High Court Of Delegates, ...
The Times, 1824-06-02T00:00:00

This very long depending suit wasoriginallyinstituted in the Conr sistory Court of Ldondon; so long ago as Hilary Terrm, 1814; and waa pronioted by IjadV Sarah Brisco, against Sir XVastel Brisco. Baronet, her husband, for a divorce arid separstioP by reason of crueltv andl adultery by him committed. In the Consistory Oourt, a variety of liroceedings were had, up to the month:of April,41818; and in the intervening period, Lady Brisco's libe!, chargintfthe facts upon wlichl she prayed a divorce, and an alleguiluin of acu tea, (i. e. of' income and pecuniary means, were brought In by her Lady. shiip's proetor, and admiued. Sir astel (admitting tlne marriage, but other%sise giving a negative issue) brought in b'is answers there. to, and his aerinded aniwers; and alimony " pendeete lite" was alUotted by the Court to Lady Brisco. An allegation was afterwatds brought in on behalf of Sir WVastel Brisco, pleading in bar of tlhis suit, certain acts of adultery alleged tohavebeen.moniitted by Lady Brisco, denting thseeharges contained in her libel and prsvirg a di- vorce ftom Tltr ILadyship. Upon- the libel of LW;. BrIsc&(the sub. stance of which we have several time.s stated) seventeen witltesses were examinned ; and upon this allegation of Sir Wastcl7 thir. teen. The latter was argued at consmderable length, directed to be reformed and subsequently admitted.. Furtherallegations ind answers, and exhibits (letters, &c.) were brought in, andlalinlony was conltillued to LtAdy Brisco. Some of the articles of an allega.. Tion submitted to the Clourt bsy the- proctor fer her ladyship having been rejected, the proctor apnealed thc cause to the Arches' Court of Cauterbury, in April, 1818i In that Oouit preciedibgs ;were con. tinued til June, 1819, 'when, on the 24th of Jiine(Trinity-Term), Mr. Registrar informied the Judge, that he had been rerved withi-an inhibition, un(ler seal of the fligh Court of Delerated, towhiih tri- bunal the cause was' accordingl remitted. Froiii .)uly, 1819 to April, 1820, the principaUsteps that were taken before the wuiole couamission forming this high Court (at Sergeants'-inn), or before the Con.Delegates at Doctors'-comnmons, were,.ti1t on bebalf of' Sir Wastel Brisco a libel of appeal was given ; -nnd on bghatlf of his lay, a negative issue to it; ar.d the whole commission pronnunced- again;st the'appeal from the 'Arches' (which 'was from a fiurther al- lotnent of alimony to the wife during the-suit), and found that the lear:iei Judgeot' that Court had rigbtly proreedcd; but at the pe- iiioin of both parties, they retained -the principal causf, decrecing a monition arainst the husband for paymnent ef costs, and also for3O01. asrrearsof alimony. Thismnonitionbavingissaed, and Sit Wastel not appearing, theJudges Con-Delegates pronouncedbhiit to berontuma- cious; andsuch contemnpt bcingsignifie;, a writ issued agabst gint , b n due course "decontutneacecaspiendo," andifn Mfay,1822;he wasarrested; but in November tbllowing,heappeared in cotir., nd i,lleging th'a lie hadpaid such costsandalmoiy, and cwai read$.tosak4eibr.tsual-oeat to obey the lawful command-of the Court in future, he .wAs absolved from his contempt. The proctor for his-lady then prayyd a fatther monitien against himn for paymentof 5t01. arrears of aliony, which had accrued since April, 1820, when he was pronounted contluma cious. Sir Wastel was heard on his-petition againtsr-this payrMezrt; but on the fist session of Easter Term 1823, the ConrDelegntes as.' sigued him to pav the balance of said o001., lie having in the in- terim paid 2501. on account. A further allegation, exceptive to the predit of witncsses, &c., was this day. offered on the part of Lady Brisco.3 HertLadysbip's counscl, Dr. ARNOLD, Dr. JENNER, and Mlr. KrIGaer were heard in suppoit of this allegation. Dr. PHILLII1O1tE, Dr. LUSHINGTON, and Mr. BtouGuAUS, 'hielCOtwIi1 fP Sir W Thr.BritEi a-ee ~an tunafone hdiktnh;t wth t bctlsann-of tins (Jortj,consented tothi adniissionxof the oll,eg-a iT;;an- th-'t no%v-.st.dijng for.p.f, the causei`s defi nitively 8sl9gned'forheillinfand sentence-itt itnext stage.. 'Rhe.4omnmi4sinf Waw fl1e& b;y Ilr. J.sttceBURIROUrH- Bar'oar GAtRpdir -lr riJhtice BEa, and Drs. DAUBENEY, GosTitnG, D6DSOW, 5ICYVRIaCs and J.'ADDAms. . Ii In ihe course of the proceedings haa in the lower CourLs, it may lbe renselbered, tl:at in .aiguinf.on the pleas exceptive to, thc testimony of witneses, objcctions. werbe taken. to sonie of them as iavs.g formnesly been- thle servants of Sir Wastel and his lady and S5 havhing btenemployed and paid by.Sir-Wastel- afterthe.difier encec between thlem lad fbroken out.~ Into, the substanee of the evi- Aince inddulced on 'either sidc, however; it would be unfair. to enter at all, in ehepcaent -stage of the.procceding, as the statement would ofnecessit'ybe ai4e-parrcone-lie whole of it,. as proved, having never yelbeen fally opf ned in Courts. - We shall, theeteore, reserve the. history of the-case till we hava an opportunity of- reporting the senterice-: but in- the- rnean time the above staecmaet of the course which thcse prolonged.proccedings .have taken, - may.,be found en- tirely necessary to aright puTrehension of-the case. nIGH COURT OF DEl,EGATES. TUESDAY, JTJ?FE 1. BR]ISCO AGAINST BRISCO.