conduct had no effect in inducing him to amend it; on the
contrary, it got worse and worse. He ceased to hold any
kind of intercourse with her, never entered her apartment,
and never spoke to her. He treated her in the
most insolent and contemptuous manner before the
servants; prevented her from visiting or being visited by
any of her acquaintances or neighbours; and frequently
left home for weeks together without leaving her a
farthing to provide necessaries. The poor wife, secluded
from society, treated, as she says, with utter want of
affection, subject to harshness and cruelty from her
husband, and to scorn, contempt, or pity, from her servants,
found her life in Scotland insupportable, and felt herself
compelled to quit her husband's house, which she did in
April, 1844, little more than eight months after her
marriage. It does not appear that the husband ever
made the least attempt to induce her to return. In May,
1844, her friends instituted a suit in the Session Court of
Scotland, praying for a decree of separation à mensâ et
thoro, and for a suitable alimony. The judges
commenting most severely on the conduct of the husband,
found and decreed as follows:—"That she may have
full liberty and freedom to live separately from the said
Duncan Campbell Paterson, and to separate herself from
him, à mensâ et thoro, in all time coming; also they
decerned and ordained the husband to make payment to
the pursuer of the sum of £300 sterling yearly, or such
other sum as should be found reasonable for support and
aliment to her." Against the decision of the Scottish
Court the husband appealed to the House of Lords. Mr.
Paterson's counsel urged "that a want of sympathy
between a husband and wife was not, by the law of
Scotland, sufficient ground to warrant the granting a
divorce à mensâ et thoro." It was contended on the
other side, that " an excess of cruelty was proved which
fully justified the whole decree." Lord Brougham,
however, held that the circumstances established on the
part of the wife, though extremely painful to her, did
not amount to acts of cruelty sufficient to warrant a
separation à mensâ et thoro, and therefore decided in
favour of the husband, reversing the judgment of the
Scottish Court.

At the Newcastle Assizes, on the 31st of July, Patrick
Forbes was tried for the Murder of his Wife. He was
a labourer, with a wife and four children. Both were
of intemperate habits, and, when drunk, the husband
had often been heard to threaten his wife's life. On
the 22nd of March last, the couple got drunk together,
in which state they went to bed. During the night the
family, and a neighbour who was in the house, were
alarmed by a cry; and the woman was found dead,
murdered by her husband in a manner too shocking for
description. The case being fully proved, the prisoner
was convicted and sentenced to death. While the jury
were deliberating, a great sensation was produced by a
dispute between the judge (Mr. Justice Wightman)
and some of the county justices. His Lordship, wishing
to consult his colleague Justice Cresswell, who was
sitting in the other court, found that the door of
communication between them was locked. This door leads
into the grand jury room, which is situated between the
two court-rooms. A meeting of justices was sitting in the
grand jury room, and they refused to allow the door to
be opened. His Lordship ordered the High Sheriff to
open the door, and break it open if necessary. The door
then opened, and several gentlemen entered the court
through it. The foremost, who was stated to be Sir
Charles Monck, addressing the judge, told him that the
justices were sitting on county business in the grand jury
room, and could not have the door opened; he added
that the judges had not by statute any particular place
assigned to them, and might be removed to a public-house
if necessary. The following dialogue then took place:—
His Lordship. At present, I being one of the Justices of
Assize for the county of Northumberland, as well as for
the town and county of Newcastle, propose to have
sufficient access to this court, and I propose to have that
door open. Sir C. Monck. We can't have it open.
His Lordship. But I will have it open; and I will fine
any one who opposes its being opened. Sir C. Monck.
Then we must leave it to your lordship's discretion to
fine us. We can't have it opened. His Lordship. Then
I desire that that door be left open. Sir C. Monck. We
can't have it, my lord—we are using it ourselves. We
can't have it. The Queen's justices are using it. His
Lordship. But I supersede your authority. Sir C.
Monck. We can't have it—we are sitting in petty sessions.
His Lordship. Then I shall order the High Sheriff to
open that door. I am here on the county business
under the Queen's commission. Sir. C. Monk. That
room can't be made a lobby or a passage. His Lordship.
Suppose I wish to consult with my brother Cresswell,
as I do, on this case? Sir C. Monck. There is a way out
round. (Pointing to the ordinary passages of the court,
which were densely crowded.) His Lordship. Oh!
round there. I cannot enter into this unseemly dispute.
You will at your own peril refuse what I have requested.
Sir C. Monck. We did not raise the dispute. His
Lordship. Yes, you are doing so. Sir C. Monck. Well,
if you choose to exercise your own authority, you must
do so. His Lordship. I do so. Sir C. Monck. If you
choose to break through what subordinate authority we
have you must do so. His Lordship. Then, perhaps,
the better way would be, instead of your raising the
unseemly noise of the High Sheriff breaking open the
door by my order, that you should now make all the protest
you can and retire. Sir C. Monck. Oh, no; that won't
do; we are using the room. His Lordship. I wish at
this moment to pass through. Sir C. Monck. Specially
we will permit it. His Lordship. Is the High
Sheriff here? The High Sheriff here stepped forward,
and preceding his lordship, immediately led the way
through the disputed door, followed by his lordship.
This unseemly altercation, in the middle of a trial for
murder, the wretched criminal in the dock having fallen
back almost insensible while his fate was depending on
the deliberation of the jury, excited the strongest feeling
of general disgust.

Hall's Divorce Bill was read a third time in the
house of Lords on the 2nd. This case was of a peculiar
character. The divorce was sought by the wife. She
had been clandestinely married. Her husband left her
the same day, and went abroad with another woman,
with whom he cohabited for some time, and afterwards
married her. Lord BROUGHAM, in moving the third
reading of the bill, said that the House of Lords had
adopted the course of not granting divorces upon the
petition of the wife except in cases where very peculiar
circumstances existed; but that divorce was granted
because of the very unusual circumstances, by which
the case was distinguished—namely, that a young lady
had been led into a clandestine marriage with a young
man who had returned her to her home and left her on
the day of the marriage; that there had been no consummation
of the marriage; and that the husband had,
without any further interview or any further communication
with that young lady, contracted another marriage,
thereby depriving his first wife of all the comforts and of
all the enjoyments of domestic life which a young lady in
the marriage state had a right to look for. If that husband
had committed this felony upon this side of the Channel
he would most undoubtedly have been tried, convicted,
and punished.

The Birds, man and wife, who were some months
since tried for the murder of the poor workhouse girl,
Mary Anne Parsons, by cruel usage when in their
service, and acquitted of that charge, were again tried
at Exeter Assizes, on the 5th, for the minor offences of
Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and
of a common assault. The plea of their previous
acquittal was brought forward in defence, it being
contended that the present charges had been included in
the indictment on the previous trial. On the other hand
it was maintained, that the assaults now charged were
not identical with the murderous assaults of which they
had been acquitted. A verdict was given for the crown,
the judge having reserved a point of law in the prisoner's
favour. But he refused to admit them to bail while
the decision of this point is pending.

At the Stafford assizes, the trial of a cause,
Bainbrigge versus Bainbrigge, occupied the court five days,
and its complicated circumstances might furnish matter
for a novel. It was to try the Validity of a Will,
alleged to have been made by an insane person under
circumstances of fraud. Mr. Thomas Bainbrigge, the
testator, was a gentleman of ancient family and large