Star.
London, England, 1813-11-15 00:00:00

MANDAMUS.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved for a Rule to
shew cause, why a Mandamus should not issue to a
Mr. Smithies and a Mr. Bridge, both or either of
them, commanding them to deliver up to the corpo-
ration of Colchester, the Corporation books and the
insignia of the Mayor. By the atfidavits it appeared,
that Mr. Smithies had been Mayor, and was succeeded
by Mr. Bridge, who, after a few months, had judg-
ment of ouster against h;rn, when a Mr. Sparling was
duly elected Mayor. Seventl anplications had been
made to Mr. Smithies, for the books and insignia, &c.
He had allowed that they were in his possession, but
had refused to deliver them up. However, one day
the Town-clerk, and other officers of the Corporation,
having met him in the street, they asked- hint to de-
liver the books and ins:cnia to the Mayor. He in
answer told them, that if they would gr.% to his house,
the maid servant had orders and would giTe them to
them. They went to his house, and the• maid ser-
vant did deliver the case iu which the mace had been
kept ; but, on opening it, they. found not the mace,
but the figure of the Mayor cut in wood, and- sus.'
pended from a gallows. The Learned Counsel sta-
ted, that he moved for the Rule in the alternative,
lest, when cause wasshewn, there might be some
shuffle as to Mr. Smithies' having delivezed the kooks
and insignia to Mr. Bridge, who h',4 succeeded him,
in the Mayoralty. The Rule was granted in the:
terms in which it was prayed,

SUPREME COURT OF I,I7DICATURE, CALCU rTA.
&LARCH
CREW CON..-O.I,:IiZEI.T. V. RATTRAP.

The plaintiff, who is a private in the Bengal artil-
lery, brought this action against the defendant, who
is Surgeon of the lion. Company's ship Fairlie,. to
recover damages for criminal intercourse with his
wife, on board the Fairlie, during the passaie of th.tt
ship from Madeira to Ben il.
Mr. SimrsoN, who, as Qounsel for paupers, con.
ducted the case of the plaintiff, having stated its
leading circumstances, and commenterVn the injury
which his client had sustained, witnes.:s its
proof et the facts.
Daniel O'Keefe, brother of the plaintiff, and pri-
vate soldier of artillery, said, that he was present at
the marriage of his brother with his present wife, and
that the ceremony was performed with all due solem-
nity, according to the ritual of the Roman Catholit
Church. Witness believes the parties lived together
is a state of harmony from the time of their union
until their dissentions commenced on board the Fair-
lie: he once saw Mrs. O'Keefe in the cabin of the
defendant, and upon that occasion Mr. Rattray and
she were upon the bed. The sequel of his evidence
established the fact on which the action was grounded.
Witness knows that O'Keefe was twice put under
arrest by Mr. Rattray. The first of these instances
was in consequence of a quarrel between O'Keefe and
his wife. Mrs. O'Keefe, on being remonstrated with
by her husband, on account of her improper intimacy
with the Surgeon, gave him a blow, and the Surgeon
coming up, ordered the husband into confinement:
Wm. Turner, constable of the town of Calcutta,
knows Mr. Rattray, and having occasion to call at
his house in Calcutta, he saw there the wife of
O'Keefe, who appeared to be an inmate.
Mr. FERGUSON. Counsel for the defendant, dehied
that there existed any ground for this action ; as it
wauld be proved that the alleged wife of O'Keefe
was not legally married to him ; that she was a See-
man of abandoned clrtracter ; and, moreover, that
her pretended husband was, in fact, the very cause of
her dishonour. The learned Counsel undertook to
prove, that the plaintiff had connived at, and even
acquiesced in, the criminal intercourse of his wife
with others of the crew, previous -to' the date of the
pretended injury sustained from the defendant:
The persons whom he called for this purpose could,
however, depose only that tie plaintiff and his wife
quarrelled; that he sometimes beat her, and that
they had both declared, under the influence of pas-
sion, that they were free to separate, not being united
in wedlock.

To rebut this' testimony, Mr. Simpson called Ca-
therine Small, who deposed that she came out in the
Fairlie ; that the O'Keefes were A loving couple,
until after passing Madeira, when they began to dis-
agree. She never saw O'Keefe beat his wire, but had
hearll bim remonstrate calmly with her on the impro-
priety of her frequenting the Surgeon's cabin. At
that time Mrs. O'Keefe was perpetually there. No
other woman ever visited the Doctor. When O'Keefe
objected to his wile's conduct, the latter used to re-
ply, ,g If you 'treat me in this manner, I will com-
plain to the Doctor, who will have you put under ar-
rest, and confined upon the poop."
Sir Wu. Bunaouons said, that the action was
brought by a man who filled a humble station in life,
but that the lowness of his condition did not render
his grievance the less an object of legal redress. The

- •
•
law, inflict, Made no distinction off this ack ;
the only dill: ence occasioned by the degrees,u! r •
is cases of this kind, was in the amount (-1,1 image
All the matetial fitcts had ben estaldi•ltMirrh •4
evidence; no doubt could, therefore, tie eti:r4dtked
of the nature of the verdict. His Lordship 'circle
some remarks on the total failure of the defence; ai.d
animadverted on the inhumanity of the defendant, .n
pretending to establish tacti so eXtremel% injit.inui to
the character of the person whom he had already ma.
terially jointed, while he was totally cle4tittre
dente by which they could he proved. On acceatitt•
of the severity exet•cised by the plaintiff towar.is .iis
wife, the damages given by the Court would be colt.
siderahly lower than they-would have been had the
previous conduct of the aggrieved party beett
unexceptionable—a circunibtance.which his Lord,h,e,
hoped might have a beneficial influence by way of
'example to others. Verdict for the plaintiff-,-Da-
images 500 sicca rupees.