Star.
London, England, 1818-10-16 00:00:00

POLICE.

M: P. Lnoßomig-sr REL.:T.—Yesterday a Mrgymen,
who had formerly been a Chaplain in the Navy; and
had afterwards performed Divine Service at St. Ann's,
S.)11o, was brought up by the Vestry Clerk of that
parish, for getting drunk, being riotous, and for beg-
,;ing of the parish;oners. lie was discharged, on a
promise of conducting himself more circumspectly
in future.
.1. Thorns was committed for picking the pocket
cr- General Cnosnit, in Bond-street, of a red morocco
packet-book, and a card-caw. The prisoner was ob-
served by two persons, and taken into custody.
Tow BALL, SorrttwAstc—Yesterday .1. Evans
was fully committed for uttering alurged i.:2 note to
Mr. Calway. a hosierfin Tooley-street.
As a Gentleman was driving, on Wednesday night,
in a one horse chaise, along a part :of the Borough
where the road is broken up and an excavation for-
med ibr repairing the sewer, a boy let off a squib in
front of the horse, which caused him to plunge, and
placed the Gentleman in a most dangerous situation.
At one time the forelegs of the animal were down
over the railing that separates the cavity from the
road, and but for the assistance of persons passing,
the carriage would have been dashed to pieces, and,
in all probability, the driver kilted. The lad, whose
tame is Darling, was yesterday examined before the
Magistrate, who tined him 20s. and declared it his
intention to visit every such offence brought before
him with a similar punishment. _

IVOILIMP•STRMI:TTWO Collectors of Tolls on
the Stamford-Hill Trust appeared at this Office yes-
terday, to answer to informations exhibited against
them for taking toll of a repectable inhabitant living
in Shoreditch, of the mune of Parker, not being au-
thorized by the Local Act of Parliament so to do.
It appeared by the evidence of Mr. Parker, that on
two several nights passing through the gate on the
said road, with a common cart laden with potatoes,
which he was going to deliver to a customer, the.
collector demanded night-toll: he stated, that his
was a cart of burden, not a carriage of pleasure,
and therefore, according to the terms laid down in
. the Act of Parliament, had no right to pay night-
toll. The collector refused to allow him to pass
without paying sixpence, which he was obliged to do.
He exhibited an information against the collector,
arid ou the hearing the Magistrate considered thr...as
it was a toll imposed upon persons who travelled for
pleasure, it could not apply to the present instance,
us it appeared the plaintiff was solely on business.—
Upon this case hynust convict the defendant in the
penalty of 40s. and costs for taking the said toll, he
not being authored by the Act of Parliament so to
do. The defendant said he should appeal against
this conviction to the Quarter Sessions.
Thomas Phillips was charged with extinguishing
the gas-lights in Finsbury-square. Francis Tomlin-1
soh, patrol, observed the prisoner get on the top of
a lamp-post and put out the light; be then came
down, and climbing up another lamp-post, extin-
guished that a1..,0; he sprang his rattle, and the pri-'
saner jumped .down and ran away, but was stopped
by a watchman. He was convicted, under the Fins-
bury-square Act of Parliament, in the penalty of 20s.
'which he paid and was discharged.

Yesterday an Inquest war held at the Alfred's
Head in the London-read, on the body of J. Russell,
a wholesale linen-draper, of Friday-street, who fell
from the window of a friend's house, in consequence
of which he died. Ile had been in a state of mental
derangement, through a disease in his liver; but he
stated, after his fail, that he Thought, when he went
to the window, he was going to his warehouse. Verdict
_Fell from the window while asleep or in delirium.
An kaquest was held at the Woolpack, Enfield,
oc. the body of C. Smith, nine years old, the son of
C. Smith, Esq. of Portland-place, who, while on a
visit to Mr. Peak; at Enfield, was riding a favou-
rite poney ; when it set off at a quick trot, which
frightened the child so, that it screamed out, and
that alarming the popey, the latter set off at full gal-
)op, and the deceased losing his seat, was dragged
by his foot in the stirrup, and kicked by the annual
until he was killed. Veract—Accidtatal Death.

LYSOL PEAT DEBTORS' COURT, OCT. 16.

This day, William Twysden Esq. formerly of
Wooller, in the county of Northumberland, after-
wards of Rucklau-house, near Edinburgh, and late
of George-street, Portman-square, Middlesex, was
brought up to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act.
Owing to a formal objection taken by Mr.Basser. '
on the part of Mr. Samuel Kettle, of 59, Charing-
cross, this case was stopped in &mine, and the merits
of it were not investigated. In Mr. Twy.sden's peti-
tion, and also in his schedule, he was stated to be a
prisoner in the Fleet, where he was actually confined:
but in the order and the notice served on Mr. Kettle,
lie was described as being a prisoner in the King's
Bench. Upon its appearing that Mr. Twysden's for-
mer petition had been dismissed and not adjourned,
the Court considered the objection fatal, and his pre-
sent petition was in consequence discharged. Mr.
Twysden hereupon declared himself very much dis-
satisfied with the negligent.conduct of his agents, as
this was the second time his case had not been allow-
, ed to be entered into, owing to informality.
Benjamin Hughes was opposed by Mr. HEATH on
'behalf of Mr. Forsyth. The defendant agreed to
oscept this debt inAhe morning, whilst Mr. Forsyth
was in Court ; but now that Mr. Forsyth had gone,
he wished to retract his exception. Upon this Mr.
POLLOCK, his own Counsel, declared that if the in-
solvent persisted in his intention, lie could rot think
of holding a brief on his behalf. The debt, after
some discussion between Mr. Pollock,, the prisoner,
and his agent, was agreed to be excepted.
Mr. Iltarit then opposed him on behalf of Mrs.
Woolley, and proceeded to examine him. The hue's.
vent swore that lie was in the employ of Mrs. Wool-
ley, who keeps a brewery at Walhani-green, from
December to March hit, as clerk and agent ; he also
Sold by commission fir her, and though there was
no agreement in writhu- between them, he had a sa-
lary cf 244. a week, an.) Is. a barrel by way of corn-
,'mission upon all the beer which he sold. He was
also the collecting clerk, but has not, since he was
discharged from the office, kept any account of the
money which he received, not having had access to
the books. His discharge took place on the 31st of
March last, and he has never seen the books since.—
Ile here begged leave to explain himself: he was
.not discharged by Mrs.Woolley, but had quitted her
service of his own accord ; he gave her notice on the
20th of March, about which time he was deprived
of the books. Between the 20th and 30th of March
he had I.:ccivel certain sums on her behalf, which
he did net pay over to Mrs. Woolley ; these sums
might possibly amount to Efi or 47, certainly to not
so much as £l5. He swore positively that he had'
received nothing- on her account since the 31st of
March. He was never in the house of his employer
since the 21st of last firth: shook' net have Inter-'
feted in Mr..Woolliy's concerns after that period, ill
he had not been solicited to do so by Mr. Emmett,
Mrs.Woolley's attorney, who desired him to assist in
collecting the debts. Heauswered that he was vary
nilluia tc serve Mr. Emmett, but not Mrs.Woolley.
This was .the reason why he had recci4ed money
after the 21st, whichflse hal offered to pay over into
the hands of Mr. Emmett, but he had neglected to
keep his appointment fur the purpose of receiving it,
and Cierefore he (the insolvent) had never paid it.
Mr. HEATH here expressed his surprise that the
insolvent should have taken his orders from Mr. Em-
mett, and not from Mrs. Woolley, his employer,
However, Mr.Enimett was i 6 Co•lrt, and was ready
to contradict what the insolvent had advanced, Ile
was even unwilling to have his client's claim on the
defendant considered in the light of a debt ; but as
she had been scheduled as a creditor, she was advis-,
ed to oppose the discharge of the-insolvent. The
amount of her claim could not yet be stated, as it
was uncertain to what extent he had received monies
on her behalf.

After some discussion, the insolvent resolved to.
except this debt also ; in consequence of which
mea-
sure he was dis Charged, except as to the debts of
Forsyth and Woolley.
Edward Ambrose, who had carried on the business
of a dealer in coals by conimission, when called on
to be examined, appeared in such a state of idtoxica-
tion, that the Commissioner desired that he should
be taken away from the Court, and that the order
for his hearing be discharged.
John Nelson, who has be confined for upwards
of four years, and who had been remanded by the'l
late east Pit :toe, now applied for his ditcharge.
• Mr. chiefly
said. he was instructed to oppose this
person aieily on the ground- of his having been
committed by an order of the Court of Chancery, for
a contempt, in refusing to transfer to the Account-
ant-General.of that Court, for the sum of £l6l. Bs.
3d. which had been standing in his name in Bank
t‘enuities, as a trustee for other persons. Mr. Heath
contended, that while he was a prisoner for contempt,
this Court had no power to ditchargebim.. It was
on that ground that bis discharge had been refusal
by Mt. Seijeant Palmer.
. •
Mr. Petr..ocit, on behalf of the prisoner, otaseried4
that his brother, Richard Melsons who had been a
joint trustee along with him, and had also been COM.
mined for contempt, was already discharged, on his
paying a sum of money to the opposing creditors ;
and he could not conceive silty one trustee should
be discharged, and the other kept in custody. Ac-
girdin.T to. the 47th clause of the Act, he conceived
that this prisoner was entitled to his discharge, be-
cause the stock standing in his name, was the same
as money.
Mr. Serjeant RUNNIEGTON" This was an order
of the High Court of Chancery for the purpose of
furthering the cause of justice there, by transferri!";
property into the hands of one of its officers."
Mr. ADOLPHUS next addressed the Court on behalf
of the prisoner. He contended, that the tra-ncaction
must be considered as one in the nature of a debt ;
because the prisoner's brother, wile had been a joint
trustee with him, and who also had been committed
for contempt, had received his discharge on paying
his portion of the debt. That payment, and the non-
Sequent discharge, entirely purged the contempt,
which no longer applied to either party. He there-
fore asked how this man could be detained on the
ground of contempt, which must have been waved
by the discharge of the other party? The case then,
he contended, resolve(' itself into a simple one cf debt.

Mr. HEATH in reply, saidthe only question here
was, whether this Court could constitute itself into
the High Court of Chancery, and do away the cs den

of that Court. One man was released because he com-
plied with the order of the Court of Chancery ; but
the contempt could not merge in that act.
- •

Mr. Serjeant RUNNINGTON said it appeared, that
this man was confined by an order of the Court of 1,
ChanCery for refusing to transfer stock, when ordered
to do so, to the persons, into whose hands the course
of justice required that it should come ; and also for ,
the non-payment of costs. It was for the contempt, I
and not for non-payment, tliftt he had been commit
ted ; it was because he obstructed the course of jus-
tice. He could not view this as a case of debt ; the.,
Court of Chancery wasted to have a controul over
I the property of which the prisoner was trustee, and
he was committed because he refused to give it that
controul. The only way then, by which the prisoner
could he released was, to apply to the Court of Chan-
cery to have its order discharge d. lie (the Commis-
sioner) would now, however, discharge the, prisoner
of all sums, except so far as regarded the contempt.

CONSISTORIAL COURT, EDINBURGH.

ELIT. COLE, THE WIFE, V. T. V. COLE, THE HUSBAND.

The proof in this case being concluded, it became
the duty of the Court to give judgment :
By the evidence it is established, that the parties
were married in the parish of St. Mary-la-bonne, and
county of Middlesex, in the year. 1801.; were than
I both domiciled citizens of Eng Lind, and have since
cohabited as husband and wife in that kingdom only :
but that the defender having for several years deserted
the pursuer, and being in this city last spring, then
lived at his lodgings here for the space of three weeks
in open adultery with a yeoman of the town, add was
here convened by citation upon the libel.
Since this action came into Court, according to the
rule of our procedure, the pursuer has been interro-
gated upon oath, and she has sworn in the most une-
quivocal terms, both that there is no collusion between
them, and also that she brought her suit for the dis-
solution of their marriage, as soon as she discovered
that it was in her power to take this step. These so-
lemn averments are likewise not discredited by any
circumstance which appears from the record. Indeed
in no case of the kind, is it now to be expected that
any such concert, agreement, or understanding be-
tween the parties, as amounts to collusion by the law
of Scotland, will really take place ; for it is perfectly
plain, that aversion, and .!wire to be free from the
conjugal bonds, may be mutually entertained, and
may be expressed in a thousand ways, without any
communication, direct. or indirect, that can affect
the title to sue for divorce.

The state of the law of Scotland upon that head is
matter of notoriety. By the mere commission of adul-
tery Aeon this side of the Tweed, which will not be
concealed if the dissolution of the marriage is the
object of this crime, opportunity is afforded. The
other party only needs w be upon the watch, and to
seize that opportunity. But if there had been ground
in this case to suspect collusion between the parties,
the decisions of the Court of Review, in the recent
cases of Newte and O'lhien, prove that we could in-
vestigate these only by intcirogating the pursuer,
which has been already done.
Upon the other hand, it is, no doubt, certain that
the pursuer could not claim the remedy of divorce,
a rancid°, under the law of their own country. It is
equally clear. that if nevertheless she is entitled to
sue teed in this action, it must be not less competent
to sue here for the dissolution of any other marriage
contracted under the law csf England, or under any
other foreign law, upon the grounds alone that one
of the spouses has committed adultery,, and been
cited for divorce, within 'this jurisdiction. But the
judgment given •at the Assizes of Lancaster, after
consulting.the twelve Judges of Epglarid, in the year
ISIS, declared the rule of the law of that kingdom
to be, that a regular deiree of divorce a riwculo of
an English marriage, obtained in this Court, ebuld
afford no defence even against a criminal prosecu-
tion fee bigamy, if either of the parties, during the
life of the other, should afterwards contract a second
marriage in England; and condemned William Mar-
tin Lolly, who had been found guilty of that crime,
to transportation. Hence it follows, that the chil-
dren of such second marriages must be bastards in
England, and in all other parts of this empire, al-
though legitimate in Scotland ; and that as to every
effect and consequence, the same decree of divorce
which is valid in this realm, must be held a mere
nullity in the other United kingdoms, and in all our
colonies and foreign dominions.
• In further proof of these propositions, it can only
be necessary to mention, that in the case of Lolly,
the husband and wife were cohabiting together in
this city when he committed adultery—that he ap-
peared as a defender—that both parties were judid
cially examined, in order to ascertain whether,there
had been any collusion—and that the conduct and
suit of his wife the pursuer were found to be liable to
no just suspicion.
This collision of the laws in the same empire and
island, fraught with danger so manifest and eaten- 1,
sive to those sacred relations of domestic life upon
which civilized society depends for all its value, and
even for its existence, cannot however enter into con-
sideration in deciding the present case. Here the law
of Scotland can only be consulted, and a series of
uniform, solemn, and recent judgments of the Su-
preme Court of Review in this kingdom have ruled,'
that neither the law of the real domicile of the par-
ties, nor the law of the place of their contract when
different from our own, is to be regarded in a case
of divorce sued here, between strangers who have
been married in another country, but one of whcm
has committed adultery" and been cited within this
jurisdiction.
The circumstances in the latest of these cases were
the same as in' he present, except that the hulband there
was an attorney of London, and both the parties had
all their lives been inhabitants of the Inns of Court of
that city, where they had been married and cohabi-
ted. But during a vacation jaunt, in which his wife
did not accompany him, he visited Edinburgh, and
invited by letter a woman of the town in London to
come to him at his hotel here, which invitation hav-
ing been complied with iu the most open manner, his
wife gave him a citation upon a summons for a di-
vorce before he returned home to keep his Term.
She had not, however, time to call her action in
Court previous to his departure from this country;
yet there was not the least ground to infer collusion
against the suit of the pursuer, who accounted