Star. — London, England, 1821-05-26 00:00:00

DISTRESSING CASE. Toww HALL, Sournwanit.—Yesterday Mrs. Eliza Harmer was charged with the wilful murder of S. Harmer, her husband, by shooting him through the head with a pistol, at their residence, N 0.6, Weston street, Southwark, as briefly mentioned in the STAR of yesterday. The first witness, Hannah Studd, stated, that she had lived servant with the prisoner and deceased for the-last fortnight. On Thursday her mistress went out, and did not return till between seven and eight in the evening. Just before her return, the deceased ordered witness to make tea, and they (witness and deceased) were drinking it at the moment the priso ner rang the bell. Witness let her in, and when she came into the room, the deceased said, in a jocular manner—" I thought it was some impudent faggot like you!" Witness waited in the passage. In a few minutes, her mistress told her to finish her tea, and the deceased again jeered her, saying—"" I wish you had not come home, as we (witness and himself) were having our tea very comfortably." Mrs. Harmer re plied, " So you can now ;" and then he asked where she had been? She replied, "To Clifford's Inn."— The deceased then said, in the same tone—" I wish you had not come home;" and Mrs. Harmer replied, " Well, I can go again," and called for the shoe-horn, to pull up her shoes. Witness gave her the horn, and took the tea things into the kitchen. The prisoner then came down stairs, opened the street-door, and closed it after her with great violence, and witness thought she was.gone out; but in a short time after wards, when she went into the parlour with some glasses, she found her standing behind the parlour door, as if endeavouring to conceal herself. At this time her master was sitting at the table. She went down directly, and soon afterwards heard the prisoner speak in a loud tone, but could not distinguish what she said. In a few minutes, the deceased exclaimed, " G—D b—t you, I'll shoot you!" She ran imme diately to the stair-head, and heard a pistol go off; it did not make a loud report, but " a click," and she did not believe there was any powder in it. De ceased and his wife frequently played with a pistol, pretending to shoot each other, and the noise on this occasion appeared the same as she had often before heard it. Mr. Harmer had frequently done this, and the prisoner usually ran away, pretending to be frightened. She always thought they were in joke, and never remembered the pistols to have been loaded before. On Thursday she saw the deceased with bul lets lying before him on the table; he had cast some ' on Tuesday night, so the circumstance did not sur prise her. She did not see him put either powder or ball into the pistol ; though at one time he put a ball into the mouth of a pistol, but she is not certain whether he left it, because she did not remain one ' I minute in the room. He generally kept the pistols in the parlour cupboard; but she could not say what he did with them after he loaded them. After she had heard the pistol " click," she sat down at the front kitchen window, thinking no harm had hap pened, and in a few minutes heard a loud report of fire-arms. She ran up stairs, and her mistress screamed out—" Oh! 1. have murdered my husband! —he is dead!—fetch some one directly !"—and she appeared in the greatest agony. Witness ran down stairs, and told the first man she met to run for a Doctor. She then returned to the house, and when she got back she found the prisoner at -the house of Mr. Chrichard, next door but one. Witness then ran to her master's house, and was followed by her mis tress. When they arrived, they found a Doctor in the parlour with the body of her master, in the chair, apparently as when he had been shot. She did not go farther than the mom-door, and her mistress kept In the back-parlour. She would have gone into the room, but the Doctor would not let her. Mr. Brindley, pupil at Guy's Hospital, deposed, that he was passing along Weston -street, on Thurs day evening, when a female accosted him respecting a Surgeon ; and on his saying he was a Surgeon, she desired him to step in, as there was an accident. Witness went, and found Dr. Jamieson before him. On his going into the parlour, he found the body of ;'.lr. Harmer in a chair, and at Dr. Jamieson's request he went to fetch Dr. Grainger, but he was not at home; however, he met Mr. Price, one of his pupils, and they returned together. The handkerchief was taken off deceased's head, and there appeared an oblique wound over the orbit of the eye, which pene trated the brain; and he has no doubt but the wound was the occasion of his death. J. Kinsey, the Officer, stated., that he was sent for on Thursday night to the deceased's house. Dr. Ja mieson admitted him, and he found the prisoner in the back-parlour, crying and stamping like a maniac. He enquired what was the matter? and she replied, in the greatest distraction—" I have murdered my husband!" In the nest room he saw the body of the deceased. Several Gentlemen were in the room, and three pistols were placed on the table, with the cocks all down, and one of them had the appearance of having been recently discharged; the others did not appear to have any priming; at all events there had been no flash in the pan—the pistols are both loaded with ball—[Here the pistols were pro duced]—and the charges are still in them. After the Surgeons had retired, witness, with assistance, took the body up stairs, and laid it on a mattress, and searched his pockets. They found on his person a watch, which ring, also nineteen shillings in silver, and one shilhng and ten-pence in copper, and amongst the latter five pistol-balls and a piece of lead; the bullets .fitted the pistols. In his great-coat pockets' they found two - pair of pistol-bags, contain ing twq.billet-moulds, and two powder-flasks fiill of - powder, 'fie then sent for a coach, .and took the prisoner to the 13orougb Compter. No further evidence being forthcoming, the priso ner was.called on for her defence; but by the advice of her Solicitor, she declined saying anything.--She was then remanded till Monday, and was conveyed in a coach to the Compter. Mr. Alderman Slllll . l had . given particular orders for rendering her situation as comfortable as the case would admit of. In the afternoon the HIGH Sin ai,' came to the Office, and tendered the use of the County Prison, if it should be more convenient; but the offer was declined. The prisoner is twenty-three years of age, and ex tremely beautiful. She was married to the deceased, who was more than double her age, last New Year's Day.—The Inquest will sit this evening. LAW INTET.LIGENCE. COSSISTORT COURT, MAY 25. LORD ERSKINE V. LADY ERSKINE. Some time since proceedings were instituted in the Spiritual Court by Lord Erskine against his Lady, he praying for a divorce by reason of her adultery, —The Counsel for her Ladyship stated that an ap pearance to the suit wasgiven for her on the first Ses sion of Michaelmas Term, 1820; a libel or plea, on the part of his Lordship, charging various criminal acts, was afterwards given in, and admitted to proof without opposition ; and several witnesses were pro duced and examined upon it. -In the course of the following Term two separate pleas had been given in by Lady Erskine ; the first being what is techni-, Bally called an allegation of faculties, stating the amount of his Lordship's income, in order to obtain therefrom a suitable allotment for support during the pendency of the cause ; the other was au allegation, with some documentary pro , is annexed, charging his Lordship with criminalities similar to those Which 'he imputed to his wife. Both those allegations were also admitted to proof without opposition. His Lord ship had not yet given his personal answers to either; but on the latter plea, charging him with infidelity, various witnesses had been produced, and had under gone examination. Among these latter was one Mary Anne Buck, a young person, niece to her Ladyship. Against this witness it had been found necessary to obtain a compulsory decree to oblige her to attend. A decree of confrontation to compel his Lordship to appear and be confronted with the witnesses, had also been taken out ; and both decrees were served on the respective individuals, and returned into Court by the proper officer, with a certificate of service. The evidence of the witnesses taken by secret exa mination, 'as is customary in these Courts, had not yet been made public ; but on the fir-t Session of this Term Lord Erskine's Proctor declared that his Lot d ship did not mean to proceed any farther, and prayed that the Court would allow him to be dismissed from the suit. On the part of her Ladyship this declara tion and prayer were opposed, and both parties were accordingly assigned to set forth the grounds of their Application in an act on petition. After this introductory statement, the act on peti tion was read, and an affidavit by her Ladyship's Proctor and his clerk was tendered; but the Coun sel for the Noble Lord opposed its being read. They stated that it related principally to the supposed causes which had induced the witness, Mary Anne [luck, to delay appearing; but she having afterwards appeared, it became quite irrelevant. It was indeed irregular at first. The proper mandatory to execute the Courts decrees is the Court's officer, and he is to explain their service, and not the Proctor of either party, or the Proctor's clerk. Here the witness being of tender age, and standing in the peculiar situation in which she did, was naturally averse to appearing. A compulsory decree was therekre served on her, and if she had still . kept back a decree viii and modis might have issued. The affidavit was made on the Bth of May, but she appeared and was produced for examination on the 10th, and this affidavit was not made till the 11th. The COURT then intimated a desire to know why it was krought in at all, after the compulsory decree had had its effect ? ' Lady Erskine's Counsel said ; the affidavit was, in fact, delivered to the opposite party before the 10th of May. -The officer having made a return to the compulsory decree, certifying that the witness still kept back ; it became perfectly regular in the Proc tor to make an affidavit stating, on the best informa tion he could obtain, the beliet which he entertained that she was kept back by his Lordship's means. Nor was it only regular at the time of making it, but it was relevant to the present act on petition; for in that act, the Proctor for Lord Erskine referred to a notice sent to him by the adverse Proctor, on the 4th of April, that if his Lordship did not proceed in the cause, Lady Erskine would apply to the Court to be dismissed. This was, in fact, only the usual notice to urge a dilatory complainant to expedite the cause; but it had been attempted to raise an inference from either, that Lady Erskine was thereby bound to agree to the dismissal of the suit; or, at least, that Lord Erskine was led to suppose that from that period she would proceed no farther. Now, on the contrary, it appears that from the Bth of May, he was not only aware that she was proceeding to compel Mary Anne Buck to appear; but that he was charged at least on suspicion with an attempt to tamper with the witness, and keep her back from justice. The Learned Coun sel said, it gave them great pain to allude to such matters, but their duty to their client deManded it. They would have been justified in making them the I ground of a more formal plea, and demanding his Lordship's answers to them upon oath, but they were satisfied to state them on affidavit, leaving it to his Lordship to repel the imputation in any way he thought best; but he had not attempted to repel it in any way whatever. To this it was replied by the opposite Counsel, that ' his Lordship had been advised by them to take no notice of a mere surmise taken up at third or fourth hand, and therefore deserving no notice by the Court. That the affidavit was really made with no other view than to ground a further application for compelling the witness to appear, which end had been fully an swered by her appearance. The Cower said it-should not admit the affidavit. Only two purposes were alleged for its introduction; one to compel a witness to appear, who had since ap pealed, the other to throw imputations of a serious nature on one of the parties in this painful cause. If such imputations were well founded, they certainly ought not to be brought forward on a mere loose affidavit, which the Noble Lord cannot be compelled to answer; but they should have been put into a more formal shape. The main question of his Lordship's right to be' dismissed, in the present stage of the cause, was then ' proceeded op ; and the adverse Counsel contended that it was absurd to suppose that a party having brought an accusation against another, and that other having put in a formal plea of recrimination, and examined witnesses upon it, the first accuser could be at liberty to put an end to the business at his plea- sure. Lady Erskine here may prove her allegation against his Lordship ; and if she does, and his Lord ship fails in his proof, she will be entitled to demand a separation from him with a proper alimony suited to the circum.tances. Lord Erkine's Counsel contended, that where the second allegation wag merely defensive. and did not formally deny the guilt charged in the first instance, these principles would not hold. Here Lady Er- , skine not only does not deny the guilt, but she is charged with confessing it, and she does not even deny tkat. Moreover she pleads that since the al- I leged acts of infidelity on her part, Lord Er skine has voluntarily continued his intercourse; now this can only be pleaded as a condonation, and as such is equivalent to an admission of guilt. The case is dif ferent, where a party from the beginning stands on the ground of innocence. Again, if the Lady has connived at her own dishonour, she cannot claim a separation. Now it is alleged in her plea, that Lord Erskine frequented houses of ill-farce from October, 1818, to the time of the plea in February, 1821, and ' also kept up an illicit intercourse during that time sith one Elizabeth Fenning. The cases referred to on both sides were those of Chettle v. Chettle, in the Court of Arches, 7th June, 1820, did Best v. Best, Consistory of Rochester, `24th May, 1821. The former was a suit by the husband for adultery, which was replied to by a. charge of adultery and cruelty ; but the Court rejected the ar ticles pleading cruelty, as no bar to the original suite The hitter was a charge of cruelty; but the husband alleged adultery, on which it was allowed that he might, if it were proved, obtain a divorce. The COURT took time to deliberate on the qoes tion whether his Lordship might be allowed to retire from the suit. THE MARQUIS OF DONEGAL AGAINST MAY, FALSELY sts .F.,s _ _..l....ammiPlNN CALLING HERSELF MAIICIIIONESS OF DONEGAL. Dr. l'ittwmorte, on behalf of the Marchioness of Donegal, prayed the Court to issue its monition, pre viously to the further progress of this suit, for the purpose of citing the next of kin to see proceedings. These parties were married so long ago as the year 1795, and the present suit was for nullity of marriage, under the Marriage Act. The Court was aware of the extreme severity of that Act; and no length of time, scarcely, deprived the suitor of his remedy. The only persons on whom the Noble Defendant re lied for her proof, and who were present at her mar riage, were very old; and this'process was the only one upon which she could rely, for the better main tenance and protection of those high dignities, in terests, and possessions which were implicated in this suii.—Monition granted. CO URT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 25. THE KING V. TURNER. The defendant in this case was called upon his re cognizance to plead to an indictment for a libel, pre ferred against him by the Constitutional Association, and not appearing, his recognizances were declared to be forfeited. LIBEL ON HER MAJESTY. THE KING V. THE REV. MR. BLACOW. Mr. BRounitAist proceeded, in reply to the argu ment of Mr. Parke on a former day. He commenced by observing, that their Lordships would recollect in this case, that what Mr. Parke shewed as cause against this Rule was, the want of an affidavit on the part of her Majesty, denying the matter set forth in the al leged libel. Now, to the grounds upon which Mr. Enke maintained the necessity cf that affidavit, it would only be necessary for him very generally to allude. The cases to which he had referred, and in which the Court had considered an affidavit denying the charge to have been necessary, were all cases in which some specific matter had been alleged in the publication in question. In the first case to which Mr. Parke had called the attention of the Court, that of the King against Bickerton, there the charge was, that the plaintiff had personated one Dr. Crowe, a physician, and written prescriptions in his name, and received tees for those prescriptions, which belonged, in fact, to Dr. Crowe ; and there the Court had said, " We will not grant you this extraordinary remedy unless you deny that you so personated Dr. Crowe." So in " The King v. Webster." Thatwas an informa tion applied for before a Magistrate, for killing a hare, and the person who made the application for the information would not take upon him to deny that he had killed the hare. So again in the case of Sir John Fielding, in that fitmous case of the anony mous letters addressed to the Duke of Marlborough, the Court refused to grant this extraordinary remedy, unless the writing of those threatening letters was denied. But upon that case Lord Mansfield had ob served, that it would be absurd, if a man were gene rally designated as a thief or a traitor, to call upon him to deny that fact. He confessed, however, that he had only referred to those cases for the pur pose of putting them out of the way. Her Majesty was perfectly ready to make that affidavit, if their Lordships did not conceive that it would be ludicrous and altogether too absurd to require—if their Lord ships did not think that it would be a departure from her dignity to make an affidavit, alleging that she was not the Goddess of so and so, and other matters equally absurd and ridiculous. It was by the advice of her Majesty's Legal Officers that she had slot ten dered such an affidavit; and the ground upon which it seemed to them that her Majesty ought not to have made that tender was, on the station which her Ma jety held in this country. Into the high station and dignity which her Majesty, as Queen Consort, held in these realms, it was unnecessary to enter at length ; and pos::essing these, it seemed to her Legal Ad visers to be a descent from that dignity to come be fore that Court like a common person. Lord Coke, page 133, after remarking upon the prerogatives of the Queen, proceeded to state one or two of these prerogatives, with respect to Courts of Justice. In case, it was there said, the Queen was nonsuited, she was to find no pledges, nor to be amerced. With respect to the Writ of Right, it issued not to the King, but to his Bailiff; and Lord Coke held that the Writ of Right should not be directed to the Queen more than to the King. So in the case of Aid, the privileges of the Queen differed from the case of all common perions. It was admitted on all hands that, during the argument of a late case in Exchequer, the Queen might, by her Attorney-General, file an in formation. The C H i er Jusrice..-11 that be so, Mr.-lirougham, is it not decisive against the preafin application? Mt. Baouonasn---My Lord, I merely meant to state, that in civil matters the Queen had that power. It might be said that this was the case of a first im pression; to which he answered, that no Queen Con sort had ever been placed under precisely the same circumstances. The Queen of these realms had for merly the power of the Crown to file an information;_ of that able assistance her Majesty was now /vi vo He had nothing further with which to t rou bl e their Lordships. If they thought that the sta'enterit re . quired an answer, her Majesty was perfectly willi ng to negative that statement. Mr. DENMAN said, he felt it hardly to be Leen,. s t r y , to add one word to what had been so ably and sin powerfully urged by his Learned Friend. But hi t Learned Friend had forgotten to advert to one other most important privilege enjoyed by he r Majesty... namely, the privilege of being represented in Courts of Justice by her own recognised Law ()dicers, n ot for the purpose of criminal proceeding s (t or w i t h out a precedent, her Law Officers would not b e s% arranted in attempting to institute such proceedings), b ut e l advocating her interests in an authorised public cha.. ratter. He only wished to add, that it was in th a t character alone that her Majesty had been recom. mended by those Officers on this occasion, to C a i ne the justice of the Court, and that protection to which., by her illustrious.rank, she was entitled. Hi s L earned Friend and himself thought they should have reputed from that duty which belonged to their situazion, if they had, in the first instance, permitted her Majesty even to become acquainted with this foul and mali• cious libel—which was not written, but preached... which was not specific, but most general --and which had polluted the public worship of the Church, f a the avowed purpose of bringing the first subject of the realm into odiuni and contempt, by language, exceeding iu infamy and flagitiousness anything th at had disgraced the present age. If .t l ite Court should say that the first subject of the realm, deprived, b y separation from her Royal Husband, of that protection to which the Queen Consort was entitled, by credo information, was not to be shielded from attacks of this description, he had only to observe, that her Law Advisers must adopt such course as the Court pre. scribed to the meanest as well as the highest subject of the realm. But he was sure iheir Lordships would pause before they established in the case of her Ma. jesty that rule which had never been applied to sure other individual whatever ; for there was no case of this description brought before the Public, which :I:. cognised that the genetality of the charge, and tie circumstances under which this individual had thought himself at liberty orally to pronounce his . slander i n the hearing of a crowded congregation, called fct specific negation. Without troubling their Lordships farther, he would only say that he confidently antici• gated a decision in favour of her Majesty. The Cover consulted together for some time. The CHIEF Jusric4.—This is a case of very gret importance, and we therefore think that it ought to , be maturely deliberated upon before we pronounce our opinion on the subject. I • ~ . THE KING V. BLAKE AND WINDHILL. On the motion of Mr. ANDREWS, these defendant; who had been convicted of endeavouring to provoke a person of the name of Blake to fight a duel, were brought tip to receive judgment. The CHIEF JusricE read over his notes of the triaL Affidavits were then put in, and read by the Clerk, from the two defendants ; and several other affidavits, deposing to their general good conduct, were subs*. quently read. Mr. ADOLPHUS addressed the Court in extenuation, and Mr. ANDREWS in aggravation of punishment. The COURT sentenced the defendants to pay to the King a fine of £2O each, and to find securities to keep the peace for one year, themselves in £lOO, and two securities in 4.30 each. The .:efendants forth with paid the fine, and gave the security requited bj the Court, after which they were ditchaiged. DUBLIN, MAY 21.-COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUTIIBERT V. BROWNE. This most extraordinary case—the false remnr mendation of a Lady to the plaintiff as a wife—(eet the STAR of Wednesday last)—is to be resumed to. morrow. The most emitient Lawyers of the Bar have differed in opinion, whether an action aided will lie under the alleged circumstances. The sot is likely to be profitable to the Gentlemen of the Long Robe, as both parties are determined to argot it before die Twelve Judges, and, if necessary, to carry it to the House of Lords. DIED. Lieutenant R. G. Atkinson, of the Royal Marines, =dice* the late James Atkinson, Esq. of Newry. This gallant Olice fell in the prime of life, in the attack made by a British fora es the North Fort of Mocha. _ --- Atßrooinhill,;;;;lienny, on the 12th instant, George Toils Esq. Surgeon, Royal Navy. Wednesday, Thomas Birch, F.s q . of .Boud-street, Banker, aged seventy-eight. Tcrfsday, very deeply lamented, after a most lingering and painful illness, borne with patient resignation, Samuel George Bicknell, Eel. of St. John's College, Cambridge, only sou of Charles Bicknell, Esq. Spring Garden-terrace, whose virtues in private life justly endeared him to all who knew lian, and ren der his loss irreparable. PRICES OF GOI D AND SILVER. Foreign Gold in Bars New Doubloons New Dollars 0 4 10 Silver, in bars, standard 0 4 11 NEWGATE Avu LILA DR NH ALL MA ILK ETS, MAY 2.5. ( By the Carcase.) Beef 2s 8d to 31 6d B l . Veal 3s Od to 44 a bl utton..• ...... 3s Od to 4s od Pork 3s 441 to 4s a Lamb 4s. . to 6s. Od. - COAL MARKET, Slav 25. Ships at Market. Ships Sold. 43 Newcastle 62 1 Sunderland Price. 34s 6J to 42s 0 Z.9s OJ to 40_a COUNTRY MARKETS. Noawtcn—On Saturday list, wheat rose 2s. per comb. UXARIDGE, MAY 24.—Wheat, per load, £ll 00s to .€lB New Wheat, £0 Os to £0 Os—Barley, per quarter, V w 265--Oats, 17s to 23s—Means. 28. to 355--Peas, 29s to 5110 OXFORD, MAY 24.—The price of a Bushel of Cleat 61. 74 ' Thu half-peck Loaf, Wheaten, Is. sd.—Household, ll . 4l BANILVILY, MAY 24.--Wheat ss. Od. to is. 61--Braus 3s. 44. to Bd—Vetches, Os Od per bushel.—Barley, 20s to f 4 ,51- Oats, 181 Od to 21s Od per quarter.—Bread, Is a half I“°°' Flour 425. per sick. NJ/MAURY BEARS , MAY 24.—Wheat, 44. to 695 - -- 1501 1 23s to 26s— Oats, 19s to 23s—Beans, 399 to 545-- I 'osil e. to 32s.—Rye, 00s.—Bread, lk 34c1 to Is 54d per Gallon. SALISAVAY, MAY Wheat, 42s to 565.--Barlry, 20sto 29. MA 1 LS 11113 DAY.-411111. Dile. Dublin 1 •0 Waterford 2 0 Guernsey and Jersey 0 0 Holland 0 0 Flanders 0 0 Malts 0 0 •aa. sea lishon 0 I France 0 I Ilansburgb 1 0 Gottenburgh 0 0 leeward Islands 0 New York 0 0 -------XM HIG H•W ATER at LONDON BRIDGICTO.IIIO IIOOIV. Morning - 17 minute: after 10 At trepan' - - 5 0 10 LONDON Printed mul publlsha by Lint. KM, Piaci". Tcniplc•Bit: IL -