REV. JOHN JENKINS' CASE.-SESSION 1775.

The evidence of Adultery with the person mentioned in the Preamble of the Bill being insufficient, leave granted to bring in a new Bill charging Adultery with other persons.

Ar the close of the case for the petitioner, his counsel, Mr. Maddock, was asked whether he had any other evidence to prove the adultery; and acquainted the House that he had not, to prove the adultery with Mr. Collins, the alleged adulterer, in the preamble mentioned, but that he could prove that Mrs. Jenkins had committed adultery with other persons. This, however, not being alleged either in the petition for the bill, or in the bill itself, he prayed that the House, if not satisfied with the present evidence, would be pleased to order that Mr. Jenkins might have leave to withdraw this bill, with liberty to present a new one. Leave was accordingly granted, and in the following Session a new bill was presented; in support of which, evidence was adduced, proving adultery not only with Collins, but with several other persons; and the bill passed.

MR. CHISIM'S CASE.-SESSION 1779.

Collusion.-Bill rejected.

THE solicitor for the petitioner was called in, and being sworn, produced and proved an office copy of the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, against Mr. William Greaves for criminal conversation with Mrs. Chisim. Being asked what Mr. Chisim and Mr. Greaves were, he said Mr. Chisim was a drysalter, and Mr. Greaves a man of property. Being asked if he had received the costs of the suit in the Common Pleas, he said he had not, nor had he taken out execution. Being asked if he thought the plaintiff meant to take out an execution, he answered, if the plaintiff were not paid, he thought he would. Being asked why the plaintiff had not demanded them before, he answered, that he believed it was owing to his (witness's) delay in taxing his costs. Being asked who was to pay him his bill and all expenses, he said, a near relation of Mrs. Chisim's, whose name was Roberts. That the said Mr. Roberts was nearly related to Mrs. Chisim, and lived upon his

fortune at Boarshall, in Sussex. Being asked what relation the said Mr. Roberts was to Mrs. Chisim, said he was her father.

Then the witness was asked if any defence was made by Mrs. Chisim in the Ecclesiastical Court? He answered, that counsel attended for both parties; but witnesses were produced on the part of Mr. Chisim only.

The adultery was clearly proved; but the appearances of collusion were too gross and palpable to admit of being overlooked or explained.

On a subsequent day it was moved that the bill be rejected.— Ordered accordingly.

CAPTAIN EDWARDS' CASE.-SESSION 1779.

Husband ordered to pay 307., to enable Wife to conduct her Defence.-Witness examined in the Ecclesiastical Court having died, her Deposition read at the Bar-Adultery proved,-but on production of Bond by the Husband to the Wife, conditioned that she should not unduly oppose the Divorce,—Bill rejected.

THE bill was read a first time on the 2nd of February. On the 26th of the same month, Mrs. Edwards presented a petition, setting forth that from the severe and cruel treatment of her husband, she was in very distressed circumstances, and incapable of raising money for her defence; and therefore praying the House to order her husband to pay her such sum of money as their Lordships should think necessary for that purpose. It was ordered, that the said Thomas Edwards do forthwith pay to the said Judith Edwards 30%, to enable her to make her defence against the said bill.

A verdict at law had been obtained against a Mr. Leigh, for adultery with Mrs. Edwards; but the amount of damages awarded is not stated in the Journals.

In course of the examination of witnesses, Mr. Mansfield, counsel for the bill, acquainted the House, that Elizabeth Hayes, one of those examined in Doctors' Commons, had died since her examination there; and therefore prayed their Lordships to permit her deposition to be read as evidence; and Mr. Price, counsel for the bill, admitting her death, the deposition was read at the bar. (m)

The evidence of adultery in this case was clear; but a bond signed by Captain Edwards was produced, dated the 10th Dec., 1778, securing payment of 457. a year to his wife; who, on the other hand, "conditioned on her part, that she and all those who were or might

(m) See Mr. Copley's and Mr. Wiguelin's cases, supra, p. 577.

become concerned for her in her defence to the said Thomas Edwards' obtaining a divorce, would not give any unnecessary delay in the proceeding thereof, but in all things conform herself and themselves, so as to bring the said suit and proceedings to as speedy an issue as possible; yet, nevertheless, not so as to weaken any real defence that the said Judith might be able to make to the said proceedings, or the said Thomas Edwards' obtaining his said divorce." Upon the effect of this document Mr. Mansfield was heard; and thereupon, the counsel on both sides were directed to withdraw. On a motion that the bill be rejected, the same was agreed to; and it was ordered accordingly.

MR. DOWNES' CASE.-SESSION 1782.

Collusion. House not satisfied that the proceeding was bona fide at the Petitioner's Expense.-Solicitor examined, but refuses to give evidence. The case consequently thrown up by Counsel for Bill.-Bill rejected.

THE House not being satisfied with the evidence that this suit was bona fide carried on at the expense of Mr. Downes, Mr. Hardinge, the counsel for the bill, assured the House, “ upon his honour, that he did then, and did all along, consider himself as counsel for Mr. Downes, and that the suit was carried on at his sole expense; and, therefore, prayed their lordships to adjourn the further proceedings on the bill, until he should be able to prove that this was a bona fide proceeding on the part of Mr. Downes."

Then Mr. Greenland, the solicitor for Mr. Downes, was called to the bar, and refused to be sworn as a witness, claiming the privilege of a solicitor; but said "he had received money from Mr. Downes, who was in Ireland, to carry on this suit, by the hands of a Mr. Howell;" but refused giving any evidence that might prove he was not employed by Mr. Fuller ("). He was ordered to withdraw. Then the House directed the counsel to go on with the rest of the evidence. Whereupon, Mr. Hardinge desired leave of the House to waive calling any further evidence, as after what had fallen from Mr. Greenland, he could not proceed any further in this business consistently with his honour. It was ordered that the bill be rejected.

(") Mr. Fuller was the alleged adulterer.

MR. LEWIS' CASE.-SESSION 1783.

A Letter by Wife to Husband, directed to be delivered on her death, not receivable in evidence.

Ir was moved that a letter from Mrs. Lewis to her husband, and which she had directed the witness to deliver to her husband, in case of her death, should be admitted as evidence. Which being objected to, after debate, the question was put thereupon. It was resolved in the negative.

HON. EDWARD FOLEY'S CASE.-SESSION 1786.

Circumstances under which leave was given to bring in Bill, though beyond the Sessional period limited for that purpose.-Witnesses examined, whether an Appeal from the Ecclesiastical Sentence was merely for delay.-Bill ordered to lie on table till determination of Appeal.

In this case a petition was presented by Mr. Foley, on the 10th March, setting forth that he had obtained a verdict for 25007. damages, against the Earl of Peterborough and Monmouth, for criminal conversation with the Lady Anne Foley, his wife; and that on the 6th instant, he had obtained sentence of divorce a mensa et thoro against her in the Consistory Court of the Bishop of London. The petition further stated, that he had proposed to apply to Parliament for a bill to dissolve his marriage; and should he be deprived of the benefit of the then session, he not being able to make an earlier application, would be greatly injured; and, therefore, praying that leave might be given to present a petition for the above purpose, although the sessional period limited for presenting petitions for private bills was expired (").

An order for leave was granted, and a bill was, accordingly, brought in, entituled, "An Act to Dissolve the Marriage of the Hon. Edward Foley with the Lady Anne Foley, his wife, and to vacate the settlement made upon her, and for making such provision in lieu thereof as should be deemed reasonable."

On the 31st May, 1786, a petition was presented by Lady Anne Foley, setting forth that she had appealed from the sentence of the

(") The sessional order of the House of Lords, limiting the period for the presentation of petitions for private

bills, does not, I believe, now apply to divorce bills; petitions for which may be presented at any period of the session.

Consistory Court, to the Court of Arches; and that she was advised, that until such suit was finally determined, no proceeding could be had on the said bill; and, therefore, praying their Lordships that she might have such relief on the premises as to their Lordships might seem just. On the 5th June, the agents and proctors on both sides were called in and heard touching the merits of the appeal depending in the Court of Arches, and whether the same was not brought merely for delay. It was thereupon ordered, that "the order for the second reading of the bill be discharged, and that the bill do lie on the table till the said appeal is determined."

MR. LARKING'S CASE.-SESSION 1792.

Second Reading postponed, in order to obtain evidence of the Marriage from Witness who had been present at the ceremony.

MR. WILLIAM FLEET LARKING was called in, and being sworn, produced a paper which he informed the House was a copy of an entry in the marriage register of the parish of Gillingham, in the county of Kent, which he had compared with the original. The same was read, and certified that Mr. and Mrs. Larking were married 5 Nov. 1778.

The counsel for the bill being then asked "if they had no witness who was present at the marriage?" a witness was called in who informed the House, that "a lady who had been present at the marriage would have attended the House, but was prevented by illness, having very lately miscarried; and that her surgeon was of opinion, it would be dangerous for her to come out. That he was informed the clergyman who had married them was dead." After evidence of adultery had been gone into, the counsel informed the House, "that he was in hopes the lady who had been present at the marriage would be well enough to attend the House in about a week." Second reading put off for a week accordingly. At the end of which period the lady attended, and having sworn that she had been present at the marriage, witnessed the ceremony, and subscribed the register, the bill thereupon was read a second time.