Star.
London, England, 1822-11-23 00:00:00

THE KING V. MESSITER.

In this prosecution against the defendant, for su-
bornation of perjury at the trial of an action brought
by Sir T. Champneys, Bart. a motion was made for
arrest of judgment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE stated this day, that the
Court could not hear the arguments on the question
during the present Term.—The decision con-,equently
stands over to next Term.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. CAturnEt.t. moved for a ltule to shew cause
why a criminal information should not be tiled
against a Magistrate of die county of Hereford, for
a corrupt abuse of his office, in committing the ser-
vant of a Gentleman, named Austin, for a mere act
of trespass, in clearing the water-course of a mill, the
property of Mr. Austin, adjacent to the Magistrate's
premises. In this stage of the proceedings welor-
bear entering into a detail of the particulars con-
tained in the ariparte affidivits.—The COURT, under
the circumstances stated, granted a Rule Nisi.
• CONSISTORY COURT, NOVEMBER 22.
TIIURLOW V. THURLOW.

This was a suit of divorce, a lama et thoro, pro. 1
moted by Mr. Thurlow, the husband, against his
wife, Maria Thurlow, by reason of adultery. The 1
pleadings were read at great length by Dr. JENNER
and Dr. LusiuNGroN, immediately after which tke
Court proceeded to judgment.
The Learned Judge (Sir CIIRISTOPUER ROBINSON)
observed, that the present cause originated in a suit,
brought by the defendant, for a restitution of con-
jugal rights. She had not succeeded in establishing
a claim to the interference of the Court on her behalf;
and it would appear by the evidence which had been
that day produced, that at the time when she insti-
tuted the proceeding just mentioned she was living
in adultery, and passing as the wife of a person ss ith
whom she carried on the criminal intercourse. In
what spirit, or for what purpose the suit was com-
menced under such circumstances, it was difficult to
imagine, though the Court was willing to admit the
most favourable interpretation it would bear.. The
parties to the suit then pending were, it seemed, mar-
ried about thirteen years before, and the answer of
the husband went back to the year 1809. For a
considerable period they lived tranquilly together,
and had five children before their separation.—
It not until 1821 that Mr. Thuvlow became fully
1 apprised of his wife's infidelity, or discovered the
adulterous connection which had subsisted between-
her and several individuals. In answer to' these
charges, Mrs.Thurlow had resorted to recrimination,
and it was somewhat extraordinary that the two pe-
riods on which she fixed were the years 1809 and
1814, towards their latter end. Nu specifiCation was
made of place or circumstance, and the whole was
made to rest upon the inferences to be drawn from
the testimony of a medical gentleman who attended
11 the husband at those periods. Had this 'ecru:tuna-

ner, its effect
case like this.
and in looking a.
White was so distinct and conclusive, as to leave veil
little doubt upon his- mind with reFard to the prin-
cipal point—that of Mrs. Thurlow s misconduct.—
The deponent swore to the latter having passed
an entire day and night with a gentleman who then
lodged in the home, and that she, the aforesaid wit-
ness)/saw her go away privately in the morning.
This was corroborated by the landlady; 'and 'passing
.over her cohabitation with Mr. Ferguson in the King s
Bench, a place where testimony was not perhaps of
the best description, the evidence of. Charlotte Carr
was next in importance, as repelling the alibi which
it had been attempted to. set up, and which was in-
consistent with every other statement in the case.
No counterplea had been put in, but the Lady's de-
fence consisted of another allegation, which, on the
opposite side, it had hardly been thought necessary
to dispute. The recrimination too was of a particu-
lar nature, quite general in the first instance, and then
confined to a period of three months after'the mar-
riage, the only further time specified. being the latter
part of the year 1814. Now the surgecn who was
esamined, could recollect nothing of the first-men-
tioned period, and gave a direct negative to the sus-
picion as respected the year 1814. There was not.'
therefore the least substance or colour of a defence
which the Court could recognise in any stage of the
proceedings. The charge against the husband was con-
fined to two periods, of which the latest was 1814, and
yet these parties had lived together till the year 1810.
Mrs. Thurlow then thought proper to leave her hus-
band without any apparent provocation.; she was the
daughter of an opulent person in extensive business,
and every effort had been made to reconcile her to
Mr. Thurlow. To all these proposals she had refused
to listen. Subsequent to this disunion, no complaint
had been urged against the husband, and he, as had
been already observed, continued in ignorance of her
misconduct, till the year 1821. He (the Judge) had
paid the deepest attention to Avery part of this inquiry,
nor had anything presented itself favourable to the
defendant's case of which she had not been allowed
the utmost benefit. He was of opinion, notwithstand-
ing, that the plaintiff's allegation had been substan-
tially proved, that nothing was advanced on the other
tide capable of repelling the legal consequence, and that
the separation prayed for must he decreed. The de •
fondant, if she should be so advised, might appeal to
a higher Court against this judgment.

been substantiated in the clt.arest twairl
would have been. very questionable in sbre,
Such was the result of the pleadings i w,T,
ng at the evidence, that of Eilxubetir Burke
_ --