Star.
London, England, 1827-02-15 00:00:00

LAW RESORT.

LENT ASSIZES.
Matz Clacorr.—Before Chief Baron ALIIXAMIR and Mr. Justice

rt:ertfordAire--Wednesday, March 7, at Hertford.
x—Nlondny, March 19, at Chelmsford.
t—Monday, March 19, at Maidstooe. .
"asses—Monday, March 26, at Horsham.
Surrey—Monday, April 2, at Klopton-up•o.Thames.
s•arraar CIIICVIT.—..Before Mr. Justine Bazaar awl 3k. iiiiiii
H et.Loca. (. .: r
Durban—Wednesday, February 2s, at Durhallk
Westmoreland—Friday, March 9, at Appleby.
Cumberland—Monday, March 1, at C.arlisk.
Northumberland—Tuesday, March 6, at Newcastle.
Lancashire—Saturday, March 10, at Lancaster.
Yorkabire--Saturday, Match 24, at York.

ZIT, et York—Same day, at the GuildhaU, ditto.

CONSISTORY COURT, Frs. 14.
$Ol. 10. 1101.. -

Dr. JRNNIR stated that this was a suit for a divorce
promoted by Mr. Hogg against Susan Hogg his wife,
on the ground of Val lOUS acts of adultery committed
by her with divers persons, at houses of ill fame.
Dr. ARNOLD, on behalf of the wife, could not deny
the act of adultery, but should contend that the con-
duct of the husband had been such as did not entitle
him to relief.
A discussion here toot place as to the reeding of the evidence,
which, it was intimated, was of too disgusting a nature to be pub-
licly exposed. It was decided with the consent of all parties, that
the evidence should be taken as read, and that the Counsel might
refer to such pans as they pleased.
Dri ARNOLD observed, he was not sorry that the
Court was spared the disgusting details which, it was
to be observed, came out on interrogatories put to the
plaintiff's witnesses, as the wife had asserted no defs n.
sive allegation, and produced no witnesses on her part.
It was a case, the history of which was disgusting on
account of the 'profligacy it displayed, and lamentable'
as regarded the unfortunate person for whom he up.
peared. The outset of the history was this :—His client,
the child of humble parents, described as a poor, un-
educated, ignorant girl, was prevailed upon by the
plaintiff to leave her home and parents, when she was
only 14 or 15 years of age, under a promise of mar.
singe. The plaintiff carried her to a common and no.
torious brothel, where he lodged her. He made this
place her home, where she was exposed to the coatis.
urination of the company frequenting such a place, and
to continual scenes of the vilest profligacy. After co•
habiting with this female for some indefinite time (for
there was little information on these points), the Court
fotmd her turned adrift, and living with a young woman
in a house whete the most profligate conduct took
place. In July, 1822, the parties married. On returning
from Church, the plaintiff took her to the house of
Griggs, in Eagle-street, where she had lodged. The
consequences were the necessary fruits of the husband's
sanction, thus given. The parties afterwards went to
Norfolk, and subsequently to Tenby. No charge of
anything criminal was alleged against the wife, until
the end of 1824, when the parties were living at Rams-
gate. The husband then, for some cause not stated,
quitted her, and informed her he d•d not mean to re-
turn to cohabitation ; and that she was at liberty to go
where she pleased. She was at that period utterly
destitute. Aster a time, a miserable pittance of 255. a.
week was allowed her; but no care, no feeling, was
evinced by him respecting her. ApplicAtion having
been made to him for payment of a debt incurred for
lodging her, he had recourse to this Court to release
hint from the burden of maintaining ter, on account of
her misconduct, which was actually charged to have
been committed at al house and with persons, whete,
and to whom, he bad introduced her on his wedding-
day. But the conduct of the husband had been-arch
that he was not entitled to a sentence, whatever might
be the conduct of the wife, it had been produced by
tbia of her husband.
Dr.../astut ADDAMS, on the same side, made a few
Dissertations in addition. The husband at the time of
rnarriage in 1822 was between 40 and 50; the wife
between 18 and 19; a son was born in 1828. The wife
had been treated with great cruelty by her husband,
having been flogged by his orders, as stated by his•
win witness.

Dr. Jutria, on behalf of the husband, urged that
the facts charged in the answers to interrogatories ought
to have been pleaded, in order that the husband might
answer and refute the allegations.
Sir C. Roninsoa said, this was a melancholy case as
regarded the morals of both parties. After referring
to the early connexion of the parties, to the circurn•
stances of the marriage, to the manner in which they
arparated at Ramsgate, and to the conduct of the
plaintiff in leaving his wife in London, where such a
woman would be sure to fall into evil, and resort to her
old habits, the Learned Judge said, that the only clues.
tion for the Court to consider was, whether it had any
moral discretion ? no person could doubt..that its such
cases as this the C urt had a moral discretion, under
*MO, and looking also to the consequences of separa-
tion, he must pronounce hat the husband was not en-
titled to the relirf he prayed.

Wrill 11. VIPS.

This was a question as to the admission of the ankles
of allegation responsive to the libel, in a suit for divorce
promoted by Mr. S. Webb, an attorney of Bath, against
his wife, on the ground of adultery. The marziage took
place in 1802, and during the absence of Mr. Webb..
from his wife in 1805, an adulterous intercourse was
alleged to have been carried on by Mrs. Webb with
mote than one person. The allegations offered on the
part of Mrs. Webb stated, that a Mr. Hooper and a Mr.
Smaliconr, the persons with whom she was charged•
to have committed adultery, were in the habit. at fre-
quenting the house for the purpose of carrying on a
criminal intercourse with a servant ; and that damages
bad been recovered by Mr. Webb against them for the
seduction of this servant. It was also alleged that Mr.
Webb had declared he would drive his wife into the
streets, where, as she was pretty, she would be sure to
pick up somebody. Theseallegations were objected to
is irrelevant.—The Court directed the allegations to be
refotmed, previous to admission. ,

SPITALYIELD3 PAZISH.

A question respecting the repairs of Spitalfields
Church came before the Court. In DM, the Church
requiting considerable repairs, the Select Vestry took
the matter into their consideration. It was stated that
the repairs would not exceed 2,4001. and the Vestry
therefore ordered those repairs to be made, and which,
when completed, amounted to a very considerable sum
above the estimate which had been furaished to the
Committee. A rate was made upon the inhabitants to
meet the demand, but several of them refused to pay it
until proceedings were commenced against them. Mr.
Pact Smith, however, disputed the rate, oa the ground
that the charges for the repairs were exorbitant. It
therefore came before the Court for consideration.
Coumel were pertly heard, and farther arguments was psetpsmsd.