The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-05-17 00:00:00

~;

~~...

THE BRITISh PRESS.

LAW INTE L (.IGE NCR.

COURT OF KING'S BENCILd MoNnAY, MAT le.

Ix Romeo.
BYRNE v..-- PARKINS, ESQ.
When the rule for a new trial was granted in this cause, the
Court made it one of the conditions that the defendant should pay
into Court the sum of GOI. being the amount of the verdict on the
£ est trial. Since the second trial, the defendant had paid the
amount of the damages then adjudged to the plaintif, to his soli-
citor, Mr. Harmer.
Mr. Fr as: Ncn, this day, applied on behalf of the defendant for a
rule, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the money which
had been paid into Court by the defendant should not be returned
to him. The Learned Counsel was about to remark upon a para-
graph which had appeared in a paper with which Mr. Harmer was
connected, representing that the defendant had not paid the debt
and costs, but intended to bring a writ of error, but he was inter-
rupted by
The LORD CntET JUSTICE, who observed, we have nothing to
do with any paper.
Mr. )'TRENCH—My Lord, I was about to show that this was
in the same spirit of persecution in which the whole of the proceed-
ings had been conducted against Mr. Parkins.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—We cannot go into that.
Mr. FFRENCTI observed that he had, is fact, been instructed to
, move for a criminal information against the parties, but this being
the last day of Term, the rules of the Court would not permit him
to do so.
Mr. Justice BAY LET—You say you have paid the whole debt
and costs ?
Mr. FTRENCH—Yee, my Lord.
Mr. Justice BAYLET—Then you may take a rule to show cause
why the fitlf.•hould not be returned to you.
Rule nisi granted.
RE SIR GREGORY FLOE TURNER.
Mr. SCARLETT applied to the Court for an Habeas Corps:, to
be directed to the Marshal of the King's Bench prison, to bring
before one of their Lordships Sir 0. P. Turner. in order to ascer-
tain from him whether he was willing to sign an authority to em.
power Mr. ('orbett to act as his solicitor to conduct the business of
Sir Gregory, now pending in the Court of Chancery.
The LORD ClitEr JusTicg—Youra is an application of a
very novel description, Mr. Scarlett. Dues Sir Gregory refuse to
sign the authority ? not, can he not sign it without being brought
before sludge ?
Mr. SCAaLETT said, the application was one which the nature
of the circumstances required. A writ of Lunatico Inquirer:do had
been executed, and Sir Gregory found by the Jury to bee lunatic.
The affidavit of Mr. Corbett, who had acted for some time as the
solicitor of Sir Gregory, stated, that it was intended to traverse the
lunacy, and a petition had been presented to the Lord Chancellor ;
but his Lordship said, he could not decide upon that petition, un-
til it was shown to him that Mr. Corbett was properly authorised
by Sir Gregory to act for him. This authority, however, could not
be obtained, because it appeared that Sir Gregory, who was a pri.
soner in the King's Bench, for debt, was under the strict superin-
tendence of three or bur keepers, appointed by the Marshal, who
i would not admit Mr. Corbett to have access to r:ir Gregory, except
under an express pledge not to ask him to sign any paper whatever;
the consequence was, that the petition to the Lord Chancellor
could not be proceeded with. His Lordship, it was believed, would
have himself made some direction in this case, but that he con-
sidered, as Sir Gregory was a prisoner of this Court, the order
would with more propriety
_proceed frsm their Lordships. If their
Lordship% would allow Mr. Corbett to see his client in any other
manner than before one of themselves, it might be equally as suf.
ficient for the purpose of the present application.
The Loan Clore JUSTICE.—We can make an order upon
the Marshal to allow Mr. Corbett to see Sir G. P. Turner, now in
his custody.
Mr. Sc A R LETT—And, my Lord, that no restraint shall be used
to prevent him from signing any papers which Mr. Corbett may re-
quire him to do ?
The Loan Clem. JUSTTCE—The best thing we can do, is to
make a rule, directing the Marshal to permit Mr. Corbett to see Sir
Gregory in his presence alone, unless the Marshal should think it
necessary, for his own security, that any other person should be
present. But if there be an attorney on the other aide, I think be
should also be allowed to attend.
Mr.SCARLETT—Mr. Corbett has just told me, that Mr. Ma.
berly is the attorney for the other side, my Lord.
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—het the rule be, that Mr. Maberly
shall be at liberty to be present, and that Sir Gregory may be at
liberty to sign any document which Mr. Corbett may require him
to do.
Mr. ScAnT.ETT said he had to apply for a similar order, on be.
half of a gentleman named Bryant, who had been long acquainted
with Sir Gregory P. Turner. All communications between him
and Sir G., since his confinement, had been prevented by the
Marshal, who had excluded the servants of Mr. Bryant and of Sir
Gregory from seeing the latter, Mil had threatened to throw them
over the wall if they should come there to make any communication
from any person to his primmer. There were many circumatances
which made it very desirable that Mr. Bryant should see Sir Ore-
-1 gory on his private affairs. One circumstance mentioned in Mr.
Bryant's affidavit was, that Mr. Motherly, who had been Sir G.'s
attorney before the writ of lunacy issued, had got Sir G. to execute
' mortgages of his property for securing several thousand pounds, and
that subsequently the same gentleman had issued the writ of
lunacy.
The Lono Corer JUSTICE—You may take a rule calling on
the Marshal to show cause why Mr. Bryant should not be allowed
to see his prisoner.
THE KING V. GUTHRIE.
Mr. GURNEY said this was a rule obtained by Mr. Brougham
the other.day, calling on the defendant to show cause why a crimi-
nal information should not be filed against him, for publishing a
libel in the Sunday Herald against the Rev. Mr. Cooper and his
wife, imputing to them very disgraceful conduct while resident in
Jamaica. Mr. Gurney said he was instructed on the part of the
defendant to express tuts sincere regret that the paragraph in question
should have been inserted; that he was already in insolvint cir.
cumstances, and that if the present rule should be made absolute
it would be of very serious injury to him. Ile further stated, that
as Mr. and Mrs. Cooper had denied the statement, he had no hesi-
tation in saying that he believed the matters contained therein were
false and calumnious, and that he now was ana'ous to offer
every apology for leaving published it.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that as the object of Mr. Cooper and his
wife for instituting the present proceedings had been amply
answered by the apology now offered, which went to vindicate their
charactera, the avowal and disavowal made by the defendant was
quite satisfactory to them, and they had no desire to make the rule
absolute. Ile trusted this would teach persons that they should not
hastily take such statements as true, nor be so ready to comment 1
upon them.
The rule discharged upon defendant's paying costs.
THE KING V. SHACKELL.

Mr. A DOT.P111;9;;;Cii11;;;SA1IlCO1:;;Ined against the de-
fondant for inserting the same libel in the Jain hull, and he had
to move their Lordships that it should be discharged in the same
manlier as the former had been. The defendant expressed his re-
gret that the statement should have been published by him ; and
indeed in the Jllllll Bull of yesterday there was a contradiction
given to it, which was by this time known to half the world.
Mr. Bitottnnam—Not quite half the world, I think. But I
must admit, that that paper was not so much to blame as the other,
because it inserted the statement only, without making any com-
ments on it. People, however, without commenting, ought not to
insert or publish falsehoods.
The Lonn CHIEF JT:STICE—If you could prevent that, Mr.
Brougham, you would do a great deal of good to the world.
The rule discharged on payment of coats.
SECONDARIES' OFFICE, CotEmag-STREET, Mar 16.
WHEELER V. ItAYXE, ESQ.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff' who had been ser-
vant to the defendant, to recover the sum of AIL for wages and for
disbursements made in his behalf. Judgment had been allowed to
go by default, and a Sheriff's Jury was summoned to assess the
damages. The case excited considerable interest, it being known
that Miss Foote had been subpeena'd as a witness for the plaintiff.
Mr. CHARLES Pntr-LIPS stated the ease to the Jury. The
plaintiff was, lie said, a young man in ray humble circumstances;
he had been a gentleman's servant, and now felt himself obliged to
proceed against Mr. Hayne, of whom the Jury, as well as the rest
of the world, had recently heard a great deal, and who was, as they
all learned, an exceedingly rich. and therefore powerful man. The
plaintiff, as servant to this gentleman, on board wages at the rate
of five shillings per day, was in the habit of disbursing small sums
of money for his master. Although poor in c,omparison wit'i his
master, who had perhaps ten thousand pounds for every single
pound in his ;sottsession, yet, having been lung in respectable ser-
vice, he had saved a sum of money out of which he was in the habit
of making advances to his master upon occasional little emergen-
cies. Upon one occasion he had, it would be proved, lent the sum
of 201. to Mr. Ilsyne's steward, which formed one of the items in
the account. The accounts were now disputed, a tender of no more
than 481. having been made to the plaintiff; which he refused to
accept, from the consciousness that he was entitled to so much
more.
(lean ge Henry 'Lovegrove stated that his father had been steward
to Mr. Rayne; the plaintiff had been in his service from the lot of
January 1024 to the Ist of January PM, as under butler; witness
had often seen hint pay money for small things, and knew that his
father upon two occasions got an advance of 101. from the plaintiff,
for the use of Mr. linyne.
Mr. William Carter stated that he was the brother-in.law and
attorney of Mr. Bayne ; he knew that the plaintiff was in his bro-
ther-in-law a service, but could not say that he was on board wages ;
could not recollect that Wheeler boarded out of the house; was al-
most certain he lived in the house, excepting a short time in Au-
, gust ; was not aware that Wheeler ever made any disbursements
for Mr. Bayne.
Mr. PHILLIPS-I.7pnn your oath, Sir, have you not heard these
disbursements mentioned in the presence of Mr. Ilayne ?
Witness—Yes, they were mentioned once, but Mr. Rayne dis-
puted them. •
Mr. PIIILLIPS—Now, Sir, will you say upon your oath that
Mr. Rayne has never paid him for any previous disbursements ?
Mr. ADOLPHUS-31r. Secondary, I beg your Interference here;
this is not the way in which to treat a gentleman in the witness
box—upon your oath this, and upon your oath that.
The SECONDARY said he saw no impropriety in 'the question,
and at the same time he saw no ground for any imputation upon
the witness.
Witness continued.—He remembered Mr. Mayne paying the
plaintiff some accounts, and at the same time telling him not to
make any payments fur him in future. Witness did not beheie

.~

any disbursements had teen made by the plaintiff', became Mr.
Hartle was at all times too liberal in his advances to his aar►attts•
‘Vith respect to the sum of 2111., Wheeler had himself solicited that
it might be held over to Lovegrove's account. Did not remember
having seen slr. Hayne more than twice in a hackney-coach.
Mr. ADOLPHUS—We have a right to avail ourselves of the
knowledge we gain from all quarters. Pray was not your brother-
in law in the h••bit of having a great many carriages P—Fes.
Mr. A notritus—Of course. when he paid his visits to Keppel.
street (Miss Foote's residence is there), he would go in all his
splendor; in his carriage, and not in a hackney coach ?—I sup-
pose so.
Mr. PHILLIrs—Did you ever go there with him ?—I never
dia.

Mr. PHILLIPS—He did not think it safe, then, to take hand-
some young men there ?
Mr. A DOLPIII: s—No ; but they found their way there without
him (laughter).
The next witness was a young man named Haydon, footman to
Miss Foote.
Mr. PHILLIPS very considerately said to him—" Now you a-e
in the service of a lady. it is not neces,ary for the case that her name
should be stated, and I had rather you would not mention it."
The footman took the hint, and never mentioned Mies Foote's
name during the examination. Mr. Mayne was, he said, in the
habit of visiting his mistress ; did not, however, ever remember
Mr. Hayne's coming in a hackney-coach to see her. Remembered
going from Southampton to Bath with his mistress. who was to
meet Mr. Ilayne there. Mr. Bayne was punctual. Wheeler the
plaintiff, went with witness from Southampton to Bath in a peat-
chaise. Wheeler paid their expenses. "Misses" met him at the
inn there.

Croes-examined by Mr. ADOLPHUS—Do you not know that
Mr. Bayne Rirrys paid for every thing ?-1 believe he did.
Mr. ADOLPHus—Do you not know that he was very profuse is
giving his money to servants ?—lies, he was very much so.
A Mrs. Baker proved that In August, 131.1, the plaintiff lodged
at her house for 17 days.
Mr. Anor.ruus, for the defenct., said that his client had been
held out to the world as a man. who might be successfully attacked.
sneered at, and preyed upon by every one who might think proper
to select him as an object of imposition. The plaintiff seeing how
money. was to be made, availed himself of the opportunity, and
tried nts action, bring well assured that if he lost it he would only
be where be was; and if he gained it he would have a considerable
sum in pocket. The case indeed was a most alominable one; it
was only got up to make paragraphs for the Sunday newspapers of
to-morrow. _

Mr. PHILLIPS—That is a design more worthy of the wisdom
of the other side, for Sunday newspapers arc seldom published on a
Tuesday.
Mr. ADOLPllus—Well, then, for the newspapers of to-morrow.
1 contend that nothing has been proved against my client, who.
whatever may be the issue, is well content to rest himself on the
bosom of an honest Jury.
The SECONDARY, in his charge to the Jury, said he was
afraid the plaintiffcould not go beyond the sum of 481., which had
been offered to him. There had been scarcely a single item
proved.
The Jury assessed the damages at 50 guineas.
Miss Foote received a suboona to attend and give evidence;
but as it was apprehended by her friends thpt the defendant's
Counsel might put some queer interrogatories to her, the plaintiff
was prevailed upon, as we were informed, to dispense with her
attendance.