Star. — London, England, 1820-01-28 00:00:00

MR. DUVAL. " Etiv:tte is thz characteristic excellenv, of good society." LOaD cssesTzartecu. Thoagh Fa.,hions, they say, seldom live to, bc ancient, la Mr. they were found not so transient; Th...., date of his School you mitt read in his dress, 13 Modein could match hint in strict pplitesse. carir; for substance, do ‘wed to form,. feelings quite cold, but in e:ijuate warm, 11,i held it an act of iniklibl2 shame, To speak to a person, unless by his name! s One night, at a Tavern, sitting much at his ease, Aati, much as wi:h form easy comf.art agrees, 111 beltd:l, at the. lire, a Stranger display His 1).1,-1.z—coat up.torn'sl—jnst, you know, a l' Angtois. Ile eye'd hire—would speak—but how hi: nu the plan? Long isontrring, at length he thus calmly began; " Will you favour a”, pray, with your name, Sit?" said he— " My name," said the other, " why, what's that to thee?" " Not much, I confess, bat I gladly would know"— " Well, Tk..rtrs.3n's my namc,'bim:c ycu will have it so." " I thank yew," said he, " that is all I desire-- • T'oc tail ,t ;par coat, r)fr. TUOMPSON . 3 on lire I" • Thi is p...n . f:czly according to the Canon :—" Never, in speak to a person, say Mr. irk, , ,t call'unt, or Mr. 2'.;i/s,ro;/".7b, but inquire his name, and address him by it."—CuESTLl:fxr.t.n. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, JANUARYV. IX THE MATTER OF DEAN, A MINOiI, AND WARD OF THE COURT. MR. WETHERELL observed, that he had very little, more to say in addition to what he had already sub mitted on a former occasion. Pursuant to his Lord ship's pet mission, r.everal new affidavits had been filed, the contents of which he would merely stwe, without any comment. Dr. Moore, Vicar cf 'Pancras, had tiled one, in which he fully confirmed all had said in his first affidavit, adding this, that when the banns were duly published, it no disco. very was made, then the marriage would be legal, ou which Mrs. Stables, with extreme anxiety, said, " Oh, well then, let the publication be continued," meaning, of course, the publication of the banns. The Doctor, whose conduct was above all praise, ;tiler the conversation was concluded, felt and de clared, on his con,cience, that in jus:ice to the very populous and extensive parish to which he belonged, he did not wish tliat any irregularity should be com mitted by himself or Curate, and therefore he stopt the publication of the banns, -as his own impression was, that the parties wiEhedji+r a clandestine marriage. (On these words Mr. Wetherell laid much emphasis.) Mr. and Mrs. Stables had also filed a new affidavit, in which they gave a very :iifferent account of the conversation, and observed, that as the Doctor was then in i;reat pain, and very unwell, it was possible he might have misunderstood the nature of what passed, and they still persevered in declaring their entire aversion to any clandestine marriage, and their. utter ignorance of what attended the elopement, which, if concerted, was quite concealed from them. There was also the affidavit of John Coles, a post boy at Digi2leswade, in Bedfordshire, where the two sons arrived in pursuit of the fugitives, and this affi davit more that the deponent, on being asked, told the two sons that the fugitives had gone only fifteen or twenty minute:: before thq arrived. There was an affidavit from Mr. Carr, in which that gentleman declared, that he had not the most distant idea of any such conversation having taken place as did at the house of Dr. Moore, on the 7th of December ; neither did he know such conversation had taken place, on the very day the elopement took place. There was also an affidavit from the young man himself. Such were the general discoveries made by these new affidavits, and he now left tile whole case in his Lordship's hands. Mr. HEALD begitn by observing, that as Counsel I for the defendants, he.had fet it his duty to bring the whole facts of the case fully before the Court ; not that he ever entertained any doubt of the proper line of conduct which his clients had pursued, but because it was their wish, and his also, to have the platter sifted to the very bran, in order to shew the Public, most satisfactorily, that no subterfuge of any kind was sought for. According to the first affi davit of Dr. Moore, it appeared that he asked how the parties were described, and he was told. He thought the Doctor should have gone on to detail the whole conversation ; and he could tint help think ing that the Doctor was a volunteer in this case— The LORD CHANCELLOR.—No-4 do not think so. 1 will not say whether Mr. and Mrs. Stables did so; but this I will say, that here are parties trying to in volve a Clergyman in a most violent breach of his duty. Dr. Moore is, I know, as excellent, amiable, and worthy a Clergyman as the Church of England can boast of; and I am bound to say, has done his duty here in a most faithful and admirable manner ; and I say still more, that by coming forward as he has done, he has just done what every Clergyman should do; for when any attempts are made on a Clergyman, to induce him to a breach of his clerical duties, that Clergyman becomes entitled to respect, aye, and to very high respect also, from the Court, for bringing it forward. Mr. IIEA.LD agreed in this, and though he dis claimed a wish to make any insinuations against Dr. Moore, still he thought the Doctor might have been more accurate than he was. Mr. SIIADWELL, on the same side, disclaimed the mast distant intention to doubt the testimony of Dr. Moore, but he thought it extremely probable, that that Gentleman, from his indisposition, might have mistaken the exact words of Mrs. Stables. Mr. WETIIEREI÷ then entered into a very long detail of the facts, and with much force refuted the assertions made by Mr. Heald against his client. fle then commented very fully on the affidavits which had been filed, and contended, that all the asper sions cast on Mr. Carr, were as unfounded as they wet e mean. lie LORD CHANCELLOR, after going into the facts of the case, observed, that Mr. Stables, who, front all accounts, was a very worthy man, ougla net to be suri.rised, if this Court called on him, titter the two 2: - :tters ht, had written to Mr. Can, and die.so lemn wiscveration lie had made on the lt:th of De cember, that no clandestine maniage should take place, to account for the circumstances under which 'Age was effected. As to principles of ho- lqur, delicacy,-&c. be bad "o r y m i t and he hoped, whenever he shou ld ly decide s, case, it should be withotir affecting the characteri of parties More than he ought, because the bound duty of•a Judge was, to refrain from such col , . ments,' if his duty allotted him. He .therefory*Fi dered the case to stand over till that day sennight (being next Thursday); on hearing thaw what length the Abster had got in his inquiries, lie wOld be able to state who the persons were that should or should not be in attendance on him. • COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY' 27. FORSYTH V. NAIA.. Mr. HONE moved for a new trial in this case, which, it will be recollected, was an action against the defendant, for infringing the plaintiff's patent for an improved method of discharging fire-arms by means of percussating fulminating gunpowder. The plaintiff had a verdict of £300; and The COURT, after hearing the Learned Counsel at very considerable length, refused the Rule. WRIGHT V. CLEMENT, ESQ. Mr. PLATT moved for a Rule to shev cause why, uron payment of costs, the verdict for the plaintiff, in this case, for £3OO, should not he set aside, and a new trial grantei. It was an action against the defendant for publishing a number of Cobbett's Po litical Register, in which the plaintiff's character wash he having been one of the coadjutors of Mr. Co!abett in the publication of certain Parliamen tary Registers. The defendant's case, at the trial, rested upon evidence that he had positively enjoined his servants not to sell any of Mr. Cobbett'r works, and that the paper which was the subject of this ac tion was sold clandestinely and unknown to the de fendant. ' One of the -witnesses, named Sudbury, a shopman to Mr. Clement, swore that his master had never at any time given him any orders upon the subject of Cobbett'ssvorks, contrary to his own pre vious voluntary statement, upon which the briefs of Counsel were prepared. Two other witnesses posi tively swore that they had received such orders from Mr. Clement. The present motion was founded upon the affidavits ef Mr. Clement himself to that effect, of his brother, Mr. Charles ClerAent, his principal shopman, the porter, and Sudbury, who now stated, as a reason why he had not adhered to'his original statement, that he was confused, and had-mistaken the questions put to him by Counsel. • The Counz refused the Rulefer anew trial, say ing, that as there was no new evidence, it was quite contrary to the practice to grant a new trial upon the supposition that the witnesses on the former trial would sweat differently on another occasion. Mr. PLATT then moved for a Rule to shew cause, ' why the judgment should not be arrested, on the ground that the counts of the declaration upon which the verdict for the plaintiff had proceeded were in formal, in that they professed to set out the substance of the alleged libel, instead of the very words. The COURT, upon this ground, granted a Rule to shew cause. 14ACETIONI W. MURRAY. This was an action for a libel, alleged to have been published by the defendant, in The Quarterly Review, reflecting upon the plaintiff's conduct, touch ing the fact of his procuring a passport for the late Prince Murat, from the Austrian Government. The particulais of the case, in which the verdict went for the defendant, were laid before our Readers at the time of the trial. Mr. Bum. now moved for a new trial, and The Coma, after hearing the Learned Counsel at considerable length, refused the Rule. The Court sat until an unusually late hour at this period of the Term. CONSISTORY COURT, DOCTOR'S COMMONS. MORTIMER V. MORTIMER. - - This suit has been brought by the wife against her husband, for restitution of conjugal rights, the par ties having been long separated. The question this day before the Court was upon the admission of Mr. Mortimer's responsive allegation. It appeared from various articles of the allegation, that John Mortimer, Esq. and, Frances, his wife, being resident at Blackheath, a Mr. William Alexan der Young, who had been recently married, was in troduced to them in the year 1807. A great inti macy subsisting between this individual and Mr. Mortimer, he was very frequently at that Gentle man's house during his absence is London, upon his customary business; and, on such occasions, Mrs. Mortimer and Mr. Young were frequently alone to gether, it was pleaded, in private rooms, and in vai i ons houses. It was further pleaded, that on the 17th of August, 1811, Mrs. Frances Mortimer, having given birth to a male infant, became alarmingly ill; and in the belief of her approaching dissolution, told her husband that she could not die happy, without relieving her mind, by confessing to him that she had long carried on an adulterous intercourse with , Mr. Young. Mrs. Mortimer, the same evening hav ing received the Sacrament, and supposing her death to be inevitable, made a similar confession to Mrs. Maria Mortimer, by whose husband it had been ad ministered. In consequence of this confession, vari ous circumstances recurred to the mind of Mr. John Mortimer, in which he had to complain of indecent familiarities observed to have passed between his wife and Mr. Young ; and, upon Mrs. Mortimer's unexpected recovery from her dangerous illness, he determined, in consequence of her conNsion, ro longer to live with her. Accordingly, he acquainted her soon after with his determination; but being un able to obtain any clear and specific proofs of the adulterous intercourse in question, except those which resulted from her own unsolicited declaration, he did; not institute any criminal proceedings against her. Upon consulting with her father, therefore, how best to provide for Mrs. Mortimer ' s future support and condition, they mutually agreed that she should go, to her father's house and reside with him. Mr. John Mortimer agreeing to allow her a maintenance of 1.:100 a-year. • Dr. BURNABY, on behalf of the Lady, opened the proceedings. He contended, that the sth article alone of the allegation contained a specific fact con nected with the criminal charge pleaded ; it was to this effect That on a day in the latter end of the year 1810, the said W. A. Young and Frances Mor timer were alone together in an upper room of a cer tain Louse ; and that the said Frances Mortimer was then observed t 9 have her arm round the neck of the said Young, and to be kissing him." But there was all tlirough an utter absence of any "strong or direct fact ~! . • . and only opt— circemlautcru—...-- erence even to the familiarities of the partiet. confession of Mrs. Mortimer; retracted . almost as soon as made, denied in fait, she had ever been guilty of the criminal conduct she was charged with; aierring, that it had been twice attempted, but that the intention had been frustrated. These familiari ties, per se, were insufficient to ground a suit for di vorce; and the Court would riot be asked to stay proceedings upon them alone. He submitted, there fore, that this allegation could not be admitted to proof, if it was intended to be relied upon as plead ing adultery. Dr. LUSHINGTON, on the same side, maintained, that this plea could not be admitted to proof, with out the Court violating some of the most essential rules of its practice. Dr. JESNER, for Mr. Mortimer, thought that the Court would be of opinion, that the acts cf adultery had been committed by the wife ; and he should con. tend, that the proximate facts pleaded proved her guilty of the fact, and that, therefore, this allegation ought to be admitted. Dr. ADDAMS followed on the same side, in an able and learned sprech. Sir WILLIAM SCOTT said, he wculd hear this rase upon a future day. COURT OF COWNION PLEAS, JANUAItY 25. CROFT' V. PULLEN. This was an action to recover £lB4 ss. for work and labour done; to which the defendant pleaded, that before and at.the time she entered into the con tract with the plaintiff she was a married woman. Mr. Serjeant LAWES stated the case. The plaintiff, he said, was a paper-hanger; and the defendant, at the time the work charged in the declaration was performed for her, occupied a house under the Ca lonade in Pall-mall. The name of Pullen was then over the door, and upon being applied to for pay ment, she requested, as a matter of accommodation, that a bill might be drawn upon her, _which bill she accepted in the name of " Elizabeth Pullen." On the bill becoming due, she refused to pay, and on the present action being brought, she pleaded, as had been stated in the opening, that she was a married woman, that her real name was " Cobb," and that her husband was still alive. The Jury, however,.he trusted, would be thoroughly satisfied of the truth of het plea before they gave a verdict against the plaintiff. A journeyman, who was'in the employment of Mr. Croft, was then called to prove that the work alluded to had been done, and that the prices charged were fair and reasonable. Mr. Serjeant ONsLow here interposed, and said• that he had an unanswerable defence to the case and he thought, to save time, it would be the best course at once to proceed to it. The fact was, that at the time the work was done by Mr. Croft, al though the defendant went by her maiden name of Pullen, she was a married woman. She had been married to a Gentleman of the name of Cobb, in 1804.: she was then a young woman of some property ; but, from the subsequent ill-treatment of her husband, she had been obliged to swear the peace against him at Union-hall, and had since ceased to live with him. The Learned Serjeant then called witnesses, who cli4arly established that the defendant had been mar ried to Mr. John Cobb, at Lambeth Church, on the 6th of August, 1804 ; that she had lived with him for several years, that they had subsequently parted, and that Mr. Cobb was alive on Monday last. Mr. Serjeant ',AWES said, he could not resist this case, but remarked, that the conduct of the defen dant had not been placed in the most enviable point of view. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the plaintiff under these circumstances, could not recover. He expressed a hope, however, that the party would be known to the Public, so that honest tradesmen might not hereafter be defrauded by her dealing in a false name. Her conduct had been altogether most im proper and inexcusable. The plaintiff elected to be nonsuited. IMPOTENCY. NORTON 4. SETON, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF NORTON. Sir JOHN nosier., in giving judgment en the above question, observed, this suit was brought by George Norton, Esq. against Sarah, his wife, in order to de clare their marriage mall and void. The libel given in pleaded the marriage to haye taken place in June, 1812, he being of the age of, forty-five, a bachelor, and the wife of the age of twenty-three years, a spinster; that their mutual bed, board, and cohabitation, continued till June, 1819. That during such cohabitation they weroboth in good health, but the husband found himself ,un,' able to consummate his said marriage, by reason of a natural impediment and defect in the virile parts, and that this would be proved by the inspection £nd certificates of respectable medical professors. This libel is met by an allegation on the part of the wife, by which the husband s suit is opposed, and praying that such may be dismissed. The question before the Court now was, whether it could entertain such suit ; and whether the facts stated in the libel, being capable of proof, the hus band is entitled to his remedy? In this case, the Court would take the facts to be true, or that is, ca pable of proof ; for the very admission of the plea was to prove the facts. In order to determine the doubts entertained, as to the admissibility of this libel, the Court must look to the facts or circum stances pleaded, and the objections made. The first objection to-this suit was its being altogether of a novel kind ; for, after the most diligent search, no instance can be found where a party had brought a .suit to declare his marriage void, as alleging his own incapacity. This libel sets out with the hus band setting up his own error, and where the party complaining has not.been the injured party. In ge neral, suits of incapacity have been brought by the wife, complaining of incapacity in the husband, but in no instance of the husband's complaining of inca pacity in the wife, although there was something like it in a suit in 1806, Wilson v. 'Morris. Another circumstance worthy of inquiry h, the libel, was—the husband was stated to be aged 45 ! Now, that a man aged forty-five should be ignorant of his own bodily defect, in this respect, was most incredible.— Where the wife joined with the husband, on account of his impotency, the suit might be maintained—but that was not the case here. She resists the suit, and her pregnancy proclaims his ability. No principle ~was more clearly laid down, than that no per4on •shatit toicrativeitsgo. of his owo flint& to avoid Vs own contract. The maxim of the canon law was, Doles nemini •ralebit rernedia, &c. By the defrauded party alone had such suits been maintained, praying to.he relieved. . Upon the Nvhole of this case, and on all the argu. ments urged upon the facts stated in tlris•libel, the Court were of. opinion the husband was not entitled to the remedy he prayed ; it was, therefore, the duty of the Court to dismiss the libel, and the wife. from this suit. - SPRINO CIRCUITS: Norfolk , --Lord Chief-Justice Abbott, Mr. Baron Graham. Midland—Lord Chief-Justice Dallas, Mr. Justice Best. Home—Lord Chief Baron Picbards, Mr. Boron Gerre-ff. Western—Mr. Baron Wood, Mr. Justice Burrcugh. Northern—Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr. Justice Pat k. Oxford—Mr. Justice Holroyd,, Mr. Jugaicv Richardson. Mr. Justice Payley and Mr. Justice Park will proceed t 0.04 the Not-thug... Counties, as is usual on the Summer Circuit, for the dispatch of Civil as well as Criminal Business. Yesterday morning, early, the house of Mr.Bown:. of Walcot-Terrace, Lambeth, was broken open, at ti back of the premises, and prcperty to a great amount taken away. _ _ _ H4rrox•CAnD R.N.—Yesterday, Sir Ludford Har vey, of Ledford-place, Bloomsbury, charged Henry fowler, the driver of a hackney-c , ach, s iti taken; more than his legal fare. Sir Lu.ifcrd stated, that the defendant's coach was !Med by his servart on the night of Friday last, t.) take Ladi Harvey from Burton-crescent, to Bedford place, wnich was little more than half a mile; for which the coachman rook 4s. and his legal faze was not more than 'is. It was past twelve o'clock.—The coachman, stated, that the 'night on which his coach was hired. was one of the most severe and tremendous this winter: he hal been at work from six o'clock in the morning, and having set down a fare in Brunswick-square, he was going home, his horses being very much jaded, when Sir Ludford's servant begged that he w,uld drive to 49,•Burton-crescent ; he told the servant he was going home, that he was afraii his horses .you'd not be able to perform the business: the servanz .aid, there was only one Lady to take lip, and uniess he came, she would be obliged to walk - home in the snow, as there was not a coach - to be found on any of the stands; and if he (the defendant), would come, "he should be paid more than his fare." Being so strongly appealed to, out of humanity to the Lady, he went, but to his surprise, three other Ladies (whose servants were out looking for coaches unsuccessfully), got into the coach, besides Lady Harvey. They aii lived in the neighbourhood, anti having set them down at their residences, he took home Lady Harvey. Being asked his fare, he said it was a very shocking night, and he hopes he should be paid four or five shillings: he was paid Is. Subsequently, Sir Ludford thought proper to summon him for receiving 2s. more than his fare.—Sir Ludford's servant being called, corrobo rated the coachman's statement. He also stated, that he had been looking out for a coach for a long time to carry home his Lady, and not finding one on any. of the stands, he followed the defendant's coach, and when he put down his fare in Brunswick-square, be requested him to go with him, and as the night was bad, and the defendant wished to go home, he pro mised him more than his legal fare. The Magistrate said, it seemed rather a hard case. By law, the coachman was certainly not entitled to more than 2s. but upon such an occa,ion, be thought that 4s. was not an exorbitant charEe, because the defendant might have refused (it being past twelve at night, and he on his way home) to have carried Lady Harvey at all. The Act compelled him to award judgment against the coachman, but he should not convict him in any penalty. He adjudged him to pay to Sir Ludford the 2s. overcharged, and also 4s. the costs of the summons, &c. which the coachman did, and was discharged. BIRTHS. At Dysart, fifeshire, on the Sot h December last, the Lady of John Reddie Black, Eq. of a daughter. Sunday, at Sandsvich, the Lady of Captain Edward Harvey, Royal Navy, of a daughter. MARRIED: On Wednesday, the 26th instant, at Q. Pancras, Mr. Jobs. Day Blake , of Clement's Inn, Attorney at Law, to Miss Char lotte Drow, niece of John e Fleury, of Uppor North-pLxv, Gray's Inn-road, Esq. On the 22d last. at St. James's Church, Li,mteaant Area, R. N. to Ms, 'enables, of 'lgo-lace. At Edinburgh, on the 19th inst. the Rev. Patrick Brewster, bne of the Ministers of the Abbey Church, Pailey, to Franco Anne, youngest daughter of the late Colonel Ed, and Stafford, of Mayne. DIED. At Swift's-row, Dublin, of an inflammation on the Innis, aged '2O, Hiss N:ary Ann Harkey, daughter of the late .Mr. Thomas Htskey, of Upper Orn.ond Qeay. At Belfast, Mr. John Hamill, proeisi,m-merchant : rerarnirg borne during the thick drifting of the snow -storm, he mistook his way, fell into May's dock, and was unfortunately drowned. At Up-Park Camp, Jamaica, on the 4th October last, Lieu tenant George Logan, of tae 9t.'d Regiment, in the 34th year of his age. After having served upwards of thirteen years with his Regiment, at W_lcheren, in Portugal, Spain, and France, sal being present at the memorable battle of Waterloo, whets be was severely woundedihe accompanied his Regiment to Jamaica, where he fell a victim to the malignant fiver of the island. At Monies House, on the 13th inst. • James Robertson, Kg. late of Killichangie, aged 96. Me outlived all his own facility (the male part of which honourably bled and died in the terrine of their country), and also all the companions of his youth. lie was at the battle of Culloden, in 1746. He commanded a com pany of the Athole Highlanders upon that memorable day ; and being perfectly collected in his senses to the last moments, Ins enthusiastic accounts of the dead, of other years were truly interesting. January 17,31 r. Philip T. Meyer, th 6 eminent composer and professor on the harp, in the 86th year of his age. On the :Bth iiiszemt, at Edinbuzgb, aged tW., Mr. William M'Cleish, printer. lit his seat in Northampton, I.7aited States, on Sunday, the 7th November, in the 73th year of his year, Caleb En-01.g. late Governor of Massachusetts. He attended public worship on that day, a;;LI app ared in his usual good health and chectfulatLa till a few - minutes before his decease. The death of no trani Ns the State, perhaps, would c:.eited more deep and generai regret. Be was able and ditii.terested Statesman, a suicer. and conscientious Christian. During the eleven ye:.r. he Governor of the Commonwealth, he rendered seivic.. , to th.-- people which can neves be forouten ; and his meatus- 5 ., is times of great party beat and contention, were remarkably popt.lar an.f. acceptable to his fellow-citizens. A Ith. 1. O 0 1 0 o 2 o 1 .0 _ 0 MAILS 71113 DAY.-.-A RR. MA. 1 j !Aunt 5 t Fnmee 1 11:u.tl.urzh 1 I tiom•nburglt 0 I ;.I.:lta 111GH-WATERat LONDON Jiltl DOH TO-MORROW: Mcnting - - minutes alter Afttru‘..in - - 54 - Weterford Guernsey and Jersey Holland Flanders LONDON vim Ka" Pickett- . " Oldyam _. . . . . __ , _ ..-__ 1 k r AN till 1....2 00 .... ...100 as F urn ente: Iced Tl path Roy afßic Men FOR 1 TH • Pr yard.— T.' of his 1 Drasvii lie Sat; „Tin D J. J Mone7 Prize- J. an a l'rize *rum ~lAf' baring frauds their znaoT SAL( house, vales. Des' Pauly the Ti Inds d A ~d ! Prit tellent Fleet sou, C Thi the Pl July conrim FerLi Unite bomb and aad - Pater the A Irk•get of Pa Brok , Whole And 1 littrao .11:11 P ~~-- So 1111trs