The National Register. — London, England, 1815-07-16 00:00:00

TILE NATIYINAT, RMISTER. to various other facts related by Mr. Holland, which demonstrated, in Olt strong st manner, the mental derangement of the deceased, he added, " Never did there exist a man, upon whose jue!gment and in -IFegrity I should have , 00ner relied, upon any case, either public or private, as a countell, ror friend. In these relations I had consulted him for mane years. But troni what I have observed cf his conduct fol. a cur Siderable time past, he would have been the last person in the world to whom I wuu!d have committed the slightest subject for cousiderat;on !" The evidence of John Weir was next taken. He deposal that he )tad lived in the ser vice of the deceased for 27 years. His master had retired to rest on IVednesday night, about half-pzst ten o'clock, in ap parent good health. On the following morning he observed him come down stairs, and go into his dressing-room, which was situated on the ground floor, and looking into the garden. It was then half past nine o'clock, and the witness, as was his daily custom, went to Wing some hot water to shave him. On reaching the door of t! e dressing-room, however he found it fastened, and immediately knocked. He receiv✓'d no answer, but retired, supposing his master •Was particularly engaged. On his going through the passage, how ever, lie met the r rivate secretary of Mr. Whitbread, to whom he re lated the singularity of the dressing-room being locked ; a circum stance never be'Ore -known ! The secretary replied, it was equally strange to hiM, as he himself had been trying to see Mr. W. and to receive s , me orders, when he feund the door fast; and no answer gi*en to his call or knook ng ! They both than determined upon peeping in at the window froin the yard, which, having passed, and not distinguishing the deceased in an upright posture, they looked more riatfowly, and beheld with terror the body of their lamented master sveltering in his blood. The wiliness instantly burst in the window, and entered the room, Where he found the deceased with his throat tut from ear to car, and the vital spark completely extinguished. Medical aid, though called in, was quite useless. Perhaps no instance elf self-destruction was ever mote complete ! A razor, with which he elleCted the dreadful act, was found by his side on the floor. The private secretary of the deceased confirmed the account given by the List witness, hut such was the terror and confusion into which he was thrown, by his first view of the shotking spectacle, that he could riot recollect wnether he entered the room through the door or by the window. This witness also deposed to many circumstar•.ces, which Jed him to believe that the deceased had long laboured under strong si•tnptorns of derangement. An eminent Physician proved the fact Nkhielt had caused the death of the deceased, and after some other cor roborative evilence the Coroner left it to the Jury to decide, whether under the strong and respectable testimony they had heard, they could for a moment hesitate upon the verdict. In his opinion and the exer cise of his unpleasant duties a clearer instance of derangement had never came before him. The Jury, after a moment's consideration, concurred, and returned a iitraict of—insanity, JULY tG the wii..esm, as usual, asked after Mary.- The rlefe•ndant replied, that he knew nothing of her—his marriage with her was good for nothing, sand tithed done with it. At the time of the marriage the defendant was under are, and an apprentice. Two letters of the defendant'• to the plaintiff were then rut in and read. They were dated to the year tkilJ, in which he address. cd her with great affection, and spoke shortly of completing their union by a new marriage with the consent of the father of the plain tiff. The sentence of n u llity of marriage pronounced by the cycle:if:is. tical Court was put in and read, by which it appeaied that at the suit of the defendant the marriace beh. eon them was declared 1101 and void, on the around of infancy in the defendant. The attorney for the plaintiff proved that he carried au offer fr r m the plaintiff, that she %ras ready to marry the defendant, but he re fused. tiord Ellenborough here interposed, and ie-ked if the parties could net now be brought together, which would be the best end of the action. He remembered a similar ease, where the cause was ad journed, and the litigating parties WI e immediately married, and so concluded the suite.—lt was replied, it could not be done in this ca.e. Espinasse then addressed the Jury for the defendant. He complained that the defeinlatit, when a very young man. had int prudently formed the connection in question, when be wai not awate of the consequences and important remits of such an engagement— , that as soon as he came of age be renounced it--that the 1411 Y wag considerably older titan the young man, Mot what he chiefly re. lied upon was a complete renunciation of the promise at a ,4 Wisc. quest period by the plaintiff herself—that he should prove this at an interview in June, 1/113 ; and that it was in const voice of this new arrangement that the dr fendant prosecuted his suit in the Lc desiastical Ccurt ()Inutility of marriage. To prove this last fact, Edward Monk, a brother of the de• fendant's was called, who stated, that in June,lBl 3. lie accompanied the defendant to the plaintiff. His brother, for some rea.on, had for sonic time neglected his eorrespOndenee with the plaintiff. They met, and had some discussion. in which his brother and the lady both said that nothing more titan the ceremony of marriage had passed between them. After some altercation, the lady said—" It he did not write, she would not write more ; that he might do as he pleased, and she wcnk! do as she pleased.' fhey then shook hands, and said they would part friends. Lord Ellenbormigh having summed lip the evidence, left it to the Jury to say, whether what passed at the last interview was a formal release of tie protnise by the plAint;tf; which the defendant had clearly previously made to marry her ; or whether it was the mere expression of anger at the moment, at being sc , pected of any thiaq improper. There beim!, however, no evidence to impeach her con duct in any way, the Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages ,3001. HERTFORD ASSIZES. BREACH OF PROMISE -OF MARRIAGE. PAGE V. 11 , 105i1L. This was an action by a young woman, the daughter of an inn- Iteeper, at Berkliaanitead, no this minty, against the defendant, who fs a grocer and cheesemonger at Aylesbury, for a breach of promise ci manias,* ; and it was singular that in this ease there was an ae toml marriage, but no consummation between the parties. Mr. Marryat, as Counsel for the plaintiff, stated, that she lived in tier father's house, an inn-keeper at Berldiampstead, and the defend ant was an apprentice in the same town, when their acquaintance first began. He addressed her a considerable time, so long hack as the year 1810, but the father of the plaintiff would not consent to the marriage. They were, however, in fact, privately married, and the thing remained a secret from the father of the plaintiff, each of them returning to their respective homes. It was trite that when the marriage took place, the defendant was under age, and being without consent of parents or guardians, the marriage was void in Law. After the defendant was out of his time, he set np in business for himself at Aylesbury, and at length the father °fifty plaintiff can scnted, that they should be married, and the ceremony was to have tdkrn place, but for some reason the defendant changed his mind, and instead of completing their union by a legal and valid inarri at:e, lie instituted a snit in I).,etors! Commons, and procured a sen tence declaring his former marriage null and void, as being con• tracted by a minor, without consent of parents or guardians. The Learned Counsel expatiated on the injury the young woman must necessarily sustain from such conduct, and prayed the Jury to afford her ample recompense. Mr. Hoskins, a friend of the datendant, stated, that he knew of the intimacy between the plaintiff and defendant, and that they came to his ionise in London in I.BIY, and that they were then mar ried. They did not live together afterwards, but each returned to their respcctivt homes. Last )eat, when the defendant was in tinivn, UNION HALL. Cumotrs CASE.—A young woman of most interesting appearance was brought up under the following singular charge. The Prosecutor a respectable warehouseman in the city stated that a friend of his lately came from the country, and took op his residence in Aldersgate Street. Soon after his arrival in town, he accidently met and became acquainted with the prisoner, and he being at that time in ill health, she persuaded him to quit his lodging in the City for one more airy on thz other side the water, he accordingly did so, but had not been many days in his new lodging when he died. The prisor.er had visited hint frequently during his illness, and was with him on the day of his death. On the following morning, she called on the prosecutor tn.: did not tell him of his friend's death. 03 the contrary, she said he was extremely ill and had desired her to go to his former lodgings, and get him some things he had left behind, and further than she would call en the prosecutor who would give her such information as would enable her to obtain the things in question. The Prosecutor suspecting nothing wrong gave her the necessary directions, and she immediately went and got the 'The prosecutor further stated, that Nis friend at the time of his death had 121 or 1M in Dank notes in his posses,ion, as well as important documents relative to abut VOL worth of Leather, all of which he suspected the prisoner had got possession, with a fele ninon intention. The Prisoner did not deny having called on the Prosecntor at stated. The deceased at the time of his deatn had bo property about him but the cloaths lie had worn, and she ass fearful her friends, to whom she had recommended him, would be borthened with the es pence. of his illness and tumid, she had therefore attewpted to get his property to indemnify them against loss ; but oft applying at his former lodging, she was told every thing belonging to the deceased had been previously removed.--The klagistrate under their circurPstftm" Oftlercd :brit the tfisonet be dinburged, ~~ :,....~