picion existed, to resist any claim, it was not less their duty to pay readily the sum insured, where the transaction itself casts no imputation upon the demean our or character of the party. As far as it was possible to judge, his Lordship could not discover that any suspicion attached to the case, either from the circumstances attending the fire, or from the conduct of the plaintiff either before or after that calamity. It sometimes happened that goods or houses were not nearly of the value for which they were insured; sometimes a clandestine removal of goods was established; but here none of those facts had been proved, and therefore there appeared no inducement, or at least no adequate inducement, for the plaintiff to put his life in jeopardy by committing the crime of arson. As to the question of damages, it appeared that the insurance in the whole was 3,000l.: but though that sum was covered by the policy, the jury were not called upon to give that amount, provided they thought the property not worth the sum: the office was not in any case bound to pay more than the party proved that he had lost. It was admitted, that a certain deduction was to be made from the whole amount claimed. The fire broke out in the middle of the day, when aid was nearest, and when the discovery of the crime, if it existed, could be most easily made; and the plaintiff, without any conceal ment, left the premises only a short time before the flames were discovered. Besides this, there was no appearance of any con trivance with combustibles to produce sudden and unexpected conflagration, and the plaintiff had afforded the Eagle Assurance Company all the means in his power of ascertaining whether or not any fraud had been committed. The jury consulted a few moments, and found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 2,800. CONSISTORY-COURT, FEB. 20. Lady Kirkwall against Lord Kirkwall.-This question arose on the usual application made by Lady Kirkwall, for the Court to allot her permanent alimony. Dr. Swabey, on behalf of Lady Kirkwall, stated, that the Court had been pleased to allot the sum of 600l. in addition to 400l. pinmoney, for the maintenance of her ladyship during the dependence of her suit; but in allotting permanent alimony the general practice of the Court was, rather to increase than diminish the sum. The wife was supposed to live retired during the investigation of her complaint, and the husband was answerable for the whole expense of the suit. But the wife having proved her charge, was entitled to return to the world, and to enjoy such a portion of her husband's income as would maintain her in her proper rank. An allegation of faculties has been given in, and Lord Kirkwall's answers on oath are now before the Court. Her ladyship has not examined any witnesses on that allegation, but is content to rest her case upon the plea and answers. An affidavit is now offered by Lord Kirkwall, stating, "that on further inquiry into the state of his affairs, affairs, he omitted to state in his answers debts and incumbrances, the interest of which amounts to 1,760l. per annum, and that since he gave in the answers he has been under the necessity of granting 7 other annuities to the amount of 1,7891. per annum, by all which embarrassments the legal demands on his property exceed his actual income." The Court is never in the habit of diminish ing alimony, unless it is clearly shown that the diminution of the husband's income is caused by unavoidable misfortune; and the interests of the wife are not to suffer from the extravagance or imprudence of the husband. This doctrine was recognized in the case of Teuche v. Teuche, in the Consistory Court, 1805, which was afterwards appealed to the Arches and Delegates, and affirmed by both. Drs. Arnold and Burnaby urged, that it was competent to Lord Kirkwall to give an explanation of any error in his answers by an affidavit. That he was now in a very different situation as to what he was when the Court allotted alimony during suit. His affairs had become much more embarrassed, and his means consequently reduced. That Lady Kirkwall would not be left destitute, inasmuch as she had 400l. per annum secured to her. In the case of Lord and Lady Ferrers, the Court only gave 600l. per annum, although his lordship's income was 3,2001. per annum; and in this case it is submitted, that the Court should not grant any alimony beyond the pin-money. Dr. Lushington, in reply, ob served, that the answers were dated in July, 1816, in which Lord Kirkwall stated his whole income to amount to 3,100l. per annum. Is it credible, that in an income of that amount, he could possibly forget debts, the interest of which amount to 1,760l. per ann., and since the date of the answers, he had granted annuities to the amount of nearly 1,800 per annum. That he had no hesitation in saying, that it was a most extraordinary attempt to evade the justice of the Court, and to deprive his wife of that support which her rank in life entitled her to demand. In 1810, he allowed her 1,600. per annum. It may be true, that his circumstances may now be different, but by whose conduct have they become different? If his lordship chose to waste his property on not one but two women at a time, and to grant annuities to money-lenders, is that a ground which would induce the Court to deprive his wife of a maintenance becoming her rank. Where is the 20,000l. which was raised on these annuities? His wife is entitled to be alimented from that; but the whole statement contained in the affidavit is totally unworthy of credit. Sir Wm. Scott stated the question to be an application to the Court to allot permanent alimony, and an unusual opposition was made to it on the ground of an error in the answers, and a diminution of property since those answers were given in. They appear to have been drawn up with a due attention to the statement of all the facts, and Lady Kirkwall has been willing to rest her 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 introduction 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, without 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 4007. pin-money. 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 defendants. 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 entirely, for one leg was materially shorter than the other, and from a remarkably fine healthy man, he was reduced now to the helpless condition of a cripple. The above case being established 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 conversations 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, 50l. SCOTLAND, MARCH. High Court of Justiciary.On Wednesday the Court proceeded to the trial of the ReverS end 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 "anact 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 M'Pherson, 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 married 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 marriage-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 |