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/ssactsengr0365 and id is 1 raw text is: I feel called upon to give costs; but if parties will receive information that has no
foundation in truth from individuals of bad character, and will act upon that informa-
tion in the conduct of a cause, they must be responsible for the consequences. I think
it by no means improbable that the executors, particularly Mr. Tufnell, has been
imposed upon by misrepresentations, but that is no justification of their opposition
to this will, nor of the charges (which they ought to have known were groundless)
upon which that opposition was founded. I am therefore bound, in justice to the
other parties, to condemn the executors of the former will in the costs of this suit.
The Court pronounced for the force and validity of the will of 27th of August,
1832, and condemned Mr. Tufnell and Mr. Mason in costs.
[509] S-MYTH V. SYTIM. Arches Court, Easter Term, 4th Session, 1833.-A suit
for cruelty and adultery, brought by the wife, was appealed from the Consistory
Court of London to the Arches, and in 1828 was there alleged to be agreed, andl
the husband dismissed ; but the inhibition to the Consistory was not relaxed.
In 1831 a suit for cruelty and adultery was again brought by the wife in the
Consistory ; the husband appeared under protest; the judge, having directed
the wife's libel (which referred to and prayed leave to invoke the proceedings in
the former suit, and also pleaded new facts) to be brought in, over-ruled the
protest; but, on the ground that the inhibition was still in force, lid not assign
the husband to appear absolutely, nor did it dismiss him, nor admit nor reject
the libel. The wife appealed: that appeal was dismissed for irregularity, and
the cause remitted: the judge below, as still inhibited, refused to procctd : the
wife again appealed ; and the Court of Arches held that the agreement and con-
sequent; dismissal of the husb~and put all end to the ftim'er sui, and eottseqtlucnttly
to the inhibition, and that the judge of the Consistory Court was hound to
proceed in the cause.
This was all appeal by the wife from the Consistor* Court of London upon a
grievance. On the 11 th of May, 1,831, the proctor for the wife had, in the Consistory
Court, alleged that a former suit, between the same ptrtics, and appealed to the
Arches, had been there agreed, and that in May, 1828, tle husband had been there-
upon dismissed by consent of the wife's proctor, and that no snit between the parties
was pending in the Court of Arches or Delegates ; and, in proof thereof, brought in
an office copy of the decree of the Court of Arches dismissing Mr. Smyth. The
Judge of the Consistory refused to direct the husband to appear absolutely, or to
admit the libel, on the ground that the inhibitioti was so far itt force that the .Judge
of the Consistory Court ought to defer to it-. The wife appealed to the Arches: that
appeal was dismissed on the ground of irregularity, both it the Arches and I)elc-
gatcs;(a) and that cause having becn remitted to the Arches, the Judge of that
Court, on the fourth session of [510] Michaelmas Term, 1S;,2, relaxed the inhibition
to the Judge of the Consistory lcreced in the present suit., but, though prayed, made
no order as to the inhibition in the former suit.
On the second session of Hilary Term, 1833, Mrs. Smyth, in person, brought into
the Consistory Court the relaxation of the inhibition : and the Judge thereof decreed
to proceed according to the tenor of former acts. On the fourth session Mrs. Smyth
tendered additional articles to her libel, with an exhibit annexed : and prayed leave
to correct the ninth and tenth articles of the libel, by substituting )ecember for
November; and further, that the Judge of the Consistory would assign to hear
on admission of the libel and exhibits, as altered, and of the additional articles, on the
by-day.
The Judge refused to receive the additional articles, and rejectetd the prayers of
Mrs. Smyth ; and this was the grievance-the subject matter of the present appeal
which was interposed by the wife.
The husband appeared to the inhibition and citation, and after the usual steps the
cause, on the fourth session standing assigned for informations and sentence, and
W. H. C. Smyth [the husband] is admonished to attend, Mrs. Smyth prayed the
Court to reverse the decree appealed from-retain the cause, decree a monition for
(a) See a report of the proceedings in some of the earlier stages, and in these
appeals, supra, p. 72-7 ; and infra, p. 516, for a report of Dr. Lushington's judgment
in the Consistory Court..
1534
SMYTH V. SMYTH
4 HAGG. ECC. 509.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0365&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)