Star.
London, England, 1819-07-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGEN'CR.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE 30.
MR ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS OP WALES V. THE
EARL OF LIVERPOOL AND COURT MUNSTER.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on taking his seat this
morning, said, he had considered this case, and he
saw no reason for disturbing the Order he had made
yesterday.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HoDots V. JOHNSON
AND THE CORPORATION or LONDON.
The LORD CHANcELLoR understood that the indict-
ment in this case could not be tried for some time,
but he thought it right to inform the Gentlemen en-
gaged in it, that no embankment on the river Thames
could be made without a precedent Writ of ad rod
&maim', because it could beconsidered as the King s
_highway. A case to this effect would be found in
Noy's Reports. Under these circumst.uices his Lord-
ship declined giving judgment for the present.

CONSISTORY COURT, JUNI.I ;A.
ADULTERY.--WARNER v. WARNER.
This was a question as to the admissibility of a de-
fensive allegation, brought by Mrs. Jane Matthew
Warner, the wife, in answer to a suit of adultery pre-
ferred by Major Warner, the husband. •
The facts of adultery pleaded in the libel by the
husband were these:— Nlajor.Warner belonged to-the
26th Regiment of Foot, which in 1813 was'etationed
at Dumfries, in Scotland. An intimacy there com-
menced between Major and Mrs. Warner arid Trevor
Owen Jones, Esq. arising Com the circumstance of
the latter having broke his leg. In conscipuence of
this accident, he was with great hospitality invited to
take up his residence in the Major's house, at Young-
field, in the neighbourhood of Dumfries, where he
experienced every mark of kindness and attention.
On the morning of the sth of March, as was his
usual custom, the Major mounted' his horse to go to
parade, leaving Mrs. Warner in the breakfast parlour
with her children, whose education she superintended.,'
On his s;adden return home, the parade being unex-
pectedly 'dismissed, he entered die parlour, and there
discovered Mr. Jones and his wife in the act of adul-
tery! He immediately seized him bY the collar and
called for the servants, who arrived time enough,to
witness the deranged state of Mr. Jones and Mrs,.
Warner's dress. The Major ?lmost immediately drew
his sword, and threateried to run Mr. Jones through
the body. His wife instantly fell back upon the sof •
in violent hysterics, while her seducer threw hlmsey
upon his knees, calling upon the Major to execute his
threat, and crying out—, 1 do delerva iz." Mr.
Jones's leg, it appeared, had not yet recovered when
this scene took place. The same day, Mrs. Warner
Pent for a post chaise, and drove off to Edinburgh,
refusing an offer made her of her husband's carriage.
Upon the ground that she was not worthy to ride in
it, and would not therefore pollute it. The husband,
it appeared, had commenced a suit in the Consistory
Court at York for the adultery, where it was defen-
ded by the wife, and dismissed.
. A. letter from the wife, inclosed in another from
Augusta Shipley, her sister, was addressed to
Major Warner, dated 11th March; five days Qnly
after her departure from Dumfries. It was couched
in the following strain of penitence:—
Winer, my beloved, save me! I beseech yon, by the hopes
yeti susertein yourself from the &swum, to show that mercy
to your beloved Jane! My life shall be evermore devoted to
yea With gratitude, if you will but perudt me the blessing of
often looking upon you and my children. lam writing to you
upon my knees. gel/timber, the- Aturestr says he will not be
backward to stye the shinier tbaturos to him with true repent-
ance. Warner, on my knees I supplicate you not to close your
heart upon me, but rather to pity my 'distress. Save your be-
loved wife!-rave her for the love of Goa and the Sottitat of
the WORLD !—Oh I save me!" •
The letter of Mrs. Shipley, praying forgiveness to.
wards her sitter on the score of repentance, and•et-
pressing her own distrattion and despair at the me-
lancholy circumstance, ran nearly in the same devo-
tional terms. It prayed, that for the happiness of
all parties publicity might not be given to what had,
occurred.
The allegation of the wife, denying the adultery,l
and alleging insanity at the time the letters were writ-
ten,
was allowed tohe put in; with the exception,
however, of certain articles which required to be cor-
rected and reformed.—Proceedings deferred.
HARRER(PALSZLICALLED PARRER) AOAII43TYARREn.'
This was a suit of nullity of marriage of a very
novel and important description. It is instituted by

the wife against the husband, formerly a Cornet in
the 18th Dragoons. The validity of the marriage is
contested on the ground of its having been solemnized
in France, not according to the rites and ceremonies
observed in that country, but according to those of
the Church of England. It was celebrated with the,
leave of the Duke of Wellington, as expressed in a
letter from E. Byrne, Adjutant-General, addressed to
the English Chaplain who performed the office.
Dr. SwArsv said that the libel which hegoxv prayed
to be admitted was a libel hi ponant, the party against
whom he appeared being actually in contempt, hiv-
ing been some timeout of England, and subsequently
joined, as he believed, the Insurgents, in South AmY-,
rica. The marriage, he Should contend, ought to
have been had according to the rites of the country
where it was celebrated, so as there were no impedi-
ments to such celebration, and the pasties had been
duly domiciled.
Sir WILLIAM Score said, that thelearned Coun-
sel
would find great difficulty in inducing him to de-
termine this case at once, in the absence of the party.
A great many such marriages had, taken place in
France recently, and he could not be expected by
such a step to decide that they were all null and void.
He should adtnet the libel, however, for the purpose
of compelling the appearance. Several Clergymen
of the Church of England had sent to him a number
of letters, very imperfectly addressed, on the subject
of marriages, contracted like the one in question,
during the residence of the Army of Occupation in
France: The Court was aware of the difficulty of
these cases, which were grave and serious, and hoped
that this admission would cause an appearance.
covwr OP KING'S 11ENCH, JUNE $9.
itidatiable v. WILLIAMS AND LAMS.
Me...Vistas:se obtained a Rule to thew cause why
Mr. lAwrence Williams and Mr. Lewisrtwo Atter-
tries of this Court, should not• be struck off the roll.
It appeared by the report of the Master, that Mrs.
Hainiltonhad employed Mr. Williams to bring six
actions against the proprietors of certain newspapers
for a libel but that he had brought 15 actions with.
--'. her kineirledge, end had received money which
had net tteught into account with her. After

some of the actions were brought he becirne bartl-
rupt, and their employed Lewis, without the antllo.
rity or knowledge of Mrs. Hamilton. The Court
granted the Rule as to both:
JUNE 50.---THE RIND V. !JOWLY WOOLF.
In this case cause was shewn why the Writs of
levari facias should not be set aside. It was con-
tended, in reply to the Rule, that the Sheriff v.as
bound to take care of the revenues of the Crown, and
that he had only done his ditty by issuing the WI:::
to seize the property of the de:end:mt.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL :ippeared on the part of
the Crown, and stated, that he merely withed that
the money should be brought into Court, to ahide,:te
final decision of their Lordships.
The COMMON SFRJEA that he was inst-at-
ted, on the part di the City of London, to require .a
immediate return of the Writ.
In reply to this, it was stated, that an action had
been brought by the brother of the defendam, who
claimed the goods by virtue of adtged of assigitniert-,
and therefore, that time ougbtko be grained until
the question of law was decided.
The COURT, after having heard the argnmems on
both sides, delivered their opinion, that time ought
tobe given for teturnin:,; the Writs of !marl Pic:.
LORD C. S. CUURCUILL V. JOHN WALTERS, ESQ.
Mr. PLATT moved to make the .[tale for judg-
ment, as in case of a non-stit, in this case absolute.
Mr. SCARLETT ;hewed cause, and upon the affida-
vit produced, the Rule was drscharged, the plaintiti
giving a peremptory undertaking to try at the ad-
journed Sittings after Term.

SAME 0. JAMES PERRY, E3O.
A similar Rule in thiscase, was disposed of in tar
same manner, the plaintiff undertaking to try his
cause at the a,ijourn?d 6i:tin s.