum-
stances from which it was inferred, were rather he for the consider-
ation of a Grand Jury than for their decision; They accordingly
discharged the rule.

ARCIIE9' COURT, JUNE e.
• MOOG AND Moco.
. ,
Dr. ARNOLD stated that this was a calte of sepa,
ration and divorce, i• onsoted by Mrs. Mogg against
her husband, by reason of cruelty and unnatural prac-
tices. It came up hither by letters of request from
the Consistotial Court of Bath and Wells. The libel.
which had been given in, pleaded the marriage of these
parties, their. cohabitation. and mutual recognition of
each other as hasband and wife, and the birth of one
child.. ,The 4th article set forth, that faim the period
of their marriage to their separation the husband had
very fiequently treated his wife with great cruelty, and
exi:oced her to many hardships, refusing ter live with
her, to hoard or lodge her in his own house, and to eat
his meals in.her company; and that when she was in an
advanced state of pregnancy, he behaved to her with
such brutal:violence and outrage as to endanger her
life: It also charged that be refused to lie in the same
bed with his wife, hut he betook himself, of a night, to.
sleep with one Edward Kingston ; that the wife, by
reason of his gross misconduct, was obliged to go home
to her mother ; and that at the Quarter Sessions for the
County of Somerset, lkld in July, 1823, he was' in'
dicted.for c,:rtain• unnatural practices, found guilty on,
tbelst and 4th counts of the indictment, and sentenced
accord ugly. The record of such con: iction being now
produced to this Court, the Learned Counsel submitted
that this libel must be admitted, and that the patty was
entitleJ to the remedy she prayed for. . .
Sir Jolts NiCHOLL
,had •read the evidence of these
witnesses, (It was not opened by the Counsel, and we
are therefore spared the revolting duty of giving HAI
details). The Court was of epittion that that evidence
fully established the libel, and that the wife was entitled
to her sentence of separation; and under the extreme
circumstances of this case, the Learned Judge observed,
he felt it his duty to assign the largest alimony that the
Court could give, accordissg to its practice; and, there,
fore, &creed her an annuity allowance out i f her hus-
• band's faculties (stated at 1501. per annum), of a moiety,
or 751. a. year.