Star. — London, England, 1810-08-03 00:00:00

poirit ottt toile% Mrs. liatdmet, mull& of coda. with whip. her daughter had been loaded by this marriage, endeavoured to purchase her relief at any prim Accordingly, with the View of pre, curing some comfort to her daughter, she enters into an agreement, itt consequence of what the defendant calls a row (or riot), at Burlington-Wee, where he and his wife then lived ; to make over to him an an nuity of an additional £5OO, and this the old Lady does, at the expence of giving up her own carriage, a sacrifice of no small Moment for a Lady of her years who had always been accustomed to such an enjoy ment. Not satisfied even with this, but being coil vinced that his objects could not be accomplished to their full extent in this kingdom, the defendant still re. solved to quit England: His wife was miserable at the thoughts of leaving her native country ; for though she was not allowed the society of her relations, she had the melancholt consolationbiso long as she remain• ad within the kingdom, of knowing that her situa-* tion might probably reach their ears, in which event she would be certain of obtaining relief. Her hus band, however, had resolved she should be carried abroad ; and, accordingly, more dead than alive, she was taken into a chaise in the neighbourhood of Black. heath, and thence conveyed to the coast, where she was put on board a vessel, and, along with her hus band, went over to the Continent in March, she hav ing been married in the November preceding. Here she was removed from place to place, under the con troul of her husband and of this same Dolly Sellars, I now become her guard, spy, and mistress, from hav-i ing been her servant ; and thus was this unfortunate woman doomed to have two tyrannical masters in- I stead of one. Hardly had a month elapsed from the ! time of the husbattd and wife visiting the Continent, when the intention of the husband in . carrying her thither was manifested. The deed was to convey the estate to the husband and wife dining their joint lives, fcr the use of the wife, so long as she lived ; but the husband knew well that this amounted to no thing so long as the wife was under his complete controul. No instructions were given by the wife, whose estate was thus conveyed, for the disposal of it in this way, but this *as entirely done on the in structions of the husband ; and there was no pretence for saying that she knew any thing of the matter till the deed. was put before her; even the friend of the de. fendant, to whom he applied tohavetheassignment ex ecuted, was afraid the defendant trusted too much to his ascendency over the defendant's wife, for, even he thought it went too far, and asked the defendant if he thought his wife would sign it ? The answer was " Oh, yes ! whatever I put before her she'll sign it." The Attorney-General then proceeded to notice the letters of the defendant to his friend in London, whom he authorised to get the assignment drawn up. l In them he says that the estate is worth £BOO a year net, an.estate of no small consequence to his family in case of his death. He states, that Mrs. Wilmer deceived him as to the value, particularly as to the woods : That he waits to hear from Dolly's father that he might know how the woods lie : if they were on the entailed estate every hedge should come down; " I am resolved to have an open country all around." Again he says, " Whatever I do, I am sure the old woman will comply, because she is very ill, and miserable on account of her daughter." On such an observation, he was satis fi ed, it was unnecessary for him (the ttorney-General,) to make any com ment. It carried its meaning along with it. What right had the old woman, who had already_granted to him an annuity of £5OO a year, to do any 7hore for him, but because she was, as he himself expressed it, miserable for her daughter? or, why was she, or ought she to be, so miserable on her account, but be cause she knew that the defendant treated her with cruelty and oppression ? In another letter the defen ,lant chewed his desire to prevent all power of revo cation. He says 4 , of all women breathing, my pre cious Deary is the I:ast to be depended on ; so bind her strictly," &c. The defendant had confined, im prisoned, and even offered violence to his wife, the marks of which appeared on her person ; but, not contented with this, he was resolved to make,his work and \ke all power as to the ZAW nvraulczivet, COURT OF KING'S BENCH, AUGUST L CRUELTY AND OPPRESSION.--•IPIELD IL RYAN. This was an issue directed front the Court of Chan cery for the purpose of trying the fact whether a Deed of Assignment, dated 18th July, 1792, executed by Mrs. Ryan, in favour of herself and husband for their husband,, had o and, a r f ha ter cl not been exe their decease, to the heirs of the ; cuted by her while in a state of duress. The ATTORNEY GENERAL, for the plaintiff, stated the question to be, whether Mrs. Ryan had executed the deed in question under compulsion? It was a deed, by which she deprived herself and her own relations of ail contr ou l over or interest in a property which belonged to herself, an 3 conveyed the same from her own family, and even from the children she might have b y a ny after marriage, should she survive her husband, in favour of the family of her husband, the present defendant. Before the Attorney Qeneral proceeded to state the circumstances of the rase, he begged to put t h e Jury in possession of what had fallen from the Lord Chancellor, when the case was argued before him, as the rule or principle to be pro ceeded on in such a case. It was not necessary to shew that the person executing a deed was under duress, that it should be proved that one was standing with a knife over him till he executed it ; or to argue, that because he would have lived till next day, though he b a d executed it, therefore, in executing it he had not ben 'ruder duress. There were m.my other ways in which a person might be supposed to be equally un der duress. A person might be so subdued, by means which it might be difficult to discover, to the will of another, that what he did might not be his own in clination, but the will of that other which he had been obliged to adopt as his own. The Lord Chancellor, in support of this principle, instanced the case of the Countess of Strathmore, where her Ladyship, while she seemed to be doing what was her own free will, was clearly proved to have been acting under the en. tire influence of another. Having thus suggested what was the rule in such a case, the Learned Coun sel should proceed to state the circumstances which gave rise to the ,resent calamitous case. A Lady of the name of Sucher, sister to Mrs. Wilmer, the mo ther of the defendant's wife, by her last will conveyed to Mrs. Wilmer a considerable property she had in York,hire for M; s. Wilmer's life-rent use, and the re maieder of the one moiety of this property she con veyed to Mrs. Wilmer's eldest daughter, the lady who was afterwards the defendant's wife, but who was then married to a gentleman of the name of Gossopp, and the other moiety t the wife of the present plain tiff, who was also Mrs. Wilmer's daughter. In the latter end of the year 1792, Mrs. Wilmer went with her daughter, Mrs. Gossopp, then a widow, and of whom she was always extremely fond, to Barrow gate, where they fell in with a gentleman, of the name of George Keating, who again introduced them to two of his friends, L. Keating, Esq. and the present defendant, a gentleman of accomplishts, and who, though not possessed of uncommon Dir• wariness of manner, had that erectness of mein which persons who think well of themselves are most likely to possess. The defendant pretended for Mrs. Gos sopp a regard which he really felt for her fortune, and it soon appeared that he wished a nearer connec tion. Mrs. Wilmer had a fortune ; Mrs. G. had a jointure of 000 a year, besides the estate in question in expectancy. The gentlemen followed the ladies to Scarborough, and from thence to York, where Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Gossopp were married. The Attor ney General had here to introduce to the acquaint ance of the Jury a person of the name of Dolly Sel lars, who, being the daughter of a tenant of Mrs. Wilmer's, had been broug ht up in her family as a menial servant, and from her family was, on the oc casion of the marriage, transferred to the service of Mrs. Ryan. The married couple, however, were not lung to remain in England. To do so would not ' suit the object of the defendant, which coeld not so easily be accomplished in this 'country. About a fort night after the marriage the defendant removed his wife to town, and placed her in Sabluniere's hotel, where no English was spoken, she not being able to speak a word of French. From this hotel the unfor , tunate wife of the defendant had been removed into several different lodgings, where she received the most tyrannical treatment. Dolly Sellars could ex plain it all. She had learned a great deal from the defendant, nor had he left her unsatisfied in any thing she could learn from him. She had now three chil dren by him, bearing the name of Ryan. It was in his Learned Friend's power to examine her, if he was so inclined, and it would then appear that she was fully up to all the mysteries in which the defendant could instruct her. She was, at the time he was speaking of her, the virtuous and faithful servant of the daughter of her benefactrix ; but she had chosen to forsake that character for the less honourable one of being the spy of her actions, and the accessary of all the cruelties practised upon her. The cruelty of the defendant would not alone be seen in his depriv ing her of his company, while he repaired to his pri vate carousals. She would be found, within three, weeks of her marriage, stealing from her husband to make complaints to her female friends of his cruelty, ill the truth of which even Dolly Sellars at that time concurred, and was so shocked at her treatment., that !'ne offered her assistance in an attempt to get Lack to her mother's. She was left even with out a shilling in her pocket to supply necessaries; and when at any time she received a supply from her mcther, he was found at night picking her pockets, and robbing her of any little supply she might have re ceived. The Jury would find, that on one occasion, where she had prevailed on a lady who was a rela tion, to accept of a deposit from her of £lO, to be given when she should require it, she had been olo.;- ged to discover to the defendant in whose hands the .'coney had been left ; and the Jury would accord ingly find him writing a threatening letter to the Lady, calling on her to restore to him 450. The Jury would find that, to a relation who hearing of the treatment Mrs. Ryan received, had called for her, she was denied, and the person so called was inform ed that she should not know where Mrs. Ryan was. Then the Attorney-General adduced, not his solitary proofs of coercion, constraint, and duress, butasparts of one sy s t e m, by w hi c h t h e w if e o f the defendant h adbeen so completely reduced in mind, and brought under the influence of her husband, that she had no will of her own, and could only see what passed ac cording to the medium that he chose to prescribe or the deed WM obtained froth Mrs. Ryan tier t firer: eel I Lord Eusunouousu aid.= t o thecanse coming on the part of the defendant ? Mrs. Ryan finished het so late. If the Conn of Clatneity moved with hs on& Miserable career in 1799, sad was and had beat some tiers ropisrop he did not tee how it, could well come time previoul to her death lams. Item the conduct oft on sooner. No one had any interest in the property her husband. till the mother's death , which happened is 1806, and Lord Euntraoanuon observed, that in the case of bills were filed in Chancery soon after. Lady Strathmore the case was clear, for he had been( George Keatin g _ was then called. He was no proved to give the directions for the deed. *lawn to Mr. Robert Keating, the former witness. Mr. Barnard was then called. She had been the He stated the circumstance of the introduction and. wife of the late Mrs. Ryan's pncle, but was now a subsequent marriage of Mrs. Ryan I he being the widows She remembered Mrs. Ryan's arrival at person that introduced Mr. Ryan to Mrs. Gossopp, Sabloniere's, with her husband, where she was sur. as then named, she thinking him a petty was. Mrs. rounded by foreigners, with whom she could hold Wilmer, the mother, said her daughter s affections no converse. She went sometimes to see Mrs. Ryan, were fired on him, and she did not mind what she but was prevented from going oftener' by Mr. Ryan. did, so long as the marriage took place. Mr. R. —Mrs, Ryan was unhappy, from the treatment of stated that his circumstances were such that he could Mr, Ryan, and witness offered her an asylum, think. not marry except he got 810,000. Ti 1. sim the old ing her situation called for such an offer. Mrs. Ryan people contrived to make up. Woids afterwards took was a timid and harmless creature, and unfortunately place about 810,000, between Mr. Robert Keating, not possessed of a great deal of understanding, and and Mrs. Wilmer, who said that she had forfeited aged about forty. Mrs. - ayan, accomanied by Dolly her word, tha: she was an infamous liar. Sellars, frequently made application to witness, beg. Mr. Webber attended the execution of the deed, ging her not to forsake her ( Mrs. Ryan) ; —and but knew nothing of its contents, and wai onlydightly once she, with the said Dully, brought to witness acquainted with' defendant. Mrs. R. evinced no RIO, saying, she had received it from her mother, symptom of disapprobation es signing the deed. Mrs. and if she kept it, her husband would pick her R. accompanied by Miss Sellars, took the deed oat of pocket of it, and desired witness to take care of it the room inerii.us to execution, for ter: purpt se of for her. Next day witness received a letter from reading it, and returned in about 5 minutes, when it Mr. Ryan, desiring her to return him immediately was executed. lie did not recollect that it was read the £5O his wife had placed in her hands. Witness over before the execution. Mrs. R. appeared very immediately went to Ryan's house, and required to cheerful, and spent a peasant evening at the't house, see Dolly Sellars, and on seeing her, asked what sl.:e singing several songs at the request of her has. sum Mrs. R. had, the dsy before, left in the hands b.:nd. of witness ? who answered, Lit% Mrs. R. thee came Mr. Webber, the attesting witness along with briny to the door wheie witness was standing, to whom site Sellars, proved that there was no app trent constraint. gave the £lO, who immediately ran up stairs, and Dolly Sellers's testimony *as such, as it would he soon after returned, saying Mr. R. wished to speak impossible to do justice to within the bounds of a with her, and begged her to go up stairs. Witness newspaper, consisting of contradictions, inemssistene would not, but went away, saying, she would never cies. and prevarications out of all measitrea enter their doors again ; and after she had left the Colonel O'Laughlin had been present at dinnertin door, Mrs. R. came running after her, with most dig- the defendant's house, who on such occasions, belay. tressed and agonizing looks, without cep, hat, orcloak, ed properly to his wife, which must have been the in very cold weather, calling on witness in the open case, as the Colonel declared, he would not have re. street, ,‘ Don't forsake me —3on't go away don't for. mai ned in the men where a woman was insulted. sake me !" IVitness replied that she would not fors tke Lard ELLE.:IIJRAVGII I before the Attorney General her, if she took protection under witness's roof. She replied, informed the Jury, that there Was one point was led to offer her this protection from Mrs. R.'s in which he thought it proper to give them his opinion. statement of her husband's conduct made in presrn:e It was not necessary to shew aey particular duress at of, and unco ;tradicted by Do ly Sel as. She dined the time of sign i ng th e deed. If It appeared that with them sever.tltint , ss, in presence of other company, such a dominion had been exercised. as must have oc but saw no ill conduct then from defendant to his wife; casioned the mind of the person executing the deed to but Mrs. It. always appeared as if she had a mind 14 ill be crushed and burdened down, that was sufficient.--- at ease," an.f %vie,* did ete sr' > -a;.tious Any man might be able to gain an ascendency over disposition. Witness beli.:red twit 1..0 of weaker serves, and in this manner might so much will of her own as a child had. After Mrs. extort from him what he would not have granted had It. went to the Continent, witness never saw her till no influence existed. Even in the brute creation we she beheld her lifeless form, in 1799, in Grosvenor- saw what effect the inclination of the head, or the place, where she died. waving of the hand could produce. If, therefore, the Mrs. Goring deposed, that when she saw Mrs. wife of the defendant in this ease ley under awe in Loudon, she appeared to be much depressed ha mination which she could not resist, it could not be spirits, and complained of the ill-usage of hor hus. understood as her act. She might have done some. band. Witness saw in Mr. and Mrs. R's bed-room thing wider the operation of the will of her husband horse-pistols and a large hanger across the bed : which she herself did not know. The question was, heard of Mrs. R.'s being locked up, and on that ac- it this lady had acted from depression of spirits and count offered to give Mrs. It. protection, provided prostration of mind, so that she could not exercise a she would leave her husband. hee mind ? It the Jury thought so, they would find Mr. Kibblcwhite proved, that the letters from for the plaint.ff— otherwise they would hear the At which the Attorney-General made extracts were in torney General. the hand-writing of Mr. Ryan. The July, without any hesitation, found for the The letters were then read. Plaintiff. • Robert Keating, p: oved that. he had received the different letters in question from the Defendant ; that being in bad health he had given the instructions into other hands to be executed ; that he had carried over the deed to the Continent, and read it over to the de fendant's wife at the time of its execution ; but that, though he was one of her trustees, he had not com municated with her on the na'Are of the deed, sup posing that it had been settled between her and her husband. He stated, however, that Mrs. Ryan had been unwilling to go out of the kingdom ; and when the witness carried over tf.e deed to the defendant to have it executed, he asked him whether his (the de fendant's) wife would execute it, having his own doubts on the subject ? to which the defendant answer ed, that he had e her into that trim and humour COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. AUGUST S. IiAGEASUORN V. A LLNUT This was an action on a pokey of insurance on a vessel from London to Tonningen, and the damages were laid at X2BO. According to the evidence for the plaintiff; the vessel sailed from London is December, 1809, and two days after she had put to sea, met with extremely b.Ld weather, which strained her much in her hull, and sprung the bows Fit, by carrying away the gammoning of it. In consequence of this, she ran for Heligoland ; but when she arrived there, the pilots would not take her in ; she, therefore, pro ceeded to the Elbe, and, passing the English man of war stationed there, went up the river to Gluckstadt, vhere she was captured by the Danes, who took perfectly complete, . .to ta. _ all power ... _ - ._ __ got where ..... .- __ pose dispcsal of her property out of her hands. Instead that she would execute any thing he put before lie; session of the place two hOurs after site arrived. For of appointing as trustees under this deed, for his wife's Dolly Sellars, when he saw her with the defendant the defendant no witnesses were called. The mere benefit, persons in whom she could have confidence , and his wife, on the Continent , sat with the m at table, defence was, t h at she had no right to run for the and who would naturally have been appointed if she and also sat with them in the same box at the Thee I Elbe ; and, at all events, not to pass the English ship had had any part in the drawing of the deed, the tre. The defendant had told him soon after h i s m ar- lof war stationed in that river. Verdict for the plain. trustees were the defendant's own brother, and his riage, that he meditated a connection with this gir l . ! tiff—Damages €2BO. friend and acting manager, Mr. Keating. In another The witness had strong suspicions when he went over HALLEY V. GAIROWER. letter, however, the defendant says, o All hopes from to the Continent,•that such connection had taken place I This was another action on a policy of insurance, York are over." He then adds, that a person had at that time ; but he was convinced of it when she I called and requested from Mrs. Wilmer, that her returned to England. She appeared more like the on a ship from London to Trinidad ;and from thence to the Spanish Main, and with liberty to touch at a ny daughter might come over to England, on which con - wile than the servant, even abroad ;and for this rea- of the West India islands, except Jamaica and St. Do . dition she would give the defendant £ lOOO . Here son, she was more competent to execute the duties of min"' The supercargo of the vessel finding the was a verification how miserable she conceived her it ; she had some knowledge of the language , a n d , market at Trinidad not answer his expectations, pro . daughter to be. Here was a proof, that the defer - was a clever girl. dan t's wish was to extort money :—Here was a proof , Mr. PARK. for the Defendant, said, much unjust tended with the ship to st. Thomas's ; and off the. Alligator Shoal, on that island, the vessel was lost. that Mrs. Wilmer would have given £lOOO, even prejudice had been raised against the side lie espoused, This action had been tried before, and decided in fe. after all the sacrifices in favour of the defendant she and he dared to say, that it tended to make the Jury your of the plaintiff ;but it was contended, on the had already made, to have her daughter restored already to have conic to a judgment. That and other , naked into her arms. The defendant, however, could considerations madt! it extremely distressing to him part of the defendant, that the plaintiff had no busie convert her to a more profitable use, and therefore , to fulfil the duty that devolved on him. A sort of nets at St. Thomas's island ; that being out of his way from Trinidad to the Spanish Main, which was )he could not quit hold of her, for, through the deed odium, too, had been cast on those who would have he had since seduced or compelled her to execute , he the courage to speak in behalf of the defen dant, which proved by most of the witnesses ;but the policy of in surance being at variance with this, the Jury gave a expected to receive a verdict by the hands of the Jury tended to make vulgar minds believe, that he that verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £lB7. this day. The deed, too, it appeared, in consequence should speak for • the defendant must be an ac . • of directions from the defendant, had not been re- cessary. He would, however, do what he was en- —.—.... gistered till after his wife's death. The defendant ,trusted to do, so far as he deemed fit. The ques- , himself had come over to this country in the year tion before them was not, whether Mr. Ryan' The Earl of BERKELEY is still severely indisposed at Berkeley Castle. 1793, accompanied by this Dolly Sellars, as his wife, was a good or a bad man, but whether the deed in i his real wife being left behind. In consequence of 1 question was obtained per duress ? Oppression and ' M r. T _ '''E R ot, of Compton-street, went to Chelsea, hearing that she was about to be taken under the pro- I tyranny must be shewn, before it could be proved on Wednesday afternoon, to see his daughters , who tection of her friends, he had her also brought over to that Mr. Ryan obtained his wile's signature by reside there, and while in the act of iotalking with tcallia gheme ! nd dropped down a espirel Prevus to his this country, but she was never suffered to be out of! such means. They had not been shewn. The con• his power, unless accompanied by a guard ; and, in I, duct towards Dorothy Sellars, on the part of Ryan , 1 upon his daughters, he stopped at the Union. public house, drank a glass of brandy and water, and ap the year 1799, she died insane. If any of these facts I was disgraceful in the extreme, but did not prove , were disputed, his Learned Friend would call Dolly 1 duress. Nor was it the best way to force the sig. , neared in perfect health. Sellars, who would prove them. If lie did not call nature from Mrs. Ryan, to have such a woman Coast-Me MARK-LAYE, Ammer S.—The her, who must be allowed to be a witness interested' as Dolly under her nose. It made the case extremely market this day has a continuance et late supplies of in the defendant's cause, her absence must equally I impi °liable. He would not defend the letters ; they Wheat on hand, chiefly foreign, there being very few prove the plaintiff's case. I were extremely disgraceful, and he did not think that prime samples, those are quoted rather dearer; Bar- Lord ELLENIIOROUGH here expressed his doubts as ; the person that could receive them and act on them ley nearly at late prices; Malt heavy sale ; White pees to how any evidence could be received that went to , was much better than the person who wrote them. . fluctuate but little; Beans of the two descriptions prove the conduct of the defendant to his wife subse- I Had Mts. R. been against signing the deed, could , likewise ; Oats are in tolerable supply, and salts quent to the execution of the deed. I she not have spoken to Keating or to Mr. Webber ? there*f at little variation. Flour remains as before. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted, that in the She had not. The Lady too of whom so much care I Wh ea t , , OtNtIAL cualtiNCT Al UNDIER. Beans, 525. lie. case of Lady Strathmore, the late Lord Loughbo- ; had been taken, had been left alone on the Continent,Tick ditto 456. Us. rough, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, had i while Mr. R. and Miss Sellars came to England• • Rye, 426.485. Oats sus. 245. Iof. I iii;dltto. ri1 9 616 41. 1 i s T . determined, that the sounder rule would be to reject i This complaint of duress too made at this time, 18 i Barley, ass. 44 '. Poland ditto, ULM. od. all evidence that followed the execution of the deed i years after its execution, and eleven years after rs. I Malt 7la. s°l. Potatot &Ho, 1101. W. White Peas (Wien) 645. 70s. Rape beak AN. LSO. in question. The question, in the present instance , 1 R.'s death—if there was' any objection or doubt, et 0 %Ally . eat, 455. 541. for the Jury to try was, whether the late execution of " could it not have been tried before ? . I Fins Flour, Hs. to 1001...-3eaoStla !Os. NPVis. • .