Consistory Court of the Bishop of London; and the same having been affirmed on appeal by the Court of Arches, a further appeal was in due time tendered by Mrs. Copley to the Court of Delegates, to which a caveat had been entered on the part of Mr. Copley. Whereupon the counsel in attendance at the Bar were directed to withdraw, and it was ordered that the further consideration of the bill should be adjourned for two months: The case is not again mentioned in the Session of 1749; but in the following Session the proceedings were resumed, upon a petition on behalf of Mr. Copley, setting forth that his agent had made diligent inquiry after Mrs. Copley, and was informed, and believed, that she was then in Italy, or elsewhere beyond the seas, and praying that service of the order for the second reading, with a copy of the said bill on Mr. Elisha Biscoe, her trustee and agent, should be deemed effectual notice; and thereupon an affidavit of George Finch, of the truth of the allegations in the said petition, being read; it was ordered that service of the order on the said Biscoe, and leaving an attested copy of the said bill with him, be deemed good service.

One of the witnesses examined in Doctors' Commons having died, -her death was proved at the bar of the House by her husband, whereupon the Registrar of the Ecclesiastical Court produced the original book containing the sentence of divorce, and the deposition of the deceased witness, which last, at the desire of the petitioners, was read ('), giving a very full account of Mrs. Copley's indecent familiarities and criminal conversation with one Perkins, the adulterer, against whom a verdict at law had been recovered by Mr. Copley, though for what amount of damages does not appear from the Journals. The bill passed.

(i) In Mr. Wiguelin's, Session 1839, Lucy Parsons, an old woman in a dangerous state of health, being a material witness on behalf of the petitioner in the suit of divorce a mensa et thoro, the Ecclesiastical Court granted a requisition for her examination by an official examiner, who accordingly took her examination. She died soon after. The

petitioner brought his bill in Parliament for divorce a rinculo, and with the view of making the deposition of Lucy Parsons' evidence, her daughter was called, who proved her death, and the official examiner, who proved the examination. See Captain Edwards' case, infra, p. 583.

PP

CAPTAIN MOREAU'S CASE.-SESSION 1755.

Husband ordered to pay 201., to enable Wife to conduct her defence.-Marriage in 1737 admitted.—Husband goes abroad in 1739, leaving Wife and Child in great pecuniary distress.-Absent ten years.-Adultery_proved.-But it appearing that the Wife had written many letters to her Husband without effect, that she had made various inquiries, but could collect no intelligence regarding him,-that his Relatives believed him to be dead, and had gone into mourning for him ;—and, finally, upon production of Articles of Agreement, tending to show that the Sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court had been procured by collusion,-the Bill was rejected.

THE bill having been read a first time, a petition from Mrs. Susannah Moreau was presented and read, praying, in regard of her low circumstances and want of money, that their Lordships would be pleased to direct her husband to pay to the petitioner such sum of money to fee counsel and solicitors to make her defence against the said bill, as to their Lordships should seem meet. And thereupon an entry in the Journal of the 8th and 9th March, 1733, upon a petition of Dame Lettice Rudd of the like nature was read, and the agents on both sides were called in and heard at the bar; and being withdrawn, it was ordered that the said David Moreau do forthwith pay to Mrs. Moreau 207. to enable her to make her defence against the said bill.

On the order of the day for the second reading of the bill, counsel on both sides were called in; the bill was read a second time; and Mr. Forrester, counsel for the bill, was heard in order to make out the allegations thereof, and called a witness to prove the marriage, but Mr. Whitaker, counsel for Mrs. Moreau, admitted the marriage in 1737; whereupon the said witness was directed to withdraw. The entry in the Journal proceeds then to state that Captain Joseph Teyrac was called in, and on being sworn and examined as to the time of the said David Moreau's going to Minorca, and how long he had continued there; the witness gave the House an account that the said David Moreau came to Minorca in the year 1739, and that he continued there till the year 1745, when he, the witness, went to Gibraltar, and did not return to Minorca till 1745; that he found Mr. Moreau there upon his return, and he believed he had been there all the time between 1745 and 1749, except going once to Marseilles, where he did not stay long; that he had received several letters from him in that time, and that he did not return to England till the year 1749. Cross-examined by the counsel against the bill, as to Mr. Moreau's having been reputed to be married, and

as to his circumstances when he was at Minorca, and his having a considerable fortune come to him since he left that place. The witness stated that it was generally understood that he was a married man; that when he came first to Minorca he carried arms as a volunteer, and was afterwards made an ensign; that since he left Minorca he had had a considerable fortune by the death of his mother to the amount of 10,0007., as he had heard.

Then Ann Spackman was called in, and being sworn, was examined as to Mrs. Moreau's living in a course of adultery with one George Smedley, a harness-maker, and gave an account that she knew the said George Smedley and Mrs. Moreau for five or six years, and that they lived together as man and wife, and that she has often seen them in bed together. Cross-examined by the counsel against the bill, as to Mr. Moreau's being reported to be dead; stated that Mrs. Moreau went by the name of Smedley, and told witness that her husband, Mr. Moreau, was dead; that she had written to him as many letters as her apron would hold, and never received any answer; and that she had made inquiry after him several times at the War Office, but could hear nothing of him and that it was reported he died about two years after he went abroad, and that his father and mother went in mourning for him.

;

Then William Rachel was called in and sworn, and produced a copy of an entry in the register book of the parish of Saint Martin in the Fields, of Sarah Smedley, daughter of George and Susannah Smedley, baptized in November, 1742, and having proved it to be a true copy, the same was read. Isabel Brown was next called, and being sworn and examined, gave an account of the said George Smedley, and the said Susannah, lodging at her house about eleven or twelve years previously, and that they lived together as man and wife, and lay in the same bed; that she had often seen them in bed together, and that the said Susannah was delivered of a daughter called Sarah, while she lodged with her. Several other witnesses gave the like account of their living together as man and wife.

Then William Shelton was called in and sworn, and produced the original definitive sentence of divorce in the Consistory Court of the Bishop of London, and the same was read. Then Mr. Whitaker was heard against the bill on behalf of Mrs. Moreau, and called Sarah Speed, her sister, who being sworn, was examined as to the condition in which the said David Moreau had left the said Susannah when he went abroad, and gave an account that he left her in very

great distress, with a child, and that her mother took care of the child as long as she lived; that her sister went to service, and was in service about five years, and that she wrote several letters to Mr. Moreau, but never received any answer from him; that it was reported he was dead, and his father went into mourning for him. Hannah Bent, another sister of the said Susannah, was called in and gave the like account of the distress in which Mrs. Moreau was left by the said David Moreau.

Then, in order to prove that the definitive sentence of divorce in the Ecclesiastical Court had been obtained by collusion between the parties,―certain articles of agreement entered into between the said George Smedley, the said Mrs. Moreau, and Esther Moreau, mother of the said David Moreau, were produced, with an endorsement on the back of the said articles signed by the said David Moreau, ratifying and confirming the same on his part, and William Tyrell, one of the subscribing witnesses to the said articles, was called in, and being sworn at the bar, proved the execution of the said articles by the said George Smedley, the said Susannah, and the said Esther Moreau; and John Guillum, one of the subscribing witnesses to the endorsement, was called in, and being sworn at the bar, proved the said David Moreau's signing the said endorsement, and then he withdrew, and the said articles of agreement bearing date the 3rd day of May, 1749, and the said endorsement signed by the said David Moreau, dated the 23rd day of April, 1750, was read, and Mr. Forrester, counsel for the bill, having been heard in reply, the counsel were directed to withdraw, and it being moved that the said bill be rejected, the same was agreed to accordingly. Ordered that the said bill be rejected.

MR. HOPE WEIR'S CASE.-SESSION 1757.

No evidence of Adultery with any particular person,-but birth of a Child under circumstances which made it impossible it could be the Husband's.

In this case, although there was no evidence of adultery committed with any particular person, it was proved that the husband had gone abroad on the 20th September, 1754, leaving his wife, Lady Anne Hope Weir, in England; and that he did not return till the 31st May, 1756; while it also appeared in evidence, that

Lady Anne was on the 9th October, 1756, delivered of "a very fine child at its full growth," as the record expresses it. The bill passed.

MR. STOTT'S CASE.-SESSION 1766.

The Adulterer unascertained,-but proof of birth of a Child under circumstances which made it impossible it could be the Husband's.

UPON proof that the husband had sailed from England on the 17th February, 1758, for America, and that he continued in America till the 14th October, 1759, his wife, who had remained in this country during all that time, having been, in June 1759, delivered of a daughter;—the bill passed, although there was no evidence to show who was the adulterer.

DUKE OF GRAFTON'S CASE.-SESSION 1769.

King's Consent.-French woman examined through an interpreter.—Wife's assent to her provision under the Bill.

WITH reference to this bill, there is a memorandum in the Lords' Journals stating, that the King assented, in so far as his Majesty's interest was concerned, that the House might proceed therein as they should think proper. A French maid was examined by a sworn interpreter; and a judgment at law, and a sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court was delivered in. Mr. Murphy, counsel for the duchess, stated that he was authorised to give her grace's consent to the provision made for her by the bill; which passed.

SIR JOHN COLLETON'S CASE.-SESSION 1772.

No evidence of Adultery with any particular person,-but birth of a Child under circumstances which made it impossible it could be the Husband's.

THE bill passed, although there was no verdict at law, and no evidence of adultery with any particular person. But it was proved that the husband was from the year 1767 till September 1769, in South Carolina; during which period Lady Colleton remained constantly in England; and on the 21st February, 1769, was delivered of a son. The bill passed.