Star.
London, England, 1825-02-10 00:00:00

IN TUE MATTER OF THE BOROUGH OF EAST LOOS.

was a rule, °bullied by the Attorney-General, I
cdli;ig on the Mayor of the borough of East Looe, who
is also. steward of the Court-leet of the Manor, to spew
cause shy a ntardames should not issue, requiring him
to enrol a resident householder in the borough, and to
circa him a burgess of the corporation, so order to
give him the privilege of voting for Members to serve
in P., rhament.

11.. ADAM and Mr. CoLaatnctr shewed cause against
the nue, and produced a decision of the House of Corn.
mons, that the right of voting was in the burgebses
only, and not in the resident householders, and con-
tenclvd that a resident householder -could not, mutely as
such, claim to be admittei a burgess.
The ATTOR NEY GENERAL and Mr. MEREWETHUR, in
support of the rule, urged that Ahem was sufficient
ground laid in the affidavits to Render it questionable,
whether the tight of voting 'Kai not otiginally in the
residents, and had been usurped by the select body ?
and that the terms of the charter were, at least, open
to Vie construction that all reAants were entitled to be-
come burgesses. As, therefore, these was doubt, both
as to the fact-and the law, they submitted that the case
should be placed in a train of further inquiry.
The- COURT, however, thought both points clear
against the rule. They believed. and in that belief were
Ise
lat
:e-
-the

bo-
ere.—

reason
ler

LUC [WV. L/ZIIC•GLI, AMU UI 11161. Ucl/c1 Mel
confirmed by the admission of Mr. Merewether, when
knowledge of col potation law was very extensive, dr;
there was no corporation in England to which mere ri
sidency gave a right of admission. To hold that tt
Charter conferred on all residents such a right, woul
be to alter the constitution of numerous corporate be
dies, with which the Court had no power to interfere.-
The rule must therefore be-discharged.
CONSISTORY COURT, FEB. 9.
BALL 9. BALL.
This cause, which was a suit for a divorce, by reasa
of adultery, promoted by Mrs. Sarah Ball, against he
husband, Mr. George Ball, a brewer, residing in Drur:
e lane, has been several years in progress in this Court.-
This day it came on for judgment.
Sir C.ROBINSON said, the pleas in this cause had bee
very numerous, and the case was altogether of a vet
complicated nature. The libel put in on behalf of tl
wife, pleaded the marriage in 1812, and subsequent c
habitation ; the Lady was the widow of a brewer
Drury-laile, by whom Mr. Ball had been long et
ployed in a confidential capacity,- and he had ultimate
married the widow. Mrs. Ball hid a niece residit
with her, named Penny, to whom she afforded her pi
tecion, in consequence of Miss Pennie having been 1
an orphan. In 1813, Mrs. Ball had a female chi:
which was placed in the care of Miss Pennie, as nur
The libel charged Mr. Ball with having very early
hibited signs of disaffection towards her, and estranl
ment of his affections from her to Miss Pennie. T
charge was met, on the other side, by counterpleadin
and from the evidence of all the witnesses, it seen
that both Mr. and Mrs. Ball's disagreements were c
ginally caused by the dispositions of each party ; '
witnesses described the blame to attach to both part:
Mrs. Ball's differences were chiefly occasioned by mot
matters, regarding the fortune which was to have b
settled on herself and children • this was not sett
• until 1821, when, upon the application of Mrs.
trustees to the Court of Chancery, Mr. Ball was cc
Felled to refund the money. The first proximate
pleaded to have taken place, was in August, 18
when, in consequence of the frequent disagreements
tween the parties, Mrs. Ball left her husband (Are 1
previously, in 1816, left her husband, but returned
him again); in April, 1820, she returned to him ag
and in the interim, such facts were pleaded as,
■ cording to the argument of Counsel, called on
Court to come to a conclusion of adultery. It
stated that Mr. Ball had, during that time, acted
g unbecoming familiarity towards Miss Pennie: to
a - port this charge,
Margaret Walters, a servant, stated, that on one
casion she was, passing the parlour window. anc
kg looking in, she saw Mr. Ball and-Miss Pennie pla
like children together, and that the thought it
is- prof On another occasion, while passing Mr. E
to room, she saw Mr. Ball taking improper liberties
the person of Miss Pennie; this might not perhaps