Star.
London, England, 1820-01-25 00:00:00

CRIMINAL INVORMATION.

Sir Wm. OwLs moved ft:r a Rule to shew caw:,
why a criminal infrxma.ion should not be tiled
against Lieutenant Pollard Williams, Rot al Navy,
and Lieutenant Kellett, of the Army, for using
threatening and provoking langnage towards Dr.
Howell, of Carmarthenshire, tending to incite him to
fight a duel. Inasmuch as tl:e affidavits iTon which
the mc•tion was made did not shev,-, any connectio:-.
between the Gentlemen complained of, or that they
had any previous quarrel with the worthy Doctor.
The CocaT, ander all the circnmstances of the
case, refused the Rule.

THE KING V. DULLY AND SEVEN OTTERS.

These defendants, who, it will be recoliected. ob-
tained last Term time to impaile until this Term,
were brox,ht up on the motion of .Nlr. LI.TMEDALE.
to plead to informations charging them, as news-
tenders, with publishing certain blasphemous and
seditious matters contained in Sherwin's Regiser and
The liepviVican. They severally pleaded Not Guil.y,
and received notice that they would be tried at the
Sittings after this present Term.

COURT, .TANI".A.RY 24.

CHENEY AGAINST (.03DALI..

This was a question noon the admission of an alle.
Ration, which consisted of seventeen articles. They
detailed no mattes of interest, except the circum-
stance of the tes!,at;i:: having .contracted a second
maniage, during the life of her former husband,
whose deazh, however, was generally believed to
have occurred long before. Among the articles,
theic was one in which it was pleaded that the indi-
vidual in question, being then resident in Woolwich,
was visited. by a cousin or near relation, to whom he
disclosed his identity, requesting that entire secrecy
might be observed upon the subject. It was, there•
foie, submitted, that this article (the 14th) should be
rejected.
Sir JOHN NICHOL said, that there could be no
doubt upon the principle this matter; for what
diifeience could be established between the admis-
sion of the husband's evidence, as to the fact of co-
'. habitation, so usually pleaded-(and pleaded,, indeed,
on the 4th article of this allegation), his deposing
to the fact of having been Married to the testatrix ;1
If the Court were to decide against the principle, he
did not see how it would be possible in future to
establish identity in almost any case. Whatever
might have been the rule of other Courts, it was
clearly regular upon this article, that the Learned
Counsel opposing the allegation objected to its ad-
mission ; contending that it was not competent for
the husband, in the event of the suit proceeding
further, to give evidence against his wife ; nor was
it possible that the Court could allow him, in this in-
stance, to depose as to his having been the former
husband of the testatrix. That this was equally true
in the practice of the common law, manifestly ap-
peared; and they knew of no other instance wherein
it had admitted, by a patity of reasoning, the evi-
dence of the wife against the husband, excepting
that of Lord Audley, in which only the latter course
was admitted, it being necessary to receive the re-
position of Lady Audley against his Lordship, ex ne-
cessilate. The Learned Counsel proceeded accord-
, ing to the practice of this, and he therefore admitted
the allegation.

The Manchester Telegraph coach lately upset
while going down a sand hill, near Woburn, and
John Cotton, a private soldier, going on furlough,
was killed ; another passenger had an um broke,
and the coachman was much iajuted.