The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-02-07 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, Fes. 6.
COTINT GARDEN THEATRE.
CONST V. HARRIS.
WS Lordship came into Court with the papers in this case,
on which, after disposing of some other business, he proceeded
to pronounce judgment. The petition, he observed, prayed
the Court to restrain the defendants from applying the funds
of the Theatre to other purposes than those stipulated in the
de, dof 1811, aad that it be referred to the Master to appoint
a t sssss rer to receive the monies arising from the Theatre, and
that the defendants be compelled to perform the covenants of
the deed of 1812, and to make good all sums paid from the
funds otherwise than according to this agreement. His Lord-
ship observed, that the Court could only proceed on this case
as in any other trading partnership. The deed of 1819 had
directed the theatrical funds to be applied first to the current
expenditure, and the residue to the payment of the heavy in-
cumbrances coder which the concern laboured. He never read
any other deed which so immutably and irrevocably fixed the
application of the funds as this deed did. The petition affirms
that part of the funds had been diverted to other purposes,
without his knowledge. This acting without holding a consul-
tation with each of the number of proprietors cannot be justi-
fled ; each oughtlth to be consulted, as each has a right to give
his opinion, al the majority must determine the course.
—The deed of 1822 was of such a nature, as sevetreialaths
of the proptietors cou'd not with propriety execute, without
consulting the holder of the remaining eighth. The covenants
of this latter deed are in opposition to those of 1812.-llis
Lordship will finish to-morrow morning.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEL 6.
THE KING V. THE CORPORATION OP PORTSMOUTH.
Mr. MBREWRATHER moved for a rule to show cause why
a mandamus should not issue to the May or, Aldermen, and
Burgesses of the Corporation of Portsmouth, calling on them
to meet and consider of the non-residence of the Aldermen,
and to remove all such as etioulci appear to be oon-lesi-

dents.
After a statement of some length, and argument thereon, the
opinion of the Judges was then delivered:—
Mr. Justice HOLROYD—But mere non-residence, where there
Is no neglect of duty, is not a violation of the charter, within
the meaning of that observation.
Mr. Justice BevLav—Nothing which the Court does now
Rill preclude from applying again, if those incoveuiences
which you mention shall be continued.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—UnIess you present us with a
real and substantial grievance, or point out a precedent for
your motion, we cannot grant it.—Rule refused.
LIBEL ON TIIE BISHOP OF EXETER.

TES LINO V. THE REAL JOHN BULL.
Mr. Scutum some days since obtained a rule to show
cause why a criminal information should not be filed against
Puvey and another, the Editor and Publisher of the Real
John INU Newspaper, for a libel on the Bishop of Exeter re-
specting the trial of a Clergyman.
The COMMON SERGEANT. this day, was instructed to address
the Court on the subject of the application. His intention was
not to shew cease against the rule, but to throw the defendants
upon the mercy of the Court ; and the Right Reverend Prelate.
The Learned Counsel observed, that the libel appeared on the
2d of November before last Term, yet no application was
made to the Court before the present Term. There was no
reason for the delay. lle had affidavits which their Lordships
might consider worthy some attention, inasmuch as they made
an offer to reprint a statement, denying eny matter which
'might not be true in the former publication.
Lone CHIEF JusTice.—Who is to judge what Is true or not
true?
This COMMON SERGEANT.—They aon't mean to say any part
of it is true, and they offer to make a liberal apology. They
say they will publish a counter statement, and they are ready
to assist the Attorney of the Bishop in finding out who the real
author of the libel is. There is no doubt the real author is the
Clergyman against whom the prosecution commenced In the
Ecclesiastical Court. The writer is a Mr. Brown, who wrote
it from the dictation of the Clergy man. They have given the
hand writing and address to the Bishop.—This man (Nir.
Brown) states that all he wrote was from the dictation of the
Clergyman. Mr. Brown has since absconded, and left a pro-
fitable situation of four guineas per week, and they say he has
absconded to avoid a prosecution. They offer to make the
fullest reparation.
Mr. J sr co BATLEY.—WouId it not be better to let the re-
paration stand over until the rule is disposed of.
Mr. SCAR LETT said it was a most offensive and malignant
Abel. It did not signify who had written it.
The Com vs ON SERGEANT—My clients do not defend it. They
express great regret for the publication, but they do hope,
under these circumstances. that unless the Court should order
It to stand over for the purpose of obtaining redress against
Brown and the Clergyman ; that the Bishop of Exeter will be
satisfied with all the reparation they can make.
•1 do not feel
that 1 havemade out a case to induce your Lordship to die•
charge the rule; but I hope the appeal made to the Bishop of
Exeter, will prevent him from taking further steps in this bu-
siness. The defendants are the least guilty. They leave your
Lordship to dispose of it as you think proper.
Mr. Justice BromEir—Do they state in their affidavit, that
they did not know the contents of the libel?
COMMON SERGEANT—Yes, my Lord.
CHIEF JVSTICE.—The Editor in these cases never knows
the contents.—lt is put into the hands of some other person.
The COMMON SERGEANT—They have done all they can to
make Brown give op the author. lam really appealing to the
humanity of the Bishop of Exeter. Perhaps your Lordship
may think it is better it should stand over. If that should not
he the case, the Bishop has had the opportunity of defending
his character, and he has done it satisfactorily.
Mr. ABRAHAMS said a few words on the same side.
Mr. SCARLETT said the Clergyman who had been mentioned
might have been the author of the libel in a moment of irri-
tation occasioned by the prosecution against him, and in that
view he was more entitled to lenity than the cool, calculating
person, who published it for his own interest.
The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE—The rule must be absolute. What
you do after is another matter. At present the rule must be
absolute.
The rule for filing the information was accordingly made
absolute.

CONSISTORY COURT.—Fat DAT.
.....0....-
WILDET P. WILDtT.

Sir CantsTornita ROBINSON proceded to give judgment
in this case, some of the particulars of which have been
already stated to the public. It was a suit instituted by
Captain Wildey, the husband, against his wife, for ffeorce
by reason of adultery. The parties were married on the
27th of September 1814. The lady's age at that time was
seventeen. They resided together till 1820, when Captain
- IVildey's professioral duties obliged him to quit the society
of his wife for some time, and accompany his regiment,
which was ordered from Wendon in Northamptonshire to
Ireland. Several of the particulars pleaded by Captain
Wildey regarding the lady and her family, had been
struck out, as being of too strong a nature to be
admitted. It further appeared that the plaintiff remained
with his regiment until May 1822, when he returned and
lived with his wife. In consequence. of some quarrel, bow-,
ever, although they lived in the same house, they
were not upon such an understanding as would befit parties
so situated to have. In September, 1822, Captain Wildey
met his friend Mr. Hallett, his army agent, who congratu-
lated him upon the probable accession to his family, after
having stated that he bad previously seen Mrs. Wildey.
The Captain expressed much surprise at the intelligence,
and called into question the truth of it, but Mr. Hallett
stated positively that he had seen Mrs. Wildey in a state Of
pregnancy. The husband immediately found himself
called upon to institute inquiries into the particulars of the
painful communication which bad been made to him, and
in the result, the informotion which he gleaned left him
no doubt of his wife's dishonour. He immediately opened
a correspondence with his solicitor, but shortly after the
discovery of the pregnancy. Mrs. Wildey eloped from her
home, leaving behind her a letter which left no doubt of
bet Olt. There was sufficient evidence to show that
she was afterwards delivered of a full grown child at her
xisothor's house. The evidence showed that no conjugal
intercourse took place between the parties, for the period
of ftirty.eix weeks, and that the husband did nos discover
his wile's preview, until he was informed of it by Mrs

111
7
II
II