The Statesman. — London, England, 1818-04-06 00:00:00

.. • ,_~~- - .3 . ... . ..I=l= lll2 = 2 = 2l = l = l.l6 _ such had been the case. If it had' appeared that the mother and daughter had contrived an interview of the kind, to entrap the affections of the' yoeog man, that would have formed a case 'on which the Plaintiff would not have been entitled to ma terial damages. After the first invitation there came a second ; the first bad not been accepted. He thought he might mike the observation, that there did not seem to be any extraordinary haste on the pirt of the mother to go to Kirkland-hall. There then came a second invitation, and she and the Plaintiff went to the Defendant's mansion, and remained . , there some time. After their return, namely, on the 30111, the letter was written which the Jury had heard read. It was a letter which had been very properly characterised ; it was oat filled with the warm expressions of a young man over. bead and ears in love, bat it was a cool, considerate, calculat ing letter, on a subject which the writer was revolv ing in his mind. No. doubt it was theietter of a pen to a woman older than himself. He would put it to the Jury whether such a letter was not likely to make a stronger impresiio* on s young woman than if it had contained all the expressions of warmth usually dictated by the heat and impetuosity of youth. It seemed to be the letter of a man with an understanding beyond his years. Stich was the bearing which the letter appeared to him- to.warrant, aid th- Jury would take it into their considerstioo. There was an expression made use of by the De fendant, to the effect, that he ought not to be called upon to make a settlement, from which Mr. Scarlet. bad inferred that the Plaintiff's mother had called upon him to make a settlement.npon her daughter. lie did-not think such an inference necessarily followed. The Defendant, addressing, the Lady, might na turally say—" You are about to be:married ; your friends will naturally think there should he a settle ment, coosiderinumy situation in point of fortune; bet I urn told by my legal advisers that I ought not be called upon to make a settlement." The eaves sipn did not necessarily imply that a settlement had been a subject of consideration by the mother. To this Jitter an answer had been written by, the Plain tiff, by no means an improper lettstr ; _it wsicooched in prudent termsy,accepting the Defendant's offer.— It was suggested that the Pleiutiff had kept a copy of that letter, hut if she hail, it was not a circumstance on, which any stress could he laid. --a—Some persons were in the habit of writing their letters rapidly ; some were not : persons of the latter description might chose to write a rough . copy. The Plaintiff might have done so, and she might afterwards have:treasured it op without har ing oily view to her ultimate disappointment, or of her being under the necessity of coming to a Court of Justice to ask for damages. There had been a sabseqtteot correspondence, and in the month of Miry _ the Plaintiff was again at the • Defendant's house. Before that period there hail been an ex press invitation to the Plaintiff, but it said nothing on the subject of the Plaintiff's mother. It stated that the carriage should be at Preston, and that if the Plaintiff chose to bring her maid, it might be determined whether she was likely to be approved of. The Plaintiff had refused to attend to that invitation, and in his opinion she bad dune right.— It was not the conduct of a woman throwing her self into the arms of a men; but it was the conduct of a women who had • foresight, and .w ha would not do so imprudent a thing as to go to the house even of, bet expetted future husbatiri, .without the pre. WK. and sanction of so near a relation as her ano ther; -act was acting with a becoming prudence. The advice of her brother on that subject was most (Kul dent advice, and .the adopted it. It appeared she • witerwarcis went to Kirkland.hall, and remained there a fortnight., On the 26 , 11 of. May she return's! home, and on the Ist of-June that letter was written, which, it appeara•viss the last communication from the De-. fetidant _to the, Plaintiff. The first invitation bad been giseu the beginning of February.; the parties met on the Bib March, mid were together about e fortnight. Letters and correspondence bad been proved, by which. it was manifest the Defendant had professed ell the ogrmtb of affection ' • it was quite obvious that he was preparing for a,speedy. marriage. Why it had been broken off, ,the Jag were left entirely in doubt. —Was there any fault in the lady Nothing of the kind was insinuated. What had been passing in the Defendant's mind they were , not told--it was a, perfect blast. On the 2 0 th of Aug. the D e f endant bad married another lady, in consequence of which thapresent action had been brought. It had been suggested that, fictions of this kind by ladies were very OOCNTOROn. It sometimes happened that a lady' might rhink it better to stifle her disappointment, %hen .make it a subject of discussion ; but in a case where it had been quite notorious to the world, that marriage was on the eve of taking place, and that it 104 been broken Off, a consideration of what was due au,-ber pvin character might urge het to bring it for. ward itta'Cgert of Justice • not only for the Vindi cation of tier : honour, and ch aracter, but that if weeny thing in her conduct which afforded a ground ruby wuriagq . should not go on, it might be de elated, Of Chat hoo appear to the world there was no foundeitien foe that ,calumny chick .was always tecetrect of . e .SlMe's abrupt desertion of a lady to whom be eusa.botgotbed ? He bad thus:made the seseetious which ad occurred to him. The promise of marriage had been clearly ,prored, end it was evoke clear ..that the contract ; Ilea received the tancliou td their mutnal . parents,. Tie 40ry. week! estimate the flamers to which the Ninti ff was end-' tied fur. the. i4l cry she bad received. The, briery copsisted i 0.1145, that instead of being ,Mrs. Cole, site mistress of .-liikkisnd-haU, she was still Miss Or. ford. Whether she would have been happier as. the Defendant's wife, was a question they could not well take into their coosideratioo.. However he,might bit represented, he was the behead she . had lost, and it was for the injury she had thereby..aesteined she 4.; !Soda couipensation, But for his iliwitifiable duct, he would have been her husband and she his wife, with that splendid establishment the wife of map of his fortune might be entitled to expeet. .11e.wsui a man, according ,to the testimony of his steward, enjoying between ,4 and 6001. a .year; the . Plaintiff would have been the wife of • man ,with,, that.. !Piton', and with that establishmgot, belonged to her rank in society' hit Thise felonies's she had lost. ff Defendant wis'a man who ois not likely . tcrnak t ikiii _good husband, iu that cpse the incumbratice of.a . . ..c;11 TAUNTON. . oferwpwr - 7 1- - - . * ba t 11011blibit teals such a biller cop, that' peehapst she aright have sustained no injury ; but let the . Joey Weill to the letters, they would inform them , 'whet sort of ir man the lady had lost, True they were not: the - letters , of an ardent lover, but they. 'were the lettere oft cool, caleolating, dieeriminating iawderstandtrig: the Jury would take them into their consideration: With regard to the Defendant, he stood in a very unfavourable point of view. He would have no right to complain if the Jury should draw largely on his bank. What bad he done ? He 'had drawn a lady to kirklsod-hall, that she might see the establishment she hod a right• to rowed 'would shortly be heirown. Ile had gone on sinus log her for a.period of two' months, under the es •pectation that she was to be the mistress of his esta blishment ; and then, without any reason, he had married another woman. Ile would, therefore, have no right to comylaiii, whatever damages might be awardirPagainst him. With reference to the amount of the - themes, he would only observe, that the Jury ought In be liberal, rather than penurious. Thp Jury retired, and, returning into Court in Oiate - quarter of an hour, pronounced their verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages,. :::even 'Thousand Pounds. This trial had been the sulijert of general conver sation throughout the county of Lancaster for sm.. Jai months pest, and persons of all ranks appeared to be interested in the result. Crowds were col- Inlet' at every avenue of the Court, and the doors were scarcely thrown open, than the Court, spacious as it is, and capable of containing 4 2000 persons, was instantly filled. The ladies were conspicuous in all parts of the Court, having braved every danger to gain admittance. Tit verdict which bestowed so considerable an addition of fortune on the fair suitor, was hailed with universal satisfaction. On the subsequent morning, Mr. `CA It LETT moved for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be'grantecl. Re submitted his application nn two grounds : —lst, That the letters containing the con tract of marriage hid net been duly .stamped, as he had contended on the trial they ought to have been. And 2dly, on the ground of excessive damages. It was upon the latter ground be principally relied. Mr. Justice BAYLEY was of opinion that, the ob jection of the Learned Counsel, as to the letter con taining the contract requiring a stamp, had •not the least validity. Upon the question of excessive da mages, he was likewise of opinion there had not been sufficient grounds laid before the Court to disturb the verdict. Taking all the circumstances of the case into his consideration, he was not prepared to say, that if it had been put to the option of the young lady to hews received the Defendant as her husband in preference to the 70001. which had been awarded her, she would not have chosen to have ac cepted him rather than damages to that or any other' amount. If, then, it was likely that she had the election, she might have preferred becoming his wife, how could he state that the Jury had estimated the damages at a higher rate than they ought to base done? What was the injury for which the damages had been given ? The injury consisted in the loss of a husband of the description and ample fortune of the Defendant. If there had been any part of the lady's conduct, from which it could reasonably have been inferred that she was striving to marry the estate in steadef the man, that might have been a ground for sayingithe was not entitled to so large a remunera tion in the shape of damages, for she would then have been acting from an unworthy motive, which neither the Court nor the Jury could have santioned. But, looking about the case in every point of view, he could see nothing upon which to cast blame on the lady's conduct. Upon the whole, he thought he ought not to disturb a verdict dispassionately given, in a case where, if he had been 0110 of the Jury, he might himself have been inclined to have awarded even larger damages.—The rule for a new trial was accordingly refused. SOMERSET ASSIZES. THOMAS v. TYSER. This was an action brought to recover damages from the Defendant, for criminal conversation with the Plaintiff's wife. The damages were laid in the declaration at 50001. Mr. AflooßE opened the plead ings: Mr. GASELEL stated the case.—The Plaintiff, he said, was under the painful necessity of asking for a compensation in damages for a loss that was irrepa rable -4 compensation, as far ass Jury could give it, for the injury he had sustained by the seduction of a wife, and the consequent deprivation of all the com forts of the matrimonial state. Upon a case of such' a description, it would be an idle waste of time to make any general observations. Those whom he ad dressed, were most of them married men, and able to judge of the felicities arising from the affection of those to whom their destinies were united. God for. bid that any of them should ever be brought to the dreadful extremity of deciding from experience of the Miseries of infidelity.. Their opinions, he hoped, would' hsralways. the•result of the happiness they en. joyed In the reciprocal intercourse of affection, and not proceeding from the horrors atteudant upon the violation of rights, iu comparison with which, all others were unimportant. The Plaintiff, Proctor WilllatirThismat, was a Clergymen, who was horn in this county ; he was a respectable member of that most respectable profession. The Defendant was a physician ; it Was one df the aggravated circumstances of thelase, that he was of the medical profession, and•that he had attended the Plaintiff's wife as sack tiawai; therefore, guilty of thii More serious crime for, in addition to the ordltiary restraints by milk!? the conduct of men should be regulated; there was an 4bligation inconsideration of the confidence necessa. rity repose d in the profession. Tii• Defendant was also a mitred - man with'. famAy,:4lo.ll . abould have pre feinted MM . from committing se lat in which another remit, ri'oelff Sir lfer beyond all Voialbffity of redress. 11rOnitt e Oskar in evidence, that *Plaintiff *at a l'dirlittistisprtrtinn of the chtlie.fi;llfrlymouth, and 4ati bemobligeff to ibielit fißlo Moro to per . .64 $l . l dstifea; in& ibrft flit ndpiiiot hi* sicken.. sitottion' of the Plaintiff:4l4 . 'old ihrtr Whiehpredoced . thls ftlfdttfirMacitots. „Bel liarstitT ant Defendant reild'ed at Tivettoa. l'ileiltatiion , terms of intimacy rendli appears', that at the death of Surgeon. Bridge; who was in the habit • --- '7.7" 7 7 .7. -1.:7 .-..~-_ • • • • . .41 37 . 3 :! !ma STATE -MOIL - of attending Mrs. I'. in her accouchement, Defendant iras called in to perform the duties of necoocheur. The i 3 laintift bed ,married- Ms wife et thaw of 26, - in the }essa6Bll; her mime was Bailey ;. iimiot the age of 224 . therm was, th erefore, no disparity in years , and their circesastancevwere also tuitable. She *as beeetiful, and presented her hatband with every pro. spect ! of happimesa; that •happittess was uninterrupt. ; ed, until the Defendant made an inroad upon their domestic comforts. Mrs. Thomas was the mother 44 1 (Oar children between' 1.812 and 1815; it was to be feared, that its 1.816, the Defendant had commenced the violation of the confidence reposed, in him, and actually committed the* acts with which be was charged. The criminal conversation having been folly proved, even from the declarations of Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Justice HULROYD delivered a short charge. The Jury immediately found a verdict for the Piaintill— Damages, Two Thousand Pounds. SURERY ASSIZES. KINGSTON, Aram 4. David Owen, aged 50, a stout, mild, good-look ing man. wss tried under Lord Ellenhorough's Act, for stabbing and cutting s lnhis Jones, his brother-in law. at St. Georgs's, in Southwark, on the 26th of September last. It was distinctly proved by many witnesses, that the Prisoner had gone to Mr. Jones's house, between one and two o'clock, put his foot on the step at the door, and cut and seriously wound ed Jones, and several other persons, with a clasp knife, as they came to the door. He never spoke one word while he was acting so outrageously. Ile had previously said, be would murder the whole The Prisoner. in his defence, said he knew no thing of what ine had done. Several respectable witnesses gave it as their de cided opinion, that the Prisoner had not been in his senses. Ile had a fever nine years before, and since then they thought him subject to melancholy and in sanity. lie used to walk, to shove his arms back• wards and forwards, and to speck to himself, like a madman. His eyes had a wildness in them. Ile laughed, sang, and danced the night he was com mitted to jail. The loss of his wife and of his pro. petty deranged his mind. Ile frequently exclaimed, " Lord, Lord !" lie complained of pain in his stomach. Ile had always been remarkably mild tempered, humane, and civil. It was proved that the Prisoner had a law-suit with John Jones, who was his hrnther.in.law. The Jury, after some deliberation, found a ver dict of—Guilty.—Auer a pause, their Foreman re comtnended hint to mercy, in consideration of the respectable testimony borne to his character. 'l'ne Judge immediately pronounced sentence of death, and assured the Prisetier, that he could not reasonably expect that the recommendation of the Jury would have any eject. When the Judge was proceeding to pronounce sentence, two Ladies' friends of the Prisoner, screamed and fsinted away. They were carried out of Court. The Prisoner pre served the same unchanged look of composure throughout the nisi, and when sentence was pro nounced. There were tett other indictments, for feloniously stabbing Margret Jones, the Prisoner's sister, and Mary Berry, in the same place, and on the same oc casion, but they were not prosecuted. George Mille Morgeson was charged with having feloniously stahbed Jane Rushforth, at Richmond, on the 23c1 of September, with intent to kill her.— The Prisoner is a midshipman. aged 17. Jails Rushton!, an interesting young lady, said she lived at Richmond in September last. On the 23.1, about half-past six, the Prisoner came to her lodging. Itt course of conversation he asked her w h e th er a mur de r ed p er son went to Heaven. She said it was a curious question, but she thought it more likely that the murdered person should go to Heaven than the murderer. To divert his attention from such a topie, she said she felt unwell ; she had had a bad night's rest. Ile said he would ensure her a good night's rest. He afterwards supped with her. After supper he asked on which side her heart lay. — She replied, putting her hand on her left side, " Here, you little fool." She looked at the watch, which hung over the mantle-piece, and observing it was ten minutes after nine, said, 6 4 COMP George, my dear, are you not going ?" He rose, and placing his left hand over her left shoulder, stabbed her with a dirk or dagger, and ni:h a laugh said, " I have done it." She rose, and polled the dagger front her side, then sat doe ii, and fainted away. Cross-examined.—She did not consider her mar. riage legal; she went through what she believed to he a marriage ceremony. It was with a Mr. Prevost, in a house at P.sses, seven years &co. She believed he might bea Clergyman who acte d. on the occasion. (The witness showed great reluctance, and requested to have those questions waved ) She always went by the name of Prevost since, and signed her name so.— The.young Gentleman resides at Richmond. There was no licence for the marriage. She did not know whether the person who performed the ceremony was a Clergyman. She signed her maiden name on this occasion, because she did not consider the marriage legal. Mr. Prevost, she understood, to be dead three years last February. He was abroad. They lived together as man and wife. She bad passed as his widow since his death. The cross-essmination was continued. Their con versation was on religious topics. She spoke in friendly terms, as usual. His conversation was the lame, but entharrassed 4 Ile seemed to labour under a beeviiress of mind. She knew his mother. Be was :41 , 4119 to very violent bead-achs. She knew of no inse`itl' In :the family. She knew him for eight m o nths ;%vtaiettsly. She was very little injured. She could hardly eaacriire his laugh. It was wilder than hitrustmi laugh. She and he have been on amicable terms *tee. Site felt Consequence from the wound latterly. In direct exstnistelieu, she said she htsd heard *ft his head-ache from 1118 mother. He was foaset of her societwend used to call frequently. Philip Lugar, a sergeon, observed the wound on the left Bide: It was a small punctured wound of a triaitfittbir i she :sorb is the instreasent tarwduced would Insiat wattle. 'lt did not appear to itay , W r !" ceeded kityerftekbeilnteguesentl.: j ltlesalbout tb!ei* fourths' or on inch deep. She was ill more from the .., • • F, . • .4 A 4141;4(:. tV 1 shack two , . le it dip. The hemerrlise4 4t, a • „ lie < , 41, 0 The Prosecotaz drew oat tie instrement ? • eh • .thought it like a file. 'flee 'Palette?, behttieteste:ii** Ps hit t.• 4 and . Gentlemen•of ikeitry;.itowastaetevy itteittbmm• to kill Sits. Jane' Pitliimin l'ettiant only to frigitveleT hei. I loved her se drat - e'srneld lay down goy lifo• for her ; it was tint•my intention•to tmrtder itot • s o t- g far from it." He is a very lively int.lligent looking yoatb ; ,_,,,, While the Quonset was opettiog the moo feetherso,,e 'petition, he laid' his heed an like Aar, and weptelett.. Hewes much slf•cted during the whet, Mr: Baron W000:in summing up, addle Wiwi* terial for their consideration, whetheeitilicrdhotonpil really meant to ftighren her. lifit i wairootaila .cloudy done, he was ont Geiity. • He was discharged instantly. Heboied respite" fully and retired, MIDDLES EXSIeSS lONS, .4pftiz. 4. John Diggory, a discharged seaman, was Indicted for an assault on Pt cebe Johnson, a child under ten years of age, with intent to violate her person.-- From the testimony of the child, it appeared, that the Ptisoner, who lodged in her mother's house, took the opportunity of her mother's absence, when only herself and her sister, who was a year oldie than herself, were in the borne, to attempt carrying his purpose into effect. The attempt was attended with many aggravated circumstances. The Jury found him Guilty, and the Court sen. tenced him to twelve months' imprisonment is the New Prison. IMPROPER nitivisa. Thomas Charey was indicted for a nthdemesnoar, in having, on the sth of July last, improperly sad maliciously driven againit the carriage of Sir John Leach, the Vice-Chancellor, in the Haymarket, by which the Vice-Chancellor's carriage was overturned and broken, end the footman seriously injured. Thomas Illingwnrth was servant in Sir John Leach, on the bth of July last, on which "odes. the witness was attending behind his master's cat.' • riage to the Opera-house. When going down the, llaymatket, Lord Cahir's carrier, which was driven) by the Defendant, was behind Sir John Leach's carriage. There was * line of carriages, and just at Sir John's carriage arrived within three of the Opera. house door, the Defendant turned out of the line to en. deavour to get up to the door first ' • in doing this, the wheel of Lord Cahir's carriage locked into that of Sir John, and Sir John's carriage was thrown ever. The carriage was sery much injured; the witness was throe u down between the wheels of the two car riages, and his head pressed in so dreadful a manner, that he hail been blind for sit weeks. Before Sir John's csrtiage went over, witness observed De. fendant look back ; he could at that time have pre. vented the mischief, bat instead of doing so, seeing Sir John's carriage pertly over, he whipped his horses, and completed the mischief he hail previously began. —After the accident, witness went amongst thecae tiages, to endeavour to discover the Defendant; he slid so, and then, on endeavouring to get at him, the Defendant 'murk him several times with his whip, and entleavoeted to put him again under the surrounding carriages. Sir Jnhn was in the carriage at the time, but fortunately escaped'unhurt. The coachman was examined, and his evidence went to corroborate the testimony of the footman. Mr. BAttbY addressed the Jury for the Defendant, and contended, that this accident arose from"' con test between the two coachmen who should get to the Opera-house door first, which contest was com• menced by the Vice-Chancellor's coachman, and called the footman of Lord Cahir to prove the fact. The witness stated, that loud Cshir'a carriage overtook Sir John's in Piccadilly, and would there have passed. had not Sir John's coachman crossed him se,eral times in an unfair manner; and on their arrival near the Opera-house, Sir John's coachman said to the Defendant, " What, old fellow, you could not pass us." The accident et the Opera. house door was occasioned by Sir John's coachmen 'improperly hacking upon Lord Cables carriage. The Chairman summed np i sad the Jury found Defendant Guilty. The Court sentenced him to three months' impti• sonment in the House of Correction. CHILD DROPPING. Mary Turner and Rlizabetls Byrne, were indicted for having, on the Bth of March last, inhumanly t:• posed a male infant, of the age of nine months, the illegitimate infant of Turner, in the open air, to the inclemency of the wee.her, in Jolotes-court, Church• street, St. George's in the East. Mr. WALIPORD mated the case to the Jury: the _ _ C~` prosecution was carried on by the Parish (Mier!. Turner put In a written piper, in which she stated that Byrne was wholly inno c ent and ignorant of the transaction, and farther stating, that Mary Mecca was perjured; that she was the person to whom tbs, child was delivered, and who dropped it. Macula' was called back, and strongly denied the charge; adding to her former tettimeny, that Mary Turner wanted to persuade her to give the witnesses some opium in gin and bitters, to seed them to sleep, and prevent them appearing against her. The Chairman left the case to the Jary, who fouod both the Defendants Guilty. The Court sentenced the Prisoners to two menthe imprisonment in the House of Correction. OLD BAILEY, APR.,II. The following Pr;• - nners were capitally tonvieted r•••• , *, tieorge Clay to alias t;lazton, for uttering. as true, a forgo • 11. Bank-note, with intent to defiaud the Goverour and Cute.. pany of the Bank of Ungland . Thos. Smith, fur -aniline a hide of leather, value 51. of Mean. Pitcher, in their dwelling-house. Allen Grer,ory, for stealing 151. in Bank-notes. a bed; rot other abides. of Janes Wedden. in his divelaug.tr lose. 'llamas Ford. for stealing a silver wa:cb, &c. of John Bare roadie', in his d elling.house. Edward Banyan. for stealing a quantity of worsted Oaf, or hlcsol. Pearson and Preston. 1)1E1). On the Sd W . at his house, in Chdriet.ltorto.aquare, Jar. wife of Mr. W. Tait, of St. Pours Cbtorchlsust, aud dought‘r of 1)r. John Iltinier. Oithe 91st of January last. of a nervitta apoplerv: h-atiCh 6 - , on by a fright ocistsinned by being s attacked by a cat: Maroaaw. ' youngest daughter of John Shoothred , Esq. B rit i s h Ca.:eclat.' ak: Constantinople, aged nearly 11 year's. . _ . 4 L. 4 ; e V IN N Printed and PobliAttedln, bit :Lite 40.•.,_ •—1 A.74)31 ts Or rut:, NJ. 1, 4 i 4 I..sbury•coult, s inimii•i•lslimll6iiiilami I I y _ f I gi' tho it «I VT hr thl th, P€ • ba • th se tn a to / rl 111 t I fi .• • I • p r • • , • • • ~; r~--