Star. — London, England, 1822-12-19 00:00:00

s . • LAW INTELLIGENCE. , COURT OF CITANCER4,.DECEMBER 18. *LOYD, IN THE MATTER OF SIR HORACE ST. PAUL. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had been .reading the papers i-, this case which referred to 'coal-mines; they were so voluminous that he did not at present know exactly where he was. He would en deavour to give judgment to-morrow morning. He was clearly of opinion that 'the case did not come within that of Norway and Rowe, which had been cited. For the present he had merely confined him seJf to the question which related to the production .of the deeds. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COUItT, DECEMBER 18. MONNINCIS V. THE HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY.. It appea,red in this c:ise that the plaintiff had, seve ral years ago, when about to leave this country, bor rowed 12,00(k from the defendants, and that the title deeds of an estate, which he possessed in Essex, were to be deposited as a collateral security. A ques tion however remained, whether Mr. Monningshim self had ever sanctioned this agreement, or whe ther it arose solely out of the discretion exercised by his attornies ? The Vlcs-CtiAxceLcoa, after hearing Counsel, expressed his surprise that the argument on this question should have been protracted to so great and -needless a length. The single point in this case re ! . spected the sanction given by Mr. Monnings to an agreement for depositing the title deeds of his estate. Certainly it did'not appear that he had directed or authorised this proceeding ; but a man might just as effectually make an act his own by subsequently ac knowledging or confirming it ; and how there could exist the slightest doubt that the agreement here had been ratified, in the mind of any person who had heard the language of Mr. Monning's own letters,was to him quite extraordinary. There was no substantial difference between a legal and an equitable mortgagee, is which character the defendants stood. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER is. MAY V. UNWIN. This was an action to recover compensation in .damages from the defendant, for two libelous works published by him against the plaintiff, who is Vestry Clerk in the Parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, entitled " The Statement of Facts," and " A Report or . Proceedings which took place at a Meeting of the Vestry, concerning the mode of Payment of a Bill furnished by Mes,rs. Knight and Freeman, Attornies," for the prosecution of a person named Merceron. After the Counsel on both sides bad addressed the Court at considerable length, several witnesses were called, who proved different declarations of the de. fendant, and the publication of the two pamphlets. They were, however, unable to prove that the parti cular copies now produced were actually published by the defendant or any of his agents. Mr. SCARLET? said that, under these circumstances, he must submit to a nonsuit. The plantiff was accordingly nonsuited. MAY U. BROWN. This was an action arising out of the same circum stances under which the last action originated. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that as this and . another actton, still to be tried, were founded on the same facts, it would be desirable that this litigation should be brought to a - conclusion. He proposed, on the part of the defendant, that a Juror should be withdrawn in the last case, and all further proceed ings stopped. Mr. - SCAIILETT said, he could not accede to this proposition; his client would submit to a nonsuit in the last case, and withdraw the records in the pre sent, and the other case still remaining to be tried. The former cause would thus remain open for fur ther proceedings. The CHIEF JUSTICE said, he should abstain from giving any advice on the present occasion, as he de spaired of ever bringing the quarrels of that parish to a conclusion, by anything he could say. TILE KING V. BENNETT AND OTHERS. This was a prosecution instituted by a person named 'Woodi offe, against the defendant and three others, Carlos, Oldfield, and Phillips, for keeping a gambling houie at 75, St. James's-street. Mr. C. Port Ares shortly stated the case, observing that if it were objected to his witnesses that they had been partakers in the dreadful infatuation of gaming, it must be answered that if credit was refused to such witnesses, telling a probable and consistent story, the keepers of gaming houses must entirely escape the punishment of the law. It appeared, that the prosecutor, who is a student of the Inner Temple, had unfortunately in the months of July and August, 1821, frequented the house of the defendants. The game usually played there was Rouge et Noir. The defendants were always present, sometimes dealing the cards, and sometimes collect ing the money lost. They were generally without their hats, and appeared in every way to conduct themselves like the proprietors of the concern. A witness was called, who proved.that he had seen the prosecutor at that house losing considerable sums of money on different occasions. Mr. Cunwoon, for the defendants, contended that his clients could not be convicted unless the crime laid to their charge was proved by creditable and unsuspected witnesses. These two persons who had been called on the part of the prosecutor, had both been frequenters of the defendants' house. They were therefore, at least, it ritated witnesses, and their testi mony must he received with very great caution. The Curer JUSTICE having summed t'p the evi dence, remarked to the Jury, that the only manner in which a charge of this kind could be proved against the defendants, must be by those persons who had lost money at their table. It was, however, for them to decide whether they ssouldlbelieve the evi dence adduced in support of the charge. The Jury found all the defendants Guilty. Tim NINO V. ROGERB AND ANOTHER. This was a similar prosecution, instituted by the same Gentleman against the defendant and another person, named Humphries, for keeping a gambling house, at No. 32, Yell• mall. It appeared that the prosecutor had frequented this house also, and lost very large sums of money. The gittne played there was also Rouge et Noir. The de fendants had always taken an active part at the table is dealing the cards, and receiving the money lust, . • • „ rt , . : . and were always eonsiderefli , by the tompany is the £lsoo owners of the table.per annum,. settled - upon die said Amelia - 1 nelopes to. her own private - and separatti us." The Jury found both the defendants Guilty. , (One c b ald doubt that this witi'die4eat till'imen ~ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECRMBER te. I.the case; and this introduced another Obseittlon, CRIM. CON.—BARKER V .,POTTS. Iwhich was, tat if the character of seducer bel on g ed Mr. Serjeant LENS stated, that this was an.ection to any one, it belonged to the plaintiff; and - not . to recover a compensation in daMages, for an injury Ibis client. No one witness hastbeen . eidted,to sheet of the most serious kind. The charge brought aeainstl that the p laintiff bad raid his addresses' 14' . tlie 'con n the. defendant in this case was, that b e t destroyed i sent of the fa mil y , nor that•his, acquaiiiiince sitlfthe the peace of mind and happiness Of plaintiff, by I Lady had been of any considerable duration. Indeed, having an adulterous intercourse with his wife. He :as fat as any evidence had beets given ,it 'was very did not intend to state thia ease to them as one calling , clearl y a runawa y match, the Lady being about . ] for very large or aggravated damages. Th e p a rties! sixteen, and • the Gentleman rather above thirty.— were marries in 1815, and they lived together in j The fortune of the lady had been equally the cause content and happiness until the end of 1819, when of the marriage and of the separation. It had been some differences having arisen between the parties, a proved that they separated on account of a difference separation was contemplated, which was finally Car- between them as to the management of her-property, ried into effect in March following. The wife at first for she had been left by her father's will in the full went to reside with het relations, but subsequently exercise of power over her property, and perhaps she took a house near Teignmonth, *here her mother had learned by experienee that it would be prudent resided with her. In this house the adulterous con- to retain that power. The Learned Serjeant con duct of the defendant had commenced, and there he eluded by expressing his hope, that the Jury would had succeeded in making the unhappy victim of hi s feel that a husband who thus exposed his wife to temp criminal intentions fall into that situation, and incur tation by his own conduct, was not entitled to claim that stain on her character which would for ever re- from honourable men more than nominal damages. main by her to her irreparable disgrace. The deed of separation, date& March, 1820, was Mrs. Barker, the mother of the plaintiff, was pre- put in and read, by which an annuity of £3OO was sent at his marriage, in Yorkshire, in' 1813. The agreed to be paid to the plaintiff. lady was then not quite 17 years old; her property The certificate of marriage was put in, by which was considerable. The plaintiff was then about 30; the lady, " Amelia Penelope Burton, alias Amelia. he had been a captain in the Militia; his property Penelope Barker, was married to Samuel Barker, by' was in Nottinghamshire. They lived with witness for consent of John Ward." . • nine months, during which time they seemed very Mr. Ser j eant LENS, in reply, Insisted that nothing happy together. After they quitted witness's house, had been proved which skewed' that the plaintiff was they went to reside at Clifton. Witness did not see entitled only to nominal damages. The injury had' them afterwards. . been proved, and it was for the Jury to de:ermine Cross-examined.—The lady was married without what should be the amount of damages given in the consent of her friends, first in Scotland and then respect of ir. in Yorkshire. She had a good fortune. Lord Chief Justice DALLAS, in summing up, oh- Henry Hayman lived as a gardener, at Teign. served, that he could not refrain from expressing his mouth; he knew Mrs. Barker; she bad a house there; dislike to the cool calculating conduct of the plaintiff . had seen Mr. Potts in her company ; the first time as to the cause of separation, nor could he beyond' was in May, 1820, when she took the house; had that be silent on the marriage itself—a marriage con seen her sitting in the parlour with Mr. Potts, who tracted by him with a girl scarcely 17 y ears of a g e, had his arm round her waist ; had seen them playing at a time when, whether physically mature or not. it 4 with each other's handkerchiefs: had also seen Potts was clear that she could be scarcely capable, in a mental point of view, to decide on the nature of so throwing dirt at her in the road—she, too, returned the compliment. Remembered Mrs. Barker's leaving solemn an engagement as that of an union for life. Teignmouth ;it was in February, 1821; he saw Mr. The Jury retired for a short time, and then re- Potts come from the road by a gate, and go into the turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £2OO. house; this was about two in the morning. Witness WAS there so early because he had some doubts whether Mrs. Barker was going to leave. Potts came to the house and attempted to go in ; soon afterwards he saw the flash of a candle in the house, and Mrs. Barker and Mr. Potts came out of the house and went towards a carriage. . Mr. John Barker, a Gentleman at-the Bar, remem bered his brother's marriage, in 1815; he did not know Miss Burton before her marriage with his bro ther; he did not see them until nearly a year after their marriage, as they lived at East Redford, in Not tinghamshire, and witness resided in London ; they then appeared to live very happily together; his bro ther's conduct •was always most tender. and affec tionate; witness saw them in London a short time before their separation, when they appeared to live very affectionately ; his brother quitted London to look at the estates; this was by the wife's desire. Cross-examined.—They separated on his return from the country ; this was in December, 1819; she became of age a short time previously ; the separa tion was contemplated a short time after she came of age ; witness was not in the habit of seeing them together at that time, as a separation was contem plated; after the separation, his brother went to re side at Clifton ; had heard his brother say he had re ceived either one or two half-yearly payments of an annuity of 3001.—heard him say that since the separa tion he and his wife had slept together in December, 1820, when she brought him these half-yearly pay ments; heard his brother say, that his wife desired to be reconciled to him on certain conditions, which were, to have the entire controul of the property de vised to her by her father, and the poi ver of appoint ment of trustees for that property, ad that one of the trustees should be her natural brother, instead of a most respectable Gentleman, who was one of her guardians under her father's will. His brother would not consent to these conditions. This proposal was a short time after they had slept together at Bath e when she sent the plaintiff a letter containing these propt:e.als, and a ring with her hair. Samuel Hippisley, keeper of the King's Arms, Hampton Court, remembered a Lady and Gentle man coming to that house in a post-chaise, on Sun day, the 25th of February, 1821. They stopped till Thursday following. Sarah Roslam, the chamber-maid, remembered the arrival of the Lady and Gentleman at the King's Arms ; they slept in the same room, which was single•begded; she carried up warm water, which was taken by Abe Gentleman; when she made the bed, it appeared as if two persons had slept in it. James Wright was waiter at the King's Arms; re collected the Lady going out on Thursday, and re-- turning with two Gentlemen ; one of them, a Mr. Plutntree, was in Court; the Lady went away in a post-chaise; Mr. Potts went to the room where Mrs.' Barker was with the two Gentlemen, and putting in his arm, he said, " Mrs. Barker, here are your keys." He could not be discovered by those inside the room; he left the house about two hours after the Lady and Gentlemen had quitted. Mr. Plumtree pursued the Lady by her uncle's de sire; he followed her to Kingston, where he saw Mr. Potts in the street. Mrs. B. and witness then came to town, where she was left in the care of her relations. This was the case on the part of the plaintiff. Mr..Serjeant VAUGHAN said, he was sure the Jury would act with moderation as well as feeling, and not be hurried, into giving excessive damages by the statements- which had been made, or the appeals which they had heard. He should have a patnful duty to discharge, but he must and would discharge that duty, being equally bound to do so in justice to himself and to the parties. He should give his Learned Brother the opportunity, which he was sure would be well exercised, of replying, for lie should , call -witnesses who would spew the real nature of . the case. As long as he had had the honour of practising in Westminster Hall, he had never seen a declaration like the present. The plaintiff was not content with the usual statement of per quad consortium aarisii; but must add a statement of, the loss of the " use, benefit, and enjoyment, of a certain sum of money, to wit, Robert Hartley was indicted under the 43d Geo. 111. c. 56, s. 1, commonly called Lord Ellenborough's Act, for assaulting Samuel Owen, at the ville cf Sheerness, on the 29th of August, with a certain sharp instrument, and feloniously and maliciously stabbing, with intent to kill and murder him. Se cond count alleging the intent to disable; and third, to do the prosecutor some grievous bodily harm.— The case has been already detailed two or three times in this Paper. According to the testimony of the ship's surgeon, the wound was in a most vital part, and during the first stages of the cure, the Captain's life was in great jeopardy. Theprisoner asked no questions of the witnesses for the prosecution, and being called on for his de fence, said that he committed the dreadful act im pe.ted to him in a fit of insanity, without any malice towards the - prosecutor. Goaded by the conscious ness of former crimes, and wound up to a state of frenzy from the apprehension of being transported for life, he became delirious, and in a moment of fu rious passion he did an act which, under other cir cumstances, he would have shuddered at with hor ror. He had been dismissed the naval service in consequence of insanity; but, deserted and aban doned by all who knew him, he was unable to prove the fact. He trusted, however, that the Jury would take his case into consideration. Mr. Baron GRAHAM summed up the cage; and The Jury immediately found the prisoner Guittg, —Death. When called upon to say why sentence of death should not pass against him, the prisoner said that he wished for no mercy. Harassed as he was in mind by a series of crimes, he had no prospect of peace in this world. To save his life, would be to him no mercy. Supposing his sentence should be commuted to transportation for life, he should look upon it as a prolongation of his misery. Life had no charms for him. Rather than be transported for life, he would prefer instant removal to the place of death. Deprecating the preservation of his miserable life, he earnestly prayed that the Learned Judge would leave him for execution. The wretched prisoner spoke in a strain of lan guage far above what might be expected in a man of his humble condition. Mr. Baron GRAHAM proceeded to pass.the awful .sentence of the law, and conjured the prisoner to make the best use of the short time allotted him on this side of the grave; to prepare for an eternal scene,. and told him he must expect to undergo the merited punishment which awaited his crimes. BURGLARY. Benjamin Muekrose was indicted for a burglary in the dwelling house of William Jeeves, in the night of the 7th of August, at St. Paul's, Deptford, and stealing therein 251. in gold and silver money, six silver tea•spoons, two silver table-spoons, and a' chased gold seal, the property of Wm. Jeeves ; and 58 sovereigns, two chased gold seals, and a chased gold key, the property of John Jeeves. It appeared in evidence that the prosecutor was a butcher, residing in Church-street, Deptford. The prisoner was a young man of respectable appearance, by trade a hair-preparer, and had been on intimate, terms with the prosecutor, as being a member of the same clubs. Ile had been admitted into the prose cutor's house, and knew its internal arrangements. Onthe night of the robbery the prosecutor was at tending a Club, called the Druids, of which the pri-1 scoter . was also a member, and the d a y b e f or e h a d , promised to meet him. About twenty minutes be fore twelve o'clock on the night of the 7th of August, I the prosecutor's housekeeper had just gone to bed, after fastening all the doors and locking her master's bed-rotim, when she heard the street-door open, some person enter, take the candle from the. kitchen, which • btad been lets bur tting fur, her master when he came home, go to irer master's bed-ruour dour, tralock,l 1 - 4 1vgity Man his own Doctor, by the Use or Dr. BOERIIA AVE'S lIED PILL (No. V.), a 31edi;:ine famous throughout Europe for the Cure of every Stage and Symptom of a certain Complaint. It is a melancholy fact, that thousands fall victims to this horrid Disease, roving to the un skilfulness of illiterate glen, who, by an improper treatmew, Rot nnfrequently cause those foul Ulcerations and Morel:: which so often appear on the Head, Face, and Body, with Dim ness in the Sight, noise in the Ears, Deafness, Strictures, nate Chmts, Nodes on the Sbiu Bones , Ulcerated Sure Throat, Diseased Nose, Nocturnal Pains in the tread and limb s (Ire. quently mistaken for other Disorders), till at length a grtirial Debility and' Decay of the Constitution ensues, and d melan choly death puts a period to suffering mortality. Er With each box is given a copious bill of directions by which all persons are enabled speedily to cure theMselves will , safety and secrecy, without the least confinement or hindrance of business. Its amazing sale within the last fifty years, though seldom advertised, is a certain criterion of Its immense utility. — Pt ice 4s. 6.1. a box. Genuine lluerhaave's lied Pills are sold by Ir.Johrs!oa GS, CortiLili ; Mr. Singer, 150, Oxford-street (opposite dew Buntl-street); alid all Medicine Venders. ___ • NI 1 I.S. AKA. IPU a. 01111filt 1 0 Waterturd 2 0 Guenthey and Jersey 0 0 lishon 0 1 Holland 0 0 Leeward Wands 0 0 •Yr. WAIL France 1 0 Hambursh 1 0 Flamiers 0 0 0 0 Gottenhurgh 1 * Brazil 0 0 _____ HIGH• WATiclit at &Al:. DON I is. Its- tz • %, • lac nom; Irk 111/tte OS a Or- Ant:twirl - 5:1 niinuteA after 6 ---. •.v.,, . 0 HOME CIRCUIT. MAIDSTONE, DECEMBER 17. CUTTING AND MAIMING. :- . w Pel ind enter it:- lit4proing it to i t , Iler i mso t , A le , 0 ir t Oiriphi I but, m aboucs . qpfplit pf ,ank hour mcf p er the th e "beagrOom, went 'dOwn sisirt, dou, ilanitned 'the "itreet:door after him. • Thts'arin ivge 4l 'her; she Sot u% Odd on entering het master'S i no tb room, she found that two trunks. bad been brc the tw at the and atatised bed. _ iwu rrunics.-natl been hroken open and • rifled of their contents, L As nlessagcwas sent to - the prosecutor, who imMediately returned 'horn his C • lub anti diseoiered'that the trUnki ha d been robbed of the money and propert y mentioned in theindietment. Suspicion fell upon the *to ner , Next day his lodgings were searched; in the presei:ce of the prosecutor, his brother, and two constables. After making a general inspection, they saw nothing to confirm their suspicions, and were about to quit the house, when they ohserved; that during the 'search the prisoner had been immoveably filed upon one board in the floor, and was agitated ; upen which they became curious in their examination of it. The prisoner said there wris nothing' there; but upon re. moving him, they perceived that part of the floor had been cut, and clumsily nailed down again. A chisel was procured, and the board removed, when. one of the constables thrust his arm between the floor• ing and the ceiling below, and pulled out a night. cap, in which was found a purse of gold and silver. Amongst the latter was one sixpence, which the pro secutor immediately recognized to be his property, from marks upon it. Upon examining further, A bunch of skeletontkeys was pulled out, cue of whi c h, when applied to the prosecutor's bed.room door, opened it immediately. These circumstances con firmed suspicion. The prisoner said, that the money and the skeletons found were his property. I t f ur , ther appeared, that just about the time ~f th e ro b. bery, the prisoner was seen standing in the street near the prosecutor's door. These were the circumstances adduced in evidence to establish the prisoner's guilt. A twofold defence was set up for the prisoner; first, that he was possessed of a considerable quan tity of gold money before the robbery ; and second, that he had received the sixpence sworn to by the prosecutor in change of a half-crown at an oyster. shop in Deptford. When the witnesses were called to prove these facts, their evidence turned out to be very loose and unsatisfactory. A great many witnesses gave the prisoner a good character for being an lione.a, in dustrious, sober, and respectable young man during his past life. The Jury, under the Learned Judge's direction, found the prisoner Guilty—Death; but recommended him to mercy, on account of his good character. Stephen Lawrence was indicted under the 321 Geo. 111. c. 143, for assembling with other persons, to the number of three and more, at the parish cf St. John, in the Isle of Thanet, on the Ist of Septem ber, 1821, arrne•rf, for the purpose of aiding and assisting in the illegal running and landing of certain uncustomed goods. The indictment contained seve ral other counts, charging the prisoner with fele niously shooting at one Wallington Carr and other', being officers of the Customs; with aiding others the last-mentioned felony, &c. This indictment was found by the Grand Jury at the last Lent Assizes fer this county, when no less than twerty-one persons implicated in this transaction ‘‘eie tried, nineteen of whom were convicted, and four executed. The pri soner had not been apprehended at that time, but lid been since, and was now brought to trial. The trial commenced at nine o'clock, and did net end until half-past seven this evening. At the time of the former trial the particulars of the case were fully detailed, and it is now unnecessary to enter into theta minutely.—The prisoner was acquitted. In the Court of King's Bench, Dublin, on Friday, in the case of Fleming v. Crome,which had occupied the Court for eight successive days, the Jury had met to decide on a verdict,when it was discovered that the sudden and severe indisposition of Mr. Cal'well, one of the Jury, had prevented his attendance; in CoflSe• quence of which the Jury were discharged without coming to any decision. _ Hra•rnns. At Dungurron, the Lady of the Rev. Dr. liDonarl, of a daughter. Ike. 14, at Silveriands, in Surrey, Lady Frances Trotham, of a son. ' Dec. I'6; at the Vicarage, Soaping, neat Reading, Berk', the Lady of the Rev. George Ernest !lawman, of a son. MARRIED. Toted.", at Mary-la-bonne Chareh, Robert lambert, F.sq. Rear-.tstrobal of the White. to Lowea Ann, relict of the late Rev. T. Cobb, of Ightam. its Kent.. DIEM On Tuesday, the 27th inn. after a long land severe illness, which he bore with the greatest Christian fortitude, Jas. Giblett, Esq. of Hartley Wintney, Hampshire, in the 71st year of his age. This morning, at Clayton-I'l.ler, Kennington, Mrs. Ahagtr, in her 77th year. At New Orleans, on the 6th instant, the Hon. Judge Frernen tin, of the yellow fever ; and his wife on the following day. Dec. 14, at Windsor, Georgina, second daughte of the late Bev. John Arnold Bromfield, Rector of Market Weston, Suffolk. Friday, Martha Devonshire, while nursing the wile 01 Mr. Marshall, baker, Canterbury, fell down a trap-dour into the ,fi lar, and received so much injury on her bead as to occa.iois her death.- I.()NDUN : Primed and puhlisfied . by 1.10111. KO; nekett" P f~ 1 i