The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-11-17 00:00:00

THE .S'I'ATE,SIAN.

master and slave was rot universal, but that of father
and son, of legitimate and bastard, of married and
single, was so. Ho next contended, that the com-
petent sentence in the ticotcts Court, acting in rose,.
and not between parties personally, was conclusive
evidence unless impeached ; and was proceeding to
rely upon Lothian r. Benderson, 3 Boa. end Put.
499; Ogden V. Foiliott, 3 T. R. 720, &c. !hen
Lord Itte.emsostoueu said, there waiLsio doubt of
the peened principle. he would thereby prove. The
(;netts had i)iten been under the painful necessity of
adopting foreign condemnations of vessels.
Mr. Ileut.ou.tm then quoted the King v. Vincent,
1 titfatiy, 481, n hick was forgery of a seaman4l nil!
alto persolialty, a ;el in which the produced probate
was held conclusive evidence ;_ but
Mr. Justice CHAMBRE said, that case had• been
over-ruled.
Mr. BROUGHAM then proceeded in the case of the
Duchess of Kingston. To hold a sentence of an Ec-
cleciastical Court not conclusive, would be to say,
at ;allies are not to be bound by the law of the
• u.ftry %%here they reside, but by the law where
the sentence comes after wards to be incidental.- In
g tato case, the Cliaticellor had extended liis juris-
diction over realty to the isle of Sark, not ire rem,
but by his power over the person. Would It pot,
be monstrous that an action should be brought
that is and for obeying the.Chaucellor's decree? lit
the case of Lord belmore, there was an English Act
of Parliament to dissolve an Irish marriage before
the Union, and when Ireland had a separate Legis-
lature, whicii could have granted the same relief.—
The last case which Mr. Brougham quoted, Was that
of Gaiter v. Lady Lanesborough, Yeake's
' Prins, 17, ip ‘ltich the Defendant otirre l to move
' that her husband, John King, being a-"Je.v,, and ids
• former wife a Jewess, they were divteeced.at Leg-
horn, according to the rights dud customs of the
Jews there, and that after such divorce it was com-
petent to either party to marry again : to prove the
divorce an instrument was produced under the seal
of the Synagogue there; but Lord Kenyon held
that before he could take notice of any proceeding
' a foreign Court, ite,must kuow the law of the cowl-
! try, u hick must be proved in evidence by witnesses :
Kine's former wife was then permitted to give parole
evidence of her own divorce at Leghorn, according
to the custom of the Jews there; and upon this the
Defendant had a verdict.

Mr. Baulk:aAm's argument lasted three hours;
and

Mr. LITTI.EDALE, contra, will be heard on Sa-
turday next.

•
COURT OF CIWICERY, Nov 16.

111.1104AILKET THEATItE.--MORRIS V. COLMAN.

This cause, which stood for judgment this day,
being called on in course, the LORD CHANCELLOR
enquired whether any further evidence had appeared
now, in addition to that i.roduced before the Master,
by Mr. Colman ; and being answert.d- in the nega-
tive by Mr. HART, the leading Counsel for the De-
fendant, his Lordship stated that he should give his
final judgment on the exception in question on
Wed-
nesday neat.

CotiltT OF KINCFS BEN cil,w EsTMINSTER, Nov. 16.
Mr. Justice Grose was the only Judge of this
Court that attended this day, and he wits occupied
from soon after nine o'clock in the morning till near
four in the afternoon in hearing the justifications
Of hail. fl.e number of bail to justify this Term is
almost unprecedented; it. is said justification is to
take place, as of this Terni, in more than one
thousand actions.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Not. 16.
Sittings,* at Nisi Prins, brfp";-e Lord Chief Justice
31.1NsfirLo.
ROBINSON U. BIRCH AND HEYGITE.

This was an action brought ugainst the late Sheriff
of hliddleses, nominally, but really against one of
their otficers for au escape, under the following
circumstances :—A person of the name of Appleyard,
who kept a shop in Queen Anne-street, Wimpole-
street; and was represented as exercising the different
employments of stationer, publican, and builder, bee
came indebted to William Stothart, in the sum of
s(il. 4s. for business done by the latter as a surveyor,
for which sum Appleyard accepted a bill, which was ,
discounted by the Plaintiff, who is an attorney, and
who (upon non-payment of the bill) arrested'Apple- •
yard on an action of mesne process ; but the Sheriff's '
;•ollicer who executed the writ, having delivered. over
his prisoner to his brother officer, and taken a re-
•ceipt from him, neglected procuring a bail-bond, or
putting in above, from. which neglect an escape en-
sued, and the present action was brought against the
Sheriff's °dicer to recover the amount of the bill,
which was lost by his neglect.
Lard Chief Justice hItNSFIELD, in his charge,
animadverted on the culpable conduct of Skerilfs'
officers in this and similar cases, by which creditors
were deprived of the benefit of those legal• remedies
by which they sought to recover their just debts,
and the Jury immediately returned a verdict for the
Plaintiff—Damages 561. I4s.

There were but three other causes tried, which
were wholly devoid of interest.

...,..