mended the prisoner, in the strongest manner, to mercy.

Mr. Baron Richards assured them, in warm terms, that the recommendation should not fail to be attended to.

The Court throughout the whole day was crowded to excess. Mrs. Giblett, who remained in court during the trial, was conveyed out, in an almost helpless state, after the Jury had retired to consider the verdict.

Com

Arches-Court, Doctors mons.- -The Office of the Judge promoted by Blackmore and Thorp v. Brider-This was a criminal proceeding promoted er officio by Messrs. Blackmore and Thorp, churchwardens of the parish of Harting, Sussex, against Mr. William Brider, an inhabitant of that parish, for incest. The suit was instituted by letters of request from the diocese of Chichester, and the charge upon which it was founded was the marriage of the defendant with Mary Walton, the daughter of his deceased wife by Thomas Walton, her former husband.

The evidence in support of the prosecution consisted of copies of the different registers necessary to show the marriage complained of, and the relationship of the parties duly authenticated by parole testimony; and their cohabitation was likewise fully spoken to by several witnesses.

No appearance was given, nor defence offered, by the defendant. Sir Christopher Robinson and Dr. Swabey, for the prosecution, shortly adverted to the effect of the evidence, and submitted that it fully e-tablished the accusation preferred, and they

therefore prayed the judgment of the Court on the defendant.

Sir John Nicholl expressed himself fully satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the prosecution; and he, therefore, pronounced the marriage null and void under the canon law, condemned the defendant in costs, and enjoined him the usual penance.

Some observations were then made as to the terms of the penance, and reference was in consequence had to the cases of Cleaver v. Ride, and Cleaver v. Ride, otherwise Wooldridge, which were similar proceedings, in 1790; from which it appeared that the penance performed in those cases was to this effect :-The offending parties stood in white sheets at the porch of the church during the ringing of the last bell for divine service on a Sunday, and until after the first lesson, asking forgiveness of all persons entering the church; they were then led into the church, and placed in a conspicuous situation near the minister, where they remained until the gospel of the day was said, when they repeated a submissive acknowledgment of having been guilty of the crime imputed to them, implored the forgiveness of God, promising not to offend again, and entreated the congregation to join with them in saying the Lord's prayer, which was accordingly done.

Sir John Nicholl expressed himself satisfied of this penance having been adopted after due reference to precedents; and he, therefore, felt himself bound in the same manner to enjoin it in the present case.

A similar proceeding was then beard

heard against the wife of the last defendant, in which the evidence being precisely to the same effect, Sir John Nicholl pronounced the same sentence in all respects.

Lady Brisco v. Sir Wastel Brisco, bart. This was a question as to the alimony to be allowed to Lady Brisco during the dependence of a suit instituted by her against her husband, Sir Wastel Brisco, for a divorce on a charge of adultery.

The suit was commenced towards the close of the year 1813. The usual statement of the husband's property, technically called an allegation of faculties, was given in, as the first step in the alimony question, in Hilary Term, 1814. Sir Wastel Brisco gave in his answers not long afterwards, to which some objections were taken; one of which, the want of a sufficient specification of the value of a house and domain he had in the country, was held sufficient, and fuller answers were decreed. The further answers were given in Michaelmas Term following; and Sir Wastel then estimated in them the net value of the house and domain in question at 3501. per annum. Lady Brisco, on the contrary, estimated them at 2,000l. per annum, and produced two witnesses who corroborated this opinion. It appeared, however, on their crossexamination, that they were in hostility to Sir Wastel Brisco, were engaged in lawsuits against him, and had indicted his steward for perjury; but the grand jury had thrown out the bill. The witnesses, on the other hand, produced by Sir Wastel Brisco,

his steward and some farmers, swore that, independently of the house which, though desirable to a gentleman, would only be an encumbrance to a farmer, the land would not let for more than 2501. per annum. The rest of Sir Wastel Brisco's property was evidenced principally by his own answers. It appeared to be near 3,000l. per annum, and Lady Brisco had 2001. per annum pinmoney. It appeared, however, that during the dependence of the suit, demands had been made and actions brought against Sir Wastel Brisco for debts of her ladyship's contracting for plate, linen, a carriage, horses, &c. to the amount of 1,4001. or 1,5001. besides a sum of 2001. which had been paid to her on account of alimony. Affidavits on both sides, with several letters annexed, were given in explanation of these items; but the letters were rejected by the Court as inadmissible. The principal purport of the admissible explanation was, that Lady Brisco had been obliged to incur mary of these debts in consequence of Sir Wastel having burnt clothes of hers to the value of above 200l. Sir Wastel, on the contrary, denied that they were worth more than 101., and said, that he burnt them to induce her to procure some other clothes from the place where she had left them. Lady Brisco also stated, that the carriage was ordered on her father's account, but he had died before it was completed, and offered to deliver up to her husband a piano-forte, some plate, and other articles, for which the debts were incurred.

Considerable discussion took

place

place between the counsel on both sides upon the details of the property, and the proportion to be allotted to Lady Brisco.

Dr. Arnold and Dr. Jenner, for Lady Brisco, argued in support of her claims to a provision, during the dependence of the suit, upon a liberal scale, suited to her rank and station in society, and endeavoured to vindicate her conduct in contracting the debts in dispute.

Dr. Phillimore and Dr. Lushington argued at some length upon the extravagance of Lady Brisco with respect to these debts, and the diminution of Sir Wastel Brisco's income, owing to the present depreciation of landed property, and the heavy expenses to which he had been exposed; from whence they inferred that Lady Brisco, with her pin-money, and what she had received from Sir Wastel Brisco, having no encumbrances, was richer than he was with a larger property, fettered as it was with such constant and heavy demands-with the maintenance also of his children, and with the obligation of supporting a dignity and appearance suitable to his station in life. He was, however, anxious to have the question of alimony, pending the suit, settled, as his common law counsel advised him that, until it was, he would be constantly exposed to the debts Lady Brisco so lavishly incurred; but, under the circumstances, they trusted that the measure of the allowance would be very small; and as Lady Brisco had taken upon her to prove what she had so palpably failed in, with respect to his property, the learned gentleman sug

gested, whether it was not com petent to the Court to condemn her in the costs of so unusual a proceeding.

Sir William Scott remarked, that the suit was originally for adultery against Sir Wastel Brisco, but it had now assumed the shape of recrimination against the lady. The allegation of faculties in these cases ought always to be given, and the question of alimony disposed of in an early stage of the proceeding, to prevent the husband being unnecessarily harassed with suits and demands for his wife's debts. He then stated the progress of the proceedings in the present instance, and remarked, that though it was usual to acquiesce in the answers, particularly when reformed by order of the Court, yet it was undoubtedly open to the wife to examine witnesses, if she thought proper: this, however, was a right not to be exercised wantonly, but with great caution and tenderness. It was never necessary to enter into an inquisitorial scrutiny of the husband's property; but it must be taken upon a fair estimate. Here, however, Lady Brisco charged the value of a particular property at 2,000l. per annum, which Sir Watsel set at 350l. per annum : so great a difference as this induced the Court to go into the inquiry, upon the result of which, it now turned out that Lady Brisco's valuation was enormous and unfounded in the extreme; and that even Sir Wastel's was above the real value. This was a misrepresentation which the Court must consider had been imposed upon Lady Brisco, as it was un

willing

willing to suppose that she designed such an imposition upon the Court; and by what witnesses was it supported?-by two only, who were in open hostility to Sir Wastel Brisco persecuting him with lawsuits, and indicting his steward for perjury, but prevented by the grand jury indignantly rejecting the bill. The testimony of such witnesses was of a piece with the allegation upon which they were examined, and was utterly undeserving of credit. Taking the whole of Sir Wastel's income upon the fairest calculation warranted by the proof, the learned judge considered it to be 2,600l. per annum, subject, however, to an immense depreciation from the present state of landed property, which was notoriously decreased in value, some farms being let at rents reduced 25 per cent. others paying no rent at all, and others thrown up altogether. It had been said that all this might be temporary; so might the continuance of the present suit; but the one appeared, at present, as improbable as the other. Supposing every thing had been clear in the case, the Court would have been disposed to allow one-fifth of the whole property to Lady Brisco, including her pin-money. This would be quite as much as was necessary for her suitable maintenance in a situation calling, as hers did, for retirement and prudence, and in which she would be expected to have some little regard for the interests of her husband and family. He had to maintain the expenses of the suit, which had been carried to an extent of which the Court

hoped never to see such another instance; and, as a country gentleman, living in his own county, he had to support the dignity kept up by his ancestors, and had also to maintain his children. These would have been considerations to have influenced the Court, had there been no misconduct on the part of Lady Brisco; but she had launched out into expenditures to an enormous amount: there were orders for plate, linen, china, horses, a carriage, &c. and all without a justification, or any communication with the unfortunate husband, who was to pay for them. It had been said, that this was done to replace the clothes burnt by Sir Wastel, and this Sir Wastel accounts for; but it was certainly a most unfortunate expedient. The carriage, too, if ordered on the authority of her father, she should have taken care that he was responsible for; but the bill was sent to Sir Wastel, and it did not appear that the father's executors had ever been applied to on the subject. It was true, it was now said that Lady Brisco was ready to give up the articles in her own possession, but this was but a secondary satisfaction if made, and there was nothing to prevent her converting them into money for herself, if she thought proper. Under all these circumstances, where enormous expenses were thrown upon the husband in every mode to which female extravagance could apply itself, if the Court did not feel that, by ordering alimony, it was most consulting the protection of the husband, it would hardly be disposed to allow any alimony at all. Under all considerations,

derations, however, the Court alloted the sum of 2001. per annum, in addition to the sum of 2001. per annum pin-money.

The Princess of Aremberg.Paris, Tribunal of the First Resort. -Department of the Seine, January 10.-To-day was heard a claim for maintenance by the Princess of Aremberg, against her husband, while at the same time she is prosecuting the nullity of their marriage before the Tribunals. The circumstances were these:

On the 1st February 1803, the Prince of Aremberg contracted marriage with Mademoiselle Ste phanie Tascher, niece of Napoleon's first wife. In the contract of marriage, Napoleon settled a dowry of one million for the benefit of the future wife, under condition that this sum should be employed in the purchase of a hotel, which should not be held in common, but be always the personal property of the Princess of Aremberg. On the formally expressed wish of the Princess, Iowever, who would have a palace and not an ordinary hotel, 1,096,000 francs was vested in the purchase, repairs, and furnishing of the fine hotel of Bouillon. The portion of this hotel let at present produces only 10,000 francs, being scarcely enough to keep it in repair, and pay the ordinary and extraordinary taxes.

For several months past, the Prince of Aremberg has in vain employed persuasion in the first instance, and then the means prescribed by law, to compel his wife to live with him, not in his states, but in the conjugal domicile; the

latter has constantly eluded this, and on the 4th of October last, entered a claim of nullity of marriage, thus to obtain the pretext of demanding a maintenance from her husband.

M. Bonnet, Counsel for the Prince, opposed the claim on the ground, that the conjugal tie still subsisted; and the attempt made by the Princess to dissolve it, ha!, as yet, no result before the tribunals, because the whole of her dowry was absorbed in the unproductive purchase which her husband had been compelled to make; and because, besides, the respective situation of the two parties was now altered. At the period when the claimant had the title of Sovereign Princess, and figured at a superb court, she had annually 240,000 francs at her disposal; but now that she had entered the ordinary class of society, the 36,000 francs of pinmoney which she claimed was out of proportion with her rank in life, as well as with the present fortune of her husband. The Princess of Aremberg had in her possession moveables of great va. ine, plate, diamonds, and a considerable kitchen furniture (batterie de cuisine). Her husband consents to leave her, as judicial guardian, part of the kitchen furniture found in the cellars, and which is therefore useless to the Princess; 2. Her state carriage, of which she can make use; 3. The diamonds, estimated at 231,000 francs, with the exception of such as the Courts may deem necessary for her use.

M. Tripier contended, in reply, that even the total loss of the dowry could not exempt the hus

band