The National Register. — London, England, 1821-08-05 00:00:00

c.>l4 L.lll REPORT. COURT OF KING'S F.F.NCII, MONDAY, JULY :JD. EXTENSIVE FORGERY.--BIRCII V. CREWE. This action was brought by Messrs. Birch and Co. bankers, of Stafford, against the Rev. Mr. 011ey Crewe, Rector of Muxton,near Stafford. The action was brought against the reverend defendant as the indorser of 19 bills of exchange, drawn by a person named William Ilerkes, am l made payable to his order. The nineteen hills appeared to have been all signed at one time. They amounted to 80001. There were six other bills of ex change, purporting to lie indorsed by the deleudant, and outstanding bills in the hands of Messrs. Sparrow and Bankers, the whole amounting to 40,0001. It appeared that Berks, who was a maltster at Stafford, had been in the habit of supplying the defendant with malt, for which be was occasionally paid in bills, pay able at Messrs. Drummond's, where the defendant kept cash. !Jerks occasionally got his bills discounted by the plaintiff, and the bills in question were also discounted. The plaintiffs seeing the indorsement of the deli:infant, did not liesitne iu advance the cash. When they were dishonoured, notice was sent to the dektulant of their intention to proceed against him as the indorser. The defendant on the l6th of May, Ins,, wrote in answer, " I have received proof of your proceeding against me.— J hauk God I never indorwil a bill in my life, unless the bill Was accepted by myself. It does not become a man Hi co 11111 l on honesty to make till losses by the innocent.— Am I to stiffer because yOll were avaricious, and gave the vile Ws ks discount ? Why did yon not refer to me when you saw so many hills presented ! 1 would hate told you enough to satisfy you or any honest man 1 have had no dealings with that Min since June After the hills were dishonoured Berks went to France, and filially to America. It became:l question whether the indorsements were a foreery. Several witnesses for the plaintiff declared the indorse ments to be the loamd writing of the defendant: . Mr. Scarlet: defended Mr. Oflcy Crewe, tisscribing him to he a gentleman of great property in the county of Cheshire, respected by all the county, and one inca pable of the dishonour imputed to hint. If Mr. Crewe had put his name to a bill he never would have denied the act. 11. I)avison, Esq. the Rev. M. Cockburn, Sir John Cheheynd, and Mr. Crewe, jun. all declared the in dorsement was not the defendant's writing. Alter an able charge from the Chief Justice, who left the Jury to decide upon the question, whether the in dorsements were not the defendant's hand writing, the Jury found, without hesitation, a verdict for the de fendant. This important cause occupied near seven hours. • COI AND ()TRIMS V. TROT. This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 2381. The bill was drawn by Stephen Roche and Co. of Cork, upon Mathew Tierney Robarts and Co of London, at sixty-one days' sight; it was payable to the order of Michael Murphy ; and it was endorsed by Murphy, to Messrs. Cox, Weston and Co. the plaintith. The Solichor-General said that the action was brought under circumstances of some peculiarity, and it involved a question of great commercial importance. The bill, received by Messrs. Cox and Co. on the 24th May, Inn, was left on the same day for acceptance at the counting house of Messrs. Tierney Robarts and Co. On the 27th of the same month it was again called for ; and in the mean time, the act had been done which gave rise to the present proceeding. The bill being kit with Messrs. Tierney Robarts and Co. on the 24th May, was accepted by them on that day, payable at the house of Roharts, Curtis, and Co. ; but on the 25th of lay, news of the failure of the drawers, Messrs. Roche and Co. and Messrs. Tierney Robarts and Co. ►hen endeavoured by obliteration, to cancel their acceptance. The bill was put in and read. The defendant was admitted to he the surviving partner in the house of Mr. Tierney Robarts and (...!o. Mr. F. Wallis was clerk to the plaintiffs. On the 24th of May, 1820, he left the bill in question at the house of the defendants or acceptance. He put it into the box in the ordinary course, and called for it again on the 27th of Mar. Cross-examined.-The words " 27th July," denoting the day upon which the bill would tall clue, were not in the hand writing of any of the plaintiffs, or of any clerk in their employ. 'Those avoids were not upon the bill ( .s witness believed!) when he left it with the defendants. Mr. Coles said, I am attorney for the planet& in this action. 1 have examined the bill since it came from the hands of the &Madams. Font my knowledge of the facts I am enabled to make out, tinder the red ink obliteration, the whole acceptance; but I do not think that without such previous knowledge, I could make out so mulch. Scarlett for the defendants referred to the ease of making a bill of exchange. It had been held over and over again, that a bill was not made until after it Wa, _ . The ',old Chief Justice thought the question of law hiehlt importatit ; the better course would be to put it into t shape of a cane, leasing the fact to the jury whe ther there haul not been an acceptance written t.puu the _ _ The Solicitor General admitted that the law was doubtful. Al r. Sc idea assented to his lordship's suggestion. The Lord Chief Justice then left the fact of a written acceptance to the jury. The evidence of Mr. Coles, his lordship said, had been given with great candour and caution. The jury nail bee-n told that an acceptance might be written upon a hill by mistake. II such had been the fact in the present case it would have been easy for the defendants to prove it. The Jury found a verdict for the ph ' 'ffs—Damages li3 1. The question whether delivery be or be not a ne cessary put of the acceptance, of course remains to be proved. THE NATIONAL REGISTER WF.DNFSDAY, AUGUST EARL HALCARRAS, LADY ANN LINDSAY, AND OTHERS, V. MICNAVI. ATKINSON, ESQ. In this ease a bill was brought into the Court of Chancery, stating, " that there was no will duly made by Richard Atkinson, lisq. Alderman of London, and, if made, it had been cancelled." An issue was sent from the Court of Chancery to try the question whether there was a will executed by the sail Richard Atkinson, Esti Alderman of London, in 1782, and if that will hail since been cancelled. Alier a body of evidence was given pro and con. the Jun• found a verdict for the plaintiM, establishing ►he validity of the will. CItIM. CON.-COVENEY P. YORSTON. Mr. Holt opened the pleadings by, stating this was an au action to recover damages for • • I conversation with the plaintiff's wife. Mr. Searlett stated the Case. He had to make an appeal to the Jury for the redress of mac of the greatest injuries a man could sustain, namely, the loss of Ills wife's affi.ctiou. The profligacy of a seducer had destroyed the happiness of a lather, and ruined the prospects of his children. •I'he plaintiff was a person who carried on the business of a publican. Sonic time ago he took the 0. P. and P. S. chop- house, Russell-court, ory-lane, which had been long known as the resort of tileatrical persons, and the performers of the different theatres. The de f.:mina was a law stationer, carrying on liminess in Mitre -court, Temple. Ile was very bond of theatrical amusements, and was in the habit tat going into the win ter theatres, anti kept the company of some of the .ittors of Drury-lane theatre. He W•l9 41110311 CM to Mr.lican, and other eminent performers, at Mr. Coveney's house; and such was Mr. Ynrston's literality, that he gave a grand dinner to the principal actors and their friends at Mr. Carney's. Alter this dinner, Mr. Yorston visited at Nlv. Coveney's house, and a great deal of attention was paid by him to Mr.Coveney's family, particularly to Mrs. Coveney's sister, who assisted in the bar. MN Yorston became afterwards the constant companion and professed friend of Mr. Coveney, and took the opportu nity of the absence of Mr. Coveney to seduce has wife from her duty, and to commit the most base and treacherous injury which one man could do to another. Ile paid particular attention to Mrs. Coveney—frequently invited her to sup with him, and became very intimate. The plaintiff having unfortunately become embarrassed, the defendant advanced him money, and finally arrested him, IVhile he was in confiement, the defendant Car ried on a criminal intimacy with Mrs. Coveney. The lady, as he should prove, under pretence of going to the country to visit her relations, went to Crayford, in Kent. At the Bear and Ragged Staff, in that town, she was met by the defendant, who inquired for her as his wife. Ile was introduced to her, and they remained together during Saturday night and Sunday. They slept in the same bed, and passed for man and wife. The identity would be proved by the servants ' and the jury would have no room to doubt the fact. Adverting to the ques tion of darmges, lie represented the defendant to be a person in good business as a law stationer. Ile kept his gig, and was aide to make the plaintiff such compensa tion as the circumstances of the case required. Pdward Coveney sworn, and examined by Mr. Holt. —I am the brother of the plaintiff. I was present at his marriage with Miss Johnson, the present Mrs.Coveney. It took place in 1810, at St. George's, Southwark; she was then 22 years of age, and he was 32. After their marriage I visited them. They had two children—boys. They lived very comfortable together. Miss Johnson was a lady of considerable personal attractions; she re sided before her marriage at Balden, near Canterbury. Ile!Ore the plaintiff went to prison, he lived at the 0. P. and P. S. tavern, Russell-court, Drury-lane. iu ung the plaintiff went to prison; he was arrested by Mr. Yor ston ; he was in prison nine months, and took the benefit of the I tisolvent Act. _ Cross-examined by Mr. Scarlett.-1 went with my brother to his wife's lodgings its Canterbury-!dace, and 1 forma the children its distress, and gave him money to relieve them. This was after his release from prison the second time. 1 have seen Mr. Yorston in the bar of the O. P. and P. S. !hiss Felicita Johnson sworn.-1 resided with the plaintiff and my sister, at the 0. P. and P. S. He pre vionsly lived in . Waiwni court, Illolhorn ; was a wine merchant ; he had two boys. The 0. P. and P. S. was much frequented by the performers at the l'heatres. The house was well attended. Mr. Yorston visited the 0. P. and P. S. the first tune about six weeks after my brother took the house. 1 first saw hint on the day of a dinner being given by him to the performers. Mr. Yorston was very triendly with my brother and sister. They _visited Mr. and Mrs. Yorston m Mitre -court, and Mrs.Yorston visited at the 0. P. and P. S. 1 remember my brother and Mr. Yorston went a trip to Margate. My sister's conduct to my brother prior to Mr. Yostern's visits was very proper, but subsequently it was very strange ; she became careless towards him, and I observed that her attentions were not as formerly directed towards him. I remember my sister going on a visit to toy father and another at Whitstable, near Canterbury. l remember when she returned house it was in the evetiitr. She said that she stopped at Chatham all night,and 1111 conic home by the Chatham coach. When my sister entered the house she was exceedingly agitated, and burst into tears, and went up stairs. My sister went more than once to visit her father and mother while residing at the 0. P. and P. S. My Mother was taken to the King's Bench, having been arrested. After this period, and while he was its prison, Mr. Yorsion visited the 0. P. and P. S. more Gllpiemly than before. One day Mr. Coveney had a day rule ; he supped with Mr. Yorston at his house in the Temple. Mr. Yorston came that evening to the 0. P. and I'. S. and Mr. Coveney entered the house, while NI r. Yorston went out at one door as Mr. Coveney entered at the other. Mr. Coveney did not see Mr. Yorston go out. Mr. Yorston told me not to tell Mr. Coveney that he had 'wen at the house ; for while 1w was at dinner with him, he told hint he was going OH a visit to some square at the west end of the town. After my brother came out of prison he lived in Salisbury court, Fleet.street; after that Mr. Yorston was not so friendly towards Mr. Coveney. Cross-examined by Mr. Gnrncy.—The 0. P. and I'. S. was a house of mirth and festivity. Seven or eight actors were admitted into the bar. I never saw seven or eight persons take liberties before Mr. Coveney's face with my sister. I never saw any person take libetties with her at all. I never heard any licentious language, no, did I ever hear Mr. Coveney call my sisted a " 1 do not know that Mr. Coveney was drunk twice a week or not. 1 saw Mr. Yorstone once kiss Mrs. Coveney in the bar ; when it was 1 can't say. I knew when Mr. Coveney was Lipsey, he was made so by Mr. Yorston. Mary Norman —I reside at Dartford. I did reside in 1818 at the Bear and Ragged Staff Tavern, at Craylard, in Kent. 1 was chamber-maid at that inn.— I remember in June or July, 1818, a lady and gentleman coming down to Crayford ; it was abont two or three o'clock in the day. The gentleman came down in a chaise and the lady in a coach. They passed by the names of Mr. and Mrs. Collord.—They remained at the Bear and Ragged Staff two nights. I have since seen the Iwo persons; they are Mrs. Coveney and Mr. Yors ton, the defendant. 1 went to see Mrs. Coveney lately over at Walwonh ; Mr. Coveney went part of the way with me, and the lady I saw at Walworth was the lady who slept at the inn with Mr. Yorston. 1 have since seen Mr. Yorston at his house in the Temple. I went to purchase a stamp at his shop by the direction of Mr. Abbott the Attorney, and Mr. Yorston supplied me with it. 1 know him to be the man who slept at the Beat and Rigged Stall' with Mrs. Coveney. The landlord of the Bear and Ragged Staff was ex amined; he could not prove that the two persons who hoarded and lodged at his house were Mrs. Coveney and the defendant. The Lord ChicfJusticc said, that there was not sulli cient evidence to prove that the lvinale was seen at %\ al worth, by the last witness but one, who slept at the Bear and Ragged Stall, was the wife of the plaintiff, and directed a non-suit to be entered. VICE-CIIANCELLOWS COURT, Aug. I. IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM HOLDING'S BANISRUPTCI. We two or three weeks ago reported the trial of an ac tion brought by this bankrupt against three of the com mi.sioners for trespass and false imprisonment, in having illegally committed him to Ncwgate ; and it will be re membered that on that trial a verdict was given for the defendants, although it now appears that it ought to have been given for the plaintiff, the validity of the commis sion being one of the chief points in issue. This was a petition to the Chancellor to supersede the commission, upon the ground of no good petitioning creditors debt having existed at the time of the act of bankruptcy being committed; and, notwithstanding the verdict in the action tried against the commissioners being supposed to base established the validity of the commission, his Honour the Vice-Chancellor this day pronounced judgment in favour of the bankrupt, and directed the commission to be superseded at the expcucc of the creditor who issued it. Mr. Lovat, ill support of the commission, stated, that upon the commission being superseded, the bankrupt might bring a great number of actions against the com missioners, messenger, assignees, and others ; and ha therefore trusted his Honour. upon granting the supers sedeas, would itnprose such terms as would prevent any actions being brought. Mr. Montagu and Mr. Wakefield, the bankrupt's coun sel, would consent to no terms which should deprive then client of his undoubted right to bring actions against all parties concerned in this illegal commission, and the Vice- Chancellor declared be could not intei fere to prevent Mr. Holding bringing such actions. LONDON FASHIONS. ENGLICIT DINNER PARTY DREMI.—DINCSS of foie pl:.in India muslin over pink, with three rows of pulling of chat muslin round the border; between which rows are broad tracts richly embroidered in raised trots, or filled up by letting in of broad lace ; spotted muslin, or lace sleeves to corn•..pond, wreathed round with pulliegv Of mu tin. The mantheruns of plain India muslin, braced in porkers in 1114 e antique coronation style, with pink satin roulenus. tucker of line Mechlin lace, surmounted by a row of puffing. Agues Sorel cap of tine blond, with diadem points toward. the back port of the bead, bound with pink satin, nod orna mented in front with a full blown rove, and drooping yellow lupins or wheat ears. The hair arranged in antique ringlets, as in the reign of Charles I. Scarf sash of white tumid, beautifully fringed ; white satin slippers, and yellow kid gloves. Melancholy Accident from the oredurning of a Stage Coach.—A coroner's inquest was held at the sign of the Boar, in Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, on the I 4tb of last month, on the 'ltaly of Mr. John Cooper, late of Southampton-row, Bloomsbury, a piano-forte-maL et, who met with his death in consequence of the overturn ing of the Old Fly IVorcester coach. The jury, after taking a view of the body, adjourned to the I9th, when they met again to hear the es idence, from which it ap. ',eared, that about twelve o'clock on the night of the 13th of July, as the Old Fly IVoiceater coach was enter ing Chipping Norton, having nine outside and one inside passengers, the deceased, Mr. Cooper, sitting on the bolt with the coachman, the coachman Move it upon the raised footway, within a few inches of the wall, and the coach was immediately overturned, and five of the pas sengers so much injured, that they are not yet able to pursue his journey ; anti the deceased. who has left a disconsolate widow and seven small children to lament his loss, died of the injury he received the next day, at one o'clock at noon. The jury, after hearing and exa t sing the different witnesses, returned the 1011 owing verdict :—That the deceased came to his death by the overturning of the coach, occasioned in pan by the careless and negligent conduct of the coachman, and laid a deod:ind of five pounds on the coach.