The Sun. — London, England, 1802-03-02 00:00:00

PAR/S„ Fgt. ii. trhe following Letter has been communicated to us from a Persoll of Distinction at Paris, on whose veracity out Re.►dett may perfectly rely.] Muck has been said on the general tone of Im titorality that reigns in this capital, , and, in short, $ 0 much, that it is unnecessary to aggravate these truel truths: in addition "to this, the total want tif confidence, from the most respeffible Merchant ._," 3 the low est Sho p k eeper , i n t h e usual commercial ttaling s , i s so great, t h at C red i t is annihilated. W hen I reflea on the comparative situation of Eng. -*ld, to what advantage does that little Island ap. Pear in opposition to the overgrown and unwieldy kiss of this infirm Government ? Yet under these t eumstances, it appears somewhat singular, that. gold coin bears no agio, and the Loius d'or, -which a little while ago bore a premium of a livre, is 11 4 117 at par with the silver coin ; nay, .it is even g iicult to procure change for one in a shop, unless ) 4 Pur c h ase i s made of some article : it may not, loweve r , be unimportant to know, that the Louis " I ts have been sweated and circumcised in such various ways, that many are very deficient in wei ght, 'which accounts for the disrep ute i n w hi ch they are. b Provisions, in general, are tolerably cheap ; but r ead, and t h at not very good, has been as high 41 1 9 sols f or t h e loaf of four pounds ; but living, pith all this, is excessively dear in Paris. Lodgings '2, 1 particular are near l y doubled in price within tites e few stein, which indeed is not extraordinary, Fonsiderin g the number and variety of taxes. Eng land, in short, can no longer arrogate to itself the s uperiority in the system of taxation ; fo r ;Lode- Pendant of general imposition on wine, beer; &c. --43 ce. there are a good colleElion which attach iin ltlediately on the householder. Imposition Fonciere,V land -tax, about is per cent. 2. Porter et Fenetres, house and window. 3. Mobiliaire, on the furniture, the value ascertained by Assessors, with a pleasing examination of the whole house,, in verification of an inventory to be delivered previously by the inhabitant. 4. Soroptuaire, or carriages, horses, servants, &c. Finally, Municipa.le, Or lighting, pavi ng , water, sec. mac.' with the additlun of an Oftroi des Indigens, levied on every article of eonsu " mption, also on public amusemeats, theatres, concert s , sec. Ping clause; and there The last, i n d eed, is a sweepin exists nothing which it does not attack : but the most melancholy circumstance of all is, that these impositions are frequentl arbitrary, the w ill or favour of theAsses' depending on : i some De ttrtments also t h ey are collet - Jed so by rs the n half year, 42 others by the quarter, and in ot h er s by t h e LwaY °f ' l 'llth• Add to this, the mode. calltethrg, by Welting of up the.happiness of this free and Earr,. Peep!,. The h ouse holder is Itaaptd to cei\je `he amount of hi s contr ib ut i on , to the Re. of r-Gznetal of hi s Commune, at the expiration ceiv the !poo l of p a y ment.; failing which, he re , eqk es, in a few d a y s , a summons, and frevittntfr a 6 0 Ge , 4 r , after war d s a coup l e o f •Garnrsa2res, tmo nrier nen who t a k e on t h emse l ves the trouble o f tal na g i n Per di eme g' yottr house, af ter t h e rate o f two l i vres ach. next will send you an anecdote of a 63' s7elhierol'aPolri:e andanother rela tive to the s, _ all tha purity and energy of which exists in of despotic authority. .1..........................Z.1/•••.• ri - Vgltett hat returned to London, after a very Suc tetsful ramble t o Li verpool, Manchester, and Stock_ Fort: to For the honour of d ec li n i ng Comedy, we pe see him stationary, on the London Boards. neaThe celebrated I:Ir. GRAHAM'S celestial bed is, we r, to be one of the chief ornaments of the new ishioaable Theatre, and his Goddess of Health is to l 'e the presiding Genius of the place. I They who suffer .their Wives and Daughters to he. Subscribers or Visitants to the Picni c o ust ha ve a great degree of credulity, or mally indifferent to dis grace . The whole scheme 'ems to be inspired by the genius of Mother Coto% It is a melancholy truth, that some Women of fash ion; who are Wilt?s, and Mothers, instead of il'iog deterred by the censure and ridicule which te4'Ve been direded against the new unlicensed Th eo . ' have felt an - increased desire of becoming MM_ ti: :: of that I nst i tut i on, s i nce it seems likely to 1 , v r,11 theta into some sort of Public Notice, to l ent y 1 h the could have no cl a i m on t h e score of ta . a ' /Itttie, or beauty. It' t i, li proper to remind sortie of our public Singers, -at th e f h .., re are many people in the -world who are cu of thafifia v , and do not like to have a great t°,4lPoser's original airs wholly frittered away . in T,'"ftuary flourishes. If some of our departed Com -I:o3ers were to arise and visit our Theatres, it would ° e absolutely impossible f o r t h em to discover their .10 4 . 13j'adoftions amitist the exub erance o f modern acc o rd_ KOT ZEBUE'S Narrati ve o f hi s late Exile into eib eria, by order of the Emperor Paul, is the most intere st i n issu e d from g and affeCting pe r f ormance t h at has ever the Press. I n p o i nt o f entertainment, it dquals the famou s R omance of Robinson Crusoe, or any existing work of i powerfully interests maginatio n , w hil e i t more attention, b the feelin gs and atre s t s t h e truth, and by y contai possessing t h e sterling power of ning a new and genu i ne informati prodigiou s var i ety o f COURSING.—T on. he Flixton Meeting, ao frequently delayed by bad weather, so long and at length brough t a large Assembly of Noblemen Gentle tutu, and Farmer to the ground on T ues d ay last, W hen the day again proving extremel yit was agreed t o d e f er the running till the next n d y ay. It acco r dingly commenced on Wednesday, and afford ki much t,port. _ Mr. PoLumes bay mare, Baas/004 Front, by black':ent6ur, beat, on Monday seinnighr, Mr.DALE'S elding, Look-bad -for-Darby, by a son of Syphonz list. each, four miles, for zoogs, over Sea. Cr Moor, near Stukesley. Five to four on Bache. (or's Frolic. the Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh ar e about petitionin the Lords o f t h e Committee a PPoint e d to consider g der the coins of the. realm, for 44 additional wale: Winage. iAifr itEl,ditt COURT •OF ANC's BENCH, ,MARCH I. Si+TlNT.lll4l , oltt MX. JUSTICE GROSE, GUILDHALL, LONDON. 'WASHINGTON, EXECUTOR, '2 , . BR,YMEIt. Tills was an anion for recovery of 4061. upon a bond dated in September, 1766. To which there were two pleas, That the De fendant had paid the money secured by it; idly, That the bond had becn released. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that this was an anion upon a bond dated in September 1766,, executed by the Defendant to a person of the name of Michael Foster, who died upwards of eleven years ago. The Plaintiff. was the Executor of Mr. Foster. The Defendant married the daughter of Mr. Foster, at the time the bond was given, upon which no money was ever paid. The Defendant thought fit, some-time ago, to accuse the Executor with not duly administering the effects of the Testa tor, and he insisted the Testator's concerns should be fairly examined. The papers being looked over, one of the effeds of the search was to discover this bond, and the Defendant Who had thought fit to accuse the Executor, was himself a defaulter. The Defendant said, that he thought the bond had been cancelled. A suit in Chancery was instituted, in which the Defendant made an affidavit, and it was from the contents of that affidavit that this cause was now to be tried, as this issue came upon that affidavit from the Court of Chancery, to try whether this bond was satisfied or not.—The affidavit stated, "'That the Testator was the father-in-law of the Defendant : that the Testator lent to the Defen dant 4001., upon which this bo n d w as givr : that six years terwards, a conversation Cook place be tween the Testator and the Defendant, in which the TestatOr said to •the Defendant, ' he might do as he pleased with :this money, at . that time due and owing fromthe Defendant 'to the Testator, as he should never ask him for it.' That 'afterwards the Defendant wanting to botrow more money of the Testator, .he reminded the Defendant of his having given him what he owed him on the afore said bond; and the Defendant further; stated,. that in consequence of the Testator having repeatedly declared to the,Defendant, that:he never meant to calf upon him, the Defendant, for. this.. money, he. never having been required to pay it, he•believed the bond was cancelled."—Now the bonrwas not cancelled, fora it was in Court 'with the seal. affixed to it; and now. the defence was, that the money was paid and the bond released, although the re lease had been destroyed or lost ; which was not probable. The Testator had given to the Defen dant 5001. as a marriage portion with the Testa tor's daughter. The bond spoke for itself, and the Defendant was novv called upon to pay ..the money due upon it. The bond being read, Mr. ERSKINE, on the part of the Defendant, contended, that according to the rules of law, he was entitled to a verdid in this case, upon the ground of legal presumption, that the money secured by this bond, had been paid, or that the Testator had released it, and the release destroyed. This, he contended, was the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the fads as-they were disclosed in this case, in the Defendant's affidavit, in the Court of Chancery, and which was made evidence for the Plaintiff in•tliis action. Here was a bond dated in September 1766. .Fotea period of twenty-six years no demand was made upon 'this bond. The Exe cutor, for eleven years, made no application for the payment of this bond. He never applied until he was griaded on to do some other part of his duty as Executor, by the Defendant, 'in which he con ceived the Executor was' negligent.:: In the ordi nary course '-of things, if the 'bond had Oeen of modern date, it `would have been *conclusive on the Defendant, unless he could make a legal- defence by the establishment of some fad to put . an end to the bond.. But after a lapse of years, a presumption was raised in law, that the deed, is . satisfied. The statute of limitations had, been founded on wisdom, and in cases which that statute did- not -specify, Courts of Justice, by constant prktice, had-made,. as it were,' a statute pf limitations forethemselyes, and where a demand, was above twenty - years , old, the law would presume payment, and ; -.it lay with the persem making the demand, to rebut ;that presumption, .by evidence that the .demand .was not satisfied. If a man was notoriously insol vent, or if he be beyond the seas, or a lunatic, or an infant : or if there be any disability on the part of the Claimant to make his claim, such as his ; being himself beyond seas, or' a lunatic ;' these, • or 'the like circumstances, might rebut the pee, surnption, but unless something of this kind appeared on the part df the Claimant, irf a CoUrt of Justice, the presumption' would be, that the demand was satisfied,. although the Defendant could not prove it, and without such a presumption, no man could defend himself against old demands, when witnesses might be dead, and docuMents de stroyed. . The Defendant, in this case, he con tended, from this lapse of time, was entitled to call on a Court and Jury to Make that presumption for hi m . Th e Atrott N EY GENERAL had not only not offered any this evidence, but any argume n t, t o rebut Presumption. What was the nature of that presumption ? Why, in a ease of, simple contrad debt, it would be at an end, for the presumption of payment would be conclusive, unless a promise of payment -had been made within six .years. But in the case of a bond, or a deed under seal, the law generally required that either that seal should be Cancelled, or else that it should be done away by an instrument of equal solemnity, which.was a Ae-, lease ; but still this did nut rebut the ,iaresumption of paym ent , after a long lapse of time,4,,What e .was the probability here ? The Testator wat t o e fath e r', iu-law of the Defendant:- He had Sool,Pottion with the Testator's daughter. lie borrowed 4001. of the Testator upon' this Bond. The Defendant's circumstances became afterwards embarrassed : he applied to the Testator' to borrow more money.— The Testator alledged, that he had lent the De fendant 44001. already. That he . had given him 5001. as a marriage portion that the Testator did not like to ad vance t h e Defendant any more. money, but, he added, that as to the fool': he might do as he ?leased' with it, and that he. would never call I lion fOr iiieii ; • ihe 16* had the promise of the Testator; that, he never call on the' Defendant for this Bond. The question then was, whether the Testator cVds as good as his word, or had performed his proniiie ? There were but two Ways• of legallY perforniini that promise, on the part of the Testator. Eithet by cancelling the Bond, or by releasing it. The one he had not done, it was, 'therefore, fair to con elude, he had done the other. The papers of the de ceased were in the hands of the Executor—the Bond was there found, so might be •the Release ; but the Defendant had no power over either : the Release might have been destroyed by the Executor, for any thing that the Defendant had the power of preventing it. The probability was; that. as the Testator, who had made this proinise, to his son in-law, .never to call upon him for this money, had performed his promise. The case of the Defendant was, that the law called upon the jury to find the fact, that this Bond was somehow or other satisfied, and had been released. Mr. Justice GRosE summed up the evidence, and left it to the Jury to find the fa I, as the evidence appeared to them to warrant.—Whether the Bond was satisfied or not ? If they thought the money was paid upon it, or that there was once a Release, they would find for the Defendant. If they thought otherwise, the Bond would be in force, and the ver dift would be for the Plaintiff. Verdid for the Defendant. :THE, KING V. MACLEOD., The ATTORNEY GENERAI. said. the Learned .Judge had heard a good deal said 'on the stibjec`.l of the delay of the trial 'of these Causes, which sub jea had been before the Court of King's He had then pledged himself that there should be no delay, on his part, in the' trial of • these two Causes, for there Were two of them. He there fore intreated the Learned Judge to appoint a day this week for the trial of these Causes. He hoped they might be tried on Friday. Mr. Justice GROSE said, he could not. fix any Special jury.C - ause whatever, 'none had been 'fixed yet. He had a reason that was satisfaftory in his own mind for not fixing any ,Special.. Jury Cause, yet he believed the justice of ihe'Couritry was interested in . going through' a great'inimber of the CoMmon Jury Causes first. As soon as any Special Jury Causes were fixed, be should have no objeelion to these Causes standing first, but at present he could, fix none. . The ATTo • RNEY GENERAL said, he wished very much to press these Causes upon his Lordship's notice for as early a trial, as possible. Mr. EasKlNE.said, he had on Saturday pressed another Learned Judge to appoint a Cause for trial for a libel which wits of great consequence to the Party, but be received the same answer as the AT TORNE Y GENERAL had just now received from the Bench. The ATTORNEY GENERAL .said;f there: was '3 vast number of Causes. of great .importance to be tried, and it would be absolutely impossible to go through an of them this week, and therefore he wished some time might be appointed before the Tenn for the trial of Causes which must remain after these Sittings. Mf. Ginn as said, there would be no Sittings here after Saturday, as they were all going their Circuits immediately after that day. Mr. justice GROSE said, that he himself could not stay any longer, for that he must open a COm-, mission upon the Citcdit at that time.—He believ ed one of his' brothers would stay a day longer, or some such time, but' not long. He therefore thought it would be better to settle the matter, that a Sit ting should take place a considerable time before the Term ; the delayfrwas grievous to the Parti.:s—for his own part he thought, and so did my Lord Chief Justice, that all the Causes now untried should, if possible, be disposed of before the Term. It was then generally undefstood that there will be Sittings several days before the next Term to try Special Jury Causes, which must stand over for the present. SLANDER. • CHERILL w. CHERILL. Mr. MINGAY said, that-'the Plaintiff in this Aaion was a young person of; the female•sex,- who was seeking to recover, by the verdict of the Jury; as much as a verdi& could possibly be a recompense to an injured character, and to that amount- the Jury would, he hoped, give damages in this Cause. The Defendant was a relation of the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff was one of the three daughters of a decent man, a farmer at a place called Dolthester ) in the county of Oxford--z-the Defendant k Q pt' a public_ house in London. The Defendant had most grossly slandered the Plaintiff; he had falsely said of her, that she was, with child ) and had been obliged to go into the country to lie in: There were three sisters of these young women. The one of them lived inn decent .way Hof life by her 'industry-and . abilities in _trade, in St.-Paul's Church-yard ; the young girl, who was the Plaintiff, was apprentice to • a young Lady of the name of Stewart, in Oxford_ road, arid she brought this Aaion for damages ) fur the wotds . whiCh 'were uttered by the Defendant, and he must admit ; in the outset, that unless he could prtive the - Plaintiff had sustained actual da mages, he could not sustain this Aaion; for the • Law did not allow any Aaion to be brought by a woman for any slander on' her chastity, unless she proved that she.had sustained aaual‘damages ;. and therefore he must prove, not only,the words utter ed, .but also ; that certain injuoo4.eprokquences had followed the uttering ,saf preniium had been given_ With-this yoting woman to her mistress, Miss Stewart, whi) v:camo instrua her in the business of a Mantua:aw4r•,. -The De fendant said of her ; tk The Plaintiit was gone into. the Country-=that she and her sister had gone into. the country—that they: were both with child. by a person of the'natne .of Adams.!' . There was not a single tittle of truth in this.—This young woman indeed went into the,countty,_ but it was.by per.. Mission of. her mistress, and for the benefit of her, health. She•was, for these reasons, permitted. to go and see her parents. . While she -was thus gone from London, the Defendant thouglott fit to say, that he knew she was with child that she and her iistei *We with child by dii€ The were diese'f'd country to There was not a Sy llatile Of,tititti in this-she was gone into the country; indeed; he had said; btit she was not with child: Th 6 Defendant did not justify this upon the Redord that was a proof he knew it to be false; for if triie; nothing could be easier than to prove, it; He Might have called all the family to do so; they could not re: fuse to conic, and when they came, they must hav6 established the Defendant's ease, if what he said had been true. The Letter of Miss Stewart to this young. woman's parents, was no evidence in this cause, but he would read it to the Jury; because MiSs Stewart was to be exarnined as a Witness; anti he was instrualetii, she would prove the substance;.a,_'. it on her oath to_day. [Here Mi. MiNome read . the letter, which was a very sensible and hands4e,, one; the substance of, it was, that of taking noti . ce7 of the slander upon the .charatter of this young man the reluCtance Miss Stewart felt in . taking notice.of it, which she would not have donei had it not been for her, learning her patents knew of it . al ready. But, guilty or innocent ; Miss Ste Wart could not, consistently with the care She had of the character of other young women who were her, receive this young woman. With such an impu. ration as this upon her virtue, at the same time, alledging that she had no knowledge of this young woman's misconduct.] This young woman was not received back by Miss Stewart, and that would be proof of the special damage .stated in this Declara tion, which betnust prove for the reason he had as signed already. Nothing could be more foul than this caluinny was. He should prove this case, and wait to, hear, in Christian Charity; What this De.: fendant had to urge in his defence, in this foul mis conduct. If he did not give ,a good one; and that he could hardly do, the Jury would give to this young woman what they thought proper, not by way of recompense, that could never be made.---; There were many who. had heard thiS slander; who, probably, may never hear of their verdict William Sawyer said, he knew both the Plaintiff and Defendant. They were relaionsi bUt lie could not tell how near. The Defendant lived in Broad. street, Soho: He knew the Plaintiff's father, who . lived at a place called Dorchester, in the County of Oxford. In the month of May last; a conversation . took place between the Witness and the Defendant. The -Witness said, " I said to him (the Defendant) that I had seen Letitia Cherill (the Plaintiff) in the street, and I told him I thought she looked very poorly ; he said he was very sorry for her; he wished she was as well off as she used CO be. I asked what he meant by it ? whether it was with respet,t td her situation ? , He said, No, she is with child, she and her sister, both- by one man.. I told him, I was very sorry to hear it, and I hoped -it was not . true. He said, you may depend upon it it is ; and there is not the least shadow of doubt of it ; hut, said he, I have a reason Co think that lie is married ro Martha, , (which is the name of the other sister) ; they are both with child by that one. man. He did not name the man. He said, he .is a hue . • -(or a foppish, I will not be-positive which he said) kind of a man, and in every body's debt,. nod he owes me 81. He said, he, had been to her Mistress hiMself about it, and she told him, that she was ;"with child." .He said, her Mistress was a per Son in •Bond.street, but did not say her name. That she (the,Plaintiff) was 'going, down to .her father,„on. Monday next, to lie in.. Then I told him .1 had told my friends and fellow:servants that ate looped nry poorly, and he you May ' . go nev , (alid' tell yoUr fellow-serVants,' or any other, that . she_Atill her sister were both with child fly. One Mart. 7 - 1 .1 Witness . thensaid; he now lived, * iled had Lived`six= - teen years With Sir . Chriitopher Willotthby,'avery honourable Gentienian, retired frOnl':the ptofessiori of the Law; and was a neighbotir Or this yhttlig woman's fain-fly in the country. Mr. W. Shee; Attorney - in'ToWri; gave - an account of what- the Defendant Said to him in the - presence of three others, one of ,whom was Mr. Sanders, who paid his addresses' to this young woman's sister, 'at the Old Bell, in Holbcirn, in a coffee room. It was observed that this young woman (die Plaintiff) was very poorly- 7 —the fendant said, "Da you know what is the .matt e r with her ?"—No; said Mr.' Sanders, Lunderstana she is very poorly, and is gone down into the country on account of her health. The Defendant • said ; " she is breeding''.--I. am . not positive he said by Adams, but I think be .did. Mr. Saunders said be would -bat believe it ; that he would lay hin, any thing it was not true. I believe he offered to lay him a guinea or some such thing ; the Defend. ant said, ", I will not lay 'so. much as that, but I ,will lay haif,a-crown bowl of punch that it is true r and that he would find it so when he returned. _ Jane nonner; the maid, servant of Miss Stewart, said, .that this .young woman, the Plaintiff,, was with her mistress to learn'the - btisiness, and that she went into the country for her health. That the Defendant cane to her mistress's house, but she was : not at home: -He asked for Miss Letitia, the Plaintiff. The Witness said she was gone to the stage, to go to the country. He said, that Mar tha, her sister, had gone into the country 'with Child, and. that, he supposed, Letitia was in the same predicament. .Miss Mary Ann Stewart was then examined ;' she said that she lived in Chapel-place, Oxford -street, and is a ,Mantua and Fancy Dress-maker. The Plaintiff came to her in 'January, last year, and went away in June, with her permission, fur the change of air.—She had a premium of zo guineas with her, for instruaion m her business, for a twelvemonth.—She never 'save the Defendant at all. —She heard, from her servants, that he had said she was with child, and that ht,t , had said it in the: house of the witness.—Application was made to the .Witness to let this young Woman return, but she refused to receive here—lt being said by' the De.- fendant that this young woman was with child, had great weight with the Witness,—She refused to take Jter back—She had several young Ladies in her .house. .00 cross , examination, this Lady said, that she might have said the Plaintiff was rather idle.— That she. once asked her leave to go to a dance, which she permitted ; hut found out afterwards she had gone to a Masquerade, which displeased the Witness very much.—That a Gentleinaa, of Jilt