The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-11-22 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN

It. bad contracted a loathsome disease; she in consequence,
prayed for the divorce, on the charges of cruelty and adul-
tery.—Sir C. ROBINSON ordered the libel to be admitted.
GRIM V. ono.
In this cause, originally one of restitution of conjagal
rights promoted by the husband against the wife, and to
which the wife has since pleaded the husband's adultery
in bar, a long argument was sustained upon an application
made by the lady's proctor, that the Court would allow
a further delay on decreeing publication, and assigning it
for sentence. The counsel for Mr. Greg opposed this, on the
ground that the suit bad already been depending ever
since the year 1819.
Sir CHRISTOPHER. Romsort finally decreed publication on
the next Court day.
BULB; V. HOLUB. • •
Dr. LUSaINOTON said this was a cause of divorce on the
plea of cruelty and adultery.
• Dr. Jesse ADAMS opposed the application, and read
certain parts of the libel, in which it was stated that the
parties had lived separate three years, and had cohabited
together previous to that time only 13 months. He (Dr.
Adams) could not see what protection the wife could ex-
pect to have, as she had already the protection of the law,
baviog exhibited articles of the peace against her husband,
who was bound in recognizance. of 2001. She pleaded that
her husband had often threatened to beat her, to run her
through with a red hot poker, to stab her, &c., hut these
were only threats and menaces, and net one act of personal
violence proved. It was indeed in evidence, that a nurse
bad come in on one occasion while she was on her knees
imploring her husband to save her life, but on her inter-
ference he desisted, and no violence was done. He (Dr.
Adams) knew that in some cases it was not necessary to
prove actual violence before the party can come into this
Court, but these threats are stated to have occurred fre-
quently, and yet to personal violence was committed.—
The case that approached nearest to the present was Ot.
way v. Otway, where Mrs. Otway swore to repeated threats,
where her husband bad held a pistol to her head, and would
have shot her, bat for the interference of her servants, but
there it was also stated be'spat in her face, pushed the
candle into her face, and on one occasion seized her violent-
ly, by her arms, in the garden, until she was extricated by
the gardener, who beard her screams for assistance ; and yet,
in that cases the prayer was not granted. There was also
a difference of rank between those parties and the parties
now before the Court ; Mrs. Otway was the daughter of a
Baronet, and her husband was possessed of property to the
amount of 5,0001. per annum ; and Mr. Ilulme was only a
Pawnbroker, residing in Stepney. As to the charge of
adultery, it was made in general terms, that he did, soon
after the separation, and does still cohabit with one Mary
Hughes, who passes for his wife ; he (Dr. Adams) contend-
ed that the charge ought not to be made general, but ought
to be particularized.
Dr. LUSHINOTON was beard, at some length, in reply ;
he contended that the charge of cruelty was substantiated,
although no violence was proved, and that it was not neces-
sary to wait until she bad been actually beaten or killed,
before she complained. Neither was it necessary to prove
any individual act of adultery, because it was stated that
Mr Huline has all along cohabited with another *omen.—
Libel admitted.

PALACE coma, FRIDAY, Nor. 21.
J.tCKROY C. NL'TT. • Milt COVIRT.
This was a motion made by Mr. Talisman for a rule
absolute to discharge the defendant, Mrs. Mary Nutt, late
keeper of an extensive hoarding school on Barnes Terrace,
Sorry, but now a risoner of the Palace Court, out of
custody upon filing common hail.
The defendant had been arrested upon a bill of exchange'
of which the plaintiff was the bolder; which said bill was
accepted by the defendant, who was alleged to be known
to the plaintiff as a Ante covert: upon this ground the
motion was made.
Mr. LULA. for thc plaintiff showed cause against the
rule. The Court, he was aware, he said, has jurisdiction
in this case, and it was with the Court, whether, after all
he could say, it would listen to so summary a proceeding
as a motion, or leave the defendant to
.plead hat...cot/enure.
Upon a bill of exchange Diane covert is personating her-
self as a single woman, and sending her writing forth to
the world as such; and he should show that she bad resided
on Barnes Terrace for a series of years, and was not known
by any one as a married woman—not even by the trades-
people who served her, of which he had affidavits. Ueorge
Page swears he has resided in the place for seven years ;
has known the defendant accept a bill of exchange in
general dealing; but never knew she was a married
woman. Au affidavit also of George Cook states he has known
the defendant 3 years, and has been frequently in the habit of
serving her with coals, consequently being backward and for-
ward to the house, but never knew her to be a married woman.
-He (Mr. Erie) thought these circumstances, combined with her
having accepted the b.l', and the plaintiff's affidavit also that
he did not knave her to be a married woman, would negative
the grant of the rule. It was, however, a matter fairly within
the discretion of the Court. Mr. Erie then recited the cases
of Madam Legal, and Barfield against Madam de Polen, fo-
reigners who came here to trade, and having contracted debts,
moved to be discharged as forte coverts, but the Court refused
the uliscilarge. He was aware when he recited these cases that
they were from 30 to 30 years old, and the discretion still re-
mained with the Court; but he did it to show its former prac-
tice: he also held a letter in his hand, wherein the defendant
talked of her debt and her bill, and that If she was confined,
it would only place her in a situation where she would be void
of the means of ever paying. The learned Judge, Burton
Morris, Esq. said, a woman might talk of her debt, or her act
of any sort, and still be a /erne covert, who claimed protection
from the law.
Mr. Tuestoen replied.--Although his learned friend had
brought forward those records, ha had takes the marginal
notes, and not looked into the body of the case ; and even in
the plaintiff s own affidavit, he did not ettempt to deny what
was put at issue on a former occasion—that at the time of this
bill transaction,he asked the defendant whetherMr.Nutt was not
In a good situation, which clearly demonstrated he knew of heo
husband ; and even in his afflfavit, tie altogether evaded this
circumstance. Although the defendant answered. Mr. Nutt
was not—
Theslearned Judge saw the point to which the counsel al-
luded, and was of opiuion the pristine: was entitled to her
discharge.
Rule absolute, with costs.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.---Futroar.
Thomas Kenton was opposed by the Churchwardens oi
Stoneleigh under the following circumstances :—lt appear-
ed that the insolvent had been at a former time one of the
Churchwardens of this parish—at this period be was in-
debted to several of the parishioners; these parishioners
were bound to pay certain parish rates to the insolvent, in
his pa:ochial other; these sums, amounting in into to
i3ll. 9'. I Id., he left in the hands of the creditors, as a set
off against the money due by him to them on his private
account; be subsequently hecain4 31 insolvent: he never
paid this cleliciency to his successors in the office for the
puld:c uses of the parish. Ile farther stated in his
affidavit, that be, while Churchwarden, made payments in
advance on account of the parish, which soup, it was 1
proved. he really never paid.—TheCusimissiostat express-
ed, in very .trong terms, his reprehension at such a per-
version of his Fubdc duties, to the improper and unprinci-
pled prom.ition of his private iut.rest ; it was a flagrant
violation of public trail; and as tie affair rallied to the
parish, he considered- the sum delicient to constitute a
raudelent debt ; he, therefore, felt no hesitation in sending
him hack to confinement, Ni,hin the prison nails, fur the
space of twelve calendar morvhs.
Charles Spencer Clair/hi:l, E.g. commonly called Lord
, Charles Spencer Churchill, ano sued as Lord Charles
, Churchill.
ri Mr. rots.octc rose as Conniel in the above m I.ter, and
I *Served t:sat In had an applicati.,n to tne.lie rclati‘e to the

petitioner,who was opposed by a variety of creditors (whose
names the Court would take down), by his Learned Friend
Mr. Cook. Those creditors principally resided at and near
St. Albin's, and owing to the circumstances under which
the debts were contracted, considerable difficulty had
arisen not only as to amounts. but also as to the actual
persons claiming to be creditors. His application, there-
fore, was, that the Court would grant an extension of time,
and issue a new order for hearing, on payment of costs of
the day.
Mr. Coon did not oppose the application, and the Court
acceded to the prayer of the learned applicant.
George Deane was opposed by Mr. POLLOCK on
behalf of several creditors. The insolvent bad been before
the Court on a former day, when his case was referred to
the provissional assignee of the Court. whose report was
now read, and stated that the insolvent had been examined,
and bad stated that be had been robbed in his house at
Crockleigh. in Wiltshire, on the night of the 6th of June
last, of WI. in country bank notes, and other prorerty, to
the amount of 2301.; and that he had received the hank
notes for cattle he had sold two days before, but could not
name any of the persons by whom they bad been purchased.
The report also stated, that one of the insolvent's creditors
bad made an affidavit containing facts, which added to the
many inconsistencies in the insolvent's answers, made it
highly improbable that lie bad lost the money of which is
said be was robbed.—The Insolvent prayed the Court for
time to answer the affidavits that had been made by his
creditor.—The Coon . said, ample time for that porprse
bad been already given biro, and he had made no use of it;
further time should be allowed him on his undertaking to
pay the costs of the day.—The Insolvent declared he was
unable to pay the costs. The Cotarr said, if be did nut
consent to pay costs, the case roust either go on, or the
order for hearing roust be dismissed.—The tosolveat pre-
ferred the latter alternative, an.: the order for hearing was
in consequence dismissed.
Aurae° Wuaestiox was opposed by Mr. Heath for a
creditor named Day, a saddler, at Ilampstea I.
The Insolvent stated that be was of age in Jane 1321,
when he became eotitledto 1,5001. 8 per cent. stock, which
he sold in the August following for 1,232/. of which lie
gave his father, who is a butcher at Hampstead. 5001. in
gratitude for his having given a very good education.—
The insolvent admitted he co'sll neither read nor write,
but said it was owing to the weakness of his eyes, and not
want of care in his father. On receiving his money in
August 1821, he commenced cattle dealer, and being very
unsuccessful, lost all his money. and the last of his cattle
was sold under distress about 3 months ago.
Mr. Day, the upposin: creditor, stated that the insolvent
borrowed a saddle and bridle from him after lie had
refused to give him any further credit, and never re
turned it.
The COLMT said the Insolvent had certainly obtained
the articles from Mr. Day in a fraudulent manner, and re-
manded him for three months from the date of bis petition.
El:lwatt) PaOngllT was opposed by Mr. Cooke, in behalf
of two creditors, name i Nicholls and Randal.
The Insolvent was a butcher and cow keeper in Cold
Bath Square, for 30 year, and in June 1820, gave bis
brother in law a n arrant of attorney for 5001. which he
then lent the insolvent to assist bins in his business. The
insolvent since paid his brother in lea, 1001. and being
arrested three times in August Fast, the warrant of attorney
was put in force. and all the insolvent's property sold under
it for about 200 t.
The insolvent's opposing creditors both depose,' that they
wod not have given him credit it:td they known be had
given a warrant of attordry; they admitted that the insol-
vent had dealt with them, and made his p iyments in the
same manner after the date of the warrant of attorney
as before.
The COURT said it was evident the insolvent hal not
given the warrant of a,torney fur the purpose of giving an
undee preference, arid ordered hint to be discharged
forthwith.

POLICE.

MANSION 11017811.—•DA8NIN0 SWINDLERS .A gentleman
applied to the Lotto Malmo for a search-warrant for some
very valuable race-horses, which bad been fraudaleutly ob-
tained a short time ago from a man of fortune in 1 ork.
shire. The applicant stated that the fraud had been com-
mitted by a gang of dashing London swindlers, who laid
their plans with great ingenuity. The stud of horses haviog
been advertised, a man of highly respectable appearance
drove from the Metropolis down to Yorkshire in a curt icle
and pair, and looked at the stud. Then went down another
character of the same description, and with the appearance
of being a man of fortune. One of those gentlemen
offered the sum demanded, 1,8001. for the horses, one of
which bad been valued at 5001., and proposed his accept.,
incest° the owner. The references were of the party of
swindlers, and the bills were taken, and the race horses
delivered. It was soon, however, ascertained that the bills
were not worth a farthing; that the drawer and acceptor
had been at the time of committing the fraud insolvent
debtors, in the rules of the Bench, from which it was
believed they had been lately released under the Act, and
that the curricle and apparatus had been hired fur the pug
pose of carrying on the system of plunder, on which those
swindlers—one of whom contracted debts to the enormous
amount of 36,01101. lived. 'the swindlers of course kept
out of the way; but the horses were, it was believed, n him)
the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor.---at least four of them
were known to be st livery in the City ; and a search-war-
tent w..s the only u.eans the applicant could think of for
recovering any part of so valuable a stud.
The LORD AIAYOR, who bad been just before consulting
with the City Solicitor, availed himself of that gentleman si
assistance, expressing. his fear, at the same time, that a
Magistrate could not interfere for the benefit of the lusty of
the horses under such circumstances.
The City Solicitor recommended a prosecution for the
conspiracy, which had been certainly made between the
parties to defraud the owner of the horses; but said the
Lord 51iyor could not assist in punishing the sharpers.
The LoaD Nelms regretted that proper inquiries had not
been made into the characters of the persons who went to
make so large a purchase—an oversight which was indeed
rather peculiar in a gentleman from Yorkshire.
The applicant said, his friend was a man of very large
fortune, and completely imposed upon by the off hand and
II candid maonersof the two swindlers, whom any body might
mistake for gentlemen of honour and opulence. He then
asked the Lord Mayor whether he could seize the Wise*
wherever he should see them ?
The Loan Marva advised him if be saw the the horses
in possession of either of the persons who had a hand in
the bills, to seize them without ceremony; but said that if
the horses had been purchase 1 front them, and weir in the
possession of others, it would be very unsafe to take them
away from that possession. and needless to dispute it.
The applicant said he should follow this advice to the
letter, and thanked his Lordship, who wished that the
swindlers were under his power.
Thomas Sibly, one of Messrs, Whitbread's draytnen, was
charge,' by Mr. Flint, of Fish street hill, with having wil-
fully-drives Lis dray against the small cart of a mats nettled
Clements, overturning the cart, an i thereby endangering
the life of Clements and his chili. Mr. Flir.t described the-
conduct of the draymau as .most barbareuf. As soon as
the fellow saw the cart entangled in his wheel.be said.
• Now I've got you," anticouly observed the cart overturn
ed. Had not the father caught the child in his arms, death
or broken limbs mast lave been the consequence. The
repair of the cart cost 2/.
The Loan Mason said, that lie witnessed every Jay of
his life that the conduct of these drayisieu was of the most
dararerous kind, that they, were regardless of the cobse-
(moon of ;heir curios &alas, sal tact, in tic', they