Star.
London, England, 1822-11-11 00:00:00

other Stunting e. hum-hm nos.
mm“ m fa arm of invited”. 1*
it! «in». the defendant wedded to s3th forth.
ﬁre-testers not patenting? ﬁrst This time really
i. ad nothing name «mm for. am no“
excuse we} sugemd for the delay t. but here the
mm ‘the emote was the matter «fared
to the Muster. and into thin he tofoeed to inqoim
The Coeaﬁntirnﬁted. that its the Matter was not
in Court. the motion should’be deferred tillhe should
be present to give any eXPl‘anation that might he re-
quisiteF—Mr. C. F. Wtutnus acquiesced, and post-
poned his motion. ‘ '.. . . L
me into minute nunost mutant. , ‘
At a late period of the day, Mr’.‘Bnouonnu' rose
to move for a Rule to shew cause why the judgment
in this case should not be arrested, or a new trial
had The defendant was convicted of a libel on the
Clergy; before Mr. Baron,Wood, at the last ,Assizes.
for :rham. That part of his motion which was for
a new trial would he chieﬂy rested on the misdirec-
. tion of the harried Judge. . V ,
The Loan Cmu Justice intimated, that as ‘the
Court must very shortly rise, it wouldhe desirableonly
to take such motions as must be made without delay.
Mr. Bnouaunu was quite ready to meet the wishes
of the Court, and would therefore postpone his motion
until the defendant should be called up forjudgment,‘
it being understood that he should then‘be at liberty
to urge grounds not only for attesting thejudgme’nt,
but for a new trial. . .
The Loan Cum Jus’ncn feplied, that certainly
‘ the defendant’s interests should receive no prejudice
* from the delay, '
, Just after the Judges had retired, “’addingten
’ appeared to urge his ' motion for a new trial; but,
ﬁnding he was too late, he left the Court, saying “ he
i would call again on Monday." 1

ARCHES COURT, NOVEMBER 9. ~
' ‘ I'ERRIN AGAinsr PBRRIN.
Sir JOHN NicuoLt. gave sentence in this matter
to-day. This was a suit of separation by reasonof
adultery, brought by .J. L. Perrint the husband,
against Frances Eleanor Perrin, his wife. ‘ _
Upon the whole of this case, though the Court did
certainly .feel‘some considerable doubt ,as to the pit»
priety of entirely discrediting the account which had.
been given by the Stathams, yet, when it considered,
on the other hand, that the case tested solely upon
‘their evidence: that, being husband and wife, they
ﬁlled Opportunities of together concemng aiid.com-
bining their story, and of making up. a malicious
charge; and that there were so many circumstances
in the case to raise a doubt with respect to the Ruth
of their stor'y'; the Court did feel a difﬁculty still
greater in giving to their testimony that credit which
would induce it to pronounce this libel to be proved.
Considering, also, that Mr. Putin, the husband, if he
failed in his proofs, was left only where he was before
—living apart from his wife by his own choice, and
allowing her a weekly stipend—whereas the Wife,
certainly with the presumption of innocence in her
favour, would, if the libel should be so pronounced
to be proved, be left wholly destitute ; and that. this
Court, if it felt the truth of the libel to be doubtful,
would run less risk in pronouncing that the husband'
had failed in proof, and in dismissin Mrs. Perrin
from the suit, than in pronouncing for tie separation
prayed ; the Court was induced to pronounce the
libel not proved. If Mrs. Perrin was really the sort‘
of woman that the libel held her out as being, it was}
highly probable that, pending this suit, she might?
have furnished against herself some evidence of fresh 1
misconduct. Should the fact be so, the husbandi
might have the opportunity of appealing this cause ;';
an of pleading. in the superior Court, such miscon-‘
duct .in support of his prayer for relief. But if no‘
such fresh misconduct could be imputed to her, then
surely her subsequent correctness of conduct must‘
tend to conﬁrm her former innocence, with respect
to the char e which had been brought against her in‘
this suit. ﬁpon the whole of the evidence, the Court
pronounced that the husband had failed in proof of
the charge brought a ainst her in this suit; from all
further observance otswhichthe Court now therefore
dismissed her. ‘ i
’ INSOLVBNT DEBTORS' COURT.

Thomas Ambrose was apposed by Mr. Hearts, on
behalf of Mr. Davis. .
The Insolvent, on his examination, stated that he
wasdischarged under the Act about two years and
a half ago, from debts amounting to about £7OOO.
He had been a bankrupt previously to his discharge,
and again subsequently to it: the last time was in‘
January, 1822. About six months after his discharge,‘
he took the house in Waterloo lace, Pall-mall, in
which the Waterloo Bank was aflt’erwardsearricd on,.
from Mr. Davis. The Insolvent was an anonymous
partner in that Bank, of which the ﬁrm was Willer-
ton, Beaumont, and Co. Willerton formerly lived
near Pontel'ract, in Yorkshire, and now lives in Hull
Beaumont former}, lived at 'lslih%‘oh‘; .where he now ‘
resides Insolvent does not knowl‘ ﬁls were drawn in
the name of D. Wharton, but no person of that name
had anything to do with the Bank.
Mr. H mm! here shewed the Insolvent a bill drawn
in that name. and asked him if that was his (Insol-
vent’s) hand-writing? but the Insolvent, before he
“cold answer the question, appealed to the Court to
know if he wps bound to do so, as it had nothing to
do with any debt he owed, or with anything men-
tioned in his schedule? Counsel did not insist upon
anionswer. _ '

The Count said it was clear that the Insolt-cnt's
case did not come within the Act of Parliament; his
insolvency was not produced by inevitable misfor-
tune; and he could not be entitled to a second dis~
charge. within ﬁve years after his former discharge,
without the consent of three-fourths of his creditors.
His Setition was therefore dismissed.
‘ ' T was Dyson was apposed by Mr. Coon, on
behalf of Mr. Bruﬂ’, one of the attornies of this Court.
Mr. Cooke stated that the insolvent was discharged
in December, 1820, under this Act, when Mr. Bruff,
who was his attorney, kindly allowed him to take his
discharge without paying his hill of costs, amounting
to 121. 8:. out of which he paid 81. 85. and for the
balance Mr. Bruf was obliged to sue him, and ob-.
tained judgment for debt and costswlricltﬂamounted
to 25!. He (Mr. Cooke) hoped that the Court would
protect its attornies from snﬁ'ering by their kindness
in consenting to an hsolvent's discharge without pay-
;iu his bill of'costs. ' l
’ ql'he insolvent admitted the truth of Mr. Cavizc's‘
: statement. but added that, since Mr. Bruﬁ~ had ob-;