Star.
London, England, 1824-11-23 00:00:00

•
VICII.CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOV. est.
DOLBY AND ANOTHSR 6. LOWNDIS.
Mr. AGAR, during a pause occasioned by. the Vice-
Chancellor's rising to quit the Court, said that the bill
in this cause was now amended in the manner suggested
to him by the Court on Saturday, and that he would
therefore-now take the injunction he bad then pra)eJ,
to restrain the defendant from puhli•.hing the comedy of
A Woman never vent ; or, the Widow of Cornhill.
Mr. Lowndes addressed his Honour and said, that
he had received no notice of the application which had
been made to the Court but through the public journals.
He had therefore been unable to instruct Counsel to
oppose the motion, and as his Honour was of opinion
that it ought now td go on, he must crave the indul-
gence of being heard to argue his own case in person.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR explained to Mr. Lowmies,
that Mbtions praying for the injunction of the Court
were always, by the long-continued practice in Chan-
cery, made ex-paste, and granted on the affidavits of the
parties who aisplied for them. It was then for the de-
fendants to move that the injunction should be dis-
solved, and upon this latter motion the merits of the
case were argued. When that time should arrive in
Mr. Lowndes 's case, he might be heard in person if he
thought fit; but at present the injunction must be granted.
Lowndts then withdrew, and the business of the Court,
which had been suspended during this cJnversation, proceeded.

ARCHES COURT, NOVENII3ER '2 2 .
MOGG V. MOGG.

Dr. ARNOLD said, this was a suit promoted by Louisa
Mogg against her husband for a divorce, by reason of
adultery and cruelty. A libel had been put in on behalf
of Mrs. Mogg, to the admission of which he had to object.
Dr. JENNER, on behalf of Mrs. NiciFg, said that the
case was of a very peculiar nature, and he could only
find one similar to it; that was a case broui,lit from Yin k
to the Court of Delegates, and bad even gone further
than this had done.
Sir .JortN NICHOL thought M's. Mogg was certainly
entitled to the relief she prayed. He therefore declined
the libel admissible.

GILES V• GILES.
This was a'suit for divorce by reason of adultery pro-
moted by Small Giles, against her husband, J. P. Giles,
Esq. of Walc,it, in Somerset. The Rd contained nine-
teen articles, to which a number of witnesses had brag
examined, pleading the mar, iage of the parties on the
13th of January, 1808, the subsequent cohahitatior,
and the birth of four, childrsn, one of whom was
dead. Fromke commencement of the year 1821, Mr.
Giles carried on an adulterous intercourse with divers
women, particularly with two persons, one of whom was
a prostitute, and the other, Sally Wheeler, his female
domestic, until Mrs. Giles quitted her husband's house,
in January, 1822. Or various occasions he took impro.
per familiarities with S. Wheeler; upon Mrs. Giles re-
monstrating with him he would reply, that she (Sally
Wheeler) was more than a wife to him. He would,
after dinner, make Sally Wheeler sit down and partake
of some wine and fruit, ftom which familiarities she
assumed a consequence in the house unbecoming that of
a servant, and painful to Mrs. Giles; the latter, on one
occasion, requested her to quit the house, which she
Irefused,:saying, she was servant to Mr. Giles, and not to
Mrs. Giles ; and, on requesting Mr. Giles to part with
Sally Wheeler, he refused, and told her she might leave
the house, and take Fanny (one of the children), but he
would net part with his Sally (meaning Sally \1 heeler
at the same time, in the presence of Mrs. Giles, he put
his arms round Sally Wheeler's waist. Mr. Giles• then
left Bath with Sally Wheeler, and they were traced to
various places, where they cohabited together.
Sit JOHN NICHOL said, enough had certainly- been
proved to grant the prayer of Mrs. Giles.—The divorce
was therefore decreed.