The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-06-19 00:00:00

bIR •.trctr

Sit WA ratty Lesviss addressed hit Lordship at sonic
length. lie complained of the long delay which had
taiitim place in his case, which had nun, he said, been
in tbat C.snrt above 47 years, and in which there no-
a mint of 35,000 f. due to him, lie also had a suit in
the Exchequer, a here there was money of his to Ow
amount of 75,0110 i.: thus making a total of abut e
Itto,ooof. due to him, while less than a tenth pint of
that sum would relieve him flow all his dificultie•,
and discharge him front being a prisoner in the Fleet,
It was disgraceful—it was cruel, lie said, to keep him
there so long. the victim of a vindictive prrseciinini,
under n hide his 1 r %lie and (taught. r have died.
Asa proof of the delay which had taken place, hi•
Lordship would recollect, that 30 years ago he hail
acted as conosel for bin in the Exchequer.
Tht: Luau CIIANCSLLOR declared that no man could

more deeply regret the delay than he did, but he as-
sured Mir Watkin Lewes. that had his ease been placed
in diiier-tit hands in the Exchequer, it would have
keen settled lung since. Ilia Lordship pledged him-
self to gi, e such a judgment in this case un Tuesday,
as would p ore, hr trusted, satisfactory ; and he re-
commended. to Sir Watkita the propriety of prewntinc
Wsbort petition to the ilunse of Lords respecting the
pending appeil, which hr (the Lord Chancellor) must
flithfully pruspised to lay before the Committee of Ap-
peal:, without delay.
Sir Watkin Lewes expressed himself highly satisfied,
and said be *tumid certainly attend on Tuesday.

CRINI. CON.—SH 11714 COURT.
Bcf•re a spelled Jr rg. ewe/ .Ir. t. wiry- Nherif Bt aciacti.

lIILLriu, Emkt. r. iticHARD NAV Kilt, tut.
Mr. CA sirnEl.t. ibretird the pleadings in this case.
It was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
dtlendant for criminal conversation with his wife.
.1 he damages were laid at ten thousand pounds, and the
defendant had suffered judgment to go by default.
Mr. Sr.tatarr stated the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. CA XPRELL then called Mr. Edward Bloythatn,
the solicitor for the plaintiff, who produced an attested
• fly
,of the register of the sitarriJge of the plaintiff
with his wife, at the parids of St. 6eurge, Bltpottisbury,
in .11109.

Mr. Nath. Pearce Wathen was then called. He de-
posed as follows am one of the trustees under the
marriage settlement executed by the plaintiff. lam
a man of fortune in Hloncestershire; when 1 first saw
Mrs. Miller, she was about twenty rears of age, a beau-
. thief and accomplished woman ; Mr. Miller was about
twenty-six. 1 had frequent opportunities of seeing
them after their marriage; any late wife and 1 visited
them: Mr. Miller was a kind and attentive husband.

Mr. Miller is a gentleman of considerable fortune in
flioucestershire ; lie lived in style, and k,:pt a respect-
ablo establishment. Mrs. Miller had a burr and a car-
riage fo► her own use, and was treated by Tier husband
with every indulgence. I know little of Mr. Mass ker ;
he is a Uloacestersbire man. I know his father, be

is a. span of opulence in trade. I went to Scotland,
end-while there, Mr. and Mrs. Miller paid me a visit.
1 hey appeared to me to live happily together.
• eypsa-examined by Mr. Serjeant VALGIiAN.—Mr.
Miller lived very mach in Gloucestershire. I visited
Iwo repeatedly. I knew that differences had arisen
between Mr. Miller and his wife. 1 hive heard Mr.
M. ipeak of those differences. They were three or
four.years married when they separated. Mrs. Miller
I. ft her heehaw!, hat they were brought together
:.gain by the mutual interference of friends; I have
no mason to know that. Mr., Hawker visited them at
that time; I paid a Wiles' than 1011 f. which was ap-
plied to Mrs. Miller's support when she was absent
ftons her husband ; I cannot say whither this was after
the finest vparatioa ; the tempers of the parties were
not spited ; I do not know that Mr. Miler was a jea-
lous husband ; Mr. Miller never so expressed himself;
I d• sot know to what the differences which arose
were attributable ; I do net think they were occasioned
by jealousy ; I do not know what period elapsed be-
tweet the .fitstand second separation. Ido not know
ate Wee separatlen. How long they were separated
• on the fro' oceasions of wlaieh I do know, I cannot
speak. Mys. Miller newer ',wade an application to me
for . y' to ge sway from her husband. The nioney
I" was apses bill drawn by Mr. Windham:
ittivpii• to the purposes of Mrs. Miller. Mr.
aelti4l4
hal/premilarrAly was visited by ladies as 'well as hypo-
tinisialk.:ll; Mier was preient when blr. Miller took