Consistory Court, Friday,...
in tilts cause, an application -as to-day made to the Court ntnder very special circumstasces. It should be premised that thi4 suit was brought by the MaaqUis against his 51archioness, to compel a restitution of conjigal riKlhts, her ladvship havitig sometime since S,eparated herself trom his society. e1o that suit, whvich was insti- tited in ERster Ternm, 182'1, her I,advship has offered two defences in the way of bar ; tho first being comprised in an aliegation. dated November, 1821, wherein cettaiin acts of cruelty are pleade3 as against his lordship; the second being sup plied in another aIle. gation, alBogiven in on herbehalf, eated the27th of November, 1822, and charging him with having, since their marriage, committed an adultery with one Ann Connell,otherwisc Keogh,andlother persons. In February, 1824, Lord Westmeath furnished a very long allega- tion respotisive to thesechiarges, and pleading, among other matters, that Lady Westmeath had giver, certain instructions to a solicitor, Mr. Bernard Maguire, to endeavour to procute evidence in order to substantiate a (;harge of adultery against his Lordship ; and that Alaguire had, accordingly, employed several persons upon the same objeet; the exhibits annexed to this allegation, (dated the 20th of February, 1824,) which exhibits were miarked A, B C, D, B, F, anid (;, being the correspondence thiat had taken place between some eI the parties so employed. This day Drs. JENNER and PHItLLtSIoRE tioved the Judge that he would be pleased, upon an affidavit made by theMost Noble the illarquis of Westmeath, to comply with the request therein containi- ed. (This affidavit was read by the learned counsel; and, in addi. tion to the preceding matters, set forth, that his lordship had prefer- red a bill of indictment in Dublin, against Antic Connell otherwvise E;eogh, John Alonaghin. Edward Bennett, and Patriek Merley; also against William lAl'ilenzle, and Bernard Mlagnire, " for a eon. spiracy to support the oharge of adultery," alleged by the Mlarchio- ness against the Mlarquis, by corrupt means and false oaths; that this bill had been found by the Gran-d Jury; and that the indict. ment would be trled in the Coutt of Ringjeoetbl. Dtblin, Oe, the Ist of Jatuary next; wherefore the noble deonest prayed thbat the seven exhibits, so marked from A to G, and by himtnnexed to his allegaftow, might baedelivered out of the registryp and attended with in Duislin, on the day of sucb trial, whien it wotlid be necessary fqo this Coursr7 officer to produce them. tDrs. LuiesNetGow and J.ADDAtss, onlbehalfoffthelffirchloness of WVestmeath.prayel the Court to reject thi. application. The Court would remember ehatpuhlicationhndnotyetbeenedecrecd and it had eversshown the greatestjealousy in openingevideticeatallbeforetlhat kinm of decree had been made in the casm. I support of this principle, the learned counsel relied on a irCeat variety of cases particularly thiat well-known one of "Varelst and Varelst,' and the moremodern onel of 11$aph and Atkinson," in the Preroga tive Court, 1822-3 and " the County Fire-office and Thomas Thurtell, 1823." tn all these, courts of law, pending the trial of one issuc, had been altogether indisposed to let the evidence taken upDn it be adduced upon questio^ns to be determined in anotlter issue. This Court was now asked by Lord lVestmeath 'icxgratia,' to order its officer to attend with these papers iuanothercourt. Now, the counsel defied their learned friends to produce anr precedent in which the Court had acceded to such a request. The object of thc present one was to get rid, by a side-wind, of the evidence ef these witnesses; for, if his Lordship should succeed before another tri- bunal, in obtaining a verdiet of perjury against them, they would be disquialiiied from giving their testimony here. Ag to the possible importance of the issue to be tried at Dublin to the issue to be tried in this Coart, Lord Westmeath, by contesting the suit negatively, had already pledged himself todisprove and falSlfy the averments of these individuals. But his LIordship was surely not entitled to pro. ceed against the Alarchioness at one aad the same time in a civil and a criminal cause, as he wvould thus be most unjuttly doing if the Court listened to his application. Dr. JEUNrER was not at all surprised at the loud tone in which his learned friends had complained of the possible injustice that might be done to the Alarchioness of Westmeath by the Court's granting the prayer of thisaffidavit; because,a% Dr.J. Addanis hadremsrked, should a verdict of perjury be recorded in another court against the several parties connected with the *rriting of these exhibits, it was very true tlhat ,ll credit to them as witnesses would be done away with in this.. The ornly dif1crence, holvevIrl betweenh the numerqus c2aes cited by hir learned friends and the present proeediog a.'i that (as was admitted by his learned friendi) Irr thoe caseg the officers of this couTt had, indeed attended before other jurishictions with evidence and documents taken in this; but then they had heen served with suprxnas ao to give their attendance with the paperst whereas, in this instance, the application veas for the So\Trt tesine t its of eers to attend with the exhibits In 4ub)ln. Bit Titd.uifqtunately perhaps, for the Marquis of.Westmeath-it did so happen, that this crime of perury was charged to have been committed, and must, therefore, be tried, in Ireland. Unfertunately, but very clearly, also the process of diE Irish courts would not run into the courts of England; and no sepwena could be servedl by them on any officer of the latter to compel his appearance in his official capacity before thq f'ormer. Under all the circumstnces of thiA ese, tlherefqre, and seeing how much the interests of justice reqaired it, thiii motion, it would appear, ought to be granted " e.x debilojtu4itifi." The learneil counsel denied, moreover,tbat for the Court to do as pr4ypd would be, in a prejudicial and irregular way, 4tr oMnh theevidence on hehlif of one -arty befpre it to the other, nnteriorly to publication. These exhibits, A to G, had been annexed to Lord Westmeath's allegation, which was a plea publicly propounded. They did not stand on the same principles as exhibits annexed to interrogatories. The ce of "Varelst anti Varelst," that had becn relied on by his Ilearned friends was scarcely in any respect differenit from this; but he was himself in possession of a case, entitled " Walker v. Hockins," originally in the Prerogative Court about 18 or 19 years ago, in which an in, dictment of this sort was preferred against the eNecutwr, setting un the will, together with the two subscribe4 witnesses thereto, and carried before Lord3 Ellenborough. Met that Indletment in the cri. mlZnal court was pending the proceedings in this. Sir CsrrstrsoprrEn RoustNsoN asked what attendance was given in thnt case ? Dr. JENNEn repliecl, that there the depositions were attended with. Now, as to the prejudice which it was contended that fAady Westmeath might sustain by (delivering thesepapersout, it was evi- dent that had lord Westmeatll retained them in his own possession, instead of annexing thent to his allegation, he wou;ld hiniself have pro(luced them on the trial in Dublin. But suppose, again, thet that trial had taken place before the cause in this Court was heard, or the roceedings firther continued, precisely the samne effict would gave been produced upon the suit instituted here, as it was now argued, must be experienced by the production of the papers in Dublin, afterhaving been so annexed to an allegation. With respect to the objections as to the del;y of decreeing publication, and thc consequent. uaner in which the credit and the character of wit- niesses enight be placed, lie (Dr. .Jenner) was willing to pray publi. cation some days b?f:ore the urial term of the assignation ; but he did hope that the Court vould not refuse to his client the reasonable request now preferred by him. Dr. PHIerLLMoRE, on thesanneside, was sure thattlieCortvwould reardily believe that neither his learned friend nor himself had antici- pated the objections which had been offered to their motion * and now that thoscobjections had been urged, he was very certain that the Court would attach no manner of weight to themu. If Lady Westmeath felt confident or assured of the truth and justice of ber cause, what Possible objection couldl slw entertaill to the production of these exhibits on the forthcoming trial?-to having the merits of that cause, in short, sifted to the bottom ? Sir CHRIsToPnEt RoneNsoN having stated the grounds upon whicn the interests of Justice, ard the desire that this Court must always feel to forward them, required that the papers in question should be produced in Dublin, directed the Registrar to attend with thicm in tile Court of King's Bench in that city at the stated titne. ORiME AND ORtHE. This was a suit tor restitution of conjugal riglhts, promoted by Mlargaret, the wife of Robert Orme, Esq., of this city, against her hus- banid. Dr. LtJs,IINGTO2 stated the substance of the libel; which, after reciting that the parties had been rnarried for a great many years, had had eight children, and had resided (luring a considerable pe- riod in the East Indies, from whence mrs. Orme returned to En land a little time before her husband, charged, that that gentle. man had, for some tinie past, denied herall access to his bed, as- signed her a distant part of his house for her residerce, and scarcely allowed her the common necessaries of life. Dr. ARNOLD and Dr. ADAMS oppqsed the libel; and contended that as no cruelty or adultery were charged against Air. Orme, so there was no foundation for a slit of restitution of conjugal rights. In " Forster and Forster," the Court's, noble and learned predecessor had decided that he could not compel the husband to perform his duty to his wit;, as regarded the conditions upon which their intercourse with each other might be regulated. So neither could the Court hope to do so in this instance. The gist of all suits of this kind was the removal of the one party front the home of the other; but the &ourt could not attempt to compel marital commu. nication abstractedly froni cohabitation. Dr. LUSetsNGTox replied ; and The COURT, UpOn the review of the case, dlismissed and rejected the libel. TILE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROitMOTED BY nUSTAN ADAMS.3 AGAINST G. S. CLARICE, D.D., &C. This aged and unfortunate defedlant htas again come under the cognizance of the Court; several articles being exhibited against him by the churchwarden of Much Waltham, otherwise Great WValtham, charging hitm with disrespectful and irreverent conduct, in refusing to comply with a desire expressed in the letter of the Lord Bishop of London to him, that he would give up the key-of his churlc to the curate nominatedl by lis Lordship, at a stipend ef 901. a year to officiate during the Doctor's term of suspension, &c. It was articled andl objected againsthim,thathe refused toallowbap- tisms or marriages to be celebrated on any days but Sundays or holydays; that he took away some of the sacramental wine,alleging that he had fui rnished and had never been paidl for the same; that he attempted to seize and poclket the mnoney collected in the offertory after servicc, and amounting to betweeni lli. and 16s3.; that lie fre- quented houses inhabited by common prostitutes, &c. Dr. SWVADEY opened She case ; and Sir (CelRttsTOPtezt RoahNsoeI said lie would give judgment on a future Court day. Sl1ITII V. SMIITHt. iMIr. Smith having been heard to-day on hiis own behalf, The COURT allotted alilnony to his wife "c pewde;nte lite," at and after thie rate of 301. per annum. I CONSISTORY CO1TRiT V.n Tbs- X TUE MARQUIs OF WESTMEATH AGAINST THE 9LARCHIONESS OF WESTMEATH.