Star. — London, England, 1802-12-24 00:00:00

• • went to Kenfingtein Gardens thel took a lunched* at my brother's houfe; Mrs, Lingham was there, and Mils Dixon, with tome country friends. There was then fome converfation concerning what pat fed on the night of the illumination. Mrs. Ling barn obferved, that the had been at a tavern with my brother, and had fome beef and a cool tan. kard. Mr. Lingham obferved, that they had fared better than we had, for that we had been obliged to put np with a paltry cook's (hop. Ido not remember that Mr. Lingham took any further notice. After this we went to Kenfington Gar dens, Mrs. Lingham and Mr. Hunt together.— My brother and Mr. Lingham attended Mrs. Lingham in the Gardens. On the tath of May I remember Mrs. Lingham going out with my bro ther—l am (peaking of the 1 ath of May. It was Saturday the 1 ft of May that I offered Mr. Ling ham the boric. It was Sunday, the td, that they went out, and (he gave him the key. It was Sun day, the gth, when the convcrfation took place about going to the tavern. I remember their re turning home on the 12th, before that Mr. Der barn was with me at my brother's houfe. I went with him to fence by his defire. I was [Landing at a neighbour's d.,or, he took me by the coat, and raid lic 'hilted me to go and fence with him, and that he had fomething particular to commubinate. I had a prior engagement which I 'pet ollf, went with hint to fence. All he laid as he went along was, •• Ito You know where Mrs. Lingham is:" I Said la N0,.1 do not, I have not been home this afternoon." Then we went to fence. Mr. Lingham obferved ping along, he did not like Mrs. Lingham being fo much at our houfe. Mr. Lingtiam went with me from the fencing.fchool to soy brother's houfe. I inquired of the fervent at my brother's houfe where Mrs. Lingham was—l learnt that the had been thert that gternetin but had gone with Mr.. Hunt i riding 4n Ids chaiiea.. I ailed Mr. Lingham to walk up flair*, au& talm -a game of cribbage with me till they &mist . turn. Some time after dark, between nine and ten o'clock, they returned ; the chaife came to Mr. Lingham's door ; I heard it flop, and Mr. Lingham and rnyfelf went over. Mr. Lingham helped Mrs. Lingham out of the chaife, at* ob (erred to my brother, that he (hould not Tuffer him again to keep Mrs. Lingham out fo late, or after dark. When we were at cribbage, I told kiat I thought it was very improper for my bro ther to keep Mrs. Lingham out fa late-. and that I thould not fitter it if I were him. My brother isl about one and thirty." '., 1 Csofs4mmined by Mr. Giaaawe'••••• 4 I had so. difference with my brother before this .time. I cannot fey whether my brotherisii man of general good character and manners, for I have been out of the country for feven years, and t have only returned to England 14 months. While my bro ther was married he um SII grave man in his man: ners. He was martal- or 8 years to a very amiable and as worthy* woman as I ever knew. I, antisiAiln mourning formy brother's child. He 101 l ?Atm:Hunt about left March, the died iii emi iqnence of child-birth. The Child furvived, it is e eldelt -child that is lately dead, he 101 l that ildabout a fortnight ago. Hehadfour children by' his wife. Mrs. Hunt and Mrs. Lingham were never Swath together; never out together. Mrs. Lingham , was * great deal at ourhoufe after my filler-in-law's detach :lam in the coal trade. Have no concert; la the bufineG with my brother. I have not raid that I had a concern with my brother in bdinefs. 'have concerns which I with to fettle with him. .7 never laid if there fhould be iierdia againk him for heavy damages be mutt fall, and that I mut fall with.lianj to the bek of my recollation, I do see know that I ever (aid any Erich thing." Thy eseltion was: repeatedly r -4a• upon the vritilefs.. and he always denied that be did it. to the bat at his recoileaion ; but be never peeled, denied it. fie then admitted that he bad gene to Barnet in ionfequence of a letter from his , which was fent at the fame tine that the Plaintif received the letter, which . we. have ten a copy of in tli4 opening . ; he admitted that met his brother and Mrs. Ungham together at Barnet, left them then, and came to town ; went back, and returnd again on the fame day in his brother's carriage, and left them there again. He denied any knowledge about his brother and Mrs. Lingham living toge gether at Eltham fine that ,time, Paid that lie sever beard of it until this day in Court. He was Felled a great deal, whether he bad not Paid to the Attorney, when he was fubresaed, that he knew the refrelhment which was takes by his bro ther and Mrs. Lingham, on the night of the Illu4 mination, was at the Sp ring -Gardens, at the Con feetioner's there, at Monet's. He denied he ever Paid any thing of the name of Monet, that he did not know it. He fiid thathe never did fay it was at the Spring-Gardens they took their refrefhnseas, to the belt of his knowledge, again, but be could not (wear itpofitively. He had beard it was there, lout he did not know very well how he had heard it, ilte. it was in different converfations, fa. Cure* bevies—lot the converfatice you allud ed to concerning the rifrefhment taken by your brother and Mrs. Lingisam, Spring Gardens me mentioned, but no place there ? A. Yes, Spring Gardens. Q . Neither Tavern nor any thing elk was men• tioned, but was only (aid at Spring Gardens ? A. Yes, only at Spring Gardens. One of the juq—ln the firk part of his etami nation, he esprecily Paid at a Tavern. CH's, Jos-nes, Yes, he did fay fo, Sir." Mr. Emilie and Mr. Glass propofed-to call back the witnefs, that his Lordfhip might put the tall quenion again, for that they apprehended the witnels had Rieke° the -Ilion, whe would his • Alice Burton lived remit - lath *hit Mr. ape' Mrs. Lingham. She was elarnined for the defen dant; for who& cafe the proved n othin g . b ut gave material evidence for the plaintiff.—She fail, " .I remember Mrs. Lingham coming home and Mr. Lingham coming home with her—l remember her coming from her hutband's bed to my bed, but why I do-rtot know?' Crofs•ezamined for the plaintiff by Mr. GAIL a 0w.—Q . .." Upon your folemn oath, did you ever fee a happier, or a kinder pair to each other, than 'Mr. and Mrs. Lingham r—A 4‘ No, Gentlemen, never." (Z...." Your tnillrefs had a child when the came one night to your bed from your matter's ?—A. " Yes.' " You were the nurfe of it ?"—A. " Yes." The child cried r —A. " Yes." vilL" And the mother came to k "-A." Yes." IIZ" And then returned to her hulband's bed r —A. 6$ Yes." " Upon your folemn oath did you ever fee r the ilightea impropriety in the condo& of Mrs. Lingham in your life "-A. " No, except with Mr. Hunt. They ufed to meet in Cheapfide, and part again, but I never faw them go into a houfe together, or into a coach." r. Easxtma Paid he fhould call no more evi limee. Mr. GARIOW oliferved, that his Learned Friend had concluded, by declaring he fhould examine no °Oct ‘itnefs. Had his ad vice - been taken by this molt wicked and profligate adulterer, the caufe would have been over long ago, and mach more to the advantage of the defendant ; but like UM !many other adulterers, he was not fatisfied with tearing from his friend the wife of his boforn, buthe mutt come forward to defeat the Juftice of the Country, by the perjured tellimony of his own brother. If the Defendant . had made out his' fe, letthe Jury difmifs him with a farthing da : • .... i ii „,...• • bas ifhe had failed, he had highly aggra a._ - 111rits. they would then look at the re -177". .ancripvitsha Plaintiff the utmoft extent ofthe damages—he bad afked but 50001. The cafe he had laid before them was that of an adulterer, who bad debauched a pure, innocent, and affeaionate wife. The letter he had written proved be bad deliberately planned the as he had afterwards ac complifhed at Barnet ; yet the plaintiff was not , quitted to any compenfation, W he had been a negligent or circlets hufband. How did that faa !and ? It had been very forcibly Rated ,by his Learned Friend. but the evidence had not .come ip to his (tater/sent, nor was it any thing like it.-- A family pa fey had gone to fee the illuminations • . a night of rejoicing ; they had accidentally fe- - pirated, and bocaufe a Lady had taken fome re 'refitment with her bulband's moll Intimate friend, their way borne, it was to be reprefented that • had a me a tete with him in fame . • • i , though this fellow, the Defendant's . • , . who would have h;d. the Jury to he io, knew perfectly well that it was at Mo tleys paltry; cook limp at Spring Gardens, where they had been, and that it was a public open Chop, as which the `molt refpeaable people called to take ajoach on their return from the Theatres or laces of public diver fi on. Did the relations and rends of Mrs. Lingham think, when the was tins the bad (upped with the Defendant. that Ike was making an avowal of her having been in brothel i The profligate Defendant knew where Ifie had beeit, and yet he bad had the wickedpefs t e ' E ntrua his Counfel to hate, and his perjured r, to attempt to prove, that it was a Ta- itan to which be had taken her. But after this e Plaintiff had permitted his wife to go out with Defendant in a chaife ; how was this fait—it wears& that they were accompanied by the De s ionk who was eight or nine years of age, Ed* in mourning for hi s parent. The Defen had recently 101 l an amiable wife ; the had , under cireumnances which endeared her npamc•ry, and encreafed her hulband's affeaion for her offpring ; the birth of a child had . de ilroyed the . mother; the Defendant had b . een de fcribW as i n a flats of the mina adllbout and *r. Cossld it have been (upwind that be was at i s period hypocritically pretending a forrow be did not fie!. He 'would afk, what was the fill** when a man would leaf! be fufpeaed of a deka of betraying his friend, and deftroying the 'virtue of his wtfa ?merely ;It flub a one as he had referred to With regard to the defendant.— However prollirate men might be, yet experience ideri bad (hewn, that what labouring under the preffure of an ALUMNI. Inch's: the defendant had expe rienced. their minds were for the molt part in capable-4f meditating criminal projeas. Many M n had thought that fuck of liaions of Cates were the awful vifitations to bring the vicious back to a fink of their duty. It was,low ; ever, at fuch a time, and under the weight of tack a calamitous vifitation, that the defendant had ruined an amiable woman, and Malted all the hopes of his deareft friend. He tbould be athamed if be tbouicht it neeerary to fay one word farther on the fubjea. CHAIM' TO TN' JURY. LordE Lt. an so ao u Gen denten ofthe jury, this is a cafe which deferves your moll ferions at tention. When it clofed on the part of the plain tiff, it appeared to be one in which he complaiaed of the fedullion of his wife, the defirnaion of all the happinefs he had -in the • marriage Rate, and the eztinaion of all the comforts of marriage, both as they were procured him by the potation of the wife he loved, and the child of that wife. It Rood ) therefore, with aU the circutnnances that ufbally aggravate the offence of adulte r y, with this add, - - - witnefs had minaken the go/Rion, or he would not tron, that it was committed i s, t ) liraor have anfwered it in that way ; but his Lordthip the plaintiff had pl ace d implicit •• • 7 refuted, obferving, that the evidence Ihould fend whom the defendant has Aunt.. i ts it was, fair that it would be infinitely dangerous confidence was sniferably inifpLmi • • " to let a witnefs mend his LIR anfwer, as loon as he language then what is contained in • d . •t s found it contradiaed tome material part of his for- own letter cannot be ufed ; and it w • liaT4l mer evidence. beta well if be had continued f 4 to contempleti Anne Atwood had lived fervent with Mr. and his own ea, -made fue.h repetition as was in bN Mrs. Lingham four months. She proved nothing power, and had not come Bite this Coors bus for the Defendant ; but beingcrofs-examined gave bad Altered jail oat to Dave o • material evidence for the Plaintiff. by default; alp •• • ••.• • -• • • • • • Did you ever in• oar life fee a son Av. 604 • s he has s. thus (tripped of the wife of his hotel% and deprived of the patent of his child, namely, by deftroliiii his charaller, and infinnating that he was himfelf the caufe of the loft of his wife's vir. i tee, of which he ought to have been the guardian and proteaor. He has Rated the plaintiff as guilty of criminal negligence towards his wife; and by' that negligence facilitating thatlapfe from honour by Which the bas involved herfelf and her but band in ruin. How this charge has been madei out it will be for. you 'to fay ; and whether the injury done by the defendant, is not much ag gravated by the way in which he has thought fit to !tape his defence ? It has been wade out by imputing negligence to the plaintiff in 'fat fering his wife to be with a man, with regard, to whom, after what pallid on the illumination night, he ought to have .been on his:gaard. As to the eircumtlance that took place on ate illumine don night, do let ns fee how a Rands, and whe ther there are any grounds of fufpicion, to the prejudice of the Plaintiff, for permitting his wife to hang upon the arm of his friend, upon an occa lion when it was neceffary the thould have the' pro ' teEtion of a man ? In the common courtefies of life, if a man has a friend he can truft, he generally, on. any party of pleafure, takes fome other female un der his charge, add anions his wife to that friend. In what friend did the Plaintiff repofe this con fidence?—in a friend whom he had Gwyn attention to at a time when his heart was &lining under the loft of a beloved wife. When Would any one fuppofe a man fartheft from purpofes of gallantry and feduaion ? Surely - at fuch a time as this, un lefs we are to confider fociety In polluted in this bad age, that we are to fufpeEt pur molt intimate friends. In this fituation they went out on.a night when every one knew tbatfiseb a.party Thight be in nocently walking out. They were fepartted by the crowd ; a eircumftancc extremely likely to hap- pen. Could the plaintiff fufpe& that a woman, with whom be bad been living in harmony for a year a half, had been mifpending her time by going to a Brothel; for that is the infinuation of the witoefs, Charles Hunt, though he knew the MS at tome place at Spring Gardens, and did not sinnainunicate that fa& to us at firft. It turned out the had come home after her hifband's party, and the account given by the girl who was fervent in the Loufe was,. that Ike faid they had been wan dering all over the town in fearch of their friends. you, under Poch circa:ilium% have fuf peeed any mifchief ? Then what follows ? The .whole defence depends entirely on the evidence of 'Charles Hunt, who tells you the Plaintiff was guilty offome negligence in (aerial/ the Defeo: 'dand, after this, to take his wife out ua .'a claire ; but though there was an attempt to difguife the ,faa, it appears the Defendant's fon, a of eight or nine years of age, was with them.—r ' tlimits mutt there be to our jealoufy, if conduit like this is to excite fufpiciou I Gentlemen, Iwtll not detail the evidence, I do not with to occupy moreof your time than is neeefary. I have no one übfetyndwil to offer, by which I can Wield this ddendnat frank the full reparation you may be difpofad us make in favour of the plaiatiff,who hu ha4aevery focial sight invaded by a falls friend, who has violated away moral virtue. The Jury, without a minute's' befitation, turned a verdia for the Plaintiff—Danisges soool. 1NC2112211. 23. PATIKT toa lILSACHING TIVANT W. ♦ALLSY , This was an anion of thcui the Manufaiturers of this 9nuntry, 40 the World in general, iutfmr Alid the Monopoly of one of the e-overks for the promotion of been dearoyeß,andthe procefs'. ia now thrown open to every one to adopt it. Mr. &smut Rated the cafe on the part of the Plaintiff. After Tome general nbfervations on the neceffity of fecuring to the ingenious the profits of their inventions,. he Rated the invention of this ~ B leaching Liquid by the Plaintiff to have been one of the molt ufeful difcoveries of modern times. It correßed all the impede/lions of the former. procelles, for bleaching, and was a mod material raving in point of expence. The Plainti ff , who was the bra inventor, obtained a patent for the invention in the year 1798, and had ever finee ex clufively enjoyed it, until the Defendants, who are Bleachers at Bolton, thought of manufaßuring it. This was tech a dire& violation of his Patent, that he thought it necefary to bring this anion to vin dicate his rights. The difcovery which the Plaintiff claimed as his own, and which he fpecified in his patent, was a method of ufing Gaiter:situ Zarthr, for the purpofe of neutralizing the exnenated muriatici acid gar. The hißory of this improvement was fo conneßed with that of the proceffes formerly ufed in bleaching, that it was necefary to Rate them all. Formerly inthes were the only article ufed to alfill the opera lions of nature in bleaching linen or cotton. After wards the oxygenated muriatic acid, was intro '.eaced, but it was found to have too powerful an laiSion both on the colours, when any were wove into the fabric, and on the texture of the cloth it (elf. To remedy this inconvenience, recourfe was nest had to alkalis, to neutralize the oximuriatic acid, before expofing the goods to its aftion : this was found to anfwer pretty well, but the quantity .of pot or pearl afh required in this procefs render. jd it fo very expenfive, that it became a defidera tip to difcover a cheap fubttitute poffeffing the isme, or fuperior detergent powers, which was completely effeßed by the di(co:E claimed under this patent. The difecuon7, rub- Pitting lime for potafe,sind in blips the , J im, which theltne is put, and the gas paires4 to dt Ive, by means of quetson, • gar veldt, of the oximuriate of lime, r* • cad bytlie untofit of the oximuriatic acid and the lime, than could 10.'difolved without agita tion. This is the pginciple of the belt and cheapen bleaching liquid ever invented ; for which the in- 'autos jußty obtained a pAIXIIt t which the condua l of the Defendant had obliged him to fupport by the prafent wQuld ha exceed the Ibpits figfAstiff IPS/A*7olre 14 1 jf,IP $ bis 4, I. 4 41 ' Lir. =oft importance to Itry, tnacieace, and necb2 the Ter- m me* sable dill the Arts has i - of its brahnfaenti Ine who isarthoofe Might have given laforreation to prof twi z otm ff hiht o oeieti r litnid s ei ih o fri de i n: rt %:ivec( ' nifty we mutt content ourfelves with pref . to our }Watts general outline of the cafe e ] 'tin ' Mr. Graham, a tnetchant of (IlafgoW, h - d the year :797 (the year before the plainti; tamedL. i g nipto. very; l.,ciicuegni rhglic h se i ht s hbehe P ewafo a dea t rit e sepf n wrei t enr ) eqi In: : beenat recacn:ctqtal:niyl awd acquainted a i ti hvd w d re e o rwlaf r eeidd l worsts ann the fubjelt as con fi dering it a new i t : ha l: h i t ti : ts; been writ t en s it c t oc en iet o y n f for ourbojmedotoinfgbl at Hoyle, bleacher at Manchefter, Mr. Taylbr g S ec had tart' b :o and Sciences, Mr. Howard, a celebrated ch London, and feveral other perfons of gre:tinhiTirgr as the inve et n nh and fcience, as well as bleachers who had u fed plaintiff's bleaching liquid, declared they u - e f t or .r m ai e d rl zt y hP i u st f l e i' cc . a , wayi confidered the plaintiff tor, and they had never heard of the procefs before " 1 plaintiff had obtained his patent ; they confirmed "C the datement of Mr. Erfkine with reib e et q uid different isfu p p t e o r c i o e ff r e t s o forall thatbleaching hadb in this repel, that in the former preparations th' e was ufually a redundancy of ac id not nnitralizeL which injured the goods both in their fubfiance and in difcharging the colour, where: s, in preparation, the gas is completely neutralized, and the lime is redundant. As to the expellee, die. difference is fo material, that to :me Compan y cf Bleachers, Meas. Ainfworth and C o . of Bolton, there is a raving of 2sool. a year from the oft of it. Mr. GARIOW ridiculed with his accuflomed hu mour the pretenfions of the plaintiff to originalitr in this difcovery : he laid, every one that had paid the flighteft attention to there rubjeets, knew before the plaintiff was bon:, that lime would neutralize the muriatk acid; and as to the other part of I , :s difcovery, the agitation and mechanical firfperilion of the particles of the lime by the means of a paa' , l.'e or rak introduced into the receiver, when he heard of this wonderful difcovery, and its important effects, he could not but take credit for more in genuity than he before fancied he poffelled ; he could recount experiments that he had very lately made, which; hre_a llt4na iefemblance in princi ple to the. Wein cafe. Being obliged to attend Guildhall ! veil" early in the mornings during the Sittingi, be often eat his breakfaft in a great hum, And when that fubbuce, commonly called Sugar, did not diffolve in his tea-cup as quick as he wifhed it, he ufed to put in his rake or his pad;//e, and ftir it about, which ufually pro. duced the defired effect; he never knew, how. ever, at the time, that he was doing a very Oils fophic.al. thing, that he was producing mcchan'cal Magiossby agitation, and he never had appli e d fOr Pima for the difcovery. Something like thi s the difcovery of the Plaintiff appeared to SM. Not that he in the leafi intended to fay that the Plaintiff was not entitled to great credit, for introducing into general life a proofs which bad been extreme ly beneficial. He bad certainly tendered a fervice to hie emintry, anclbe 'would not envy him any re ward he aught get in any other manner; but when he claimed a wasp* as the inventor, his claim would be finitely dettroyed by !hewing that he was not the. inventor. The Learnitd Counfel then alluded to a remark able cafe, where a man, who had acquired an im am& fortune by a monopoly, fecured to him by Patent, thought of bringing an aaion ilmilar 'prefent. One of the Witneffes on the other Tide wasint, old watchmaker, who. had (pent his fife is the greateft penury and diarels. This man twine that the invention was his, and that the Pa tentee had given him half a guinea for it. He con. fidered that many Patentees would ad prudently a *tiring what they could for their rtimial dif coveries, without being too ready to try the right of their Patent, by bringing fuch aflions as the prefent. The Learned Couniii then dated at length thenatureof the evidence he {honk' produce. Pilkinvon, who has been foreman to diff:rent Mr. Hall, a Bleacher in Nottingliamiiiiie, gr. bleaching concerns, Mr. Grati-cr of Mancheiter, and other Witneffes, fwore that they had theta rafts ufed Erne exadly for the purp(ifes rpecified in the patent, long before the Plaintiff obtained this patent. Mr. Foy, who had formerly taught the 'ufe of the muriatic acid in bleaching, (Aid that it was he himfelf who bad fuggefted to the Plaintiff the idea of ufing lime in this (late of agitation : oa his crors-examination he admitted, however, that he had never made any experiment to tt nice an extra quantity of lime to the oximui iatic acid, by keep ing the lime mechanically fofpcnded in the water by agitation, durin_g the palling in of the gas in: , ) the receiver or yeffel containing the lime, in the manner fpecified by the patentee, till after die dare of the patent; nor did he know that any other perfon had. • Mr. ERSKINE offered' to produce counter evi dence to falfify the tettimony of Mr. Foy, and mome other of the defendant's witneffes ; but Lord El• LI LIORt UGH and the Jury thought, from the 1.4.• Lure of the evidence already produced, that there was no need for proceeding farther in the caofe. ' The Plaintiff was nonfuited. BIRTHS. On the 17th loft. the Lady of J. J. H. Hopper, of Wittt,n Caftle, Efq. of a daughter. On Monday, at Ms houfe in Bedford-row, the Lady oi John Bond, Erg. of a daughter. MARRIED. Thufday laft, at St. Bride's Church, Fleet-ftreet, by the R ev. Dr. Langford, Mr. William Stanbrough of Iftewerth, to N:.is Kneslt, of Sion Hill, in the Came para. Tnefday left, at St. Martin's In the Fields, by the Rev. P. Yoke, the Hon. Reginald Cocks, youngeft fon of Lord Sons. tners,to MA Anne Cocks, fecond daughter of James Coeltg, Lig At Edinburgh, the tyth inft. Mr. Andrew l'hoinfon, of ‘% myrs, to Mifs Brodie, daughter of Mr. John Brodie, Dyf ,rt. DIED. At Edinburgh, the filth lnfL Chu. Hunter, of Burniide,Ecq. At Elgin,the nth init. Janses Laic, Efq. of Kininvie. Latsdbat Be4l9,lltansdnaced age, Richard Garrard, Efq. HIGH iiiATBIL AT'LQNDON BR IDG E TO-MORROW Wain • • •• •• • • zo minutes after 3 4WD?* 39 minutes after 3 LONDON: Printed for the Propri non, by JOHN DA NIF. L. (~t Maiden-lane, Covent-Guden )at the Sr* PRINTINS x a R I V :af No. 1, Carty-Brea: ry and ?yell jtAed i t a r rc LE_v r EL , Gov ben)u P 49. • Y•tt NUMB ] V" lq TAii 1 cri cr !via way f r igki i ~,ra.'fy J , ic.i ..‘ ic3r act 'Mr igvnetsr3 as girths to he teat 0 : 7 :1:ornts • 82 :ion to on or afti LA' Asi refpeaa mom= kumbly If yon Lion, to the hop nu not Aidero Dec. 23 Mr, itavegi At Gu - the E I ri s ; I dcpth; is a bri poffetTil ✓with a per am - Ma) mires ; Co. N TO t At the 29t1 13001 " ~ef Scat inoder tlernan and col •Lawn Kith a g Trees, Coach fever a "'ago* Thi by 18 lent I Chair Alt Ont-1 'Prtt) at Hi Fenn( three City Al witl.l Ins ii TO 1 Ply tab tro Pr bowie Mori Tow 'Fe t koc fror of ti :no! tine bbe