Star. — London, England, 1821-08-02 00:00:00

LAIV INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, AUGUST 1. LORD CHARLES TOWN:MEND V. LORD JOHN TOWNS- DEND AND OTHERS. Mr. HART, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. SUAD WELL, and Mr. BLAKE, were engaged in the cause, for the res;ective parties. After Counsel had been heard, The Loan CHANCELLOR proceeded td give judg ment. This case arose out of the petition of Lord Charles Townshend, against Lord John Townshend and others, the trustees of the estates, and their ser vants, &c. and its prayer was that they might he re strained, by the injunction of the Court, from felling timber and other trees, &c. or removing that already cut down; and also praying for an account, and that Lord John might be ordered to pay for that which had 13 - ... en taken away. This petition came from a party having a very beneficial interest in the estates, and was grounded on the Will of the late Marquis, which, amongst other trusts, directed that the trus tees for the time being should be at liberty to fell the timber, subject to certain claims and charges against the estate. On the Ist of May an Order was issued directing a reference to the Master to incnire who would be a proper person to be receiver of the rents and profits, and the choice fell on Mr. Daniel, who had held the situation up to the present tir.-I. In that Order, however, there was no mention of cutting tim ber, and certainly Mr. Daniel had no right to fell it other than for the purposessof necessary repairs. With respect to the, trustees, the present was a case in which specific confidence was reposed in them ; and it appeared that they had had the principal ma nagement during that period, they paying to Mr. Daniel the rents and profits, for which he had ac counted. This might have happened from a misap prehension of what ought to have been done, or it might not ; but here it would be extremely hard against Mr. Daniel to deprive him of his offices and be also pursuing a strong course towards him with out sufficient grounds being laid down.to induce the Court to do so. As to ordering a general reference, be did not think that ought to be done, as the ex pease that would be incurred would be more than commensurate with the good to be derived. If any specific deed, however, were shewn, he had no ob jection to order inquiry with respect to it, and would leave it open to the parties to again apply, if they should think fit to do so. fie would, however, re commend to Mr. Daniel to give his attention to what timber ought to be cut for repairs, and also to see that no waste or misapplication took place; and with these observations should dismiss the petition as against Mr. Daniel, with costs. The other costs to be paid out of the estate. The third Seal will be on Saturday, and :he fourth on Tuesday next. • COURT OF KING'S BENCH. AUGUST 1. THE EARL OF BALCARRAS, LADY ANN LINDSAY, AND OTHERS, V. MICHAEL ATKINSON, ESQ. This was an issue from the Court of Chancery to try the validity of a will. The question was whether a will was executed by Richard Atkinson, Esq. Al derman of London, in 1782, and whether that will had been since cancelled? The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared on the part of several persons who took under the will ; and Mr. ticauLtrr for Mr. Atkinson, nephew and heir at law of the testator. The Jury had to determine upon the evidence, whether the testator had torn off the seal for the purpose of cancelling the will or not. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, by which the validity of the will was established. CREW. CON. C.'VENEY V. YORSTON. This was.an action •against the defendant for cri minal conversation witri the plaintiff's wife. The damages were laid at £l,OOO. Mr. SCARLETT said, that this was one of those cases—cases, unfortunately, too frequent of occur rence—in which an injured husband claimed repara tion from the violator of his honour, his happiness, and his bcd. The parties commonly appearing in Court under such circumstances were persons moving in a more exalted sphere than that which encircled both plaintiff and defendant in the present action. llow that fact arose, whether from superior moral feeling prevailing in the middle classes, or from what other cause, he (the Learned Counsel) did not take upon himself to determine ; he simply stated the fact as it was—a fact, no doubt, as familiar to the Jury as to himself. One observation, however, as connected with that fact, he would take the liberty to make—whether the morality of the middle class of society in England was greater or less than that of the higher classes in their own country, it was in comparably more excellent than anything that could be found in the same class in any other part of Eu rope or of the world: instances of depravity were anything rather than frequent; and the example which the Jury were about to make of the present defendant would tend (Mr. Scarlett trusted) to in crease the rarity of their occurrence. The Learned Gentleman then opened the following circumstances: The plaintiff, Mr. Coveney, he said, married at the age of thirty-two, a young lady of twenty-two. The lady's maiden name was Johnson ; she was hand some, well-connected, and clever ; and the com mencement of their union was hailed by prosperity and peace. Soon after his marriage, Mr. Coveney, with a view to his advancement in life, became the keeper of a Tavern near Drury-lane. The house stood in Russell-court ; it was called ‘f The 0. P. and P. S. and was frequented by a great number of the leading actors of both the Theatres Royal. Mrs. Coveney assisted her husband in the management of his business; customers were not wanting, nor any thing which could give pleasure or prospect to a couple starting in life. In this state matters stood when the plaintiff first had the misfortune to become acquainted with the defendant, Mr. Yorston ; and the manner in which that intimacy commenced should be stated to the Jury. Mr.Yorston was a law-stationer, a married man, and the possessor of (for a man in his situation) considerable property. Mr. Yorston had a fondness for plays. Ile went frequently to the Theatres; and fell by some accident into the com pany of Mi. Oxberry akd Mr. Kean. It was at a party at which those distinguished and entertaining personages were present, that Mr. Yorston first met the plaintiff. For his new acquaintance, Mr. Cove ney, the defendant immediately conceived a great affection : as a sine testimony of his good feeling ~:~ ~' towards Mr. Coveney, he treated the company witif t a supper at the 0. P and P. S. and upon that occa-1 ion he was, of course, as a good friend and a good' customer, introduced to Mr. Coveney's wife. The l intimacy increased between the parties. Mrs. CoVe ney visited Mrs. Yorston, and Mrs. Yorston called upon Mrs. Coveney : in the meantime the latter lady bore her husband two. children, and, up to the birth of the second (a boy), nothing disturbed the placidity of the matrimonial scene. But the happy calm was not fated to last ; and the Jury would now soon reach the point at which it had been inter rupted. Mr. Coveney was invited by Mr. Yorston to spend some time with him at Margate : he ac cepted the invitation, stayed a week or a fortnight, and returned. It was then Mrs. Civeney's . turn to go out of town; and she expressed a wish to visit her mo ther, at a place called Whitstable,,neir Canterbury, where one of her children was at nurse. This Kentish journey was an important point in the cause.— Mrs. Coveney, after a fortnight's absence, returned to her family ; and, during that short period, her feelings and manners app eared to . have undergone a total change. She was uneasy in m i n d ; indifferett, and repulsive (peculiarly so), to her husband ; and careless of her domestic arrangements: Mr. Coven . ti, more in sorrow than in anger, remonstrated. The, Lady then complained of ill health : she hated ih'e confinement of London, and the drudgery of a chop house: another trip to Canterbury would restore her.' The plaintiff, anxious for her happiness, consented : his wife went from his house; but it would be shewn that, instead of going to Canterbury, she went twice to the play, and that Mr. Yorston passed two nights in her company. Mrs. Coveney came again to town ; but it did not appear that her journey had mended 'either her health or her temper. Mr. Yorstoh, mean time, had become the plaintiff's bosom friend. Mr. Coveney believed that he was anxious (as be pro fessed himself) to assist him in every way ; and lie confided to this pitying friend the secret of his con jugal distresses. Mr. Yorston regretted. Mrs. Cove ney mentioned a separation, and the proposal was discussed. Mr. Coveney was wretched at the thought ; but Mr. Yorston thought the measure advisable. Pending these disputes, ruin, the invariable con comitant of a wife's misconduct, approached with rapid strides towards the unfortunate plaintiff. His children were abandoned, his business was neglected, his mind was harassed, and his character was blasted,; the trade of his house declined from day to day, and, from day to day, he had more and more need, not only of the friendship, but of the pecuniary aid of Mr. Yorston. The Jury would ask, how did such a course terminate? How could it terminate but in the plaintiff's utter destruction ? Mr. Coveney was arrested and thrown into prison •, and the kind Mr. Yorston, in the absence of his friend, consoled the wife l for the misfortunes of her husband. Mr. Coveney, after several months imprisonment, obtained his li berty ; and, with the assistance of his friend, Mr. Yorston (who still professed intent to serve him) got into a new chop-house in Salisbury-court, Fleet-street. This was a new beginning, but it was a beginning under the old circumstances. Mrs. Coveney had been unable to make the house in Russell-court an swer ; and now she could not make the house in Fleet-street answer. Riot and mismanagement pro duced the same result in the second case by which they had been attended in the first; and the plaintiff was speedily (for the second •time) consigned to a prison. And now—the drama having lasted long enough—now came the denouement. Mr. Yorston, no longer finding any attraction in Mrs. Coveney, ceased to furnish even the means of existence to her husband or her family. She was left, with That hus band and her children, literally to perish, without clothing, food, or shelter; and at length, in an agony of contrition, confessing all that had passed, she re vealed to the horror-struck plaintiff the secret of kis ruin. Now this was the case, Mr. Scarlett continued, which would be proved before the Court. There was an attempt, he knew, to shew that, since the dis closure of her guilt, the plaintiff had cohabited with his wife; but the allegation was false, and the at tempt to prove it would be overthrown. Placed in a situation of wretched poverty, and unwilling to abandon his wife—much less his children—to perdi tion, it became difficult for the plaintiff to afford them, apart from himself, even a small provision; but he had contrived even to accomplish that point; ] he had done justice to his character by separating himself from the woman ; lie had done justice to his feelings in not abandoning her to want, to peril, and to public infamy. With one more observation, and with only one more, Mr. Scarlett would trouble the Gentlemen whom he was addressing. The plaintiff stood before a Jury of his country ; he complained of an injury the most - afflicting, the most cruel, to which man from man could be subjected ; he ascribed his whole ruin, in fortune and' in happiness, to the villainous machinations of the treacherous defend ant ; and against that defendant he now claimed— as far as it could be given—compensation. Edward Coveney, examined by Mr. HOLT, said, I am brother to the plaintiff; I was present at his marriage with Miss Johnson in the year 1811 ; they were married at St. George's, Southwark. Miss John son was 22 years of age, my brother 32. I visited them after their marriage. They had two children. They always appeared to me to live very comfortably together. Mrs. Coveney (as far as I can judge) is a creditable-looking woman. . Cross-examined by Me SOLICITOR-GZNERAL...—I am shopman to a linen-draper in Piccadilly ; my brother, after his marriage, kept the O.P. Tavern, in Russell court. He has since taken the benefit of the Insol vent Act. Miss Felicitas Johnson, examined by Mr. SCAR LET?, said, lam sister to Mrs. Coveney. I remem ber the plaintiff and his wife going to keep the O.P. Tavern. Before his marriage Mr. Coveney carried on the wine trade in Warwick -court, Holborn * The O.P. was a house much frequented by actors ; most of the London performers came there. I knew Mr. Yorston, the defendant. J think I first saw him about a month after my brother came to the .O.P. It was at a supper party. Mr. Kean, Mr. Oxberry, and a Mr. Burch were present: they sullied in a room up stairs. Mr. Yorston, after that, came very often.— He was very friendly to my sister and brother. They visited at his house. My sister went to see Mrs.. Yorston, and Mrs. Yorston came to see my sister. I remember my brother going to Margate, at Mr. Yorston's invitation: they stayed about a fortnight.. Before that time I had noticed that her behaviour was cool and indifferent to my *other. The change happened soon after Mr. Yorston came to the house. When he came to the house (which was commonly at supper time) he went into the bar, or, if he was up stairs, he.asked my sister to come up and take supper with him. After my brother's trip to Mar gate, my sister went to Whitstable, to visit her rela tions: one of her children was there for its health.— My sister stayed at Whitstable alsout a fortnight. When she came back she seemed much agitated in mind. She went np stairs as soon as she came into the house ; and my brother went up after her. Soon after my sister came down stairs, and seemed as if she had been crying. On the everting of my sister's return from Whitstable, Mr. lot stun came in about eight o'clock ; he appeared surprised to we my sister, and asked when she came. She said that she had slept the night before at Chatham, and that she had come to town by the Chatham coach. That was in the year 1819. My sister afterwards went two on three times to see her relations. Some time after this i my brother was arrested, and Mr. Yorston's visits were more frequent than before. One night, about twelve o'clock, -Mr. Yorston came in and told my sister and myself that Mr. Coveney had been supping with him, and was gone to his lodgings in the Rules. Presently Mr. Coveney himself came in; and Mr. Yorston hastily went out by another door, desiring us not to say that he had been there. I did not men tion it, nor (I believe) did my sister. When my brother came out of prison, he kept a.l eating-house in Salisbury' -court, Fleet-street. I was there with him three months. Mr. Yorston came frequently, but did not seem so friendly as he had been at theo.l'. Some times he camc when my brother was nut. Cross-examined by Mr.G URN Ly.—My brother went to keep the 0. P. about four years ago. Most of the theatrical people came there: about seven or eight of them used to come into the bar. The house was famous for mirth and merriment: My sister never went out with any of the Gentlemen who canie into the bar. There was a Captain Smith came to the house,'who kept (or said that he kept) a tilhury : my sister did go out twice with him. Captain Smith' commonly dined in the coffee-room, and never went up stairs afterwards to take his wine : of course, my sister did not go up with him. I never saw any one take liberties with my sister in the bar: there were not eight or nine Gentlemen who used to take libel-- ties with her in the presence of her husband. My brother and his wife were happy in 1817 and 1818 : there was no talk of a separation then. Sometimes, after Mr. Yorston had made my brother tipsey, he did use ill language to his wife. He was not tipsey twice a week. In the years 1817 and 1818 I thought my sister a well-conducted woman : I never heard any indecent conversation used in her presence at any time. I never saw any Gentleman kiss her. Yes, I did see Mr.Yorston kiss her once : never any one else : that happened in the bar : I cannot say at what time. Re-examined.—Gentlemen were in the habit oil coming into the bar at the 0. P. before my brother took the house. He tried to put a stop to the prac tice, but could not ; and he lost several customers in the attempt. Mary Norman said, I live at Dartford, in Kent. I was once chambermaid at the Bear and Ragged Staff, at Crayford. I remember two persons coming to our house in 1818, who called themselves Mr. and Airs. Golding. It was either in June or July that they came, and the day was Saturday. The Lady came first ; she came by the coach ; the Gentleman came afterwards in a gig. The Gentleman inquired for the Lady, and they went into a room together. They stayed two nights at our house, and slept together. I have seen the parties since. I saw the Lady lately ; she is Mrs. Coveney. The Gentleman is Mr. Yorston. Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR•GENERA L.-I saw the Lady at a house in Walwsrth. Mr. Coveney, the plaintiff, took me to see her. Mr. Coveney did not go to the house with me; he only went to shew me where it was. Re-examined.—How do you know that it was Mrs. Coveney whom you saw ?—I knocked at the house door, and asked for.Mrs.Covency ; and I was shewn the Lady whom I had seen at Crayford. And you took her to be Mrs. Coveney ?—Yes. Mr. ScaaLETT.—That is my case, my Lord. The Lotto CILIEF JUSTICE.—Then you have no evidence of Mrs. Coveney's identity ? All you have is, that the defendant went somewhere with a woman, ,and the witness saw that woman when she asked for Mrs. Coveney.—Plaintiff Nonsuited. This cause collected a considerable crowd of per sons in the Court, and Messrs. KEAN, OXBERRY, and other leading performers at all the Theatres, were in attendance as witnesses. The plaintiff stated, that as his cause had failed on account of the absence of a material witness, he would take the first opportunity of moving to set aside the nonsuit, and bring the cause to a new trial. HYDROPHOBIA.--in February last, as a charity boy belonging to Bridge, Dowgate, and Candlewick , School (in company with several of his school-fel lows), was picking sugar off a cask on Cox's Wharf, Lower Thames -street, a strange dog came up, and without the least provocation bit him on the back of the right hand, so severely as to lay the bones nearly bare to a great extent. The populace collected and killed the dog, but not before he had bit two other persons in their attempts. The boy and dog were both taken to Mr. PRICE, a surgeon, in Cannon-street, when the dog was opened and examined by several surgeons, but they were unable to discover the usual marks of canine madness, and it was not, therefore, deemed advisable to amputate the boy' , hand. The bitten parts of the boy's hand were excised, and cau stic applied to every part. In the beginning of last week (between four and five months from the bite), he was attacked with evident symptoms of hydro phobia, at his father's house, in Garlic k-hill, of which he died on Thursday; the dread of fluids, and the convulsive state any attempts to swallow them pro duced, were particularly evident in this case. He was visited by several Medical Gentlemen, and one of the Surgeons of St. Thomas's Hospital, who had no doubt of the nature of the disease. Of the other two persons, one - was taken to an hospital and had the part cut out, but has since died of hydrophobia ; • the other went into the country to place himself un der a course of some celebrated remedy for the cure [ t of the bite of a mad dog, but he a l so di e d o f hydro . phobia. The boy was buried on Stniday, all the boys . and girls of the school, with a great number of their • 'friends, walking in the procession. • MATRIMONIAL SQUABBLES. GUlLDHALL. — Yesterday, three individual s , o r-, had severally been apprehended upon wa rrants on the complaint of their respective wives, in. ea t i on , breaches of the matrimonial contract, were b.cra h • g a up before Mr. Alderman SCHOLEY, ler examineio. The first placed at the Bar was a jolly-looking re a, faced fellow, a fireman at °nett . the Insui :ince Office s , the appearance of his wife, a middle aged wom an, the very picture of neatness and cleanliness, qtrickhr 'hewed the nature of the complaint against j t was evident the poor woman. had a drit:;kel oar to ,„ of a husband, whom neither her economy, attee t i an i or scoldings, could keep either clean, grief, or soh t :, She told a sad tale of his disorderly conduct. A c id,. all this torrent of complaint, it was however evident that her object was rather to reform her iies. !surd than to be parted from him ; and the Man, having ascertained that the maintenance sought was not a separate one, reproved the husband very severely for his conduct, and recommenjed him to take his wife by the hand, and ince - rise iw: ta re drunk and behave ill to her again. The Fretnia, who, having been all night in the Compeer, was now perfectly sober, seemed to have feeling enovgi to b e ashamed of this public exposure of 'his family Quar rels, and expressed much indignation at his wile as the cause. The Alderman, howevao wirspaleir.kenine:totrhey. and tendered, as the only alternative in ease,,f fusal, a committal ro the Elesaans. roe fireman still hesitating to give this sign or amity, H Marshalm i an, who had him n custody, and stood near them, said, "Come, let me give you away;' and taking the woman'a hand, put it into that et her hus band ; this movement constrained him to shake hands with her. e Do you do that from your heart?' said the wife. "To be sere I do," replied the fire man, in a growling, half-consenting toi.e of voice. Upon this reconciliation, such as it was, the warrart was discharged, and the parties wit.icirew arniost l a laughter of the surrounding spectators. 'The second prisoner s. as a personage of a rev different description. The straitness of Iris hai t ; the queer arrangement of his features, the p are oda• verous hue of his countenance, together with la solemnity of his tone and manner, seen.ed to nark him out as the personification of eravity fie and his wife had been separated some time, upenan agreement on his part to alio. , her tour shillings per week ; latterly, however, he had refused to ;gay her more than two shillings per week, and tat this refusal he was brought up to this Otlice by the Churchwardens of Chritt Church Parish. Much recrimination took place been een the plisyner and his wife, a little sharp-faced woman, nho waned at least a match for him: in the tong se cf her harangue she accused him of having an irieenimate child, which he allowed; and with living at drat time with another woman., which he deniea, or, rather, defied her to prove ; and,. in return, accused her of pawning his clothes and robbing his lodgines. After expatiating at some length upon the respectgoidty of his brother, a Baptist Minister, the eseeilericy 01 his own religious character, and the vprightneaa of his conscience, he said it was best in all eases to speak openly one's mind—he had therefore to assare:the Magistrate that it would be useless fOr hist() make out any other order ; two shiiiings a week he had allowed the woman, and he wculd allow het as more; and if his Worship ordered him to. Ny two shillings and a penny, he would go to all the esisuas in the world before he v ould pay it. The Magic. trate ordered him, however, to allow Iris wife tore shillings a week, and on his refusal he was commit ted. His confinement altered his determination, and when brought up before Mr. Alderman Scootry,be was willing to allow her three shillings, which ths Churchwardens consenting to, he was discharged. The third case was that of a young couple, the husband a journeyman painter, capable of earning from £2 to £3 a week. His wife, through his treatment, had been forced to leave him, and lad procured a situation in a family, taking eith her the youngest child, which her parents assisted h-..r to support. Two children, a b ,, y and a girl, o ere left in the care of the father, who had so entireis neg lected them, that the attention of the per sous lathe house where lie lodged was drawn towards their situ ation ; and, upon their representation, the Church. wardens of St. SepUlchre s had caused him to be brought up in order to compel him to maintain them. The fellow seemed wholly devoid of the corn• mon feelings of humanity, and making neither offer nor promise to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, was committed to the Ilouseof Correction as a rogue and vagabond. BIRTHS. Sunday se'nnight, at the Reetory Houle, Clievening, to Lady of the Rev. John Austen, of a daugh er. July 26, at his seat, Brynker, CArnarvonihire, the Lady d Joseph Huddart, Esq. High Sheriff of tint county, of a sou DIED. July 29, in Duke -street, l'ortlttid-place, aged 67, Ann, relict of the itev. Christopher Robinson, D.D. of Albury, ion. PRICES or FOREIGN STOCK iN LONDON, ..Ir , :rst 1. French 5 per Cent. Ann. with div. from March 13, 861. 50c. Ditto Exchange, 251. 40c. Prussian 5 per Cent. with div. from Ist of Aptil, 81. Russian 6 per Cents. with div. from Ist Jan. 8:1. Exchange, 14. Russian .11leallie .5 per Cent. with ilia. from March 1,711. Exchange, 3. 1. Neapolitan 5 per Cent. with div. from Ist July, 63. Spanish 3 per Cent. with dtv. from April 50, 36. Exchange, 4. 3. Austrian tlutalli: 5 per Cent. div. from June 1, 74. Exchange, 10. 4. American 6 per Cents. with div. from lit July, 93, IC2 tOlO3. Ditto 5 per Cents. ditto, 1006 to 101. Ditto 5 per Cents. ditto, 70. ,Bank Shares, ditto, £24. MAILS THIS DAY......ARIL. DM. Dublin 1 0 Liam Waterford 1 0 France Guernsey and Jersey () 0 ILuuburet Holland 0 0 Gottenbargh rlanders Malta o o I A.Newa7d 0 0 I 13--zi's COAL MARKET .lisrn 1. Ships Sold. Price. . 11 17} Ms 5J is 0 1 _, IS 33s 6J to 43s x 31 35s Oci , ~, I nos ed to ssi se Atm o 0 • 0 O 0 0 0 Ships at Market. 52i Newcastle 12 Sunderland Yorkskire 3 Scotch Coal I-11 GH• W A TER at LON DON I'AL! D 6 I.: To..Joilltd ir • Mc ruing - - .57 %mu:ea ;ice 4 Afttrnoon . . . 11 -- ----.5....._.. ;,.ON DUN : Printed and riblbaled hy lav ;a. linu, Templv