Star.
London, England, 1826-11-28 00:00:00

ODE VO NOVEMBER

IRON THZ MIRROR.

Drawling, dismal, dark November,
foggy, frosty, foul by fits;
Pray make way for old December,
Once again to cheer our wits!
Sleepy, sullen, sluggish, sour;
Slyly shrouding sunny space;
Prithee, just for half an hour,
Shew us half a pleasant face!
Banging, drowning, cut-throat seasoN
Frenchmen, so of England say ;
Night we not, with equal reason,
Bid them look at home, I pray?
Drowsy, dreary, dingy, dirty,
Dullest month of all the year:
Thanks to time, it's but for thirty,
And the twenty-eighth is here!
Two days more, and, oh ! November,
(Welcome exit!) we shall share
Ap the joy of gay December,
Ladies smiles and Christmas fare !

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 27.

1/711Z11. 1• 1111111214

This was a suit promoted by the husband for a divorce, upon
the ground of adultery.
Sir CHBISTOPIIER ROBINSON said, there could be no
doubt upon the fact that adultery had been committed.
Indeed the answers, although they contained something
like an attempt at justification, did not deny the fact.
The only question calling for the consideration of the
Court arose out of the circumstance that a separation
bad taken place, previous to the alleged adultery. It
Was ti ue separation was no bar to adultery, but yet the
Court always interfered reluctantly in such cases. In
the present case, however. there was no imputation
upon the husband. Mrs. Uther had contracted habits
irreconcileable with domestic comfort, or with a hus-
band's security, and he was justified in putting her
away, that her bad example might not contaminate the
minds of her children: subsequent to the separation,
however,• as well as before, it appeared that he had
treated her with unremitting kindness and consideration,
and avoided everything Which might be supposed to
drive a woman to act improperly. He even held out,
the prospect of again receiving her to his society, upon
condition of her abandoning her vicious habits. Under
all the circumstances, Mr. 'hirer's conduct was most
correct, and he appeared to have been innocently placed
in a situation which should render him an object of
general commiseration. There was no reason, therefore,
for delaying the relief which he prayed for, and the
Court had nothing to do but pronounce for the divorce.
Divorce granted.

ROLLS' COURT, NOVIDUZIL 27.

V. MINI.

On entering the Court, at six o'clock this evening,
his HoNoua pronounced judgment in this case, one of
importance as regards the liability of parochial assess-
ments to the payment of mortgages, contracted under
the authority of local Acts of Parliament. His Honour
briefly recapitulated the facts of the case. The plain-
tiff was sole surviving executor of John Armitage, who
in 1776 lent to the Commissioners appointed for paving,
ice. the parish of St. Paul's, Shadwell, a sum of SOW.
bearing interest at the rate of 41 per cent. payable un-1
til the redemption of the principal. The defendant was
clerk to the Commissioners under the Act which em-
powered the Commissioner to mortage the assessments
in this manner,and the person whom the Act pointed out to
be sued. Interests in this sum continued to be paid to the
deceased, and, after his demise, to the plaintiff, up to
1802, from which time, up to 1825, no application was
made for any further payment. Oit application, then. the
Commissioners said, that an Act had passed in 1810 re-
pealing the former Act, and they did not therefore consi-
der they were authorised to make any payments. But in
this latter Act there was a special clause exempting from
its operation all such debts and demands as that of the
plaintiff. In consequence of this answer the present bill
was filed; praying the appointment of a receiver over
the assessments. After going•through the arguments
of counsel on both sides, his Honour continued, “ taking
into consideration the entire of this case, and the nature
of these assessments, I am of opinion that this Court
should not appoint a receiver. There has been no case
cited at the bar as.a precedent for the appointment
sought by the bill, a case has been adverted to, where
a receiver was appointed over tolls, but that does not
apply, for tolls are of a fixed nature, and resemble rent.
But in this case, should a receiver be appointed, how
is this Court or that of the King's Bench (where the
jurisdiction properly lies by mandamus) to compel the
Commissioners to assess a sum sufficient for the discharge
of plaintiff's account? I shall not, therefore, establish
this precedent for the future appointment of receivers in
similar cases, and in consequence I dismiss the bill ; but
I think it should not be dismissed with costs."