CHRONICLE. 
they found another man in it be- 
fides the waterman, who, pretend- 
ing only to want-to crofs the water, 
Was permitted to remain: but, after 
a fhort time, he, with the affiftance 
of the waterman, dragged the young 
gentlemen afhore, and robbed them 
of their watches and money. 
The election of a common 
* ferjeant came on; and Mr. 
Sylvefter being the only candidate, 
after fome converfation concerning 
the duties of his office, was unani- 
moufly chofen during plea/ure. But 
this being thought inconfiftent with 
the nature of his office, part of 
which is to act as a judge in the 
firft criminal court in the kingdom, 
it was refcinded next court-day. 
The following cafes were lately 
decided in the court of king’s- 
ench, 
€af 1. Brown againft Allen — 
_This action was brought to recover 
a large fum for the board, lodging, 
and maintenance of the defendant’s 
wife. ; 
On the part of the plaintiff it 
was proved, that the defendant’s 
wife had lodged and boarded three 
years in the houfe of the plaintiff, 
during which time he had provided 
her with money to buy clothes; 
that fhe came to his houfe, as he 
underftood, in confequence of the ill 
treatment fhe had received from her 
hufband, who had forcibly turned 
her out of doors. 
The counfel for the defendant 
Gave a quite different account. 
his cafe, he faid, was marked with 
the greateft enormity that ever dif-- 
graced a court; that the defendant’s 
Wife, without any caufe, eloped 
from his houfe, and deferted her 
three infant children, and ever fince 
* . 
ived in adultery, and had even at 
imes gone by the plaintifl’s name, 
fart 
If caufes like this were fuccefsful, 
the condition of a hufband would 
be miferable indeed; for every in- 
continent wife, after deferting her 
hufband, would call upon him to 
defray the expences of a life of in- 
famy and proftitution. ‘The plain- 
tiff was non-fuited. The judge faid, 
the law was clear on this fubject. 
If a man turned his wife out of 
doors, whoever received her into 
his houfe might bring an action, 
and recover the fum expended for 
her neceflary maintenance; but if 
fhe elopes, he is not liable to any 
debts fhe may contract. 
Cafe 2. An indiétment preferred 
by the relations of the late earl 
Cowper againft Edward Topham, 
efq. proprietor of “ The World,” 
for a libel, which appeared in that 
paper on the 17th of February laft, 
againft the late earl Cowper. 
Mr. Erfkine, on the part of the 
profecution, admitted that the de- 
fendant was only refponfible in his 
reJative fituation as proprietor of the 
paper; in which charatter, how- 
ever, he muft be anfwerable for 
every thing inferted “in it, even 
though it was without his know- 
ledge; and, he faid, this libel was 
the more unjutftifiable, as it flander- 
ed the character of a perfon de- 
ceafed, and therefore incapable of 
protecting his own reputation. 
Mr, Topham’s property in the 
paper was proved beyond a doubt; 
and the charge fuppofed to be li- 
bellous was contained under the 
title of « Memoirs of Earl Cow- 
per;’’ in which it was faid, that, 
while at Venice, and in Italy, he - 
led a very diffipated life. 
Mr. Mingay, counfel for the de- 
fendant, obferved, that, however 
honourable the motives might be of 
the relations of earl Cowper, who 
[9 2] preferred 
