Consistory Court, Saturda...
The Times, 1824-11-15T00:00:00

~. .,. ~ w~a trasactegl to.stay. In the ca-se of regg andl Gegg,"hic'hhas buesetn aso recpeatedly before our readerq, the Court rejected an applicaton that had been matle an the behalf ?f Mrs. Gregg; snd tile efect of which would have been to delay the final adjuojeation of thc cause (which is one of restitution of con- .4pgal rights, promotedby the husband, an Irishman, against his lady.) &he cause now ataadsassigncd for sentence. SMITH AGAINST 931IThI. This is a suit of separation and divorce by reason of cruelty and adultcry, Instituted by STrs. Smith against her husbaid, V. H. Carmichael Srmith2 Egg., To-day Mr. Smith Appeared at the bar, with a variety of papers in his hand, and entered upen a long buCunconnected and-incohe. rent address to the Court. He complained of the extravagance of his wife-of her insanity, which he offered to demonstrate to the Satisfaction of the Court-of the cruelty with which she and her fihends bad behaved tohim in bringing this suit-of the advantage that had been taken of his unfortunate illness, occasioned some time Rir.ce bye faU from his horse, which _produced a concussion of the brain-of the heavy pecuniary losses they had subjected.him to-of a conspiracv aniorgst several persons to imrpute unsoundness of bIind to hiin, and another conspiracv to oust bim out of a situation ?f 6001.syear, which he had forerly enjoyed under Government. lie was bappy to state, however, that in this latter respect t)overn. bient wre dnSposed to redress his grievances and dohimjusticep Mlr. Snith tben enlarged upen a wFonderfisi vaRiety of other compLaints ,that hebad to preferto this Court. Elis incomc was now about 12tL a year; yeS bis wife had ju6t hired a house near St. James's street for whichsl.e w:as to pay2'O0. per annum; and whticl was to be Fhrnlshied for the reception of male and female boarders. Sir Cnfl5STOPIIER Ron90sox remonstrated with him on the cxtreme irregularity of thl course he was pursuing. All these were na ters to which the Goutt coul- not be made any party. MIr. Smith must be guided by the advice of his counsel. iMr. Smith stcemed by no means disposed to concur in this view of the case; for he then launehed into fresh matters of grievance. Ile ha(d been misled, and wrongly advised by counsel, and the case had been shamefilly delayet antI neglectel by proctors. Ile nor asp peared to take the case out of his proctor's hands. Thegentleman in question observed, that the Court would, or course, confera great favour uponlihin, l)y relieving him from the contdict of Mr. Smith's interests in the suit; but he begged to obh serve that no rerson could linve been better or more conisiderately adlvisedtl than Aar. Smnithi had been by the counsel alluded to. Mr. Smith then vehementlv attacked the other proctor, (the geli. tleman concerned forthe lady), wio war sounfoitunate eas to observe " that he hoped the Court wouldi permit the cause to proceed tvith. out any delay." Mllr. Smith asked, whether it was for that gentle- mda to talk of tlelay, and whether he antl the proctor on the other side would like him ter. Smith) to explain to the Court what their conduct had been? No objection was offered liv cithier of th6.e gentlemen to the pro. posal' but the Judge again hnterposed, and sail, that it was impos- sible r the Court to allow its time to be occupied in this, irregular nmanner. If Mr. Smithi revoked Ihis appointment of a proctor, let hlim signify his intention to the Registrar tt once. Mr. Sinith .solicited to know whether it war, competent to an ir- sane person like his wife to exhibit a libel aauinst hitl? In e.omn- mon law he knew it was not competent for sucth mn individual to be a party to a suit. Sir ClIRrSTOtPIER RoBIrsoN- was astonislmedl that Mr. Smith's own good sense did not point out to him the propriety of the course which the Court had recommenledl. The learned Judge addRed, he sincereTy felt for Mr. Smnith's situation; but ibis Court couNi en- terta=n no question abotut the state of Idis wife's iltelleot. If he wanted to havebher insanity legally ascertained, why did he not go before the Lord Chancellor t Mlr. Smith tnaweretl teadily, because a learned ceunset told him that none but people of property could go to that court. (A laugh.) After somne further observations frotm Mlr. Smith, which it woulkl be, perhaps, irregular to report at present, but which lie tlelivered witli much warmth and animation, Sir CTIRJSTOPki-tS Roniqsoq desired thie next cause to be called; Alr, Smith was formally assigned to give an issue to the libel on the next court-day; and shortly afterwards retired. CUgN1bb1A)Sy tUURT, SATURDAY, NOV. 13.