Star.
London, England, 1824-07-21 00:00:00

PERJURY.-THE KING O. DUNSTAN.

This was an indictment against the defendant for perjury, al-
leged to have been committed by him in his answer to a Bill Bled
against him in the High Court of Chancery.
The Bill and Answer, which were of considerable length, having
been read,
Mr. Semmesl., for the defendant, submitted that the allegation
upon which perjury was assigned was immaterial.
Mr. Arroaurr-Gmmaaa having been heard for the prosecutor,
against the objection,
His Leaman. was of opinion that the allegation was immaterial,
•and the defendant was therefore acquitted.
MOWER W. R. MARTIN, ESQ.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is an upholsterer
in Oxford-street, to recover from the defendant, who is a Member
of Parliament for the County of Galway, the sum of X2OO 14s.
Irish, being the amount of a judgment obtained in Ireland by the
plaintiff against the defendant in the year 1810.
Mr. Henry Eaton, the plaintiff's attorney, produced the admis-
sion of the defendant that the judgment bad been obtained as it
was set out in the declaration.

Mr. Webb, a stock-broker swore that the valise of .0200 14s.
Irish was £lB5 Ss. 3d. English.
Vadiet for plaintiff—XlBs 51. 3d.
LUFFLUM V. ARMSTRONG.

This was an action of trespass, for driving a cart over the infant
child of the plaintiff. The plea was " Not Guilty."
The plaintiff was a market-gardener, at Fulham, near Hounslow,
and the defendant a baker, in the same place. On the ltith of
December, about four o'clock in the afternoon, the child, of about
eleven years of age, was playing in the road, and was rim over by
the cart which the defendant was driving, accompanied by his son.
The child was under the care of a surgeon for three weeks, and the
charge was X 2 3s.
Mr. Curry, addressed the Jury for the defendant, and called
Thomas Armstrong, the defendant's son, who swore that his father
isms driving at a moderate pace, and that the children were running
backwards and forwards in the toad.
The Loan Cuter Jurrics told the Jury, that, as in this action
they could not take into consideration the suffering of the child,
small damages would suffice.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, X 3.
TILE KING V• LAWSON AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment against Mr. Lawson, the Clerk of the
Peace for Middlesex, for a conspiracy.
A full Special Jury did not answer, and no one appeared on the
part of the prosecution to pray a tales.

The AxtonNET-Gem/A, forth* defendants, produced his own'
warrani for aides, and a full Jury was swam
The Arroanrr-Gxxxaskt. rose and said, " Here are six most re-
spectable Gentlemen indicted, and no prosecutor appears"
The Lean Come Jurrice immediately directed an acquittal.
The Jury immediately found.thedefendants Not Guilty.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 20.
WARRY V. WARILY.
This was a question of accounts, and occupied the
attention of the Court the whole day. The defendant
pleaded a set-off to the amount of 9,0001. A verdict
:was taken by consent for the plaintiff, for 12,0501.
CONSISTORy COURT, JULY 20. •
HULMS O. RULMIL
Dr. LUSMINGTON said, that this was a suit fcir a di-
vorce, promoted by Mrs. Hulme against her husband,
in consequence of cruelty and adultery practised by
him. The parties were married in January, 1819, and
they cohabited together until the latter end of January,
1820, when they 'Separated, in consequence of the re.
peated acts of cruelty exercised by Mr. Hulme towards
his wife. The charge of adultery was alleged to have
been consummated subsequent to the separation.
Dr. JESSE ADAMS, on behalf of Mr. Hulme, submit-
ted that, according to the evidence produced, there was
no satisfactory conclusion to be drawn that the charge
of cruelty and adultery had been substantiated.
Dr. LLJSHINGTON contended, that both charges were
proved; the witnesses all deposed to the general con-
duct of Mr. Hulme ; that he frequently applied wards
her epithets of a very opprobrious description; that at
various times he threatened her life; at one time he
seized a red-hot poker and swore he would knock her
brains out ; and at another time her cries of " Murder r
brought the servants into her bed-loom, where Mr.
Hulme was seen brandishing a large knife, and swear-
ing he would murder her. This conduct was repeated
at a time when Mrs. Hulme was in a very dangerous
state of health, from a recent confinement, and tended
much to increase her indisposition; in consequence of
such treatment, she had been obliged to exhibit articles
of the peace against her husband; and he (Dr. Lush-
ingfon) thought the charge of cruelty was, therefore,
put beyond all question. As to the charge of adultery,
it was proved by several witnesses, that while Mr.
Hulme was landlord of the Three Compasses public-
house, in Brick-lane, he cohabited with a woman whom
he always called " Ann," and who generally called her-
self Mrs. Hulme.

Dr. Jame ADAMS submitted, that the cruelty was
not sufficiently proved: it consisted of mere general
threats and menaces, used by a man of an irritable and
passionate temper towards his wife, and not of that na-
ture to call on the Court for a divorce.

Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON said, he was satisfied
that the libel was proved in all its parts, both of cruelty
Ind adultery. The parties cohabited together only a
year, during which time they had one child, and it ap-
peared that for nearly all that time the husband had
exercised his brutal conduct towards his wife. It ap-
peared he was always quarrelling with her, threatening
her life with a red•hot poker at one time, and with a
knife at another; frequently swearing with dreadful
oaths he would pull her out of bed, and other acts which
were certainly acts of cruelty. The charge of adultery
was also proved, and therefore the Court decreed for
the divorce, as prayed for.
SMITH V. SMITH.

This was a suit instituted by the wife against her
husband, W. H. C. Smyth, Esq. of Sloane-street, seek-
ing a divorce on account of adultery and cruelty. A suit
had been origin Ally instituted by the wife, seeking for
a restitution of conjugal rights, and the husband having
promised amendment, she returned to his house; but
being obliged to leave it, as before stated, she sued for
A divorce. The libel contained two charges of adultery
and cruelty, describing the former offence as commit-
ted with a female, named Judith O'Neill, a servant, and
the cruelty was stated to have been committed on divers
occasions. The principal of those charges was his hav-
ing kicked his wife in the side when pregnant, and her
subsequent miscarriage in consequence; her being or-
dered from the TOOID, and when refusing to go, the dog
was set on her, and she was then pushed out; the ap-
plications made to her to go to America; and, finally,
her forcible conveyance to Kelly House, as an insane
person, were detailed as charges against the defendant.
Dr. STODART opposed the admission of the libel, con-
tending that the conduct of the wife did not claim their
attention, and that with respect to the last accusation,
she should have proceeded, under the Act of Parliament,
in another Court.
Dr. PHILLIMORB and Dr. LUSHINOTON considered
that the charges were most brutal and inhuman, and re-
quir ed the Court's consideration.
Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON said, they could not en-
tirely reject the complaint of the wife, and, excluding
two of the articles respecting her transactions in Ame-
rica, ordered the rest to be admitted to proof against
the husband.

An application for alimony was afterwards made,
when it was stated that the husband was in possession of
9001. per annum; that his wife had been absent from
him since the Bth of March, and that she had not a
single shilling.
Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON could not make such an
order, as the allegation of faculties had not been filed,
but he recommended that the matter should be con-
sidered by Counsel, and he expected that some allow.
ance would be made her during the long •acation.

•
Letters were yesterday received from Maranham, of
the 9th ult. by the Caroline, arrived at Liverpool. We
regret to find that the opposition to the Constitutional
Government of Brazil had produced disturbances, in
which some lives were lost and blood spilt. At the
time of the sailing of this vessel affairs remained in P.
very unsettled and even alarming state, and some fear
was entertained by the merchants for the safety of
their property.
Mr. CHARLES MATHEWS, the admirable comedian,
baying been reposing on the laurels lately gained at the Lyceum,
beneath his own vine and his own fig-tree, at his rural cottage near
Kentish-town, is going to Brighton to renovate his health and spi-
rits, preparatory to his appearance at the English Opera House, in
the regular drama.
MONTHLY CRITICAL GAZETTE.
THE THIRD NUMBER of this Work Is in forwardneu at
press, and will be published with the other Periodicals on the min
or AZUST, and may be had of all the Booksellers in the United
Kingdom.
It will contain full and interesting Analyses of every New Pub-
lication which appeared in the month of June, just as No. 1 and
contained the 180 New Works of April and May.
The Conductors deeply lament, that owing to circumstances
which cannot be stated at convenient length in a public advertiie-
mcnt many Country Booksellers and their friends have been dis-
appoieited la the receipt of the two first Numbers of this Work. ,
Those circumstances will be detailed at length in the third Number, I
not for purposes of eriminatlon, but of self-justification.
The plan of this Work is altogether new and original, and its
execution has so powerfully excited public attention, u in great
measure to have created those obstructioas, and even mutilations,
of which the Literary World and the Proprietors have so much
reason to complaln.—Lmtdon, July 40.