!P. 54 was an established I..ct that marriage and the birth of a child re eked a will. This doctrine had been established ever since the rase of Doe v. Lancliester. He was well aware that this case went a step farther, since here the will was made after marriage; but at the time at the Testator's death lie himself and his wife were igno rant of her pregnancy ; aid, therefore, he subiritted that the truth, tinder such circumstances, imposed such a new duty on the Testator as, bud he been living, would have revoked his *ill, had it been made before marriage, and ought to do so in the present ca-e. Lord rllenborongli asked, how did it appear that the wife was ig• morant at the time • flier husband's death, of being wills child ? Mr. Serjcant Blossett said, that appeared from her own evidence on the trial. Lord Ellenborongh thought so; no other person could Lave proved it. Ite oeilitted the expediency of the doctrine contemled for by the Lein Deal Ser • leant.' He thought if it was established as: law that every new moral duty which might by chance be imposed an a testator was to invalidate his A 4 ill, it would be a law pr e gnant with evil. If such 'tact+ Me were established, it might be contended• that the birth of a 7di or Oth child had a similar t fleet, and it was impossible to say where the doctrine worth! at .p. Mr. Justice Bailey said, the 'testator might have entertained suspicions, and probably not unfounded, that the children of the marriage would not he his own. Lord Elleitiorongli said, Ire remembered the ease of a common sailor having made a will in favour of a vulgar, common woman,• with► whom he cohabited. He afterwards went abroad, married a woman at cousideration atid • property there, died without making a• will. and the result was, that this °amnion Woman, with her will, carried ott• from the widow and her fatuity 'the joititlyittonieed pro perty of the marriage. This was the law•down to the time of the decision in the case of -Doe and Latteliester, hyleiliieti it was •esta blished that the marikur and the birth of a child sevolvell'a will. His Lot dship Could not think df extending thisllole to thepreaent ewe. Under all the grant the Ride. I of Alm cose , the Court refinish to SATURDAY. THE RING V. GOVILDR, , EgQ. The Defendant in this case who was a Commissioner of Assessed Taxes, at Coventry, WRA convicted before Mr. Jittice Dailey, of a conspiracy nit', Price, a Collector to deli and fivelieveral per lions residing at Coventry, of .fl 4. by charging thew with a larger Plllll than their A.:set:4rd Taxes anionitted to. . . Mr. Serjeantllan now applied for a new trial on the gronndm that the evidence adduced at the trial did not' go tio far as to prove the participation in fraud on the part Of the riefendvit. The Leartic.l Serjeaut slibinitted that a book had been read in evi dence which waif' ii;a(liniAs4l)le. Mr. Justice Wiley stated the fact• AC the case, and observed. that with 'egret to the book to which the Leitrned Serjeant had elbided, it certainly was not admissible evidence. Extracts from it had been submitted to the Court and Jury before it was clearly as certained what was the nature of it. In his charge to the Jury, he cautioned them to lay the book and its contents, as far as they had beard them, entirely out of their consideration. Whether they had done so or not he was unable to say ; but lie klt bound to state, that they had come to a verdict contrary to what he thought the evi dence warranted. The Court, on this statement, granted the Rule Nisi. The Attorney General said, in an ordinal). case it would now have been his duty to move the inlatit's commitment till the Rule just grantel by the Court was disposed af. Atter what had fallen from one of their Lordships. however, which conveyed an intima tion that the Defendant had been convicted on inadmissible evi dence, he should certainly consent to the Defendant going at large; and he would further state, that at the earliest opportunity be would consult those gentlemen with wlsom he acted, and determine whether the Defendant should have any fiirther trouble on the sub. ject of this Rnle ; lie wonld also commnuicate to the Defendant what that determination w as. 111, Seijeant Van:Jinn, on the part of his client, acknowledged the handsome treatment of tire Attorney-General towards him. CONSISTO'RY COURT, DOCTORS COMMONS, FRIDAY, APRIL 14. EARL OF ROSF.IIKRY V. COUNTESS OF ROSEBFP.Y. This was a cause of divorce, or separation, brought by the Right Hu rable Earl of Rosebery, against Harriet his wife by reason of adultery alleged to have beep committed with Sir Henry Mild- ~..-._._ TIM NATIONAL RECISTIM. !APRIL 16 may, Bart.--It appeare4l, that the man lege took place between the parties on the 20th May, leoB, in the parish chinch of Sr. Mary_ k-bone ; that they had issue by such martiage - four chil'hen, two sous and two &stelae's; and that they continued to live together in a state of prifect dutneatic happiness till the beginning of the year 1814, When an unfortunate intercourse was farmed between Lady Rosebery and Sir Henry Mililmay, mho married a sister of Lacy Rosebery, by whom be had one child, but was then a wi dower, his wife having died in childbed.— [Here the evidence was read, which went to prove the fins of adultery alledged to have been committed between the parties at the Earl of R. sebery's seat ' Scotland, and at otht r places on ;hair return to England, which facts having been so recently before the public, wen n verdict of 15, 1 :00'. damages was obtained against Sir HeniiMilitmay in the Common Law Court, we deem it not necessary to repeat them agaain,l - No plea was given on behalf of Lady Rosebery. The Court lSir WM. ScoTT), after recapitulating the evidence, •was clearly of opinion, that the adultery was proved beyond the ,possibility of a donht, and theiefute pronounced fur the remedy which the husband prayed. 01.11 'BAYLEY. Wednesday W. Johnson, alias Crowther, was Indicted for stealing a trunk from behind the carriage of John Colman Rashleigh, The prosecutor was travelling near Paddington Church, when the :prisoner &miswrote accomplice loosened the trunk, and it fell off di rectly after. 'Mr; Robinson saw this transaction, which took place near Paddington Church, and he secured the prisoner in the act of making riff with it.--sOnilty. Elizabeth Penning was indicted for feloniously administering a• 'quantity - of 'arsenic in some dimtplings, with intent to poison Mr.' and Mrs. Turner and family. This case his. been already fully re- . , ported in the examination at Hatton-garden'Police Office. The servant was continually pressing her mistress to let her make some .yeast dumplings, at which she pretended to te a famous band, she , had lived seven weeks in the family . of Mr. Turner, in Chancery lane, and bad teceived notice to quit for improper behaviour, lint • het' mistress took compassion on her and suffered her to remain in the'family. On the Itst of March the brewer left some yeast, and instead of getting the dough front the bakers as usual, the pm i•oner made it lter4elf. Mr. and Mrs. Turner, and the father of the latter, dined together. 'Mr.. T. ate very little of the yeast dumpling, but she was taken ill, before she had done dinner, with a violent sick. ness, excriteinting pains in the' bend, &c.; she was compelled to leave the table, and the pains continued until nine o'clock in the' evening. The other persons who ate of the dumplingkwere affiCcted in a similar manner. The prisoner had got the poison out of a drawer; it was written upon " arsenic, deadly poison." Medied men proved that poison had been put into the pun where the dump. lines were nixed, and the evidence was conclusive agaiuts the pti soner.—Onilly---Death. Adkins. a butcher, at Southgate, was charged with a rape upon Harriet Collins, a child tinder ten years, of age. The child resided with her grandfather, near the house of the prisoner. One night in the month of November he beckoned her over to his shop and ac- I his purpose. The child's evidence was rather impro bable, and the mother had consented in writing to take 201. and re ceive Sol. more by instalments for her daughters violation. The It( corder here put a stop to the case, and the prisoner was ac quitted. Friday, the Reccrder passed sentence of death on James Kink, for burglary ; Eliza Fenniug, for adMinistering poison to the fa mily of Mr. Turner; Elizabeth Young, fir stealing in a dwelling. house ; Cornelius Callaghan, Henry Beard, John Cambridge, and Mary Ann Clarke, for like offences; Henry May, for returning front transportation; Richard Naylor, for horse-stealing ; Abrahain Adams, for an timintural offence; William Ol Yield , fur a rape ; William Sweetman, for hilemny robbery, and Ednind Harland, tor forgery. The Sessions ended Yesterday. ACCIDENTS AND OFFENCES. DREADFUL MURDER AND SUICIDE. CORONER'S INQUEST.—An heftiest was yesterday held at the King's Head, in Roll's Buildings, Cha , icery-Lane, npon the bodies of William Waghorn and Jane Waghorn his wife, the former having on the preceding day killed the latter and then cut his own E;rost. The Jury having been sworn, proceeded to view the bodies, which still lay in a room on the JI:CUIId floor of the house, No. 1:2, .V~~J..~_ . ~ --,.~.. r` . .. 1 a!Ille.. ..:e..