The National Register. — London, England, 1809-11-26 00:00:00

758 Court, thht the Jury were hours in deliberation on the present &use; and that with respect to the testimony of one of the witnesses, after what has passed in another place, no credit can 'possibly be given to her. It was carefully proved on the trial,. by Mrs. Clarke in particular, that no credit was ever given to Her; because it was very well known that, if credit was for an instant given to • the party for whom goods .were furnished, it had been decided by your Lordship, that any promise of pay- Mete by any body elsetaust be in writing. Mrs. Clarke knew this, and therefore ereleavoured to make out that her acquaint ance with Colonel Wardle began before any order which had becu given to the Plaintiff; but upon her cross-examination, I extracted from her, first, that her acquaintance with Colonel IVardle began in the autumn, which she said she considered to be September or October, and afterwards, that it did not com mence till the 16th of November." • Lord ELLENUOItOUtithse--" That went to the Jury, as a con tradiction in her testimony, and their verdict was ,pronounced, taking that into consideration." • Mr. Serjeant BEST..—" A great part of the Plaintiff's goods I were sent in to Mrs. Clarke, before her acquaintance with Colonel Wardle; and this was got over by rsaviog they were • sent on hire. Here rs. Clarke and Daniel Wright contradict each other, the former swearing that they were returned, the latter, that they went in part of the order. Ido not bring ell these circumstances forward as the ground for a new trial, brit as corroborative of those circumstances upon o hick I do ask for a new trial. I have since procured the affidavits of Court, and a woman of the name of Mumford, servant to Simeon Bell, end a positive affidavit of Sir Richard Phillips, all of which for the present 1 must take to be uncontradicted. If your Lordships feel that it will advance the ends of justice to do so, you will grant me a new trial ; if that verdict, upon w hich a J ury paused hours before they gave it — Lord ELLENDOROUGII.—" I beg that may not he unders tood : it Would be a more dangerous doctrine. It might be for the particular advance of justice, but certainly it would not be fur the general. It is not because evidence which is unimpeach ed at the trial is afterwards contradicted, that the Court grant new trials." Mr. Scrjeant LEST. —" But in suspicious casts, where the evidence is afterwards clearly slice' to be false, a aew trial may be granted ; and ec may rely upon what Sir Richard Lord LeLEtenonouGH.—"Certaiely not. It would then give yea an opportunity of stringing a e hole bead-roll of witnesses together, procured since the trial, to answer each his Own car t icular branch of the Plaintiff's ease. if the affidavits of Mum ford and Bull arc material falsifiers of the Plaintiff's case, and if you will thew me that they could not have been procured before the Mr. SeKicaut BEST--" I think they are, my Lord.► far from Wright's refusing Mrs. Clarke credit, it .4)les:us by Bull's affidavit, that he recommended her to him as a tenant." Lord ELLENBOROUGII—" Aye, that's a very different thing." Mr..Serjeant BEST—" And stated, that he was to furnish a house for her." Lord ELLENDOROUCII—" The whole effect of that might beve been to give her a false credit, iu order to hold up her heaff, that he might get his 5001. from her." Mr, Svijeallt BEST—" If the rules of the Court of King's -Bench are against me, Col. Wardle must sebmit to pay the 1051. At all events, we may say here what has been said else where—that infamy, and a great deal of it too, must attach stomew here ; and, at any rate, Col. Wardle has an opportunity . of saying, that the same conspiracy which has obtained a ver diet against 'him before, has been exerted in the affidavits which are now at hand to oppose the present rule ; and, 1 trest it • w ill be exposed by the same indictment." Lord ELLENBOKOUGH was of opinion, that if a sew trial were to be granted ou the grounds that it was applied for in the .present case, it. wo uld be setting a dangerous precedent. A De fendant would ha ve no more to do than to lie by, and not contra diet the case made out by the Plaintiir, and w hen the verdict was. against him, he might then, atleisure,look out for other evidence, amid apply to set aside the verdict. Ile did not mean to say, that in this case there was any improper beating up for witnesses on the part of the Defendant; but it would be extremely dangerous to permit any D e fendant to have such a power. T he g eneral ground upon which the verdict was sought to be shaken, was sur prise. Now he wonld ask what was the nature of this surprize Was it ht a surprise on Mr. Wardle,to that the Plaintitishould have broug Mrs. Clarke for ward prove his case or was the so:- NOV; 26. prise at the details of the proof ? He certainly knew the nature . - of the case which the Plaintiff brought, and might have had a bill of particulars. When the Defendant's Attorney was looking out for witnesses to rebut the charge, would not his attention be naturally attracted to Mr. Curt, the landlord of the house in Westbourne-place, who might certainly be supposed a likely • person to know something about the furnishing his house ? if he had been applied to, it now appears that he could not only have given some evidence on this point, brit also respecting a suns of money paid by Mr. Wright for fixtures. Why then was Air. Curt not applied to, and summoned on the part of the Defendant Was the Court to he called upon for its special interference in favour of neglect or indolence, or was it not rather to protect surprised vigilance ? As to the point which had been made about the insurance of the goods, that was also a point on which the Defendant might have had full information before the trial. As to the circumstance of Wright having been so often bail foe Mrs. Clarke, although he was somewhat struck w ith it w hen first it was mentioned. yet upon consideration he did not think it ma terially contradicted the story which had been told by. the wit nesses; and if this circumstance had appeared to him on its first being mentioned in the same light it now did, after mature consi deration, he probably w could not have granted the rule. Wright knew that there was no dangrr in bailing her, as she had already proved her coverture, and could at all times shelter herself under that plea. As to the answer of Mr. Wright to the 11111 in Chan - eery, if*the Defendant had thought that evidence necessary foz his case, it would have been an ordinary application to the Court to put oil' the trial until that aeswer could be obtained, or an injunction could have been obtained in Chancery to stay proceedings at law until this answer was put in. lie therefore could not see upon what ground the Defendant could justly com plain of being taken by surprise. Almost all the evidence which had now been stated, could, with due diligence, have been ob tained upon the trial, and there was nothing new which treat to overturn completely the case as mach out (or the Plaintitr. As to the pretence of the Defendant being taken by surprize, from not happening to be in Court, or to be able to communicate personally with his Counsel it was an ()ejection entitled to no weight. The Defendant, it appeared, was in the Hall during the trial, and either did, or mie lit have communicated, if he thonght proper, with any of the persous employed for him.. It seems that he actually keew what the witnesses had sworn. If the Defendant was not la Court, and cuuld have served his cause by a personal communi ' I cation with his Counsel, whose fault was it that he did not do su ? What was to prevent him from comming into Court, and personally giving his Counsel what directions he thought pro. per ? If this cause suffered any thing by his being in the Hall, inAead of the Court, whose fault was that ? Upon the whole, he considered that if the Court were to set aside this verdict, upon the grounds which bad been stated, they would. be shak ing all the security for property, and establishiog a precedent, which would produce incalculable mischief. He, therefore, should order the rule to be discharged. The other Judges gave their opinions seriatim, and concurred with his Lordship.—Ruk for a new trial Refused. On Tuesday the Court of Kings Bench decided the cause of tic Lail of Lindsey, against the Trnstees of the late Duke of Ancaster, in favour of Lordship, by which he becomes pas t•essed of his ancient family property of Utlington, near Stamford POLICE. PUBLIC OFFICE ) BOW-STREET. Mr. John nobson, of No. 2, America-squser:, 8h:13-owner, was brought to this wilco on Tuesday, SOP:i after eight o'clock, by .0: tie of the pat role it° were io thendtince at Covent Gar den Theatre. lie exhibited 1 1 .ttl most tattered appezrance, his coat being or front ;Lirts to the collar behind, and one of the lappets was nearly tore oil in front. On his entrance. he Was placed et the felons' liar, where he remained until Mr. James Brandon tame, who shortly after appeared, and stated that the performances of the evening had proceeded in the most peace able and orderly manner till the commencement of hall-price, when discord and confusion were excited by the prisoner, who, on entering the pit, began a fit of artificial sneezing and cough ing, w hick, like the application of a lighted match to gun powder, was productive of an instantaneous' and general ex plosion, and riot and tumult became universal. Some of his Ugvittg in,iittated to him that his conduct Wai cgiatTiC." THE NATIONAL REGISTER.