HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0368 and id is 1 raw text is: that they are due and payable only for the actual performance of the service. I do
not give any opinion against Dr. Spry's right; I only say that the Act has left the
subject, in some degree, vague and doubtful.
For these reasons I am under the necessity of dismissing the defendants from the
present suit; but I cannot do so without noticing a point of an entirely different
description ; I mean the form of the suit, and the parties cited. The suit is against
the directors and guardians of the poor; but it is not pleaded that they are a legally
constituted corporation, and I can find no clause in the Act which allows them to be
sued in the name of their clerk. I find, indeed, that by the 12th section of 51 Geo. 3
the vestrymen may sue or be sued in the name of their clerk; but the vestrymen are
not the directors. The present is a most anomalous proceeding in every respect.
The party defendant in the cause is the nominee of a committee; suppose I were of
opinion that the fees were due and that I had jurisdiction to compel their payment,
how could I enforce my decree against such a defendant? It is not necessary that I
should decide this point, but I should take a long time to pause and consider before I
went the length of pronouncing this gentleman in contempt if he refused to pay the
fees, and cause a significavit to issue, in order that he [16] might be taken and confined.
This objection was not taken in the argument, but it is one of no small weight.
For these reasons I feel bound to reject the libel and to dismiss the defendants;
but I give no costs : it is not a case in which costs ought to be given, for the matter
appears to have been left in so unsettled a state by the parish itself that the clergy-
man was compelled to come before a Court to ascertain his rights.
GRANT v. GRANT. Arches Court, Hilary Term, Jan. 21st, 1839.-Divorce for adultery.
-No direct proof, but proof inferred from the conduct of the wife and the person
with whom the adultery was alleged to have taken place, and from the letters of
the wife to him found in his repositories.
This was a suit brought by letters of request from the commissary of the Bishop
of Winchester, for the parts of Surrey, by Captain Alexander Grant, of Brighton, in
the diocese of Chichester, against Maria Theresa, his wife, of St. Mark, Kennington,
in the county of Surrey, and diocese of Winchester, for a separation by reason of
adultery.
The libel pleaded the marriage of the parties, on the 20th of August, 1825, at
Madras, in the East Indies, their cohabitation in India, China, and England, till
February, 1838, and the birth of six children. It pleaded that Captain Grant and
his wife sailed from Macao, in China, on board the ship Lord Lowther, of which he
was the owner, but the command of her was given by him to Arthur Vincent, formerly
[17] in the service of the East India Company; that shortly after the ship left Macao
Captain Vincent (who previous to taking the command of her had been only slightly
acquainted with Captain Grant and his wife) began to pay particular attention to
Mrs. Grant, who encouraged and appeared pleased therewith, so that they soon
became upon a very intimate and familiar footing with each other; that frequently,
during the voyage, from such time, Captain Vincent and Mrs. Grant sought occasions
of being alone, and were alone together, unknown to Captain Grant, in the cuddy,
and also in the dressing and sitting cabins of Mrs. Grant, and in other parts of the
ship, particularly at times when Captain Grant was walking the deck, which he was
in the daily habit of doing for hours at a time, or had retired to sleep (as was also his
daily habit) in his sleeping cabin, after dinner; that on some occasions, when alone
together, Captain Vincent and Mrs. Grant were observed sitting close to, and in
earnest conversation with, each other, and appeared much embarrassed and confused
on finding that thay were so observed; that on other occasions Captain Vincent was
seen kissing and taking personal liberties with Mrs. Grant, and that the whole conduct
and demeanour of the parties towards each other soon became, and was such, as to
attract the notice of, and be the topic of conversation amongst, the mariners and others
on board the ship: and that on some such occasions they committed adultery. It
further pleaded that a day or two previous to the ship's arrival off Brighton, in
November, 1837, Mrs. Grant said to Captain Vincent, in the presence of Margaret
Jamieson, her nursery maid, that she [18] should like to hear from him how he found
his intended bride (he being engaged to be married on his return to England) when
he got on shore, and that shortly after Mrs. Grant told Jamieson that Captain Vincent
had promised to write her a letter containing the required information, but that as
322
GRANT V. GRANT
2 CURT. 16.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0368&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)