The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-12-08 00:00:00

Counsel as to the jeflof
potties and inn&
We understand
mere witnesses ibis
OEN IRAL wiH reply, and before the sloes of Ardis,.
day the cue will most likely be 494094
The Court did not break op until after 7 o'clock.

CONSISTORY COURT. FILIDATe Dec 7.

OPPICS OP YDS JUDOS P. DII. CLAMS.
Os the sitting of theCond this nsoraing, the a
Defendant being in attendance, the stacks exhibii
against him by Archdescos Weellaston were mad
Dr. Adams.

Them articles set forth the alleged 'malmsey of
the defendant towards the Archdeacon, in refusing
bim admission at the great south door ; as likewise at
the chancel door of the parish church of Great Wal-
tham, Essex, over which the promoter is Archdeacon,
and the defendant Vicar, on Tuesday- the 12th day of
June, 1821, when the promoter, by virtue of his of-
fice, attended at the Spring Visitation, thereby
opposing and obstructing him in the execution of his
datraforesaid. These articles concluded with the
prayer of the promoter, Nat this Court would ad-
judge and punish the defendant as the law dine* ;
and further, that the Court would restrain the de-
fendant fresh the repetition of such offence in future ;
and that he should be directed to pay dm COW of this
suit.
Dr. CLANKS here aerial to read as *diens be the
Court in Latin; but was interrupted by that Jadlts,
who begged to call to his notice the expeiteacy that
the line of defence which the Rev. Defeudant most
to advance, should be cossidered by him, with the
assistance of Counsel, whether his interest was to
make an obstinate defence, or to adopt the milder
course of excuse or apology.
Dr. CLanse—ln other Cowls I have bees misled
by Professional Gentlemen, and therefore I think I
can myself best explain my motive's and feeling to
the Court.

The JuDoz—Be assured yes will not be misled
bete.

Dr. Caagen—Certaialy not; for this is one of the
most learnd Courts is the Kingdom ; and I have only
to say, Sir Christopher, that I meant no disrespect to
the Archdeacon.
Dr. SWAIIET, as Counsel for the Archdeacon, inti-
mated, that as Dr. C. be undertood, was prepared to
deliver in an affirmative issue, the Learned Counsel
was authorised to state, that it was earnestly wished,
on the part of the Archdeacon, that the judgment of
the Court might be as mild as the law would admit
under the following circumstances.
Dr. CLaaaa--Sir Christopher, I beg to plead an
affirmative issue, since it is the wish of both parties the
Court should proceed to sentence.
Sir C. Rontesotr, in pssslag sentence, observed,
the Court should attend to the wish If the pronaolaw,
in pronouncing its judgment with its mach lasing,
as the policy of the law would admit. The offence
charged was undoubtedly one of enormity in a clergy-
man, especially whose duty it was, not only to assists
but invoke assistance to the authority of the Arch-
deacon. The object woe, that the Arelpdeacoit should
insiieet the church, for the.platjeas ARAmishOgiat
repsire were wanting, abd to reitenlyilaMtli siit lea
towards preserving the public propertjaprelb. If
the clergyman refused to afford such it
was not to be expected that parochial pergolas would
do otherwise than follow such example. The Court
would, without going Into the formality of the arti-
cles, suppose that the offence bad in this case pro-
ceeded from error, rather than aurdeliberate disre-
spect to the authority of the Archdeacon. The Court
would content itself (without inquiring into the full
extent of punishment which the policy of the law
awarded in such case) with pronouncing that the de-
fendant be admonished to refrain from committing any
such contempt in future; and that he do fnrther pay
the costs of the present proceeding.

ROTTKII V. COCKLE, PALSKLII CALLING Kin n/

ROTTIN.
This was • nit of nullity of marriage, preowned
by R. T. Rotten., against Sarah Cookie, otherwise
Rotten, his wife, on the ground of minority on his
part, and non-conseut of John Rotten, his father.

The marriage, it appeared, took place at the parish
church of St. Ann's, Westminster, on the 20th of Oct.,

1816, by license, upon the oath of the husband, that be
was then of the age of 21 years, and upwards, whereas it
appeared, by evidence of certificate of baptism, and
other proofs, that he was of the age of 19 years only.
The fact of such marriage having been solemnised
without the knowledge or consent of the said John Rot.
ten, Esq., the father,, and his baying expressed much
grief and displeasure at the same being tommouinated to
him a month after. This was deposed to by the affidavits
of several witnesses, and there being no defence offered
on the part of the wife, the Coart proceeded to peas sen-
tence.
Sir C. Roxixeow observed, this ink a firecaticlig
under the Act of Parliament, which directs, that all par
ties under the age of 21, not being a widow or widower,
who shall marry by license, without cousent of paean! or
other lawful guardian, such marriage shall be null sad
void to all intents and purposes whatsoever. If any
thing appeared to shew, that the party fleeting his re
seedy in the present instance bad been guilty of such

,• _ _
perversion of conduct as to tame advantage of an act of

delibemteperjury on his part, in sweetie* that be was
upwards of2l, the Court would net he restrained from
animadverting in strong terms, on an attempt, which
was contriving- to abuse the law of this country, is
taking advantage of the Act of IParlianment, ao void slut
marring. ; bet such being the law, no part of hie con:
duct, or its being his own act, cOnld Make this marriage
good, from his being a miner, and wanting the consent
of a lawful guardian. Under these ciainntstaaces, blow.
ever, which had bees setiefecturily proved, 'lb* this
marriage bad bees selanntzeefeeatrart the Act of
Parliament, the Court had no altermitilea bet le pee-
pounce suet starellbse null and void..
MAOKD V. atAIIND. •
This was a salt of divorce, brought by
blaitad against her husband, James Maned, by roan
of adultery.
the

_

The evidence Is ease having been read, it
submitted! by Dr. LesatioTou, 'Mewed on the
side by Dr. Deems, that as mpbsitive set of mitt

Coati weelti amidst the mere eir-
ape* which-It-was sought to later
trae htiperfeet sad idialEcieet.

. commented upon the evidence at
esasiderable length. The libel pleaded the matiiage to
have taken place In 1895 ; silica which it described the
hoeitemil SO have lived la one medalled series of adalr
teresseollscourse. It int charged an adulterous inter
comes whit a lady aimed Beaks, at Winchester; but the
piety peometing the any Mad net relied upon that charge,
so he as to examine milieenenspita It, further than a
letter addressed to the defendant, because of the diffi-
culty *high presented . Itself. Beyond an iseereepted
let*, that charge, therefore, was set samtleatly proved.
The libel bolter went en to charge en adulteress an-
wlth a Mrs. Howard, esseaseacing where that
lady ' lodged in North-street, Red Lion-square ; and
wits the sane female afterwards, residing at Heater.
The first account of the business was given by Mrs.
Duncan, thelady's mother, which was, that in 1815, for
the convenience of family arrangements, she, her
daughter, and son-in-law, went to reside at dowries,
where they ;eradiated to live with deponent for son e
time. The husband, it appeared, was a traveller in the
house of his brothers, Maud and Co. of London ; and
although his habits of business would allow of his leav-
ing by four or five, be did not return home till nine or
ten at night ; and on Sunday's he generally absented
himself the whole day. The deponent, in 18'20, in con-
seepseace of an anonymous letter she received, went with
a Mrs. Foster, who accompanied her to No. 19, Craven-
street, Hoxton, where she watched Mr. Matted bone,
and be appeared to knock at the door, as if be was maim
of the house. This was the house is which Mix
Howard lived. Thee then approached the front parlay
window to watch low things went on. They ob-
served the meeting was friendly and kind, but nothieg,
of indecency; it looked like that of a wife re-
ceiving her husband. Mrs. Foster continued longer
than last witness to watch their motions, and corro-
borated her statement, that they appeared as if very
1
fond of each other. She considered the familiarity
between them exactly as that of husband and wife j
but without deposing to any act ofadaltery. Hannah
Brilliant lived servant with Mrs. Howard, who me*
pied the house, and let the first door. There was not
a day that Mr. Maned did not come there. usu-
ally came at four, and stopped till about nine the
evening. On Sunday be came at ten/and %1 eta
did not know bow long he stopped : h lie and she
went to church. Deponent knew the have been
in the bed-room together. He used to re to wash
his bands, whilst her mistress put on ings. De-
ponent never found the bed-room door 1 d but once.
The blinds of the room they used wer sometimes
down: When Mrs. Howard's brother and uncle cause
to see her, Mr. M. used to go out oftbe room, and secret
himself in a room on the second door. She used to
call him her brother, and My Dear!—Had seen
them shake hands, but never saw any improper fend-
daritiesbetween them. Had deponent not thought,
in reality, that he was her brother, she should have
observed their conduct with more suspicion.
Several of the neighbours, occupying premises ad-
jot' _ ___ _ _ _

sing, spoke of familiarities betoien the parties, by
taus of overlooking the parlour Boor; the chief of
*nee wev.., that of sitting on his knee, with her arms
;roilnd his neck, Ind kissing him. The inferential
'conclusion in the minds of other witnesses was, tbst
she must have lived with him on the footing of a her
mistress; but no positive set of adultery was deposed
of llunt bee thus as nireametsedel. evislesen:
The Court, however, upon the whole of the ;Arenas-
stantial evidence disclosed, together with inferential con-
clusions operating on the minds of witnesses, although
matter ofornion, was by no means satisfactory evidence,
yet it was, upon the rules of evidence observed in these
Courts, from the facts disclosed, that such forensic in-
ference (in the place of positive evidence), upon which
the Court would come to the conclusion hat the wife
had established her case sufficiently to br entitled to the
relief prayed. The Court accordingly pronounced for
divorce.

ga1112.141±44.1.4.m..my*"....1.64.61e TIMMArib
Moe of the hao4ll-wathig of thou 1110 bowl 001'4 the COW
a
t lama distetsioo INA SW. ottoshuttisl Odense two*
the 61,240 llamas to cell ahw tho athateroos intercourse
a g, .wises
s noosing, do Soucto Mt e► ltoinssox cons
__ --L--1
. . c._ .___.... 'pc_