Star.
London, England, 1819-07-29 00:00:00

ASSIZES.

ESSEX ASSIZES, CH ELMSFORD, JULY 67.
CIVIL SIDL_.LEWIS V. HOWARD.
This was an action brought by theplaintiff, a pul•
terer in the town of Chelmsford, against the &few
dant, to recover a sum of £2l, for the board and
lodging of his wife, and for money _advanced to
her use. The circurn.stances of the case, as disclosed
by the evidence were, that the defendant was unfor.l
tunately married tb his frail rib in the year 1804, but
by her conduct was obliged to be separated from her
in 1809 ; after which her disgraceful and infamous
conduct, together with his own reflections on his mis-
placed attachment towards her, brought on a series
of epileptic fits, under which he was labouring to
the present day. She then quitted his house with one
of his farming men, and after cohabiting with hilt)
for seven years at Godalming, in Surrey, she returned
to her father•in-law at Soutlminster, .who kindly af-
forded her the protection of his house, notwithstand-
ing the misery her conduct had entailed on his son.
Here, however, she soon rendered herself so obnoxi-
ous, that her father-in-law was obliged to swear ar-
ticles of the peace against her for outrages towards
his person, and she was committed to the county jail,
where,, notwithstanding all her former misconduct,
the good old man allowed her 10s. a week, to pro-
, cure her such comforts as the restrictions of a psi
would admit of. On her discharge from prison, she'
was received by the present plaintiff, who knew the,
infamy of her character, and by whom the present
\ action was brought against her husband to recover a
ium of money for the sustenance of a wife, whose
vice and depravity had reduced him to a state of

idiotism.
An attempt was made on the part of the plaintiff
to prove that the defendant had received, and coha-
bited with this abandoned woman. It turned out
that she had forced he. self to his bed-room, while he
was labouring under mental derangement ; and there
having stripped herself in the presence of his keepers,
she jumped into that bed whose sanctity she had re-'
peatediy violated.
Under the direction of the Learned Judge the plain-
tiff was nonsuted.
FAIRCHTLD r. GRAHAM.
This was an action for words alleged to have been
maliciously spoken by the defendant, a surgeon and
apothecary, practising at Rochford, in this county,
against the plaintiff, a respectable practitioner in the
same place.
The facts of the case were these—The plaintiff had
been called in to afford his professional assistance to
an unfortunate woman, who laboured under an ephe-
meral hernia, or rupture, the dangerous state of
which, on his being, first c riled in, dictated the ne-
cessity of an operation being. performed. To this,
however. no persuasion could induce the unfortunate
woman to sutanit—and, after the plaintiff had ap-
' plied every other species of remedy . that is usually
resorted to in such cases, he declared that nothing
could save his patient but an operation. She was
however still obstinate in her determination, and the
defendant was called in, who, without the plaintiff's
knowledge,. soon after performed the operation, de-
' claring after it, that the patient could not survive
half an hour. He came the next night and inquired
what time she bad died ; but was informed that she
was not dead. He then expressed his surprise, and
ion being informed that the plaintiff had been there,
he burst out into invectives against him, declaring
that he (the plaintiff) had never walked au hospital,
or attended a lecture in his life, and expressed his
'surprise that lie was not ashamed to shew his head
in the place. The patient died in ten days after the
II operation.
The most respectable medical characters in the
'country proved the sound professional education
'which the plaintiff had received.
The defence set up. was, that the defendant bad ut-
tered the words imputed to him under a representa-
tion, on :Le part of the patient's nurse, that the plain-
tiff had used terms equally detrimental to his profes-
sional character. •
The Learned Judge charged the Jury, who found
a verdict for the- plaintiff —;).usages 250 guineas.
;SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS, JULY 27.
The ltev. L. ISELnAs appealed against two orders,
by which he was adjudgea the reputed father of 'two
male bastard childrta (twias), born on the body of
Miss Jeremy Main Lough. The appellant is Curate
of Milton; in Kent, Miss Lough is a daughter of the
Vicar of the neighbouring parish of Sittengbourne ;
the appellant is about 25 years of age. the Lady 35 ;
her father was formerly Curate of Milton, and upon
being removed to the neighbouring Vicarage, was
succeeded by Mr. Itellas, upon which occasion, he
was introduced to the family of the Lady, who, it
was stated, made a declaration of love to him at
their second or third meeting. It was attempted to
be shewn, that the Lady ought not to be believed ;
that she was not very scrupulous with respect to other
individuals ; and that her having been conducted
alone to the neighbourhood of London, in order to
her confinement, by a Gentleman who paid a visit
to her father's house, about three quarters of a yearl
previous to the birth of the children, and who, it was I
admitted, continued his visits after bringing her t•
town, were strong circumstances upon Which to
ground a disbelief of the charge. The Court, how-
ever, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the order
of adjudication. It appeared that the children were
both dead.

two AND 011TRAGLS. AT-WEST-
• END FAIR.