Star.
London, England, 1824-05-10 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 6.

GROOME AND OTHERS V. SIR THOMAS CMAMPNEYS, BART.
Serjeant Pam. moved on behalf of the defendant,
who he said was under very peculiar circumstances of
embarrassment, to have the rule directing the defendant
to pay upwards of 12,0001. to the plaintiffs enlarged.
He was aware that the Court having once already
granted this indulgence to the defendant, they would
not be inclined to do so a second time, unless some very
strong affidavits were produced by him to shew that the
defendant had done all in his power to comply with the
order, and that the extension of the rule would not be
inconsistent with justice to the plaintiffs.
These affidavits he had, one of which was made by a
very respectable professional Gentleman, Mr. Tyndale,
'of Lincoln's lnu•fields, who had been kind enough to
lend his able assistance to the defendant; but, although
that Gentleman had declined acting further in the busi-
ness, he had in the handsomest manner come forward
and made an affidavit of the circumstances attending
it, by which it appeared thatapplication had been made
to several Gentlemen, to advance the defendant the sum
necessary to pay the plaintiffs, agreeably to the rule of
Court; and that one of them had agreed to lend the
money, but in consequence of an opinion of Counsel taken
on the title, he had since declined making the :-.(ivance.
The Learned Serjeant said, that the ground upon
which the present motion was made, was that the order
of Court had directed the deeds forming the security to
the plaintiffs, to be cancelled on payment of the money ;
but that it was necessary to have an assignment of a
term of SOO years created by one of them, which gave a
piker right that no other incumbrances could affect.
Serjeant Otmow appeared for the plaintiffs, and
said that Sir Thomas Champneys had experienced every
indulgence possible.
After some consultation, the Court granted a further
period of a fortnight for payment of the money, which
was to be peremptory, and directed that the plaintiffs
should give every facility to the defendant, for the pur-
pose of enabling him to effect a loan of the sum ordered
by the Court.
CONSISTORY COURT, MAY s.
BARNARD V. BARNARD.

Doctor LUSHISIGTON prayed the Court, that the cita-
tion might issue in this cause; it was a suit promoted
by the husband for a divorce, by reason of adultery.
The parties are resident in Van Diemen's Land since the
year 1822, and proceedings were pending in the Court
of that colony, against the person who had committed
adultery wide the wife. The Learned Doctor cited a
case in which he was concerned in 1820, where a sur.
geon in the Navy had been convicted of murder, and
his sentence commuted to tranportation, and while
abroad he married the daughter of a settler, who hav-
ing committed adultery there, the husband obtained a
divorce by the sentence of this Court.
Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON considered the case cited
a sufficient precedent, and decreed citation.

BALL V. BALL.
This was a suit promoted by Sarah Ball against her
husband, George Ball, for a separation, by reason of
adultery committed by him with Ann Penny, his
niece. The principal witness in proof of the adultery
was a servant, named Mary Bristow, who deposed that
she had seen the parties through the key-hole. On this
evidence the case stood over for hearing on the 16th of
February last; since then, Mary Bristow made an affi-
davit, on the Bth of May instant, stating that the depo-
sitions she had made in the cause were false; that she
had not seen any act of adultery committed by the said
George Ball and Ann Penny, but that she had been in-
duced to make her former depositions by the solicitations
and procurement of the said Sarah Ball.
Dr. JENNER and Dr. LuSHINOToN, on the part of
the promoter of the suit, contended, that the affidavit
of Mary Bristow, contradicting her depositions in the
cause, should not be received, as there vi as great pro-
bability that she had been tampered with on the part of
'auaband. .

Dr. BURNABY and Dr. PHIEEDIORE contended, that
the affidavit should be received, as there Here many
precedents for receiving affidavits of witnerses contra-
.
Jicting their depositions in the cause.
Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINWN said this was an extra.