Star.
London, England, 1820-01-28 00:00:00

14ACETIONI W. MURRAY.

This was an action for a libel, alleged to have
been published by the defendant, in The Quarterly
Review, reflecting upon the plaintiff's conduct, touch-
ing the fact of his procuring a passport for the late
Prince Murat, from the Austrian Government. The
particulais of the case, in which the verdict went for
the defendant, were laid before our Readers at the
time of the trial.

Mr. Bum. now moved for a new trial, and
The Coma, after hearing the Learned Counsel at
considerable length, refused the Rule.
The Court sat until an unusually late hour at this
period of the Term.

CONSISTORY COURT, DOCTOR'S COMMONS.
MORTIMER V. MORTIMER.

- -
This suit has been brought by the wife against her
husband, for restitution of conjugal rights, the par-
ties having been long separated. The question this
day before the Court was upon the admission of Mr.
Mortimer's responsive allegation.
It appeared from various articles of the allegation,
that John Mortimer, Esq. and, Frances, his wife,
being resident at Blackheath, a Mr. William Alexan-
der Young, who had been recently married, was in-
troduced to them in the year 1807. A great inti-
macy subsisting between this individual and Mr.
Mortimer, he was very frequently at that Gentle-
man's house during his absence is London, upon his
customary business; and, on such occasions, Mrs.
Mortimer and Mr. Young were frequently alone to-
gether, it was pleaded, in private rooms, and in vai i-
ons houses. It was further pleaded, that on the 17th
of August, 1811, Mrs. Frances Mortimer, having
given birth to a male infant, became alarmingly ill;
and in the belief of her approaching dissolution, told
her husband that she could not die happy, without
relieving her mind, by confessing to him that she
had long carried on an adulterous intercourse with
, Mr. Young. Mrs. Mortimer, the same evening hav-
ing received the Sacrament, and supposing her death
to be inevitable, made a similar confession to Mrs.
Maria Mortimer, by whose husband it had been ad-
ministered. In consequence of this confession, vari-
ous circumstances recurred to the mind of Mr. John
Mortimer, in which he had to complain of indecent
familiarities observed to have passed between his
wife and Mr. Young ; and, upon Mrs. Mortimer's
unexpected recovery from her dangerous illness, he
determined, in consequence of her conNsion, ro
longer to live with her. Accordingly, he acquainted
her soon after with his determination; but being un-
able to obtain any clear and specific proofs of the
adulterous intercourse in question, except those which
resulted from her own unsolicited declaration, he did;
not institute any criminal proceedings against her.
Upon consulting with her father, therefore, how best
to provide for Mrs. Mortimer's future support and
condition, they mutually agreed that she should go,
to her father's house and reside with him. Mr. John
Mortimer agreeing to allow her a maintenance of
1.:100 a-year. •
Dr. BURNABY, on behalf of the Lady, opened the
proceedings. He contended, that the sth article
alone of the allegation contained a specific fact con-
nected with the criminal charge pleaded ; it was to
this effect That on a day in the latter end of the
year 1810, the said W. A. Young and Frances Mor-
timer were alone together in an upper room of a cer-
tain Louse ; and that the said Frances Mortimer was
then observed t 9 have her arm round the neck of the
said Young, and to be kissing him." But there was all
tlirough an utter absence of any "strong or direct fact

~! .

• . and only opt— circemlautcru—...--
erence even to the familiarities of thepartiet.
confession of Mrs. Mortimer; retracted. almost
as soon as made, denied in fait, she had ever been
guilty of the criminal conduct she was charged with;
aierring, that it had been twice attempted, but that
the intention had been frustrated. These familiari-
ties, per se, were insufficient to ground a suit for di-
vorce; and the Court would riot be asked to stay
proceedings upon them alone. He submitted, there-
fore, that this allegation could not be admitted to
proof, if it was intended to be relied upon as plead-
ing adultery.
Dr. LUSHINGTON, on the same side, maintained,
that this plea could not be admitted to proof, with-
out the Court violating some of the most essential
rules of its practice.
Dr. JESNER, for Mr. Mortimer, thought that the
Court would be of opinion, that the acts cf adultery
had been committed by the wife ; and he should con.
tend, that the proximate facts pleaded proved her
guilty of the fact, and that, therefore, this allegation
ought to be admitted.
Dr. ADDAMS followed on the same side, in an able
and learned sprech.
Sir WILLIAM SCOTT said, he wculd hear this rase
upon a future day.

COURT OF COWNION PLEAS, JANUAItY 25.
CROFT' V. PULLEN.

This was an action to recover £lB4 ss. for work
and labour done; to which the defendant pleaded,
that before and at.the time she entered into the con-
tract with the plaintiff she was a married woman.
Mr. Serjeant LAWES stated the case. The plaintiff,
he said, was a paper-hanger; and the defendant, at
the time the work charged in the declaration was
performed for her, occupied a house under the Ca-
lonade in Pall-mall. The name of Pullen was then
over the door, and upon being applied to for pay-
ment, she requested, as a matter of accommodation,
that a bill might be drawn upon her, _which bill she
accepted in the name of " Elizabeth Pullen." On the
bill becoming due, she refused to pay, and on the
present action being brought, she pleaded, as had
been stated in the opening, that she was a married
woman, that her real name was " Cobb," and that
her husband was still alive. The Jury, however,.he
trusted, would be thoroughly satisfied of the truth of
het plea before they gave a verdict against the
plaintiff.
A journeyman, who was'in the employment of Mr.
Croft, was then called to prove that the work alluded
to had been done, and that the prices charged were
fair and reasonable.

Mr. Serjeant ONsLow here interposed, and said•
that he had an unanswerable defence to the case
and he thought, to save time, it would be the best
course at once to proceed to it. The fact was, that
at the time the work was done by Mr. Croft, al-
though the defendant went by her maiden name of
Pullen, she was a married woman. She had been
married to a Gentleman of the name of Cobb, in 1804.:
she was then a young woman of some property ; but,
from the subsequent ill-treatment of her husband,
she had been obliged to swear the peace against him
at Union-hall, and had since ceased to live with him.

The Learned Serjeant then called witnesses, who
cli4arly established that the defendant had been mar-
ried to Mr. John Cobb, at Lambeth Church, on the
6th of August, 1804 ; that she had lived with him for
several years, that they had subsequently parted, and
that Mr. Cobb was alive on Monday last.
Mr. Serjeant ',AWES said, he could not resist this
case, but remarked, that the conduct of the defen-
dant had not been placed in the most enviable point
of view.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the plaintiff
under these circumstances, could not recover. He
expressed a hope, however, that the party would be
known to the Public, so that honest tradesmen might
not hereafter be defrauded by her dealing in a false
name. Her conduct had been altogether most im-
proper and inexcusable.
The plaintiff elected to be nonsuited.
IMPOTENCY.
NORTON 4. SETON, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF
NORTON.

Sir JOHN nosier., in giving judgment en the above
question, observed, this suit was brought by George
Norton, Esq. against Sarah, his wife, in order to de-
clare their marriage mall and void.
The libel given in pleaded the marriage to haye
taken place in June, 1812, he being of the age of,
forty-five, a bachelor, and the wife of the age of
twenty-three years, a spinster; that their mutual
bed, board, and cohabitation, continued till June,
1819. That during such cohabitation they weroboth
in good health, but the husband found himself
,un,'
able to consummate his said marriage, by reason of
a natural impediment and defect in the virile parts,
and that this would be proved by the inspection £nd
certificates of respectable medical professors.
This libel is met by an allegation on the part of the
wife, by which the husbands suit is opposed, and
praying that such may be dismissed.
The question before the Court now was, whether
it could entertain such suit ; and whether the facts
stated in the libel, being capable of proof, the hus-
band is entitled to his remedy? In this case, the
Court would take the facts to be true, or that is, ca-
pable of proof ; for the very admission of the plea
was to prove the facts. In order to determine the
doubts entertained, as to the admissibility of this
libel, the Court must look to the facts or circum-
stances pleaded, and the objections made. The first
objection to-this suit was its being altogether of a
novel kind ; for, after the most diligent search, no
instance can be found where a party had brought a
.suit to declare his marriage void, as alleging his
own incapacity. This libel sets out with the hus-
band setting up his own error, and where the party
complaining has not.been the injured party. In ge-
neral, suits of incapacity have been brought by the
wife, complaining of incapacity in the husband, but
in no instance of the husband's complaining of inca-
pacity in the wife, although there was something
like it in a suit in 1806, Wilson v. 'Morris. Another
circumstance worthy of inquiry h, the libel, was—the
husband was stated to be aged 45 ! Now, that a
man aged forty-five should be ignorant of his own
bodily defect, in this respect, was most incredible.—
Where the wife joined with the husband, on account
of his impotency, the suit might be maintained—but
that was not the case here. She resists the suit, and
her pregnancy proclaims his ability. No principle
~was more clearly laid down, than that no per4on

•shatit toicrativeitsgo. of his owo flint& to avoid Vs
own contract. The maxim of the canon law was,
Doles nemini •ralebit rernedia, &c. By the defrauded
party alone had such suits been maintained, praying
to.he relieved. .

Upon the Nvhole of this case, and on all the argu.
ments urged upon the facts stated in tlris•libel, the
Court were of. opinion the husband was not entitled
to the remedy he prayed ; it was, therefore, the duty
of the Court to dismiss the libel, and the wife. from
this suit.

- SPRINO CIRCUITS:
Norfolk,--Lord Chief-Justice Abbott, Mr. Baron Graham.
Midland—Lord Chief-Justice Dallas, Mr. Justice Best.
Home—Lord Chief Baron Picbards, Mr. Boron Gerre-ff.
Western—Mr. Baron Wood, Mr. Justice Burrcugh.
Northern—Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr. Justice Pat k.
Oxford—Mr. Justice Holroyd,, Mr. Jugaicv Richardson.
Mr. Justice Payley and Mr. Justice Park will proceed t 0.04
the Not-thug... Counties, as is usual on the Summer Circuit, for
the dispatch of Civil as well as Criminal Business.

Yesterday morning, early, the house of Mr.Bown:.
of Walcot-Terrace, Lambeth, was broken open, at ti
back of the premises, and prcperty to a great amount
taken away. _ _ _

H4rrox•CAnD R.N.—Yesterday, Sir Ludford Har-
vey, of Ledford-place, Bloomsbury, charged Henry
fowler, the driver of a hackney-c ,ach, s iti taken;
more than his legal fare. Sir Lu.ifcrd stated, that
the defendant's coach was !Med by his servart on
the night of Friday last, t.) take Ladi Harvey from
Burton-crescent, to Bedford place, wnich was little
more than half a mile; for which the coachman rook
4s. and his legal faze was not more than 'is. It was
past twelve o'clock.—The coachman, stated, that the
'night on which his coach was hired. was one of the
most severe and tremendous this winter: he hal
been at work from six o'clock in the morning, and
having set down a fare in Brunswick-square, he was
going home, his horses being very much jaded, when
Sir Ludford's servant begged that he w,uld drive to
49,•Burton-crescent ; he told the servant he was going
home, that he was afraii his horses .you'd not be
able to perform the business: the servanz .aid, there
was only one Lady to take lip, and uniess he came,
she would be obliged to walk-home in the snow, as
there was not a coach -to be found on any of the
stands; and if he (the defendant), would come, "he
should be paid more than his fare." Being so strongly
appealed to, out of humanity to the Lady, he went,
but to his surprise, three other Ladies (whose servants
were out looking for coaches unsuccessfully), got into
the coach, besides Lady Harvey. They aii lived in
the neighbourhood, anti having set them down at
their residences, he took home Lady Harvey. Being
asked his fare, he said it was a very shocking night,
and he hopes he should be paid four or five shillings:
he was paid Is. Subsequently, Sir Ludford thought
proper to summon him for receiving 2s. more than
his fare.—Sir Ludford's servant being called, corrobo-
rated the coachman's statement. He also stated, that
he had been looking out for a coach for a long time
to carry home his Lady, and not finding one on any.
of the stands, he followed the defendant's coach, and
when he put down his fare in Brunswick-square, be
requested him to go with him, and as the night was
bad, and the defendant wished to go home, he pro-
mised him more than his legal fare.
The Magistrate said, it seemed rather a hard case.
By law, the coachman was certainly not entitled to
more than 2s. but upon such an occa,ion, be thought
that 4s. was not an exorbitant charEe, because the
defendant might have refused (it being past twelve at
night, and he on his way home) to have carried Lady
Harvey at all. The Act compelled him to award
judgment against the coachman, but he should not
convict him in any penalty. He adjudged him to
pay to Sir Ludford the 2s. overcharged, and also 4s.
the costs of the summons, &c. which the coachman
did, and was discharged.