Star.
London, England, 1821-11-17 00:00:00

• CONSISTORY COURT, NOVEMBER 16.

array of Counsel was sufficiently imposing .—Messrs.
Horne, Treslove, and Blake, for the petition of Messrs.
Shaw and Co. Messrs. Hart, Bell, Agar, Heald, Mon-
tague, and Rose, against it.
-Mr. HORNE said, he would state the merits of this
question very *shortly.
Mr. HART rose, and said, that the affidavits filed
stated new facts, with which he had not been ac-
quainted, and that he was not prepared to go on.
Mr. MONTAGUE said, that he had been reading the
affidavits till eleven last night, and resumed the task
lat four this morning: but that at seven he found three
'new affidavits filed, and on coming to his chambers
this morning, he learnt that there were three more.
Mr. HORNE asked whether Mr. Montague wouli
'state when he would be ready?
Mr. AGAR said, that no one could tell, for Mr.
Horne's clients were going on filing affidavits.
Mr. BLAKE said, that no affidavits had been filed
in answer, from Friday till Wednesday, and that,
therefore they could not on his side have their affi-
davits filed earlier.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that some rule must'
be adopted respecting the filing of affidavits in the
present case.
Mr. HART observed, that such a rule was impera-
tively called for.
Mr. HORNE read a notice which had been just put
into his hand, bearing that affidavits filed in the mat-
ter of Grimstead would be read in this case.
Much contention here arose respecting the filing of
affidavits, the handing over reciprocay copies of
such affidavits, and the probable time that might be
required.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR at length ordered, that no
affidavits should be farther filed against the petition,
but in so far as new matters were stated in the affida-
vits on the other side, and that the affidavits in reply
should be limited in like manner.
Mr. MILNE asked who the solicitors were for the
several parties on the other side, that copies might be
got of the several affidavits la ithout loss of time?
Mr. MotsTaotta said, the same solicitors were for
all parties.
Mr. HORNE.---I have no doubt of it. The solici-
tors are the same, and the cause is one.
Mr. INIONTAOUF..—Mr. Howard has done great
service to the creditors, by setting aside the first com-
mission, for he has saved the estate from being divi-
ded among the lawyers--(4 laugh). If irrelevant
observations are • made on the one side, we have a
right to reply to them on the other.
The VICE CHANCELLOR, after much inquiry and
deliberation, finally ordered that he should be ap-
plied to on Friday next to name a day for hearing
the merits of this question.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER•I6.
THE KING V. DAVID G. DAVY AND SAMUEL allowoo..v.
This was an indictment for perjury. The parties
were brought up for judgment yesterday; but the
matter stood over for the amendment of affidavits.
The perjury committed by the two defendants con-
sisted in the suing out a wilt of ca. sa. for £14,000
against the prosecutor, William Davy, no debt at the
time being due ; and it appeared from the papers put
in yesterday, that there had been extensive money
tran.actions between the parties.
This morning the defendant Davy produced an
affidavit sworn by•bitnself. It ascribed the present
indictment to the malice of his brother, William
Davy, the prosecutor ; suggested that the said Wil-
liani Davy was a man occasionally deranged in his
intellects • and submitted that, instead of proceeding
to pass judgment, the Court would do well to refer
all matters in difference to some Gentleman at the
Bar. Snowdon, by his affidavit, denied wilful per-
jury, and alleged his belief that (upon the balance of
accounts) William Davy was his creditor. He fur-
ther adverted to the distressed state of his family,
and requested permission to withdraw his plea of
guilty and to go to trial.
Mr. SCA IiLETT declared that nothing but absolute
necessity could have compelled Mr. William Davy
to become a prosecutor in the present case.
Mr. WILD said a few words in aggravation.
The defendant Davy was proceeding to take tech-
nical objections to the mode in which the prosecu-
tion had been conducted ; when
The COURT suggested that he was doing him-
self mischief.
The defendants then requested further time in .or-
der that they might send into the country for fresh
affidavits.
The COURT thought that there had already been
much delay. The utmost that could be granted was
time until Monday sennight.—Stands over accord-
ingly until that day.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 16.
The Court was occupied for a considerable part of
the morning in receiving justification of bail. In one
case, where the bail was opposed, an affidavit was
put in, signed and sworn to, by two clerks to the
plaintiff's Attorney. In this it was set forth, that
front inquii ies made by deponents in the neighbour-
hood of one of the bail, they learned, that he was in
embarrassed circumstances, and that a few months
back he took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. They
were also informed that he did not live with his law-
ful wife, but cohabited with another woman, who
passed as his wife, and that she was not the only wo-1
man who was similarly circumstanced with respect
to him : they also added, that his lawful wife was
lying in a workhouse.
Mr. Justice PARK (the Chief Justice not being pre-
sent) here interrupted the officer' who was reading 1
the affidavit, and observed, that the Court could net
listen to the introduction of such improper matter in
opposition to bail. They were ready, of course, tol
hear anything which went to shew that the bail was
insufficient, but they could not allow-charges of this
kind to be entered upon the records of the Court,
where the party against whom they were made could,
hive uo opportunity of answering them. No doubt
such conduct as that imputed to the bail was highly
immoral, but the Court had only to inquire at present
whether the party appearing was a sufficient security
for the sum for which he offered to be bound. He
stated this the more particularly, as there was a con-
siderable number of persons present, and he wished
to have it known, that the Court would censure in a
most marked manner the repetition of suck a practice.
The affidavit was then rejected.
The bail was afterwards examined by Mr. Serjeant
VAUGHAN, and it appearing that he had not property
sufficient to cover the debt; he was rejected also.

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS.
TIIURLOW AGAINST THURLOW.
This was a question upon the admission of a re-
sponsive allegation on the part of the husband, in a
cause instituted by his wife against him, for restitu-
tution of conjugal rights. The allegation consisted
of eighteen articles, and was, in effect, a counter plea
of adultery preferred by the husband against the wife.
The first, second, and third articles pleaded the mar-
riage of these parties, William Thurlow and Maria
Thurlow, on the 6th of July, 1809, in the Parish
Church of Gosfield, in the County of Essex; that they
continued to live and cohabit in Gosfiel.!, and at other
places, until the latter end of the year 1816, during
which period they had several children ; that at the
end of 1816, some unhappy differences having arisen
between Mr. and Mrs. Thurlow, they mutually agreed
to separate, the husband engaging to make an allow-
ance to his Lady of £BO per annum for her mainte-
nance ; and that a deed of separation was executed
by them on the 6th of February, 1817, accordingly.
The fourth article exhibited a duplicate copy of the
said deed ; the fifth alleged that the said Mitria Thur-
low, ever since its execution, and for some time pre-
vious thereto, had resided at various places: among
others, at Sudbury, in the County of Suffolk; at
Braintree, in the County of Essex ; and afterwards
at different places in or near the City of London and
the Borough of Southwark; at which latter places,
or some of them, she had assumed and gone under
various names ; the party proponent being unable
more particularly to allege and depose to such names
of places, save and except in certain respects as con-
tained in the following articles of this allegation. The
sixth article set forth, that in the months of April,
May, and June, 1820, the said Maria Thurlow was
residing in lodgings, No. 4, Paradise-buildings, Stan-
,,ate-street, Lambeth, "and then and there was living
in a state of frequent adultery with divers strange
men," whose names the proponent was unable more
specifically to set forth : that during the said time,
William Parsanser, at whose house in Sudbury Mrs.
Thurlow had lodged, being in London, Mrs. Tharlow
used frequently to call upon him, and on one such
occasion, in the course of conversation with him upon
the subject of her situation in life, she admitted that
she was in the habit of committing adultery, and was
frequently visited by two young men, who were in
business in the neighbourhood of Bond-street ; that
one or other of them always slept with her on Satur-
day and Sunday and was accustomed to re-
turn on Monday morning to his business ; but that
she had subsequently lost her friends, in consequence,
as one of them alleged, of her infidelity to him.—
The seventh article charged, that in July, August,
and September, 1820, the said Maria Thurlow as-
sumed and was known by the name of Taylor or Tur-
ner ; that she was frequently in the habit, under that
appellation, of calling on a Mr. Fergusson, who lived
at a ehymist's, in Tower Royal, and of going up to
his apartment, staying there, and taking her meals
with him, and remaining for very considerable pe-
lriods of time; that on such occasions they addressed
each other in the words, " My love" and " My dear;"
and that they were observed to be guilty of indecent
eedoms towards each other. The eighth article
pleaded, that one day in particular, happening in
September, 1820, she called upon Fergusson, and
inquiring of the servant whether or no he was at
home, went up stairs and breakfasted with him, and
remained during the whole day. In the evening, five
of Fergusson's friends came to drink tea with him,
and a servant deposed that she saw the whole of the
five men leave the house before twelve o'clock ; that
shortly afterwards Fergusson Came down stairs, and
was let out by the servant, Mrs. Thurlow being left
up stairs; that the servant, on going tip to Fergus-
son's room, found the door locked ; that shortly af-
terwards Fergusson returned; the street-door was fas-
tened, and Mrs. Thtulow did not leave the house
until the evening of the next day, when she was pri-
vately let out by Fergusson. The ninth article de-
scribed the state in which his room was found ; -the
keyhole of the door being stopped up with paper, and
a sheet being suspended at the bottom of the bed
facing the door. The tenth article alleged, that on
the next day, Fergusson and Mrs. Thurlow called
together at his lodgings in Tower Royal ; and having
gained admittance, Mrs. Thurlow was about to pro-
ceed up stairs, when she was prevented by the mis-
tress of the house, to whom the servant had com-
municated the several suspicious circumstances which
she had observed in the conduct of Mrs. Thurlow,
who was thus compelled to quit the house. • The
eleventh article set forth the fact, that Fergusson, be-
coming embarrassed in his circumstances, was, in the
latter end of 1820, confined in the King's Bench Pri-
son, where Mrs. Thurlow lived with him as and
under the name of his wife. The twelfth article re-
lated to the identity of Mrs. Thurlow, which was
sought to be established by the evidence of the same
servant, who deposed that she met the Lady on Fish-
areet-hill, in the City, soon after—that is, in the be-
ginning of the present year; and that Mrs. Thurlow
said to her, " 1 am living with Mr. Fergusson now."
The thirteenth article went to spew, that at the lodg-
ings which Fergusson took after his release from the
King's Bench Prison, he and Mrs. Thurlow gave
themselves out to be, and were reputed and taken to
be, man and wife ; hat they so lived and cohabited
together in all respects, and continued so to live and
cohabit until the month of June last, when Fergusson
went to Scotland, leaving Mrs. Thurlow in the last
named lodgings, behind him. That the 14th, 15th,
16th, and 17th articles were solely devoted to prove
the identity of both these parties; and the 18th con-''
tained the usual concluding allegation of the faith'
and verity of the premises. •
Dr. PHILLIMORE and Dr. DODSON took a variety
of objections to this allegation, on behalf of Mrs.
Thurlow. Those objections related principally to
the insufficient identification of the party, and to the
diffuseness and irrelevancy of parts of the plea.
Dr. JENNER and Dr. LUSHINGTON were heard in
reply, on the part of Mr. Thurlow.
Sir C. Roatarson, after observing upon the original
nature of this suit, and on the responsive allegation
nowppoanr
sty
presumed
btmoi rneor
dupe gbi
to
oatt
db
nen
ge tr,
prt o
aelhevmeaa a ri a
sl adulteryk
alleged e
himself
of
againstff h object
such
iswaliue m: ofsubes
must
tt the
not
t eo
siprocurenuiptos
spisupposing
present
tes
hon
et
st
fehoafr
atocriteshmsahedod
should
becomel iec hp
one
noh
eve
eoldajw prescribed,
a Thvereyccaousme.,

plicated nature. It vrte, towever, clearly of
species the whole expense of whirls the hush Ind w,,,
bound to bear. Now this being a plea jO3
the part of the husband, there would Ise the less red.
son to object to particular parts that might teem to•
require some revision, but ui-on grounds more of a
critical than a substantial nature; inasmuch a, Ile
admission of such parts would not be likel) to be at.
tended with any inconvenience or injury to ally one,
except the individual introducing such plea. On th,.t
account the Court would be very unwilling to en-
courage objections to any part of the pled that it
should deem to be not substantially injurious to a
other party.
After some further observations, the Court la
mined the allegation, rejecting only the Galati&

HATTON-GA RDEN.—CAUTIoN TO ScnooL.Boys
B. Davenport, J,* Cox. J. Osam, :and H. Kempton, weR
put to the bar, when Mr. Thompson, of Pei-Cilia':
street, Clerkenwell, stated, that two daughters of hi
one six and the other five years of age, who were
lately vaccinated, were taken out by the maid if, a
little chaise; and as she was drawing them along the
foot pavement, a large shepherd's dog, with a sauce.
pan tied to his tail, ran atter them en!: great speed;
the maid being dreadfully alarmed, strove to puit
the chaise out of the way ; in. doing which she siiejed
off the curb-stone, and sprained her :mete; the cleit
was overturned in the gutter, one child had its col.
lar-bone broke, and the other received a seven: con.
tusion on the face. The prisoners and sevei al ethers
were in pureiit of the dog, and seemed to take gee
delight at the mischief, when the complainant ands
friend succeeded in securing the prisoners. The pi.
soners stated that they had no knowledge of the per.
sons who tied the kettle to the dog's tail; they wet '
coming from school, when they raw the dog rundile
along, followed by a number of boys acid pe:. 11
sons, they followed also, and were present when the
accident happened, which they were story fur, be
could not prevent ; on a constable being sent for, el
the transgressors escaped, but they having nothingto
fear, remained until they were taken into feeme
Several respectable witnesses corroboratee. f..e
soners statement, and gave teem a most teaks
character.—The Megieeete ceetioned then. never
mix in future in following such sight-, 01 join in ii
gal crowds. The prisoners were then discha.ged.
MARY-LA-BONNE OFFICE.—Mr. Littlewood,lines
draper, in Oxford-street, attended yesterday, pit: sum
to a summons, on all ieformation under the Meets
polis Paving Act, wherein he was charged eith afe.
letting to remove an obstruction after notice hell
given him by the surveyor of the pavements. re
nature of the obstruction was proved by Mr.Smie,
also a linen-draper, and living next door to the it.
fendantewhich was, that the said defendant had, its
a length of time, been in the practice of es; ot
shawls, pelisses, and other articles, at his ~hop
which articles projected on the footway f aemetat
about a foot, consequently was an °bet-Intim., and
within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Littlew.:.e con.
tended, that the articles placed at his door e ere not an
obstruction, and that the complaint was instituted
from motives of malice. The Magiseate said, the
offence was proved, but he had no doubt that them.
plainant would not press for a coavictioa, if .11eLit-
tlewood removed the nuisance; ane, cot the presete,
the penalty would not Le inflicted.
UNION-BALL.—11. J. Crew, a man residing in
Lock's-fields, Walworth, was charged with acts d
the most shocking brutality towards his son, sera
years of age.—Mr. Maynard, of Walworth, saido4
prisoner was in the constant practice, when drunker
beating the child with his clenched fists, and Wit;
him about till he could scarcely stand. He hake
when the child offended him, pitched him•itsele
water-butt, and compelled him to stand in hint
clothes till he was in a shivering fit. The blowsgia
to the child had been heard a considerable disuse
He had also kept him for a day or two together 4
out food, locked up in a room, in the depth of einal
without fire. He used also to fasten him agate
wall with a thick strap, and a padlock, and in sal
a situation that he could scarcely change his
tion, and keep him in that state for a day to;-
without food, until some of the neighbours titter
to him through the window.—A number of -•
came and confirmed the above facts.—The
in his defence, said the child was a bad boy, aid
robbed him, and he was obliged to chain hiall
because be was in the habit of running awayl
joining a gang of juvenile thieves. Several with
said that this statement was a complete falsehrAa
The prisoner's wife admitted the charge, and
buted her husband's conduct to excessive passiell
intoxication.—The Magistrate gave up the boytil
mother, and committed the prisoner to Horsetail
lane Jail, for. want of bail, till the Sessions.

MARRIED.
Wednesday, at Fe%ridge Park, Sussex General the 111
Frederick Sr. John, to Caroline Elizabeth Parsons, 7C
daughter of the late J. Parsons,

DIED.
At Brighton, on Nednesday night, Mary, the Nada'
Shewell, Esq. of Stockwell Common,Surrey. ,
At Kirkcudbright, on the Bth inst. Bailie John Aed
merchant in

Ships at Market.
34 Newcastle
n Sunderland
2 Scotch Coal
4 Cannel Coal

:OAL MARKET, Nov. 16.
Ships So ld. Price*
21 36s 6•1 toeil
s 00s 01 OM;
2 32s Od la ss',
0 00s Od le C/I'

COUNTRY MARKETS.
UISILIDOR, Nov. 15.—Wheat, per load, £l6 Os to til!
New Wheat, £8 to £lB 105—Barley, per quarteo"
32s—Oats, Ns to 30s—Beans, 255 to 56s—EYes0"W
Peas, .114 to 545.
NawsuaY, Boaz!, Nov. 15.—Wheat, 20s to fits--_,e,
20s to 305—Oats, 16s to 30s—Beans, 26s to 405--,uteraur
to 56s.—Rye, Os to Os—Bread, Is 60 to 151310 Per rl
OXFORD, Nov. A.—Wheat, per bushel, 9s. Id. tbree
Price of the Half-peek Loaf (Wheaten) Is. 10d. k 4
BAXIWILY, Nov. B.—Wheat,4s. od. to 11s. 01-Bez s
to 5s 6d.—Vetches, Os Od per bushel.—Barley, 201.„ted
Oats, 24 441. to 545 od per quarter.—Bread, is 10d liar
and smaller in proportion. I r 63s persack.
,00

MAILS THIS Der.—ARR. DUL I
Dublin 2 0 Lisbon
Waterford 1 0 France
1
Guernsey and Jersey 1 0 Haraburgb
Holland
1 0
Flanders
00 00 jte:ur
waerdnc,baigslandsh .
Malta

HIGH-WATER at LON DO
Morning
. Afternoon

T3l-IIFIGI-T;FV-10.7
7 minuteee,
S 4

MIND UN Printeits:ci;,publishedrLr KO.