her case upon those answers. But an affidavit is now brought in which states, that his lordship is reduced to absolute pauperism. The allotment is always made upon the answers which are supposed to contain all the allowances and deductions which can be claimed, and no case has been cited to show that those answers have ever been controlled by an affidavit. After regular proceedings, the Court would be very much distressed by the introduc. tion of affidavits, and it is a practice which I am under the necessity of resisting. If, after a great length of time, there should be a great change of circumstances from unforeseen calamities, the party might be at liberty to bring it before the Court; but in this case no time has elapsed, and the faculties are not diminished by misfortune. With respect to the affidavit, it is difficult to persuade oneself that it is possible to overlook such sums as Lord Kirkwall states to have escaped his attention, but the forms of the Court fully justify me in not entering into its merits. I shall, therefore, adhere to the admissions contained in the answers to the allegation of faculties. In those, he admits his income to be 3,1007. per annum, exclusive of the 400l. per annum secured to Lady Kirkwall as pin-money. If he has reduced this by his extravagance, his innocent wife is not to be the sufferer. I cannot, with out further information, give the whole sum allotted by the referees in 1810, but I shall give Lady Kirkwall 1,000l. per annum, in addition to the 400l. pin-inoney.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4.

Sittings for London, before Lord Ellenborough.

Bannister v. Spooner, Ball, Walters, and Dowding. The defendants are proprietors of a stage-coach between Brixton and London, and the present action was brought against them, to recover damages for an injury, the plaintiff (a partner in the house of Richardson, Goodluck, and Co.) had sustained by the overturning of the coach, as was alleged in the declaration, by the negligence of Ball, one of the defendants, who drove on the day in question.

It appeared by the statement of Mr. Scarlett, that the plaintiff resides in Neighbour's-lane, near the Clapham-road, and was in the habit of riding to town by one of the stages of the defend ants. On the 1st of July last he mounted the roof, and the coach had proceeded as far as Stockwell-place, when Ball, the driver, recollected that he had forgotten to take up two passengers who had booked places for that morning; he, in consequence attempted to turn round, being at that moment on the crown of the road, which was remarkably high, and in so doing one of the wheels was necessarily brought to the lower part of the road, and the declivity was so great that the coach was upset; had the coachman made a larger circuit the accident would not have happened. The stage was at this time filled with passengers, both inside and outside; and when it fell, a part of the iron-work came

in contact with the thigh and hip of the plaintiff, by which the former was broken, and the latter dislocated. At this moment it fortunately happened that the carriage of Mr. Goldsmid was passing, and a person of the name of Fox, a baker, and some passengers, assisted the plaintiff into it, and he was conveyed home, where he was attended for six weeks by Mr. A. Cooper, and afterwards by two other surgeons: at first it was only by means of strong opiates that the plaintiff could obtain any sleep, and after the hip bone had been restored to the socket, and the fractured limb set, he could only move for some time by means of crutches, and at this moment was not able to relinquish them entirely; it was clear that the plaintiff never would recover the calamity en tirely, for one leg was materially shorter than the other, and from a remarkably fine healthy man, he was reduced now to the help less condition of a cripple.

The above case being estab. lished by evidence, Mr. Topping addressed the jury for the defendants: he expressed the great regret of his clients that the accident had occurred, but he argued that, however severe might be the injury the plaintiff had sustained, they could not be liable in damages, unless it appeared that the driver had been guilty of culpable negligence.

He then called Mr. James Dubois, a merchant, and a Mr. Stokes, both of whom were on the coach at the time of the accident (the latter having had his arm broken), who were of opinion that Ball, the driver, was VOL. LX.

not to blame, inasmuch as in turning he had made as wide a circuit as was possible under the circumstances. Mr. Stokes said, that he had not contemplated any action, and when the defendants proposed to pay the expenses he had incurred in consequence of the fracture of his arm, he had refused.

A surgeon who had been called in, and an attorney of the name of Croome, spoke to conversa, tions with the plaintiff, in which he had acquitted the coachman of all negligence or misconduct. Some of the defendants' witnesses seemed to intimate, that the accident was partly to be attributed to the unwieldy weight of the plaintiff, but

Lord Ellenborough said, that it was the duty of the proprietors of stages to take care that their servants did not receive passengers whose ponderousness might endanger the lives of all the other persons in the coach. His lordship was clearly of opinion that the defendants were liable, as the coachman, independently of the question regarding his mode of turning, had been negligent in omitting to take up two passengers: had he not neglected this part of his duty, the driver would only have had to proceed directly to London.

The case was not

one of aggravation on either side, and his Lordship recommended that moderate damages should be given.-The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, 50/.

end Joseph Robertson, minister of the gospel in Edinburgh, and William Pearson, spirit-dealer, in Canongate, accused of falsehood, fraud, and forgery, and of celebrating unlawful marriages.

The act of the Scottish Parliament, under which celebrators of clandestine marriages are liable to be brought to trial, is the 34th act of the first session of the first Parliament of Charles II (1661, cap.34), intituled "an act against clandestine and unlawful marriages," whereby it is enacted, "that the celebrator of such marriages be banished the kingdom, never to return therein, under the pain of death."-The panels had pleaded Not Guilty.

Alexander Ross, session clerk of North Leith, knows Mr. Robertson; he never but once applied to the witness for a certificate of proclamation of bans, and that was three years ago. And being shown a certificate in the name of Mooney, a soldier of the 88th regiment, and a girl named McPherson, he declares it to be a forgery, and the name Alexander Ross, at the bottom of it, not to be the witness's handwriting; and a certificate in favour of a soldier of the 88th, named Fitzgerald, and a girl named Urquhart, shown to him, he also declares to be a forgery.

Sarah Urquhart, or Augart, late servant to Mr. Grant, of Rothiemurchus. Witness was Imarried in October last to Edward Fitzgerald, a private in the 88th regiment, by the Rev. Mr. Robertson. She and her husband, with Mooney and Margaret McPherson, called upon Mr. Robertson on a Sunday, about

11 o'clock, and told him they wanted to be married; he said he would do nothing then, as he was going to church, but told them to come back at one o'clock. They returned at that hour, and Mr. Robertson showed them into a little room, and said he would send his maid-servant along with the men to a place where they would get marriage-lines. The men went away for the lines, and came back, saying they had been refused them. Mr. Robertson then desired them to go down to one Pearson's, and perhaps he might get lines for them. They accordingly went down to Pearson's, and the men went into the house, and Pearson went with them to endeavour to get mar riage-lines. They went along the South Bridge, but the men came back, saying they had been refused lines there already. Pearson then went down to Mr. Robertson's house, and the men waited at the top of the close. He returned directly, and the whole went down to Mr. Robertson's house, but Pearson went away. They then went down again to Pearson's, but he was not at home; they then walked about for a little, and in the evening the witness and Margaret M'Pherson called at Mr. Robertson's house, and the men waited at the door. Mr. Robertson told them all to go down to Pearson's, and he would follow them, and come in at the back door, and to tell Pearson so. They accordingly went down, and were showed into a little back room. Pearson said he would do all he could to advise Mr. R. to marry them. Some time after, Mr. R. came

into Pearson's, and said he did not know what to do. Pearson said to him, he dared to say he might marry them, for he might recollect that they had got a thing of the kind done before, and had got the lines after, and had sent them after the parties. Mr. R. said, he thought he recollected that they had done that; and Pearson and Mr. R. then walked into another room, leaving the witness and the other three by themselves. Pearson came back, and asked 7s. 6d. from each couple to get the marriage-lines. The men had not so much money, but Pearson said the parson could not think of doing it until they got the money; and said that, if they would be quick and get it, he would remain, as he was not in a great hurry. Witness and the other girl then went for the money, and were not many minutes gone. When they came back, Mr. Robertson was sitting with the two men, and writing the little lines he gave them. Fitzgerald gave 7s. 6d. for each of the lines, and 5s. to Mr. Robertson, who put it in his pocket, giving the 15s. to Pearson to get the lines. Pearson said that if they would call at either his house or Mr. Robertson's, any day after Monday, the lines would be ready for them. They were They were then married, and Mr. Robertson gave witness a line, certifying that she and Fitzgerald were married before witnesses. On Tuesday or Wednesday after the marriage, the other girl, M'Pherson, went for the lines, but Mr. Robertson said they would not get them unless the whole four were present, and the men were

at Perth. McPherson wrote to the men, who answered and told her to go to Mr. Robertson and demand the lines or the money they had paid for them. Witness and M'Pherson then went to Mr. Robertson and showed him the letter they had received, and he told them to make themselves quite easy, and desired them to go to Pearson's, which they did, and he said he was afraid they could not get them, but desired them to call upon him to-morrow, when he should try and get them. Mr. Robertson was then in another room with Pearson, and Pearson came out, and said this to the witness and M'Pherson. They called again at Pearson's next day, at 4 o'clock, and he said he had got them, but he did not know how much they were indebted to him, he had had so much trouble. He desired them to go to Mr. Robertson's, and he would follow. They went to Mr. Robertson's, and he said he was very happy they had got the lines, and Pearson immediately came in. Mr. Robertson then took the lines out of a drawer, and wrote something on them. Pearson had previously

told the witness that he had left the lines at Mr. Robertson's. Pearson again said that they were indebted to him for the trouble he had had, but Mr. Robertson said he had better give them something than take any thing from them. Mr. Robertson wrote something on the lines, but said he was afraid they would not be admitted to the barracks, as they had not got lines from the commanding officer.

Edward Fitzgerald, private in the 88th regiment, gave similar evidence as to the marriage be$ 2

tween

tween him and the preceding witness. When he first went to Mr. Robertson, he asked him if he had a line from his officer, and he said, no, when he desired him to come back at 1 o'clock, when he sent his servant maid along with witness and Mooney to one Paisley, the session-clerk, who refused to give the lines, because witness had no line from his commanding officer. Upon returning to Mr. Robertson, he said he did not know what to do with them, as it was mostly beyond his power to marry them. He then gave the witness a line to Pearson, and said he might be apt to get the lines for them. Pearson said he would do every thing in his power to get Mr. Robertson to marry them, and desired the whole four to come down to his house at four o'clock, and Mr. Robertson would be there. After four o'clock the whole went to Pearson's, and he and Mr. Robertson went into a room, and had some conversation. Pearson then came and asked if they were ready; witness answered they were, and then Mr. Robertson and Pearson came into the room. Pearson said to Mr. Robertson, "You know the like thing happened before, and the lines were got afterwards." Mr. Robertson then desired them to leave 7s. 6d. a piece for the lines, and 2s. 6d. a piece for the marriage. The two women then went away for the money, and the parties were married.

Margaret Macpherson corroborated the testimony of Sarah Urquhart. Pearson told them that he once before got Mr. Robertson to marry a couple, and got the lines for them afterwards. When witness and her companion

got the lines, Pearson said, "Mr. Robertson, what are these ladies indebted to me for getting these lines?" and Mr. Robertson answered, "You have had a very active day about them, but in place of taking any thing from them, you should rather give them something."

John Mooney, private in the 88th regiment, gave similar evidence to that of Fitzgerald.

Mr. Drummond charged the Jury on the part of the Crown, and Mr. Maitland on the part of Mr. Robertson, and Mr. Pringle for Pearson, and the evidence having been summed by Lord Gillies, the presiding Judge, the Jury, after deliberating in the box for about fifteen minutes, returned a verdict, unanimously finding Mr. Robertson guilty of celebrating the clandestine marriages as libelled, and both panels guilty of uttering the counterfeit certificates of proclamation of bans, knowing the same to be counterfeited.

On Thursday morning the Court sentenced Mr. Robertson to imprisonment in the gaol of Cannongate for three months,' and thereafter to be banished from Scotland for life, agreeably to the statute. Pearson three months' imprisonment, and fourteen years' banishment from Scotland, with certification, that if he returned within that period, he is to be publicly whipped, &c.

CIVIL SIDE. Before Mr. Baron Graham, March.

Noakes and others v. Sandwell. This was a case which excited considerable interest, and the court was crowded to excess in consequence.

The