Star.
London, England, 1816-01-27 00:00:00

CHARGN OP AIIIRDFR.

Thomas Thomas, whose case has often been men-
timed in the proceedings of the Court, was ont to the
bar, And holding up ois hand, was arraigned lir
shooting Thomas Moore, the lishrrman at Rochester,
who, in the l')I ,hore.hoat, Aiprtmched a King's
ship, in which the prisorier, a ma: ine, was statiosed
on guard. He was committed in the custody of ill,
Marshal, to be n a:•eitted to the County Jail of Kent.

COURT (IC COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 26.
C:.K.-YI;DDLII YARYAN/K.

The Soticiroi. Gess:Lys:. ni.ived for a rule to shew
cause why dhe extent; •n in this case upon a writ of
inquiry betort: the Sheriff of ;-liclalesex, should not be
set on the ground of excessive damages. The
Learned Serjeailt said ;his was an action for criminal
conversat•-h. and he a•lmitted that many cases might
occur in which tlafy iLicendant otiAlit to pay, but in
tlis case the Jury had exceeded all rule or pretence
its! giving dair..iees. The defendant, a young offi-
cer the engini....as, had left England for the army
io Canada v .4en the action was brought, and his
Counsel con.d not be furnished with all the informa-
tion and circquistances ref this cause. It was stated
by the plaintiTs Counsel, that Mr. !toddle had been
some time se..arated from his lady, in consequence of
his circumstances, not being able to support her. She
went to live with her father, a most distinguished
character, where the seduction took place which was
the subject of the action. Here the Learned Serjeant
observed,. if any irregularity took place in A family,
it was nee,:ssary to prove it in a Court of Justice; but'
it was merely stated at the inquisition that separatain
occurred, and they remained on good terms. Whe-
ther the same affection remained between them after
the separation, was not proved by any one witness.
It w.s ;.tted in the opening by Counsel, that the de-
-I,n.i :Li sy'rth £IOOU a-year. A milliner was
the only p‘rsoa calied to prove that the defendant.
and the lady had been seen together, and she merely
stated that they had once been seen together at her
shop two or three years ago. It was not proved that
the defendant had ever seen the husband in his life.'
There was no evidence that he knew her to be mar-
ried. A Gentleman from Cox and Greenwood's, the
agents of the engineer corps, proved that the defen-
dant's income could not be much more than tour or
five hundred pounds a-year, and he said he did not
know he had any funds. On this evidence alone the
Jury gave three thousand pounds. He did not mean
to dispute the opinion of a Learned Judge, who had
said, a man ought to pay horn his purse or in his
person ; but in this case there was no ground forjarge
damages. The young man (he did not mean say
it was so) might have met the lady at the Theatre,
without knowing who or what she was. Under all
the circumstances, the Solicitor-General expressed
hope that the Court would feel that the Jury, when
they gave damages to the amount before stated, had
not considered what the case was.

Cute, Justice Pray, brother Shepherd, were
these parties ever proved by evidence to have been
together ?"—Souct TOR.GEN ER A Lo••• " Never."
Cans Justice.—" I know very well, that suffer-
ing judgment to go by default, the defendant admits
guilt ; but that does not preclude the plaintiff from
going into the circumstances of the defendant's guilt,
for the purpose of increasing damages. As I under-
stand from you, there was evidence that the plaintiff,
and his wife were separate, but no evidence .of the
manner In which they lived after, there being no sort
of conjugal connexion between them while she lived
with her father.„"

SOLICITOK-G&V. ERAL.-a There was no evidence
of their communicating together :the Counsel for the
plaintis was proceeding to read, a letter, when the
Sheriff interrupted him, aad said he thought it was
not evidence."

Catty Jusrics.--u Unless we were to determine,
that in no possible case of criminal conversation a
rule to chew cause ought to be granted, we must
grant it in this. It appears in this case the husband
and wife were separated; and there was no proof for
the last three years that the husband had access to
his wife. The first ground of damages is—what the
plaintiff has lost in the losing the society of his wife.
and there the case is lett extremely lame. With re-
spect to the misconduct of the defendant, which
might lead to large damages, there is no proof that
the defendant had any communication with the wife,
or knowledge thal the plaiutiff was living—no plans
of •seduction. Under these circumstances, it seems to
us a fit case for heaiing what was proved,. and whe:
ther there is occasion for the verdict to the extent it
has gone." —Rule granted. •
CONSISTORY COURT, JANUARY 20.
MACH "I W. MACHAIL
This was a proceeding for a divorce, at the instance
I of Annabelle. the wife of Robert Macnab, Esq. a
Colonel in his Majesty's Army, against him, on the
ground of adultery.
It appeared, that the parties were married en the
21st of January, NM, at 3m:tains-bill, Bats, MU.

.• • • , . .• ;
MaenalPbeing then a Mies *Aker. Th isey liven td-#
gether from that time at the Colonel's residence, is
Nbttingham-street, St. Mary-la.bonne, and atterwardsi
in Ranelagh-street, Pimlico, until the transaction
which formed the basis of the .present proceedings
came to the knowledge of Mrs. Macnab, kind iiiducW'
her to separate from him. About April 11111, the
Colonel's footman, John Price, observed some circuit-
stances in the conduct and behaviour of the Co-
lonel and Sarah Chew, the housemaid, which induced
him to suspect a criminal intimacy between them.—
The Colonel was in the habit of lying in bed Lite io
the morning and taking his breakfast there, and also
of retiring to bed before his wife at night. Upon
those occasions, whilst Mrs. Macnab was out taithie
her morning walks, or engaged with her female
friends of an evening, Sarah Chew used ao steal into
the Colonel's bed-room, at his call. Ad remain mere
with him for considesable periods of time together.—:
Once, in perticul ir, when Mrs. Macnab bad had ate
early dinner, and taken the Colonel's twe, children, by
a /eraser wife, to Astley's Amphitheatre, the Colonel
afterwar•ls dined alone, and contrived to send the ser-
vants out on different errands ; but Price, ally toot-
man, returning privately, heard the Colonel call
Sarah Chew, at the top oh the kitchen stair!, upon,
which the latter went up to him, and they yalired.to
his room, but Sarah Ceew having observed Price, he
was again sent •ait by t':e C,.1::oel. At another time,
whilst Mrs. ivlacnab was from home, some wive
which had been ordered, was sent home, and Price,
the footman, went up stairs to the Colonel for dirLc-
tions where it was to be &posited, and entering the
bed-room rather suddenly, he observed the Colonel
and Sarah Chew in a situation which left no doubt
of their criminality. In July following, he had pcca..
sign to be at Andover, Hants, for some time, in con-
sequence of being Impect:ng Field Officer of 'the
troops in that tie ghboui hood, Ind whilst there, slept
two or three nights with one Catherine Freeili, (a
former servant of his, by whom he had had aichild),
at lodgings taken by her, as if lor herself an 4 has.;
band, and, since the separation with his wife,,the has
lived with the Colonel as his only servant. ;These
circumstances were fully detailed in the evidence of
several witnesses, particularly of Price, the footman,
and a Mr. and Mis. Dew, of whom the hsegings at
Newbury were takea, and they particularly identified
Colonel Macnab as the person who slept at Newbury
in consequence of the latterhaving been brought to town
for that purpose, and having, with Price, watched t!:e
Colonel's house until they saw him come.(,:ut, and at-
terwards seen bins leading a deed at his solicitor's,
which he was abotit to execute.

No defence t:•as offered, Cohnel Macnab hiving
cleaned employing Counsel, and •
Sir Wit.t.it:a Sc :TT expressed his opinion, that the
case was proved by evidence as conclusive as could
well be conceived in a case of this description. He
shortly stated the lt.ading points of it, observing, that
there was no deficiency in any part of it, and that the
identity, in particular, WAS very clear. He therefore
pronounced fur the divorce.