The National Register. — London, England, 1821-04-16 00:00:00

J lie V -410 — GLOUCESTER. ..! CIVIL SIDE. CRISS. COL—WATER HOUSE, EMI), v. COL.VERIKELET. 'ibis case, which has excited so much interest among the fashionable visitors to the town of Cheltenham, and among the inhabitants of the surrounding co 1111 l les, came on to be tried on Saturday. The Court was crowded to excess. The damages were laid at 20,0001. Mr. Jervis proceeded to address the Jury. The plain 'tiff; Mr. Waterhouse, was the son of the late Mr. Wa terhouse, who was formerly a merchant of eminence, carrying on business in London. In the year 1810 be went to the Isle of Man, where he became acquainted with a very respectable family, of whom the unfortunate lady, who was the suitject of the present action, was ihe eldest .laughter. He alluded to Captaiti and Mrs. Blake. The plaintiff was then about 20, and the lady nearly of the sane age, but rather younger. On the 16th of Sep tember, 1812, with the mutual consent of their parents, they were married. Soon after their union it was found . convenient, from the pecuniary circumstances of Air. Waterhouse, that he should retire with his lady to live in some cheap part of the kingdom ,• they went in con.' sequence to reside at Scarborough. In the course of the three following years they were blessed with three chil. dreo. two girls and a boy.—ln the winter of 1818. a M rs.Probytt, who had been an early friend of Mrs.. ' Waterhouse, arrived at Cheltenham for the benefit of her health. Their intimacy was, of course. renewed t and, through the medium of this lady, the defendant, Col. Berkeley, was introduced to the plaintiff and his wife about the beginning of the year 1819 No parti cular intercourse followed between • the Gentlemen, nothing further having happened between them than an exchange of cards. On the i6th of April, in that year, Mr. Waterhouse went to London to s.• his brother, who was, at that time, In an ill state of health. He contiuted absent till the 10th of May, when he returned to Cheat- in. On the 10th of July following, he was again under the necessity of quitting home, for the pur pose of going to Jersey to see a sister. On this occasion he was absent a little more than a month. He returned to Charlton on the 15th of August. In the beginning of the year 181 g, it had been proposed to Mr. Water house, in consequence of the increasing state of his family, having had a fourth child born at Charlton, to proceed to Jamaica, to endeavour to obtain a situation, by which he might be enabled the better to consult the comforts and happiness of those he so tenderly loved, for up to this time he did not entertain a doubt that he was in full possession of the warmest aftections of his laity. On the 18th of January, in the last year, he left Charlton Kings for Bristol, with a view of embarking forthwith for Jamaica. Adverse winds detained him in port till the 14th of February, when he proceeded on his voyage. It might beroper here to remark, that on thus leaving his wife for Jamaica, Mr. Waterhouse left her under the same protection as he had on the two former occasions, with an ample provision for her main. tenance during his absence. Front Jamaica Mr. Water house returned in July, and knowing that he had had uo tnterc'.urse with his wife from the Wilt of January preceding, the Jury might better imagine than he wdb capable of describing, the agonized situation itt which he was thrown on being informed of the course which she had adopted, and of her being then far advanced in pregnancy. He went to Cheltenham, bet took the precaution of avoiding the abode of his wife. He re mained there three days after the cemmunication of the painful intelligence, and then left the price, determined never to see her again. In the mean time his suspi cions, which were unhappily but too well founded, were confirmed by an intercepted letter—the contents of which, as it had come from Mrs. Waterhouse, he was not at liberty to state. It was addressed to the present defendant, in language calculated to ezcite sensations which he would not venture to express. The suspicions were. however, more fatally supported, for, on the 11th of November, being a period of 42 weeks, from the day on which the plaintiff left his wife, she was delivered of smother female child, which, from the course of nature, could not by possibility he his. He would now proceed to state also, the evidence of which he was in possession • against the defendant, and from which it wotihi appear most clearly, that he had been guilty of criminal inter course with the plaintill's wife. And this he would make out, not only by the testimony of living witnesses, but by letters, in the hand-writing of Colonel Berkeley himself. The first that passed between the parties upon the subject was of the date of the Ist of May, 1819 , and now the Jury would see the materiality of the dates, to which he had requested their particular attention. Now the letter in question from Colonel Berkeley to Mrs. Waterhouse, was dated the Ist of May, during that absence. It was in the following terms:— " Nothing but the fear of losing an opportunity of seeing you, could induce ins to write, hut I am obliged to be in London on Monday, therefore I now send. To night, at nine, I will be in the appointed spot. If you love me do not fail my—there is Ito danger. ' He (Mr. Jervis) was in possession of 24 letters and sight notes, written by the deiendant to Mrs. W'ater lumse, which were obtained from that lady on the 12th of December, in consequence of Mr. W iteilluuse, with his Solicitor, having foue to her I.elAin t and °Wilted them by means whim, under the eircomistaticc.., were not to be reprobated. The Learned Comisel then pro. seeded to read the letters in question, which were couched iu ridiamlously passionate terms, and contained allusions which could leave little doubt as to the nature of the intimacy that had subsisted, and fit.ally, made an ant meted and eloquent appeal to the Jury, to COmpellbate, es couch as damages could couapebsate, the plattniff, for the injuries which he and his helpless intaut faintly had rugs ned. The witnesses were then called, and ten letters from the Colonel were put in and read. Mr. Taunton, in a powerful speech, denied that the act of adultery had been proved; but even if it had, concluded that the plaintili had bet little reason to THE NATIONAL REGISTER wooplein of the loss which he had sustained, as Mrs. Waterhouse hal, proved herself to he the most aban doned of her sex,by making the first advance to Colonel Berkeley, who would have been more or less than a netts if he had not fallen beneath the influence of hee passion. He then read the letters of the lady, the first two of which were in a disguised hand, and the last two written in her own natural character. Those letters exhibited a painful picture of the mind of a woman who had fallen (rota that purity and virtue which const:tute the greatest ornament of her sex. Mr. Jervis made an admirable reply, commenting upon the baseness of the defendant in betraying the secrets of her whom he had destroyed, and insinuating that the letters attributed to her had been fabricated. Mr. Justice Park summed up the case with perspi cuity and impartialiiy ; and, at twelve o'clock at night, the Jury found a verdict for the plaintilT—Damages, ONE THOU6AND POUNDS. Costs, 40s. SOMEIfTSET. DOE ON DEMISE OF Eager, e. sTUcKEY AND °THERA. This was au action bought by assignees, to recover from defendants certain premises held by them, by virtue of a mortgage granted by Gibbs, a bankrupt, to secure to defendants (who are bankers) a balance of 35001. due to them on .a banking account, on the plea that there were usurious charges in the said banking account, which rendered the mortgage mill and void, tinder the statute of 12th Anne, cap. 16.--I'he banking ac count between Gibbs and the defendants, the balance of which is the consideration of the mortgage Oren by the bankrupt to them, commenced in October, 1808, and continued clown to the date of the mortgage in May, 1817. The annual balances were, struck agreeably to the usage of bankers, but the balance of each year's account was carried on to the succeeding year, so that the batwing business between Gibbs and defendants, during the whole of this period, forms only one account. The charge of usury was attempted to be proved by the defen dants having charged ss. per cent. on all sums paid or received by them on account of Gibbs, besides an interest of 5 per cent. on die balances against Gibbs, whose account was always overdrass Gibbs proved the terms, objected to the commission, but continued the account, and agreed to the balance when the mortgage was given. Cross-examined.—Did not know what his estate would pay as a dividend, none being made. What would be paid depended on the establishing this cause. Mr. Willis, accountant, of Bristol, proved that he had made up the account, and that the excess of interest charged on advances was equal, 011 the whole of the payments, in the year 1814, to 7s. 9d. per cent.; in 1815, to ma. Old. per cent.; in 1816 (after allowing bs. on London and Bristol paymenu) to 17s. lOU. per cent.; in 1817 (after ss. allowed as before), to 235. and bid. per cent. That drafts on London at 35 days, 40 days, and 75 days after date, were charged as cash its the pass. book ; three of such drafts amounted together to 33001.- and no rebate of interest was allowed in the interest account. 'rut on the returned bills there was a specific charge for interest, commission, and postage. Judge—what does your calculation comprehend ? A tiswer.--litterest on sums advanced, explained from the pass-book . Judge.—He is not keeping that account as a banker's account ought to he kept, it is not made up as is usual with hankers, therefore all Willis says goes for nothing; the pass-bootnot being proof enough. Mr. Serjeant Pell, for the defendants, contended that the charges were justified by the nature of the account, and that bankers were fairly entitled to be remunerated for their risk, trouble, and expellee. He held himself responsible for the course of defence he should adopt, and he would go on the merits of the case. Mr. J. Manningford, banker, Bristol, proved it usual for all country bankers to charge a cotninission ; he knew of no exception, unless a cash balance is left as a compensation; and if die amount agreed to be left is lessened, it is usual to pay interest on the sum reduced, as on a loan. wine bankers charge a specific sum for commission. Hail examined Gibbs's accouut ; the charges were insufficient for the trouble. The defend ants were fairly entitled to one half per cent, on the whole account, amounting to 5271. Os. 2d. they bad charged only 6101. 10e. Mr. Biggs, late clerk to the firm of Tuffin and Co. bankers, Blistel, had examined Gibbs's account.— 'rutin) and Co. would have charged 6701. and it is a fair charge, according to their mode of doing business. They charge a commision equal to sixty days, for the trouble or ,eodin g home local notes and remote bills, and thirty days on any other hills. Mr- Serjeaut Pell.—The Chancellor has lately de cided that 151. per cent, is not objectionable, and be allowed it. Judge.—The deed has a retrospective operation, and affects the previous t.alisact.ini. In this CAW there is not a title of colour for usury. There WAS nothing lo affect the character of so hohourable a house.—Niainlitt nutisuited. LONDON SESSIONS. Oa Monday these 011711011 M commenced before the Bight Hon. the Laid Mayor, Sec. 4c. Oursiadetms Assat.r.T.--slienry Tlnsli, the driver of a coal waggon, was tried upon an indictment for having committed a most wanton; and outtageous assault upon Mr. If. Brownet. The prosecutor stated, that on the Slat of January last he was golds; down Wood•sueet in a chaise with his daughici, okr' he was met lit the waggon driven by the defendant. There was hot sulhicient intim for him to pass, as the wagon was a vary aide one. The prosecutor begged him for God's sake to carp hi■ waggon, for if lie did not lie would kill both and his child. The defendant only laughed at this request, and drove his horses forward without paying the slightest attention to she outcries and ►rpplicatiuns of the prosecutor, when the v heel of the waggon got locked in that of limo chaise, which it dinged back, threw the horse down, and drag ged it on the ghuuud, chaise and all, for mere than has yards. Tao foot of thibmese get Nader the waggon and bad the horses slot bespo s ilepOod. the horse, chaise, self, and child, must inevitably have him croaked. The defendant's wagon was stopped by another waggoner, who perceived the perilous situation of the prosecutor. Two other witnesses corroborated the statement of the prosecutor. The Jury immediately found the prisoner guilty. The ceert said, they felt themselves bound to protect the public from the wanton brutality of those who had the management of horses in oar streets, and they should a l wa y s punish their misconduct with severity. The pri soner was sentenced to be imprisoned for six mouths is the Giltspur-street Compter. John Dean was indicted for having lted an aged Jew, named Cohen Jacobs. The prosecutor, who is a Jew pedlar, of most patriar chal appearance, stated, that on the 15th of Fehr nary he was going near Duke's-place ; he was met by the defend. ant, who ritiicnled his long beard, said it was unbecom ing, and abased him for not shaving. Notwitlistandiug his endeavours to avoid the defendant, he still mullioned to persecute hint, but having his box on his back, he could not get out of the way, and at length lie hit him on the head, and seizing him by the heard, plucked out a handful, when the arrival of an officer prevented further violence. The jury found the defendant guilty, when Ike court allowed him to speak to the prosecutor, which having dour satisfactorily, they fined him Is. • Two men named Chick and Bridgernan, were con victed of having had burglarious implements in their pOSSellsion, with intent to robla house near Alderruanbury, and were sentenced to be imprisoned fur four mouths in the house of correction. MIDDLESEX. Richard Hornell was indicted for obtaining money on false pretences from Martha Harrington. Mr. Alley upened the CARP fur the prosecution with great force; he described tit prisoner as a person who haunted the pritions for the purpose of obtaining money from the unfortunate, by pretending to give them legal assistance. Martha Harrington proved that she had lodged at Mr. James Thompson's, in Davies-street, Berkley-square ; that she left her lodgings in debt 241.; that she sent oc casionally small sums to Mr. Thompson, in payment, till she reduced the debt to 111. 10s. when becoming distressed, she sent him a message, that she was notable to continue her payments, but would pay the balance whenever it would be in her power. She was soon after confined for debt in Whitecross-street prison, where she first saw the prisoner, who was in the habit of coming to the prison for the purpose of giving legal advice and assistance to the prisoners. Soon after her leaving the prison she suet the prisoner in the street, who told her that he was employed by Mr. Thompson to sue her for 121. He called at her lodgiuga next morning, when she spewed him an account of her payments to Mr. Thompson, by which it appeared that the balance was 111. 10s. He took the account with him and returned the next day, and said he bad 'hew ed it to Mr. Thompson, and said that it was correct, and that Mr. Thompson had directed him to sue her fur the amount. To prevent briug sued, the proseruirix gave the prisoner her promissory °our for toe debt, and sus. Costs, which she promised to pay by installments. Thu prisoner called at different times after for the payments, on a hich occasions, he received from her four one pound cotes and ten shilliugs.—Wheu the prosecutrix found that the prisoner had not been employed by Mr. Thompson, she employed as attorney to indict him ; after which he called on her, and offered to return dice!. 10s. and to p.y the expmsces, which she refused. James Thompson corroborated the proseeetrix as to her leaving his house in dept, aim declared positively, that he never did employ him, and that he had so high uu upiniun of the prosecutrix, thache would nut sue,ber on any account. The prisoner, after the prosecution was commenced, uttered him to pay the 41. 10.. and all expences. In the defence, two a itemises were called to . prove tied Mr. Thompson had said that he had employed the prisoner to recover payment from the proseentrix. The Jury after a Short cousultation, found the prisoner Guilty. The Chairman in passlngsentence, told the prl,oner it had been in the consideration of the Bench to send hem oat of the country, but they hoped a milder punishment might be sutticient.'.-Twelve months imprisonment. Discisaseatin Flax-snits ;a Tag lIVRIUKT•—•John Lloyd a gless-cutter, io Ogle-street, St. Mary-le-bone, stood indicted tor firing atooded-pimul at the head of Jas. Barnes, by which he was so seriously wounded that he was cosigned in the Middlesex hospital for two wonths. The Jury after a short deliberation, returned a verdict ul Guilty, The Bench then consulted, and the Cheirmau sentenced the prisoner to pay a flue of 201. A watchman of St. Martin's was indicted for nom. mitting a gross assault on a young man, named George Gooding. Tile prosecutor was at a public-house tit Long.acre, which place he left in company with a friend a little before twelve o'clock. On going into the street, the defendant asked him to treat him, which he refused, and was going away, hut wos followed by the watch. man, who, on coming up, struck hint a violent blow with a stick, and took him and his friend to the watch. house, Next day, at !Sow-street, tie charged him witls attempting to commit burglary, but the magistrate not finding any such charge in the charge book, dismissed the complaint.—Guilty. The Court in very strong language, reprehended the watchman for the impropriety of his 00ialtiM.ob4rving, that when the very persons who are appointed to keep the peace, and preserve the tranquillity of sub as might be oat at night on their lawful hiniiilego, were silo kat to disturb the peace themselves, there could be nu safety for any man. lie was then sentenced to three mouths imprisonment in the House efCorrectiott, OLD BAILEY. WEDNESDAY, Alen. 11.—Dennis dhottley wee ifs' dieted fur maliciously cutting and stabbing Bartholomew Lucca, with intent to murder hits. There were other counts in the indictment, charging huts with intent to do hint bodily harm, age. The jury returned a verdict of nest guilty. CASS 011 Btu ii.MY.—David Douglas, a young man or genteel eppearanoc, was indicted for maliciously inters marrying with Mary Bliaabeth Utiattl, his lawful wife Sarah being alive. 1 ,