APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



991 



Consistorial Commissary Court, 

 Edinburgh, August.-— Hillary v. 

 Hillary. — This case was an action 

 of divorce according to the laws 

 of Scotland, the marriage having 

 been contracted in England. The 

 pursuer (plaintiff) was Dame 

 Frances Elizabeth Hillary, and the 

 defender, Sir William Hillai-y, of 

 Danbury-place, Essex. The par- 

 ties had been married in London, 

 and lived several years together, 

 during which time they had a son 

 and two daughters. The husband 

 at length, having got into debt, 

 left England about four years since, 

 and took up his residence in the 

 Ise of Man. From thence he 

 came to Scotland, and in March, 

 18] 1, was discovered residing at a 

 hotel in Edinburgh, under the 

 name of Hastings, in company 

 with a young woman who was 

 called Mrs. Hastings; and after 

 living in different places as husband 

 and wife, they fixed their abode 

 within the sanctuary of Holyrood- 

 house, where he resumed his pro- 

 per name of Sir William Hillary, 

 andhiscompanion^ore that of Mrs. 

 "Wilson. On these facts the pur- 

 suer brought her action of divorce, 

 The defender being personally cited 

 gave in a defence, both denying 

 the libels, and objecting to the 

 jurisdiction of the court. The 

 cause being brought to a hearing, 

 the defender endeavoured to show 

 that the parties were not amenable 

 in the Scots court of justice on ac- 

 count of a marriage contract in 

 England. The commissaries, there- 

 upon, 6th September, 1818, pro- 

 nounced an interlocutor in the fol- 

 lowing terms : " That in respect 

 the pursuer and defender are Eng- 

 lish, were married in England, and 

 never lived together in Scotland as 



husband and wife, and that it does 

 not appear that the defender has 

 taken up a fixed and permanent 

 residence in this country; on the 

 contrary, he himself describes his 

 residence here as of a temporary 

 nature, occasioned by the embar- 

 rassed state of his affairs, and 

 meant to be continued only until 

 that embarrassment was removed ; 

 find that this court is not competent 

 to entertain the present action ; 

 therefore dismiss the same, and 

 decern.'' 



In this determination Mr. Com- 

 missary Ferguson differed from his 

 brethren ; and the judgment hav- 

 ing been carried over to the supreme 

 court by bill of advocation, which 

 came before Lord Meadowbank, 

 his lordship pronounced an interlo- 

 cutor, remitting to the commis- 

 saries to alter their interlocutor, 

 and sustain their jurisdiction. The 

 case, accordingly, went back to 

 the commissaries, and the acts 

 »)f adultery being clearly esta- 

 blished, the defender was found 

 guilty of the same, and the divorce 

 was declared. 



Court of King's Bench, Nov. 12. 

 — Doe, on the demise ofBeavan v. 

 Crew. — Mr. Serjeant Lens moved 

 for a rule to show cause why the 

 verdict for the defendant, in this 

 ejectment case, should not be set 

 aside, and a new trial granted. 

 The action was tried before Mr. 

 Baron Graham, at the last assizes 

 for Salisbury; and the question 

 was, whether the defendant was 

 the legitimate son of John and 

 Mary Crew ? It appeared by the 

 evidence of Ann Thompson, who 

 was the daughter of the school- 

 mistress at Devizes, from whose 

 school Mrs. Crew went to be mar- 



U 2 ried 



