The Sun. — London, England, 1812-12-09 00:00:00

regarded. the selling of guineas. It was but just, •tii:4 ,Whoever- received' paper in legal pay ment . shonld not ne compelled by law to pay any thing else than what he had received. As to the penalties by. law for preventing the exportatiOn of gold , coin, when a higher price was to be procured for 'it in foreign markets, At writers agreed, and experience concurred in demonstrating, that even if tir6 penalty were death, the thing could not be : revented. Colbert bad .said, that if _a wall of brass . were built round the kingdom, the gold coin would .find some chink by whickit would dis appear, and fintlt.its way to.the foreign markets: He could not vote for this „Bill on any of the grounds stated by the Chancellorof the Exche gaer, The Government had got into a difficulty from theappos . ite of those principles which he en tert,ined, ' and be could not see how they could extricate themselves from this difficulty.. After a few voiAS from Mr. BUTTERWORTH and Alderman ArktNs, the House divided on the Amendment of Mr, Creevey For the Amendment Agaitist it • Majority.. ..129 .----110 The original question was then put, and theßill was read a second time, and ordered7,-. to a Com- mittee to-morrow On the motion oC the CHANCELLOR of .the Ex- CHE4UER, the House resolved itself into a Con mittee on the Sugar Brewery MI. The itestAn tions r.'erc read no atrreed to. Mr. Caoiaa - inovcd for leave to bring in.a Bill to amend an Act passed in.. the last Session, re specting the Intertourse between' thecislands of St. Domingo . and Jamaica. , --,Leave given'. The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be rad a secowl time to-morrow. The household Amendment Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be reach ]. second .time on Thursday next. ' The . Malt Duties Dill was read a first tithe, and ordered to be read a second time to-i►iorrow. Adjourned at nine. LAW REPORT. COURT, OF KING's BENCH,'Dt. S. THE KIN V. COLLIN AND . THIRTY , -FOUR OTHERS. This a; as an indictment charging the defendants, who are journeymen curriers, with a conspiracy to raise their wages. Mr. PARE having stated the . case on. the part of the prosecution, adduced a witness, who proved a conspiring. together on the part of eleven of the defendants, to compel , their masters to agree to a higher rats of wages than that hitherto allowed; that the proposition of the journeymen to the lairs- . tors was rejected,•about the 10th of Mardi last, on which the whole of the journeymen struck, ex .cept those to whom their masters agreed to alloiv the advance and that they confirmed to refuse to work, till within the last seven or eight weeks, being, in the mean time, sopported out of funds previously collected for the purpose, and having tickets - , by which they were enabled to live free of ex pence, into whatever part of the country they chose to go, being thereby certified to their coun try brethren persons deserving of support. About seven or eight weeks since, however, they bad all returned to their cluty.- . Lord ELLErnottouoti here suggested, the great end of Justice ,being thus attained, whether it might not be sufficient to take it verdict against those eleven persons, and to allow them to remain as hostages for the good behaviour of the trade in general, not to be brought up for judgment, ex cept in the event of the conspiracy being conti nued, or breaking out afresh. , This humane suggestion wasiordifilly embraced on both sides and a verdict of Guilty" against the eleven persons specially pointed out, was ta ken, subject W the above understanding. CRINI. CON. CHAMBERLAINE V. BROOMHEAD. • This was an action of trespass, by which the plaintiff, a Gentleman connected with the parkas sailing . between this country and Lisbon, sought • to iecover from the defendant, - a Lieutenant in ' the Navy, a compensation ip damages, for critni . nal conversation with the plaintiff's wife. • The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in stating the case, admitted that it . was not one of an aggravat ed nature, or where the Jury could feel them selves called on to give any thing like. great • da,-. mats. • The wife was a person whom any has band must wish tO get quit of, and the defendant was somewhat to be pitied in having fallen into such an unfortunate connection. The object of, the - plaintiff in bringing this. action, was not so much to recover damages, as to be enabled to go for a remedy elsewhere ; and 'also to guard against the thrusting upon him of a spurious offspring, it having been given out that his wife was with child by the defendant. From the evidence, - it app-eared that the plain tiffand his wife had not lived together, nor even, seen each other, for several years paSt, the plain- tiff having till lately-resided in Lisbon, whence lee • sent his Wife home, in consequence of he'r miscon duct, several years ago. She appeared to be an. abandoned character, ail a habitual drunkard.; and that the defendant, who lodged in the same house with her, was not the only person with whom she had been connected. The husband, however, it appeared, had pot abandoned her to prostitution, but, that the sum of 61.25. sd. was . paid to her by an Agent, regularly every month. Lord ELLENRO,ROUGH, when the case had pro ceeded so far, said, he could not advise the Jury in the exercise of a sound discretion, to give more than nominal damages, and the law would not allow them to give less. Mr. BROUGHAM submitted that in such a - case, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. What be 'went upon was the separation of the patties for a slumber of years. Lord EL LENi3OROUGH asked, was the separa-: tion by writing? . . Mr. BROUGHAM admitted it was not: , LORD ELLENBOROUGH said, if the separation was not of such a nature as to have occasioned an =actual Cessation of the controul . which a husband told over his wife, lie should-hold that sltch set. , paration was- no bar to the present aetiOn. ri;§ Lordship had stated by anticipation What he shOuld lay down ,as the law Of the case, and if thc Learned Counsel was not satisfied; lie night file a Bill of Exceptions to the law as so laid down. Mr. BrtovoatAm begged,. in a few words, to be allowed ` to state to his Lordship What he should; be able to skew were the facts of this case, and having taken his Lordship's opinion on the effect, of them, he surely should not consume the time of the Court in entering into any evidenee, if, his Lordship should be of opinion, that the facts pro posed to be given in evidence would not avail 'him. What he purposed shewing was this, that, in wn sequence of an act of adultery committed by plain tiff's Wife, 6 years ago, in Lisbon, he had separated from her, and sent her' home to this country.— Slie first, went to Exeter, where, atter remaining some time she bad come to town; and lived in a variety of hOuses,,some of them of very indifferent fame ; being treated by her husband quite as an abandoned person, amt one with whom he neither had, nor would have, any intercourse The plain tiff had been twice in this country previous to his final return to it from Lisbon, -avd, on neither of thoce occasions had he inquired for or seen her. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said,' unless. the license of the plaintiff could be sheWn to have been given to the abandoned life of his wife, all that the Learn ed Counsel had stated would nor be sufficient. this might happen to an innocent husband, -forced to separate froth his wife.. His Lordship was not prepared to say that the plaintiff was that negli gent husband, who, , by his own act, was precluded from the present action. If art Learned Counsel wished', however, to re-agitate all that had passed on this subject, his Lordship should lay (Iowa" the laW as he . already stated it to be, and the Learned 'Counsel might t4e his Bill of Ex ceptions. Mr. G 'l4 AN then shortly addressed th e Jury, declaring-that to his client., a, wounded and inva lid Lieutenant in the Navy, who bad. only his half-pay to support him, a verdict, though only' for a shilling damages, as it must carry costs, would be equal to a sentence of imprisoanient for life. If this was to by the punishment inflicted on the defendant he begged of the Jury to look into their own breasts, and then to say, if the jury done to the plaintiff was of sut:h magnitude as to require so great an atonement ? Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, he -would not insult the good sense of the jnry, by insinuating that there could be a doubt as to the fact of the adultery having been coLtnnitted. „Then as to the law, it was-clear. 'lfa man was accessary to his own wrong, or privy and consenting to it, then could he not be, entitled to maintain such-an action as this ? This, however, was not the case with the present plain tiff. He had, no doubt, for several years,. lived separately from his wife; but was he on this ac *count to be._obliged to let her down to every spe cies of degradation•=to become like the common highway, for every foot to tread on—and to intro duce to him, as his own, a spurious offspring ? Surely he was not. - What blemish was there in hi, conduct ? He had been noder the necessity of separating from a bad wife, but had not, repounced his eontroul over her, nor had he abandoned her to want. In point of law, therefore, the, plaintiff was entitled to damages ; but in the'circutnstances of the ease, those damages would be the smallest which could be' given. As to the consequences likely to be produced to the defendant, that was a subject which he ought sooner to have taken into consideration. • The jury asked, would is. damages carry costs? Lord ELL ENSOROUGH said, in this case it would. The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages Is. Lord ELLENBOROUGH then said, the object of the plaintiff was to 'obtain a divorce, which he could not have till once he had got a verdict at Common Law, CRIM. COW. DUNDAS, ESQ. t 9,, LORD SEMPILL. The S _OLICITOR-GENERAL'said, there could hard ly. be conceived a more 'striking contrast between two actions of thesame kind, than that which the present action exhibited, when-compared with the case which had just been disposed of. The plain tiff was R. Dundas, Esq. son of a highly respect able Writer to the Signet, the term by which the higher class of Solicitors in Scotland were deno- Minuted. The defendant was a :Nobleman, the Representative of an ancient and respectable fa mily, also of that kingdom, having a fortune of not less than 100,0001. and who, by deep intrigue, had succeeded in alienating from the plaintiff the affections of a beautiful and accomplished wife, who, till seduced by thg arts of the defend ant, had been esteemed a, pattern for other wives, in her rank in society. That the de fendant succeeded too well in alienating from the plaintiff the affections of his wife was ap parent froth - this circumstance, that he was actually, at 'this moment, living with her in a state of adultery.- There Nyould, - .this day, be no' defence set up on the part of the defeßdant but, the Jury; afar hearing the evidence that would be laid before theist, would not fail in giving to the plaintiff such a Compensation in damages 'as should spew that the plaintiff had been a kind and affectionate husband, and that his wife had not, till the moment the Learned Counsel had been talking of,, forfeited the :character of a kind and affectionate wife. It was proved by Captain Smith,, uncle, to the plaintiff, that - he was married to his present wife; who was his cousin, and whose name also was Dundas, at tbe church of St. Clement Dahes, in . the year 1805 • 'she being then 22 or 23., years of age, and the Plaintiff about ten years older., .The same. witness, and 74r. Thomas Irving, Navy Pay Office, and a Miss Colquhoun, also proved that the plaintiff and his wife lived together in the highest apparent happiness he being a most kind and affectionate husband:, and she an equally kihd and affectionate wife, there seeming to be the most perfect love and confidence between them. Mr. Irving stated, that the plaintiff possessed property in Sweden ; of which country he Was alloblernan ; that his wife and he had' been in the use of visiting that cotmtry every year, for thG sake of looking after their affairs there ; that for the last two years the plaintiff had .gone by himself, leaving his wife PRICE OF STOC Bank - Stock, 217 218 Navy 5 percent. shut 5 per Cent. 1797, 4 per ceut..7.iti .3 per Cent. Red. 581 U 3 per Cent. Con. shpt - Ilank L. Ann. T 5 3-16 . 3-16 India Stock, KS r.,STERDAY: . .„ - • Inc',la Ilonds;9s. Bs. die. South Sea Stock, Exchequer Bill:, 34d. per day Ditto, sid. per day, ls. ss..pr. Oniniurn, 61 (.1i S Iniperial Ann. (7ons. fur 19th Jan. 6041 611 HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW. Morning, 8 minutes after tf. f Evening, 33 minutes after 6. OLD BAILEY. Yesterday. Thomas Simmons was capitally con victed for.assaulting Win. de Labertauclie, on tin: King's . highway, rutting him in fea:', and tal;in . i ;• from his person, against his will, six H. Bank notes, his property. John. Rowe was capitally convicted of 'killing a , sheep, the property of Mi.. Jones, at It appeared that some -youn t ..; men bad - gone out with guns to protect the flock from,strange dogs, and, on one of them firing at a blackbird, the, pri,-t soner got up from amongst the flock with his hands:. covered with blood, and he escaped into a wool, after having been shot at. A sheep just killed was found amongst the flack. : George Ellis, Edward Lloyd, and Etizithet/1. Harper, w,:re capitally convicted for assaulting Henry Fitchberg, in a certain dwelling houk, and taking from his person, against his kilt, "a, silver watch, &c. his property. Same day sentence of death was passed on . Ma rtha Hughes, for stealing privatelY in shop; Ann Lock, and Susannah Forster, for . a like' of- Sence; John Lemere, for forgery; Thomas mons, for highway robbery; George zabeth,Harper, and Edward Lloyd, fora robb el l in a dwelling-house ; JOhn Rowe, for stealing sheep; Henry Isaacs, Sarah ,Butler", and Sarah Arm Strong, for coining Jamc Kelly, for utter ing counterfeit money; Andrew Tiffin, for rehire ing from. transportation ; William INPRone and John Doggerty, for a highway robbery; John Mandwell; for stealing in a dwelling-house; add William, Taylor, convicted at the last Session of stealing goods on the river Thames. POLICE. UNION FIALL.—John Woolley t• as charged be fore Mr. EvANcE, On suspicion'ot having. assault, ed and robbed Mr. Collyer, an attorney, residing at Circus Cottage, Berthondsey, on Thursday night last. Mr. Collyer stated, that he was pro ceeding down Bermondsey -street, in his way home, between 11 and 12 o'clock. on Thursday evening, when a man, who he believed: to bethe prisoner, came up and endeavoured In enter to conversation with Lim ; they had not walked far together when Mr. Collyer was knocked duwn, and as he fell, saw three men run away, two one way and:the third a contrary. On recovering from the'blow, he found his pocket book had - been ta.ken from his breast pocket-, andthe outside pocket of his coat was cut off. He called out " watch," and sdon After the prisoner was secured near the . Spot. lie - believed the prisoner Was one & those concerned in rnbbing him. Cartwright, a watchman, saw Mr. Collyer and a man pass by his box, and soon after heard a cry of " watch," and saw the pri soner come running from the direction. in which. the cry,came, he ran down a court,. and the wit ness pursued him and secured him at the bottom • of the conrt which was not a thoi•oughfore.---The prisoner made no defence, and was committed for trial at the assizes. MARLBOROUGH - STREET. - Yesterday George Lentz and IL - Knight were examined on various-. charges of fraud. , It appeared, that they took splendid apartments at four guineas a week, repre s:mted thetaselves as having just left college, and belonging to families of distinction. With this description of themselves, and' their gentlentai . !ly deportment, all the tailors; boot-takers,- jewel lers, &e. in the neigh'bourhood, became. dupes to their artifice. The charges were too numerous t 4) enter into at length, and the prisoners were re manded till a future days. - BOW-STREET.--Oil Monday an Iri sh woman, who sells fruit near the entrance to the S a ns Pa ra! Theatre, in the Strand, was brought before Mr. BIRNiE, chargetl'Ath making a disturbance, and creating a riot at that Theatre. On investi- 4 gating the cause, it turned out that a man of a re spectitble appearance bad inquired of her for a dis tressed Irish woman. She repi:ed, she did not know of anymore distressed than herself. lie then said he supposed she was the w knuan he was in search of ; told her be wa!, a subscriber to a charitable so ciety, and contrived to get all the money she poi sessed, which was Ls. Gd. and a quantity of half pence, amounting to a few shillings, which he said she must give him to spew at the Society that she wits not,possesseclof any more, and he gave her for present relief two pieces of paper, purporting to be two 1/. Bank of England notes, to which, the poor woman very readily and thankfully agreed. lie afterwards went into the Sans Pareil Theatre. In a short time atter the poor wotnam discovered that she had been defrauded of her all by a pitiful thief, as the two pieces of paper, pur porting to be Bank notes, proved to he (Lily penny notes, manufactured in imitation of Bank note's.- - ,She was of Course discharged, butit is hoped this pitifnl swindler will soon be detected. BIRTHS. On, the 4th inst. Mr. Leonard Slater, of a Son and Heir: On Saturday, 'at her Grace the Duchess of Grafton', Lady Augusta Tavel, of a Daughter. - Tlie same day, at •his Irouse in Lincoln's-inn-fields, the Lady .01 litid Nicho{l, EsV9f a on. Yesterday morning, Mrs:Jai - Man; - Of the. Strand, of r, Son .Nl-,) I LI:1 ED. On Thursday t fat alt. at St. Augustine's •Chutchr Bristol, 'Mr. Lambert Bailliew, to Miss Sarah HawLsley. 'At St. Gecrge's, Hanover. square, Captain LI Pew,. Davi son, to Miss - Charlotte Doyle, )oungest daugliter'of the late General Weiboro Doyls. DIED. LONDON: rrintett by TI4O,MASWOOD, of . No. 23, Russell-COUif, Eiyages-street; CA)vent-garden; 1 1) 11 1,110 4 :d b) WILLIAM ARMICER SCRIPPS, South Molton-street; Grosvanor-square, , tltthe SUN f‘hvicE, Nu, 112, Strane, .. wilere .Itivertisement. l , Orders turthf Pap E r, Lettrrs tor 'Ale Editor, &e. (post Paid), 'must be addressul. On the 25th of August last, Mr.Janics Hammond, of King ston, Jamaica, Merchant. _ Ou Tuesday last, James nillars, Esq. of Little Missenden% aged 77, much lamented and respected by his numerous frieutls. On the 2d inst. at Hammersmith, after a few days illness, RiChard Loweday, Esq. ih the 8 1 st year of his age. Lately; at his seat, East Marden, Battiiie, Esq. the 90th year of his age. He was an acting M:igistrate for upwards of sixty years, and the oldest Member of the Cor poration of Chichester and Portsmouth.. On the iltil'ofOctub.•:r, at Harfleur, in France, in the 79th year of her age, Maria Claude Catherine de Cavellier de Cu verville, relict of Louis Francois Antonin, Count de St. Ao" bin de Sandeville, Knight of the Royal 'and Military Order of Si. Louis. Ou Friday se'nui;ht, at South Shields, Lady Heron, wile of Sir Cuthbert Heron, Bart. On Tuesday se'nnight, at Barton, Mrs. Dundas, - wife of C. Dundas, Esq.. M. P. for Berks. On Wednesday last, aged 76, William Spicer, Gent. of Bas ton, near Market Deeping. He had been afflicted with total blindness for many years; but, before tins visitation, was (me of the three persons who had the particular care of His Ma jesty during his illneSs in 1789. behind bira4.,ort account of the hostilities betwees the two countries ; that the plaintiff went to Swe den. as usual, in june last ; leaviing his wife at V:;',ekham, underthe protectiOn of her sister, Lady Dottgll:-.; wife of Sir Howard Douglas. After remaining some time with Lady Douglas.; Mrs. .Dundas was to gq on a visit- to an old acquaint ance, a Mrs.' Roberts, the wife of IL Clergyman ; but on . the plaintiff returning Id this country, un expectedly, in September; on his - going to Mor daunt's Hotel, in Dean -street,' Soho, Where he had formerly put up, he found his wife there, where, it appeared, that the defendant also, bad taken a room. . • • No proof was offered of any familiarity having taken place at this Hotel, but • Mrs. Sarah Walker, 11, Cumberland-street, New-road, proved that t e defendant and the plaintiff's wife, who originally passed themselves with her as husband and wife, had lived in her house, and had eon - swat!) , slept together from the 21st September last, _(bwing the very day of the plaintiff's arrival at Mordaunt's Hotel), to the present moment. • . . - Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, after pointing out to the Jury the unblemished nature of the plaintiff's con duct, and the provident attention he had paid to the protection of his wife, in leaving her with her sister, Lady Douglas, left it to them to give .suc:i compensation for the injury the plaintiff had sustained, as, in the circumstances of the case, he seemed to merit. The Jury, after a few minutes consultation, found for the plaintiff.—Damages, 4000/., COXSISTORY COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS, WOODBRIDGE V. WALKER. This was a proceeding foia 'nullity of the mar riage of "": 11 .r. Wm. Woodbridge; with . Miss Mary Ann Walker,- both resident' in the parish of St. Leonard ; Shoreditch, Middlesex, upon .two grounds, viz.- the minority of the husband, and solemnization of the marriage by license without legal consent; and its having taken place in a dif ferent parish to that in which the parties resided, wider the authority of a fraudulent alteration in the license, substituting in it for 'that purpose the pa rish of St. Mary, Islington, for that of St. Leo nard, Shoreditch. This latter circumstance was proved by the production Of the original docu ments,' authorising the grant of the license for the parish of Sts Leonard, Shoreditch, and of the license itself, in which the words " St. Mary, Islington," were written on an erasure. ,The husband's minority, Which still exists, was proved brills - father, and - the 'certificate of his son's birth and baptism ;\ and he likewise proved the absence of his consent. Sir WIiLIAM SCOTT observed; that as the mi nority and non-consent were so satisfactorily eSta blished, the consideration of the other ground of ii validity was not. necessary to be entered into.— Ile:then recapitulated the substance of the evi dence upon this point, a•d pronounced for the nullity of the marriage. DEFRIES V. DEFRMS. This was a proceeding for a. divorce, instituted by.Thonias Defies, .of"Nottingliam,pitce, le-bone, ,against Jane Mary Nugent ilicfries . ; his wife, upon . a charge of adultery between her - and Thomas Levens. Holden, L' 1. a Cornet of Cavalry. It appeared, from the.pleadings on the part of the husband, that Mr. and Mrs. Defries had lived together in great harmony till the introduction of Mr. Holden at their house, in the spring of the year 1809, and. had two children. About that time, upon a plea of ill health, she visited Mat lock, in Derbyshire, and it was there4ser acquaint ance with Mr. Holden began to assume a more serious aspect. She shortly afterwards eloped with him, and they passed a Considerable time in travelling through various parts of the country, under the assumed characters of husband 'and wife; and upon their arrival in town for the winter, took lodgings; and - continued to live together under that assumption of character, to the present time. Mr. Defries brought an action' for damages against Mr. Holden, who suffered judgment to go by default, and'a verdict was re turned for 10001. On the part of Mrs. Defries, .a pleading was given in defence, asserting the estrangement of her husband's. affections .from her as having deceived her into an improper line of conduct, which led to the unfortunate result; and charging him with collusion, in offering to abandon his action against Mr. Holden, if he would ,make a settlement- on her. In reply to this, Mr. Defries pleaded for the most part a general denial, accounting, however, for his. agreeing to .abandon the action, by stating the impassioned intreaties of his wife upon the subjetA to have so powerfully influenced his feelings, as to have induced him to promise a compliance with her request, till the subsequent connsel of his pro fessional advisers showed him the impropriety of such an instance of indulgent weakness. The - adultery at the different places visited by the parties in their tour having been proved, by reading the evidence of the servants that accom panied them, the friends of her - husband, and others, , • • Sir Wm. SCOTT recapitulated the . •principal points, observing, that the whole of the defensive evidence. must be taken as read, that the wife might , not be deprived of any benefit which, as an accused party, she Might expect to result. from It. He then, after .a few observations, confiwita tory of his opinion of the suiliciency of the proof, pronounced for the Divorce. Yesterday Colonel DOWNIE, who distinguished. himself at the battle of Seville, arrived in town, being unfit for service from the wounds he has re ceived. He is to undergo an operation. He has lost his right eye, And has reeeived`severalbayonet wounds in his body.