Star. — London, England, 1809-06-30 00:00:00

114 ff INTELLIGENCE: ~. , . , . •., .. . . . COCO OP COMMON PLIAS, JUNS tin ' met LEH ESTER Vaitist THE PROPIHETOtts 01 THE HORNING HERALD. . 'the action was brought for inserting the following paragraphs in the Herald at various periods in the Course of last year:—" Articles have been exhibited against a Noble Lord by his Lady, similar to the ar ticles which were exhibited by Lady Audley against ha. Lord, upon which he was convicted and deservedly executed ; but in the present instance, there were cir cumstances of far greater atrocity."-4 1 The wretched son of an English Marquis has absconded, on charges which Lady C. (Chartley being his title, when the old Marquis of Townshend was Aim) has exhibited against him. A special warrant.has been issued-for ' apprehending this Lord, whose infamies have long rendered him a disgrace to human nature." Mr. Serjeant BEST stated the nature of the libel, in a most able speech, in which he commented upon the tendency of so infamous s a charge, he proceeded to call witnesses to prove the crime and conviction of Lord Audley, the publication of the libels in ques tion, and how they were construed to attach to the Noble plaintiff. Mr. Mills, the solicitor for the plaintiff, proved That the separation had not taken place between the plain tiff and his wife in March 1808, when the two first paragraphs were published. He himself had dined at Lord Leicester's house in the April following, where he saw Lady Leicester, with some relations of the family. When he observed the paragraphs in question he had no doubt of their allusion to Lord Leicester.—On his cross examination by Mr. Serjeant Omar., he stated as his reason, among other things, that he had heard certain flying rumours respecting the conduct of the plaintiff. I - le admitted. that a person of the name of Neri dined with him az Lord Leices ter's table, and that this man had settled his Lord ship's accounts with him relative to some conveyan cing matters. - The case of the Plaintiff was then closed. Mr. Serjeant COCKLE then rose on the part of the Defendants. He said he rose with considerable con cern upon a subject, odious in its own nature, and which must give pain and disgust to every man. His Learned Friend would have wished theni to believe, that the aspersions against the character cf Lord Leicester originated in the newspaper which was con ducted by the defendants. The fact, however, was, that they did not; but, as the plaintiff's own attor ney had admitted, there had been fyirg rumours against the character of that Noble Lord, bAor.. such paragraphs ever found their wiry into the news paper. The paragraphs had found their way into the public papers in the usual manner, and the Proprietors had offered to take their oaths that they were not the authors, and did not know who were. —Certainly he was not an advocate for slander or licentiousness in the prt;ss ; but it was. evident that public papers could nol be printed if the Con ductors were put to a strict justificaton of the truth of every paragraph contained in them. If they maliciously invented falsehoods, or lent them selves wilfully to be the instruments of malice in others, they should be responsible as authc•rs of those calumnies ; but if, without any malice, these paragraphs found their way into their papers in the. regular course of their trade, they certainly were still responsible, but not in the same degree, nor would a Jury visit them with so serious damages. It was al lowed, that notwithstanding all the evils which pro,. ceeded from the licentiousness of the press, the pub lication of daily newspapers, and the letting the pub lic know what was going on, was of infinite advan tage to the liberties and happiness of the country. — His Learned Friend had spoken- of the Earl of Lei cester and his wife having lived happily together.— How did he attempt to prove it ?—did he call a single relation, servant, or friend ? No :--1-All the evidence on this point was, that his Attorney had seen Lady Leicester at her Lord's table near a year atter the marriage. The fact was, that so far from having HARVEY V. PLESTOW. lived happily together, there was nothing perhaps in Sir S. Ramie's, for the plaintiff, stated this to he a the whole history of married life more wretched.— case of commercial interest. It was a bill filed bin , Three sleepless nights were all the miserable bride the Representatives of a Mr. Carter, deceased, against lay in her husband's bed ; and, after that time, they the Representatives of his Attorney, praying, an ac- were never in bed, or seldom at board together ! count of the monies received by the Attorney for the The Lady, in the agony of an almost brokm heart, and use of his client, and also for the suns expended by, i n sp i te o f female delicacy, wits obliged to reveal the his Attorney for him. . wrongs she had suffered. She had been obliged to sit The defencllmt pleaded, that bcbk debts of above dOwn at the table ocher Lord with wretches who are a six y , 23rs standing were b irred by the Statute ..if Li- disgrace to human nature, and vvlio ought nOt to be per nrt.l•ccii. mined to live. There was Neri, the Italian Secretary, • Tle2 Learned Counsel contended, that whatever Hayling, Plafair, and other wretches of that descrip might be the strict letter of the common law in such • tion. She was soon banished from his house by such cutes., the Court of Equity would not be bound by conduct. When he WAS at Glo.iCeaer-place, she used 1116 I•t). , .•!; but, on the contrary, would only inquire, to be at We abourn Green, and when he was at Pad tuttler a Bill here filed, whether there were mutual dington, she came to Gloucester-place. The Noble Li• -li , ors b oveen the parties, which were deemed Lord had brought forward but one witness, who :,.,.s o,rotind for a Bill for an accou nt in E q uit y ? knew noth in g of the matter. How came it that he •t ix 1.,w ,iiiil 'justice, as also the equity of England, brought fory..ard no relative, no friend of rank and it„-i:e , , in nrineill!, unfavourable to such bars as the fashion equal to Isis own, none of his juvenile friends, State e of Limitation, or any other strict, but un- none of the elders of the College in which he was c:%14.ie , - , 1,1e plea in bar of fait accounts, or demands; educated, to support his character ? On this subject 1 . . e crslelideo, th a his Honour would, cf course, de- there was a gaping chasm, and it was thought pro en--c t'.e account now prayed for by the plaintiff's per to preserve a profound silence. He, like other ',ill, site the attempt of the defendants vent to the Gentlemen of tbrtune, travelled in his youth, but was zji.so-action of the great distinction between the strict accompanied by this Italian, Neti,• who had been ,:,:mrnon law, and the more broad principle of equity; called his Secretary. This man he had kept in a a claiu•;crotis precedent to be established in this Court. i most expensive manner. When Neri married, al- The defendants, by their answers, had admitted I though he had not a shilling of his own, and did not 1. il:; 'he person they represented had received monies I get a sliming with his wife, yet they took a house, at 7•'• r tl.e use of the person represented by the plaintiff,' a rent of 1.501. per annum, and Neri lived more . with bat in general terms deposed that he had p aid it over his Lord shi p than under his own roof. . . 7 the use of his client, as they believed. This was r4r. BEtT appealed to his Lordship whether this . .;.,t seMeient swearing.. He moved the relief prayed line of defence was to be endured. If it was, it would i-r, on ti.c i rinciples of public policy and justice of , be in the power of any defendant to destroy the cha- C - iis country. racier of any plaintiff, by a story that he could not be Mr. HART and Mr. HOLLISH opposed the plain- prepared to anslker. tiii's ease, on the ~ _;roonds of the general inconveni- 1 Sir Jam ns MANSFIELD thought the Learned Serjeant once Of allowing accounts of so 'ling standing to be , should be permitted to proceed in his statement. opened, as all dealings between the original parties 1 Mr. Serjeant CocELE said , it was absolutely neces had ceased since the year 1789, and it was now too i sary for him to make this statement, to prove that 1,1t, - ! to hicstigate them. what had been stated by his Learned Friend (Mr. cis Honour observed, that it Was su ffi cient for the ii Serjeant Best) as an aggravation of the malice, was Bids of justice, according to the pure principles of this ; not true.. It was also his du t y to ' Wove that those flying Cart, that mutual demands wer e admitted to have , rumours a,tr,ainst the character of Lord Leicester were t.'.!:en place betweca the original parties. That was .so generally heard of, that his Lordship's character ailtaitted by t'• - .e answers of the defendants; •and that : had not suffered by the paragraphs to the extent that the Ati:intey had 7 cceivcd the money for his client's - had been stated, as he might perhaps shew that his :! .t• ; but whether he had paid it over was a question 1 Lordship's character was previously as bad in this re .:r., fc•-. - the -aster to find out when an inquiry should ; spect as any man's could be, who was not actually be directed. L., thzrefore, decreed, that a Master' convicted of the crime. If this were the case, it must should irvestigate the accounts and report the re. i most materially alter the damages. As to tbe obser ,a.l.l-, nomiihstancrug the Statute of Limitation, and 'ration which had been made of the difficulty of te e lapse of 90 ye.:rs.—Decree for the plaintiff. I COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE SS: BEFORE HIS HONOUR THE MASTER OF THE ROLLi. NEWMAN V. ROGERS. Sir S. ROMItLY stated, that about the year 1778,1 the plaintiff, while a Student at Oxford, had !formed an irresistible affection for Miss Frances Newman, I d a ughter of his father's brother, which ended in their union in wedlock, with the privity or connivance et the uncle, without, however, his express consent, or his being present at the marriage. The husband came el' age in 1760, and was heit in tail male to several estates, and a manor, of which his uncle was • then the lord, subject to an estate for life to his uncle; then 65 years old, and to a life estate in his uncle's Wife, then about 52 years of age. The uncle wished I to stirrer - a recovery of some of these estates, which became of great value in process of time, but this coeld not he effected until the nephew came of age, to join in the deeds , which h i s necessities and the erdue influence exercised over him by his uncle, • compelled him to yield to ; having.only £4OO a year allowed to him at the will of his uncle, although one of the estates descendable to him in reversion, was then worth about 4600 a year. In the deed a power was reserved by the father of the wife, to' make a fur ther settlement on her, when the recovery should be suffered, and also a fortune for her sister, the defen deer, Mrs. Rogers, and another sister, out of the estates which were the birth-right of the nephew. It was charged that the uncle had procured his own at torney to act in the business for all parties, and like wise his own Counsel, both since deceased, and that a marginal-note on the draft of the deed, in red ink, in the hand-writing of the Counsel, shewed that a leasing clanse, or power for demising for 99 years, on three lives, and receiving fines for the fresh leases, had re duced the interestof theplaintiff considerably; and that such a cle use was fraudulently or surreptitiously intro duced in the deeds without the plaintiff's knowledge. It was therefore payed, that such part of the deed should be decreed null and void, although the great lapse of time since the deed of 1780, and a subse quent deed of release by the same parties, executed in 1753, had been pleaded against this release, in a for mer bill, filed by the plaintiff in 1801, and the plea or- ; dered to stand ihr an answer, and of course disallowed by the then Lord Chancellor. The plea had been grounded on the statute of frauds and perjuries , as t;:e promise grounding the deeds was only verbal ; but tOr the plaintiff it was now and then contended, that the verbal agreement was acted upon and in part I performed, which took it out of the statute. His Honour was prayed to decree in favour of the plain. tiE, who had not been able to file or bring to a final he sooner this supplemental bill, in support of his iind the more especially as the deceased's uncle had been clearly forsworn in his first answer to the plaintiff's bill, as appeared from his own letters, now read as evidence, and as the estates came into the pos session of bonajTele purchasers, who could not be now disturbed in their titles, a compensation was prayed t , a- the losses sustained by the'plaintiff's estates, out', of the of the deceased, which are in the hands of t a e defeidants, who are his representatives. The Counsel for the defendants argued, that it was • a case new and untenable on its whole merits, but waved the statute of frauds, and contended that it was a tamily accommodation, which might be called op pression ag iinst the plaintiff, but not fraud. • It was denied by his Honour that the evidence went to prove any part of the transaction to be a family ac commoda;ion ; and it WaS stated that the plaintiff \vat extravagant ; for that after raising 56,0001. on the estates, he was not able to stay in his country, but had been a Lieuienant in some militia regiment lately, and is now out of the kingdom.—Judgment is is be given to-morrow. JULY 29.--,rudgment was postponed in the above cause, till his Honour shall have considered the evi dence privately. • liorlng a mai to society who had iseei charged with . such an offence, he believed that his Lordship might: whatever were the damages, .codtinue to mix, with the same respect, in that sort of company with which he had long associated ; and that whatever the &- images might be, they. would' not restore him tb any sort of society which lii3 birth and'rank in life ap peared tb entitle him to. He felt no inanner of doubt but that in the consideration of damages, the Jury .Would pay considerablb attention to th os e circum stances which it was his duty to prone. A female was then called, who stated that she lived with Lady Leicester at the time of her Mat:. riage. Lord Leicester and her Ladyship slept to gether only three nights. Three men were the con stant visitors to his Lordship ; Lady L. used to dine with them when she was at the same house with his Lordship ; on the last day of August Lady L. went to Chatris, Lord L. went with her, but continued there only two days ; Lady L. stopped till Novem ber, but his Lordship did not come down any mere. William Newton, the landlord of the Cocoa NUt Coffee-house, was called to prove that Neri was a person unfit for the society of Lord or Lady Leices ter. It appeared from his testimony, that Neri had been a waiter at his house, but he knew nothing against his character. Ridgway, the bookseller, proved that Neri lodged at his house for some time, and rented the fitst floor, for which he. paid a guinea a week. Lord Leicester sometimes visited him there. George Smith,. an upholsterer, said, that he partly furnished Lord Leicester's houses, atWestbourn-green and Gloucester-place. He also furnished some goods to Neri, who then lodged in Baker -street, North—but he was not yet paid for them. James I)enew, an auctioneer, sold the furniture 'of the two houses when Lord Leicester's embarrassments commenced ; and he also sold some gffects belonging to Neri, at the same time—but he considered that as .a distinct transaction. ~~ • • dangly's.. of t& ‘_. fornotini l i postage Of that nose . T. le te two irs i w‘ Ito the elk A, in Whitli Oneattbsiteiiiiiiiti 4s ! 6d. LC" Eilenb"our d summed up the evidence, udant prated tlis ~. and after the Avkt &mid a veva> for the defendant. . , . JUG 29 ; • - , • day, the list of the Lames of* jurors, retailed by the In the fi rst Special Jurytause that stood for the Sheriff, was called over, and of one juryman ap peared, so that if the parties ha wished to try their cause by a common jury, it cothi not be done ; for as not one of the jury returned t the Sheriff apf pcared, there was nothing to which t& v could pray a Tales. • in another cause, in which g Special Juiv was sum: moned, the parties were not ready, and it we n t off of Course. THE KING V. TILE DUKE OF GORDON. The names of the Jury were called over, and wch of them that appeared had the usual fee, and wtre told that the Trial stands over until the next Term. STILES V. BUSH. Tha ATTeRNEY-GENERAL stated, that the plaintiff was headborongh of the parish of St. Botolplt, Ald gate ; he had been brought to a public house, called the Brown hiear, in East Smithfield, to quiet or else to take i:ito custoey the defendant, a foreigner, who had been noisy and troublesome for some time there, upon which he was assaulted by the defen dant ; which case was clearly proved by a cloud of witnesses. The defence was, that the plaintiff had assaulted the .defendant first. Mr. GAnnow complained th::t too many witnesses had been brought on behalf of the plaintiff to prove his case, which added to . the expent-2 in the way of costs. He called many witnesses for the defendant, but some of them stated circumstances which were highly improbable, and therefore the Jury, after a charge from his Lordship, (who said he was as ready as any body to censure officers of Police when they exceeded their authority, yet they must be protected ili the due execution of their duty), found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £5O. Mrs. Brisignag, wit° lives at Pimlico, said, that the Plaintiff called two or three times upon a young man of the name of Murray, who lived at her house, and when he was sick, desired him to get the bast advice. Mr. Harudan, an artist at Cambridge, knew Lord Leicester at the University; he was then Lord Chart ley. Neri, one of the persons who visited his Lord ship, lived with him as servant at that time. Mr. John Newby, chapel clerk of Trinity College,' remembered Lord Chartley at College • Neri was then with his Lordship as his servant. He used co be shut up for four or five days together, when Neri would play on the guitar, and his Lordship sing. Lord Chartley had a peculiar manner of dressing his head like a Lady, and wearing women's shoes—was quized by the town, and called Mint Chartley and Lady Chartley. The witness acknowledged he had heard unfavourable reports of his Lordship, but he did not credit them. Colonel Rainsford, of the Guards, was Adjutant in the year 1306, observed then several of the sol d;ers, when nut of regimentals, better dressed than himself. Many of them were in possession of gold watches. among others one Frith, who had a gold= watch, width Colonel R. discovered to have been sold by a Mr. Hamlet to Lord Chartley. Had heard re ports that Lord C. had been seen often walking aim I , in arm with the privatesoldiers. Yesterday as Lady RYCROFT and the young Ladies, Lord John Townshend, uncle to Lord Chartley,. Ware proceeding in their carriage down Charles -street, declared, that his aco-ie;eleence with his nephew had i Berkeley-square, the fore axle-tree broke at the corner ceased since 1804. ; their 0 trrel was no - persostel— I of Charles-street, in the square ; the coachman was he disliked his I. -,is i •onduct to his tauter. On I pitched off his hot on lhe pavement, the horses took his marriage, had perm tted Lady J. T. to visit Lady : fright, and run feriously towards Bruton-street, but C. but had but visited !lensed. were fortunately stopped by a Gentleman's coachman, Mr. Ste j .ant Beer eeplied. I when her Ladyship and the young Ladies got out, Lord Citief Justice MANSFIELD. summed up at treat i without receiving any further injury than the fright. length. In the corn se of which he observed upon the i The coachman was severely bruised by the fall. new doctrines broached respecting the liberty of the I Extruewee—Captain J. Sutherland, convicted at press. His Lordship said, that persons were at li- • the last Admiralty Sessions of murdering Richard 1 beet) , to publish what they pleased; but if they pub- Wilson, his cabin-boy, we yesterday mentioned, was lished libels against either the Government or private executed in the morning, at Execution Dock, in pur person s, they were answerable. The Plaintiff must' suance of his sentence.—At eight o'clock, a cart, with have a verdict, and it would be for the Jury to esti-, a seat fixed in the centre, was drawn to the felons'. mate the injury he had sustained. If reports injuri- door of Newgate, and in about a quarter of an hour 1 oars to the character of the Plaintiff had existed pre- the unfortunate man was brought forth, with his arms vious to this action, they must take into their estimate,. pinioned to his sides, a prayer-book in one hand, and whether any injury had arisen from the publication in I a bouquet in the other; and having mounted into the question to the Plaintiff's character ? Five witnesses' cart, the rop_ which bound his arms was tied to the had been examinei to prove such reports had existed. I front rail. The executioner andhis assistant then seated The jury retired for Upwards of one hour, and at themselves on each side of him, and the cart advan leeigth returned with a Verdict of One Thousand I ced, preceded by the Admiralty Marshal, sixteen Pounds damages for the Plaintiff. I Sheriffs "- officers on horseback, and about 50 conste- ASSAULT--SMALLHORN V. YENNEL. . bles with their staffs, on foot. The City Marshals and The Defendant charged the Plaintiff with having ! their men also attended to the limits of the City. The embezzled a is. piece, belonging to the Funds of a , cavalcade proceeded along Newgate-st vet, Cheaps'de, Friendly Socic ty to which he was Secretary. An alter - I Cornhill,Leadenhall-street, tot he end of Whitechapel, cation arose in consequence ; the result of which was down theCommercial-road,Cannon-street, and in that that the deft ndant gave the plaintiff a knock on the 'direction to the place of execution. During the pis head with a small book, called " Relief to all in dis- site, the wretched man appeared to pray with great tress." The Plaintiff had a bloody nose and black devoutness, and was observed writing with a p •ncil eye, which latter was soon cured by the application in his prayer-book. 'On his near approach to Execu of about a quarter of a pound of raw beef.—Verdict ! tion Dock his hands were tied, and on his arrival et for the Plai n:i if, Damages x. 10.1 the spot, he was lifted out of the cart, and walked juNE 29...ft . WELBANK v. YOUNG. down the slip which led to a temporary g ibbet, erected 1351. being the price ,for the f rom low-water mark. • This was an ecoon to recover purpose a few yards . firmness of a pair of horses, purchased from. the defendant, : 1 the arrival of Dr. FORD, the Oidinary of Newgate, he Here he exhibited great marks of ; and on alledged to be unsound. Several farriers were examined as to the condition' begged to be allowed a few minutes to pray. This of the horses at the time of their being sold. Some : indulgence was grente.d ; and having mom ted the tamed nearly fifteen minutes in the cac2ivc d that they were unsound, having had tl e platform, he ren d thru,li ; e•hers ....I,.ught they were not unsound, as most solemn and devout pr ayer; Dr. FORD reading a the disease WAS only in its incipient state, and easily firm of p ra y er, which be had /prepared for the canal:l ef remedy. awful occasion. The wretched man then,ein a firm 2 The Learned Judge, not admitting this d'stinctior, and collected . tone of voice, solemnly declared his rfect conviction th the. wouns which he ve charged. the Jury to that e ff ect , w ho ac cordin g l y perfect the boy were not the at cause of his death ; he denied brought in a vereic. for the plaintiff, 1351. • having pierced his intestines, and said be - felt COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE se. thornighly coi.v aced the boy died for the want of WILLIAMS V. RICHARDS. i proper care, and from some cause foreign to that This action was brought to recover the sum of 131. i for which he was about to suffer. He then deli ley the Executors of the late Williams, a wine- , vered up : his prayer-book to the emocutioner, and merchant, for wine sold to the Defendant, who at Dr. Folio having withdrawn, he threw his bouquet that time was an innkeeper atAbingdon. I amongst the crowd, and was launched-into eternity.— Two of the defendant's daughters proved that the He remained suspended. till the flowing tide reached 131. in question had been sent to the house of Smith, ! his feet, when he was cut down and conveyed away Payne, and Smith, it having been first paid to the late l in a shell for dissection. The concourse of people Mr. Williams, while he w as at Abin g don, b y a pro- assembled' on this awful occasion was immense. • tie missory note on that banking - house . I streets'thruugh which the unfortunate rola passed It also appeared, upon application having been I were lined with thousands of spectators, and the win made after the death of Mr. Williams, by his attor- : doors of the houses on each side were also filled with 'persons from all parti of the town. The crowd as kc ney, at the house of Smith , Pa y ne, and Smith, that the clerk admitted there had been money sent for i, proceeded became still m: re numerous, and -on ',ts that promissory note by the defendant, but that he near approach to the place of execution, the sin. e! s did not know what had become of the note. A re- became almost impassable. The boats, barges, and ceipt, however, was produced in Coon of Mr. Wil. . vessels ou the river, 'within view of the spot s were - likewise covered with multitudes of people. • THE ICING V. ELIZ. MORRIS. This is an indictment charging the defendant with wilful and corrupt perjury. Mr. GARROW moved to postpone the trial on ac count of the absence of a material witness, Mr, Fournier, a Magistrate of Union Hall, Southwark, defendant's lather ' • who was stated, by affidavit, to be to ill that it mouldendanger his life to bring himinto Court. On the other side there was an affidavit, stating, that this in& tment related to a case which had lately been in part tried before his Lordship ; afterwards referred to Mr. Lowten, who made his award. That award came before the Court; on which it was or dered, that Mr. Lowten should review that award; he did so, and confirmed the award in every partiem -1 r; and on neither of these three occasions' was Mr. Fournier examined as o witness. But it appearing that he was present at one of the conversations be tween the parties to which the prosecutors refetre 1, Lord ELLENBOROUGII decided that the trial should be postponed, and it was accordingly put off till next Tern-.