Star.
London, England, 1819-05-17 00:00:00

LiflV iNTELLAENCE.

COIAIT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY IS.
MosELY WOOLF.
Mr. C I! rT TY, at the rising of the Court at one o'clock,
moved for a writ of levars fucias, , for the purpose of
leryieg upon this defendant's goods and chattels the.
amour.: of the fine of £lO,OOO, which, as part el his
sentence on Friday, he was adjudged to pale to the
King. on an affidavit, which stated that after the
tentetre had passed upon the defendant, persons in
Ls behalf were employed in clandestinely removing
property to a vary considerable amount, from his
Louse and premises, for the. purpose of conveying it
oat of the country, purpose
.would have been
effected but for the int.:l-position of the Lord Mayor,
who had sent some of his officers to prevent the re-
moval of the pronetty, part of which had been ac-
tually carried of and traced to the river side, in
order to be convey:A on board a ship hound for Hol-
land. After the Learned Counsel had stated the ob-
ject of his motion.
Mr. Justice-i'•nyLee (the Lord Chief Justice being
absent holding sittings at Guildhall), having confer-
red with.sir. Dealtry, of the trona Office, as to the
practice in cases vsilere the Court had adjudged de-
fendants to pay tines to the Crown, interposed, and
asked whether the jolgtne.lt., as pronounced against
the defeodant, atitherited the Sheriff to take out exe-
cution to levy the free?
Mr. Currry submitted that it did : for, by the
judgment the fine became a debt to the Crown ix-
stanter, the sentence being—that he do pay, &c.
Mr. dtlStiCe BAYLEY asked the Learned Counsel, if
he knew any instance in which the Court had directed
a im•nri :in..; to issue for such purpose?
Mr. Currry said, he had made diligent search,
and had found no instance; but he submitted that
the Court, under the urgent circumstances of the
Case, and upon principle, would interpose its autho-
rity, to prevent the clandestine removal of the defen-
claut's property, scab to evade the sentence oftheCourt.
Mr. Justice Bavoev—As no instance can be found
or quoted to authorise such a proceeding, the Court
can give no directions upon the subject. At whose
instance is this application made?
Mr. CHITTY replied, that in effect it was made in.
behalf of the Sheriffs of London ; but in fact all par-
ties were interested in such a proceeding. The Lord
Mayor's officers were now in possession, but unless
the authority of the Court was interposed, the defen-
'dant's property would be at his own disposal. -
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—The-Court do not authorise
the issuing-of such process; but if you arc entitled to
it by law, the law is open to you..
Mr. CHITTY took nothing by his motion.
It is said that the property 'of the defendant at-
tempted to he removed is worth nearly 10,0001.—a
eircurtgance of considerable moment to the Sheriffs
of London for the time being, who, by the charter of
London, are entitled to the tine imposed upon the
defend:in t.

CONSISTOFY COURT, MAY 14

FRASEZ V. PRASLR,

This was a suit of divorce„ instituted on the part
of. Simon Fraser, Esq. of the island of Berbice, by
reason of adultery, against his wife, the daughter of
Brittlebank, Esq. formerly Governor of that'
place. The marriage tcok place in the month of
September, 1801, at Berbiee, and they had subse-
quentiy• three children. In 1814. they came to Eng-
land.
In consequence of some pectunat-y embarrass-1
menu, Mr. Fraser, in 181.5, went out tb.Batavla, as a
fret-mariner, in the service of the,East India Com- '
patsy. The Lady, about the same time, returned
to •Berbico, under the care and protection of Mr.
'llontas Drittlebank, a Gentleman bearing the same
name as Mrs. &vette Fraser before her marriage,
and with whom the adiihery was committed. These
parties speedily tevisiteil England, and in various
parts of the country lived and cohabited together as
man and wife ; they had one child born at Litch-
field, in 1815, and another at Ahop's-buildings, in
the New-road, in 1816, both of whom they severally
tteknowledged, on various occasions, to be theirs.—
They afterwards resided for about a fortnight at the
Golden-cross, Ckaringicross, w here Mrs. S. Fraser
was traced and recognised by her brother-in-law,
Mr. Alex:tinier Fraser. These were the principal
facts of the case, and have been already at some
length before the public. An action *as brought at
common law by Simon Fra4r, Esq. (appearing by
proxy, in consequence of being compelled, by busi-
ness, to remain in India) against Brittlebank, the de-
fendant, who suffered judgment to go by default, and
the damages were assessed at 1:1,`2.50.
Sir WlLLtast Scorr. in commenting upon the ge.
neral tent= of the evidence, observed, that the fact
ea: the marriage between, Mr. and Mrs. Fraser, in
September, 1801, was clearly made out ; that it was
equally certain that the parties continued to live and
cohabit together for some years afterwards, till cir-
cumstances, and the. peculiar state of their affairs,
rendered it necessary for them to come to England ;
and that in 1815, Mr. Fraser wont to the East In-
dies. Now the Court considered it to be ;iii .Clete-
ray stated, that he had been resident there ever
since, the proxy executed by him bearing date so
lately as the nth of August, 1413 ; it was, therefore,
morally certain, that any childrea borne by Mrs. Fra-
ser, since 1815, were not her husband's. The only
question then turned upon the personal identity of I
Mrs. Fraser, who had bad, since that period, two I
children. It appeared,-qiat with the Mr. Brittichank,
under whose protection she vent out to Ilerbice, in
1815, and who was one of the finir :atomics appoin-
ted by her husband for the management of his pro-
perty in Berbice, she returned to I:egland, and had
remained uninterruptedly connected ever since. Now
the evidence of some of the deponents was so positive
as to establish Mrs. Fraser's identity beyond contra-
diction ; and her connection with Mr. Brittlebank
atknitte.d of no doubt. tinder all these circumstances,
the Court could not hesitate to grant the hushaad the
sentence he Waled for. . .

Aiility•lase, as 'Alr. STEPHEN Rolm. AY ..vas return-
•ffora Purton„ to his house at Cricklade, Wilts, he
wik4 those•inhiamasily robbed and murdered. Among
tile setae *at were taken fioni him was a 15 Bank
ref Engidad;dirted. May 3, ISi 9, signed J. W ILLI ANS.
Akdkiersi ..the polies officer, immediately proceeded
perpeti*urs have •Blot yet been disco
vered, thoush severalerscas have been apprehen-
d/oil on suspicion. The deceased w.ts a strong, power.
Ail ma& One ball Massed throuzh his body.