The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-19 00:00:00

TUE TATESMN.

eloocoitorshire.
cers—R. G. Spoddiug, jun. and B. J. Spoddiag, Golden
Heart-wharf, Donate, coal-aserdtaita---T. C. and J.
Dalton, Richooad, Yorkshire, lined-drapers-7A. Bartoot
and' H. Wioscotob, Coisllo:gtisao. Bristol—H. Roaslogton
and B. Sutcliffe, an. Maashoster.warehoossataii—J.
Tlodgkiitson. S. and .111vindrank. sad F. Stead, Lambeth-
hill; Upper Thames-street, wholesale-druggists.

AVERAGE PRICE 01 CORN IN INGLAND AND WALES.
Wheat. bse.44l.—Rye. ilbs. N.—Barley. 265.
I9s. I Id.--Beans, 48s. I Id.—Pease. Ste. Id.
The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com-
puted from the Returns made in the Week ending the 14th
day of November, 1821, is 119 s. I jd. per evrt.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 17.

At half-past one the Judges rose to meet the Judges
of the other Courts in conference upon criminal cases
reserved on the Circuits for the consideration of the
twelve Judges.
The Court this day gave judgment in a case of some
importance as regards auctioneers. The plaintiff in
the case had purchased, at the Auction Mart, one of
tl►e annuities granted under the 56th of the late
King by the Waterloo Bridge Company. The de-
fendant was the auctioneer who sold the annuity
in question. The printed particular only described
the property as an annuity granted by the Com-
pany, and plaintiff purchased it under a supposi-
tion that it was an annuity for life. But after ha►ing
paid his purchase-money, he discovered it was only an
annuity for a term of years, or redeemable at the plea-
. sure of the grantors. Ile then brought his action
against the auctioneer, who, at the trial, contended
that lie was not liable, as he was not hound to give the
purchaser information beyond what the particular con-
veyed, and that it was the duty of the purchaser to
have informed himself of what description the pro-
perty was which he was about to purchase.
The point was reserved for the opinion of tl►e Court.
who now decided, that the auctioneer was hound to
state to the purchaser all the information which lie
possessed, whether required to do so or not, if l►e was
aware that his printed particular was imperfect, other-
wise he would be liable to make good to the purchaser
any loss which he might sustain in consequence of
such information being withheld.—Judgment for the
plaintiff.
In an appeal from the Quarter Sessions of Manches-
ter, the Court confirmed a conviction, finding. the Trus-
tees of the late Duke of Bridgewater's Canal liable to
parochial rates for the duties levied at the locks on :hat
canal.

ARCHES' COURT, Nov. 17.

PASTIER AND PASTIER.
This was a suit of divorce by reason of adultery.
promoted by the husband against his wife. No defence
was set up by Counsel, and a part only of the evidence
was gone into, the Court having previously perused the
whole.—lt appeared from the depositions, that John
Louis Pastier was married to Ann, his wife, in the year
1804 ; and that the parties afterwards lived and co-
habited together at several places, particularly at
Stoney-Stratford, at which latter place the husband set
up the trade of a ,grocer. Proving unfortunate in bu-
siness, he removed to Holton, in the neighbourhood
of London, where he again opened business. From
the continued pressure of his embarrassments, lie en-
listed, in July, 1812, as a soldier, and in December
of the same year he embarked for Iwlia. His wife, by
whom he had. had four children, remained in England.
She had a little provision of her own of 301. a-year,
which was afterwards, by a legacy bequeathed to her
by an uncle, increased to 501. per annum. She went
to reside among her friends in the country, at a
place near Osterbourne, where she was near her rela-
tions. it was proved by the evidence of a Mrs. Mary
Butcher, who with her husband kept an Inn called the
George and Dragon, in the same village, distant about
four miles from Northampton, that when Mrs. Pastier
came to reside In her neighbourh.md, she had
with her four female children; she ,remod to have
no acquaintance in the place, but appeared to
walk about like a lonely and disconsolate woman.
—The same witness deposed that she well
knew Mr. John Brown, since deceased; he had been
in the habit of dining with the deponent and her hus-
band at Towcester; that he afterwards (in 1815)
went to live next door to Mrs. Pastier, of whom she
believed that before that time Brown bad no know-
ledge whatever. That soon afterwards she discovered
that an improper intercourse subsisted between these
parties. But previously, so little did the deponent
suspect Mrs. Pastier of any thing like adultery, that
she imagined her "to be a very different sort of a
woman." One evening, however, in the month of
April, 1815, this deponent and her husband being out
walking, the met upon the turnpike-road the said Ann
Pastier, returning from Towcceter, where she had-
been to see her sisters, and to leave her eldest child'
at school. The deponent observing her to be in tears,
requested to know her cause; and after some beai•
tation Airs. Pastier said, that her sisters had forbidden
her ever to enter their house again. Thts witness,
then demanded the reason of this prohibition, but
without effect, Mrs. Pastier continuing to cry very
bitterly. At length the witness induced her, some
time afterwards, by threatening to leave and forsake
her, at which she appeared munch agitated, to acknow-
ledge that she was three months advanced io preg-
nancy by the said Brown. The deponent then se-
verely reproached her, and asked her, how she could
ever hope fo face leer husband again, when he should
return ? To which she replied, that she' hoped her'
husband never would return from India; thaester
would rather make away with herselt than lie'e hiw
again; she also tandidly acknowledged, thatllionoti
was the father of the child with which she wits preg-
nant, and that she loved hint infinitely more dearly
than she loved her husband. In the month 'of
teumber, 1815, Mrs. Pastier was delivered ofd female
child; and the entry of the baptism on the eiskeli re-
gister stated it to be an illegitimate child. thelrt
a variety of other evidence to a fey!' sPiclialli4lll,
which were noticed by the Court in its jiidgnittit..
Sir Jinx Nictiou. said, that had he. lot cdreinlly
teed over the whole of the evidence ih did ease
bins-
self, he should have thought it Cartier' of atitr 'that
it should now be read by counsel t nitif smite' Weoislly
as if always behoved die liolirt acting fot tlil interest
of the !Milk; tliseetridence in eases tost
sot leo admitiedi but4peta. godd net!' ;
bet *alike Conrt halt *Went. tEird-;ii,fitttAili Ifol
eite i F Li

savy that counsei-eftiudd he put to the trouble of for-
mally repeating it. ' The. tut of marliatb tad cObabl L
union was proved in the *Mal way: the fact Of the
husliand's enlisting, and embarking as a soldier' for
Witt in December. 1812, and. of his arrival out, iw
May, 1813. was amply proved by the evidence of com-
rades who accompanied him on his voyage, or joined
him at his destination. The arrival of the husband
Is England again, in 1917. was -equally established,
so that this party was clearly proved to have been ab-
sent oat of the kingdom during the years 1813. 1814,
1815. and 1816. On the other hand, it was in proof
that the wife, with the four children which she had
had by her husband, remained all this time in Eng-
land ; that during her residence at Osterborne, in the
month of September, 1815, she was delivered of a fe-
male child. But it being shown that here was a phr
sisal impossibility of the husband's being the father of
that child ; here was therefore demonstrative proof of
the wife's adultery. Now upon the husband's coming
back in 1817, and being informed by his sister of Mrs.
Pastier's infidelity, he did not return to cohabit with
her. Neither, indeed, did he immediately institute a
suit against her, but that arose from his want of the
pecuniary means. He called twice, it appeared, at the
wife'. house ; but the Court thought it was clearly
proved that no connexion was renewed between them
on either of those occasions; and that it was proved
that the husband called merely to inquire after the
sister. Besides, he remained no longer than an hour
on either occasion ; and, under all the circumstances,l
the Court saw nothing improper to impute to him.
But it seemed that in 1820 Mrs. Pastier was delivered
of a second child, the father of which was a butcher in
her neighbourhood; Brown, the father of her former
illegitimate child, having died in January, 1816. Now
the case being so perfectly clear as a case of unques-
tionable adultery on the facts, and the Court holding
those facts to be entirely made out in evidence, felt
itself bound to pronounce the sentence of separation as
prayed.