Star.
London, England, 1813-02-17 00:00:00

IP4RLI4I4VZh7'4I2r PINCEIJIIPOS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 16.
SATLMAN 9. COUNTESS •E ROSS.
Their Lordships met this day at eleven o'clock, for the purpose
of hearing Counsej in this case, which was an appeal from the
Court of Chancery in Ireland. Mr. Bremen and the Countess
of Ross married in 1770, and a few years afterwards some mis-
understanding and disputes arose between them ; and Lady Ross
soon afterwards thought proper to institute a suit in thel/4Ecciesia-
stical Court, for the purpose of procunng a divorce a alma et Mere,
on the ground of cruelty and adultery; and she also filed a Bill
in Chancery relative to the property. Pending these litigations,
it was agreed to refer their disputes to the award of certain arbi-
trators, who finally ordered a certain disposition between the
husband and wife, so long as they should live separate. In the
latter end of 1795, Lady Ross returned to Castle Gower, the re-
sidence of her husband, and remained there till the latter end of
1796, when she again left him. Mr. Bateman refused to comply
with the orders of this award, and Lady Ross again applied to
the Court of Chancery, and in 1899 a decree was in her favour.
Against this decree Mr. Bateman appealed to the House of Lords,
where the ease has remained since 1800.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY was heard to-day in favour of the ap-
pellant. By him it was contended, first, thatibe award on which
the Court in Ireland had proceeded was null and void in itself,
as it went to enforce a separation between man and wife, which
belonged to the jurisdiction of the Spiritual Court; anti secondly,
that at all events the award was completely set aside by the par-
ties afterwards living together as man and wife.. 'There was evi-
dence, he observed, to stew that Lady Ross lived with Mr.
Bateman for fourteen months, contentedly and happy; and that
during that period they lived in every respect as man and wife.
_ _

Mr. MONTAGOZ was also heard on the same side.
The ATTORNST.GEN/RAL was heard as Counsel for the re-
spondent. He urged the necessity which existed at the time for
a separation between these parties, and that they were seplrated
when the award was made, and that no reconciliation had taken
place; but that Lady Ross, In going to the mansion stated, only
went to see after her rights and property ; at by the award that
dwelling was to be her's, and not Mr. Bateman's. She continued
there so long in consequence of being seized by a nervous debi-
lity, which prevented her removal. The witnesses who had spo-
ken to the reconciliation said that these parties during that pe-
riod lived together as man and wife, were servants, whose evi-
dence had been already impeached. Lady Ross was now seventy-
six years of age, and had suffered much from the delay of twenty-
eight years in this litigation, and which it appeared bad been the
gbject of the appellant's proceedings.
Mr. NOLAN also addressed their Lordships for the respondent.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, in reply, urged the legal objections
which he had before stated; and observed the Attorney-Urneral
had brought no evidence to impeach that to which he had before
adverted, except the mere written statement made for Lady Hess
by her Proctor. He considered this case of great importance to
society.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that, for the purpose of
giving time to their Lordships to peruse the depositions adver•
ted to, he should move that this casu be further proceeded in on
Thursday.—Ordered.