The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-01-14 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TNESDAY, JAN. 13.

Sittings at Westminster of er Michaelmas Term, before the LOEB
Call Er JUSTICE aid Common Juries.
Tilt KING V. RICHARD BENNETT.
INS was stated to be one of a series of indictments foe assault.
♦s to prosecutor was forthcoming, the detendant was acquitted of
410tUlt. .

PERJURY.
TIIE RING T. NENJAMIN CAPPER.
This was an indictment for perjury, alleged to have been corn.
-flirted by the defendant in his evidence as a witness, :n an action
;mai= the prosecutor, Dr. Veitch, the keeper of a private mai-
m at Brampton, for cruel treatment of a brother-physician,
Lk. Leach, consigned to his care as an insane patient.
. kleouomass opened the pleadings.
Mr. SCARLET? stated the case for the prosecution. The prose.
• VON was a physician of great eminence and skill in his profession.
The defendant had been called to the bar, but had never practised
se* berretta. It would be shown, that the defendant was the in.
imptor of the proceedings against Dr. Veitch, which he sustained
by kis owe testimony. A verdict was obtained of less considera-
te= • damages, than as to the injury it did to the high pro.
cc of Dr. Veatch. It would also be shown, not
r fief:indents evidence was 'coffer, but that his mo..
tiess wows se. A promise of 201.11. had been made to the defendant,
Iltbs wisM procure a verdict against the prosecutor ; and 501. had
Isusakeially paid in pursuance of this agreement. The perjury
• • 4paskesd In the defendant's having sworn, that on a certain day
Ow the lunatic running from Dr. Veitch's house in great terror,
-4/1111mat shoes or stockings ; that on meeting him the lunatic told
vilbsidarendiuit he was Dr. Leach, of the British Museum; and
.Olearising the approach of a keeper who was in pursuit of him,
villeasismOs then ran off, and hid himself in a ditch ; and that when
ZiVihtsr same up he caught hold of Dr. Leach's collar with great
-sod with an oath threatened Lim with personal chastise.
warn. . . .

. .----- ----
. rt. liimpant produced the record in the Nisi Prins trial.
Ofingssa Attained were 501. The trial was in May last. Mr.
. iggreseidence.
by Mr. ADOLPHUS—The trial had been ea-
...smog in Febrirary before, but had been put on. on account of the
lasbeadings in Lord Portsmouth's ease. 111 r. Waters, Crier of
the Court, administered the oath.
ot person who had taken notes of the trial, read them in evidence,
.. big Okay did not agree with the record.
„ • 5111- ADOLPHUS, for the derecdant, objected that there was a
• variance between what was read hum this person's notes,
, bat was net forth on the record.
, LORD CHIEF JUSTICE directed the Jury to find the de.
Not Guilty. Verdict accordingly.
WADE V. ALEXANDER.
:,;;:iillin was ow action for goods sold and delivered, and on a bill of
=rals oe
lier la Ss. The plaintiff is a tailor on Holborn-hill, and
a Neese-dealer.
a.. :gr. CHITTY opened the pleadings.
, • r. HUTCHINSON stated the case. The bill in question was
. *awn upon a job-master at Brighton, named Knowles, and in-
dorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The bill when due was
spa dishonoured, and the defendant now refused payment on the
ippon(' that the plaintiff bad neglected to give notice in due time
N ohm it was dishonoured. It was due on the Bth of May, but pay.
• mint was not demanded of the defendant till the 12th, though in
? abir.stanee the bill had remained in any intermediate hands beyond
! day.
t ,!Me The case having been substantiated by evidence,
Xr . MIR/JET, for the defendant, objected that the hankers at
..lkigtuon had not returned the bill by the first poet, after it had
',.lgpm found that there were no effects.
~
~ „The LORD CHIEF Juel lc E overruled the objection. Not only
. each indorser of a bill entitled to a day, but every agent
: gh whose hands it posed.,s
, I. GU RNET thee attempted to prove that a engoOrit, and
"restat of attorney for 291. fur goods sold and ordered, had
o- .grouted to the defendant, but neither the cognovit nor the
Apeeraot of attorney, though flied, could be produced ; and it ap-
''fassind that this sum of AIL was entirely disconnected with the
yes at ivies.
Jun foetid a verdict for the plaintiff—Datnages I& is.
BENEFIT SOCIETIES.

MAINE V. lIALIEAIt AND OTHERS.
This was an action to recover front a Benefit Society, called
• "'The hone of St. Luke," the sum of 101. and upwards, expended
1)., the ulaintiff, te.e of its members, in pursuing a claim he had.'
' *pen the fluids of the Soriety, the constitution of which, by the
Act of 33 boo. II l. provides that all dill:sewn between the mem-
hers shall be decided by arbitration.
, Mr. Co Inc w opened the pleadings.
The Conning SERGEANT stated the case. The plaintiff's
• ,claim had been duly referred to arbitrators, who had given their
award is hie favour. The action was brought to recover the ex.,
• swan he had incnrred by the attendance of his attorney, Mr.
voiles, and other witnesses, which had been omitted in the award.
Mr. Oils., the plaintiff's attorney, stated that he had hit elient
at the Court of Relueste, at ()oddball., several times, to supper
' his claim ou the Society, for which whine had charged 21. kis. tilt
Witness did not know what 'KU the expenses Incur ,ed by the.
jilaintiff for the attendance of his other witnesses. Witnesshad
Applied to the Society fern total expense of M. his. lid., and 11. 13s.
-sdiitiiata.l, paid by the plaintiff ithnself.
Cross-examined.—Witness believed that the expenses of some
DOW 4Fitileeßei had been allowed, but the arbidatore refused to
ingthe attorney.
• Mr. line; wowed that the arbitrators allowed 31. Ids. ao the
ji,ai et i IT, and certain expenen fee his witnesses, lie never knew
atuwoey wind a •cleiniaist otbeially before. The Society had
Mr. Ilarmer, their ;attorney, attending at Guildhall, but not before
disenthraturs. The dispute was respecting Mr. Maine's tuts-
isliog some receipts for the stock of the Society.
Mr. GURNEY referred to the Act, which provided only Ns. for

of witnesats attending the arbitrators.
a1te5:.7031i1,1 replied.
_ The LAilin lEr Juertce ObeerVed, that if the arbitrators'

invi allowed tame they- ouuld hove been liable to refund the
mom to the Society ; and on looking to the Ant, be thought the
oatendsom of attorneys oa either aide before the arbitrator,' wee
atotrequisite-
Plaintiff nominated.
PATS EItDOW D. 111015/E1.1..

That was an action to refiner awes, alleged to he due on a non-
Met between the ponies, for the *astir. servion. The plaintiff
as • seek ; the defendant a gentleman of fortune, in Derbyshire.
Me. Till/ALL opened the pleadingi.
1111 r. On a altY stated die case. The plaintiff had been engaged
Uthe defendant as his oink, at the rate of three guineas a week.
a he had been two ix three weeks the defendant's senior,

he seas suddenly dismissed; no pretence having been faised that he
had in any respect neglected the performance of his duties.
Richer d 11'athain. a servant of the defendant, proved two letters
written by his mater : the first, dated July 1, proposed to engage
the plaintiff ea his cook, till Miehaelmag the second, dated the nth
July, directed him to proceed to Parley Abbey, the seat of the de-
fendant,hy the filth of that month, as the references to his character
had been found satisfactory.
Francis Pegg,_ the defendant's butler, proved that the plaintiff
arrived at Daley Abbey on the 211th of July, and immediately
entered on his duty, in the discharge of which he remained till the
nth of Au4ust. Ile then quitted it by order of the defendant.
On cross-examination, the win.eaa stated, that the reason why
the plaintiff' was ordered to leave 4as. that he refused to dine in the
serautui-hall, according to the custom of die family. When his
master's rioter was given hint in writing, he tore it up and threw it
rtage,r7 Ifianiidts ho
wouldie innotthwehey ivt.anttsf'(2l;22. relflue*ed to
was alliewnwsetit'let
away.
Ite-cxamined—The defendant objected that he did not find things
comfortable among the servants. Ile said he had heard them coot-
plain. Witness had also certainly heard complaints. The de-
fendant dined away from the servants'-hall only two days. Mr.
Russcll then ordered him to dine there, and he did so, the next
day.
I'he Loan J VST ICE was of opinion this case could not
'be sustained. Ilere was • servant tearing his master's order with
contempt. A sufficient cause had been proved for his dismissal,
and no other was assigned. When he ascertained he was to be sent
away, he dined in the servants'-hall, but for two days previous he
refused. Servants would be masters, if they were allowed to act in
such a manner.
The AreouNev-OrwEist., for the defendant, recalled the
first witness, IVathem. lle then stated, that he had by. his ITUAlter's
orders tendered In guineas to the plaintiff for his services for three
weeks. The tender was made in money. Witness had a check,
which he did nut produce. Ile went out and obtained the money,
which was tendered to the plaintiff; and by him refused.
The plaintiff nommited.
LANTON v. GARDNER.

This was an action. to recover compensation in damages fur an
assault, alleges' to have seen committed by the defendant, a pub.
lican in Raker-street, on the plaintiff; a brewer, in lieorge-street,
Portman-square.
Mr. fly uNEY stated the case. The assault would be proved to
have been of an aggravated description. The plaintiff was first
outrageously ir.sulted, and then seriously assaulted. He was,
however, so little inclined to litigation, that he had offered to for-
bear all proceedings, on condition that the defendant consented to
an apology for his conduct. The plaintiff's attorney was instructed
to write to-him to that effixt, but he refused to make any apology.
Under these circumstances the plaintiff was forced to appear an
Court, and seek for that reparation at the hands of the Jury, which
the defendant denied him otherwise.

Stephen Gilling was than sworn.—l am the plaintiff's clerk.
lie had a claim on the defendant for ale. The whole claim was
something less 11147: 01., but tour hogsheads had been returned.
I called on the Ilth of April for about 401. The defendant said
there was alma 21. due to him for tickets given by Mr. laston's
nephew for ale. lie produced tickets for only a few shillings. I
returned back, and Mr. laston went with me to Gardner's.
' When my master entered the bar, he said, " What further de-
' mends have you against me ?" Gardner answered, " For these
tickets given me by your nephew." Mr fasten said, "You must
be a d— dirty fellow, as you know I don't allow them, as my
nephew has been robbing mc." Gardner then got up, and said he
would cut hie liver out. Ile shook his list in my master's
face, and drove him up into a comer of the bar. lie then struck
him a blow on the breast, and knocked him against the window.
On recovering himself, lie struck another blow on the same plate,
and knocked my muter into the tire-place. Ile continued to use
much the same language, saying he would smash his bead,
and calling him a bigger villain than his nephew. Gardner would
not let the tickets go out of his own hand. Mr. Laston was
alarmed, and wished to go. The tickers were mislaid, and Gard-
ner said he would search us both before we went. The tickets,
were then found. Ile then called in two men, and said he would
have somebody there as well as my master. Before that there was
nobody there, excepting Mrs. Gardner.
Cross.munined.-111y master did not call him a rascal or
scoundrel. The parlour opened into the bar. Nobody was in
either durir.g this transaction. My master's nephew lived with
him. I suppose the tickets were fur beer he had had hirrielf or
given away to others. They were allowed by the master in the
settlement. His nephew was then in Northamptonshire. Ile is
now at Camberwell. Nobody but Gardner and his wife, my mas-
ter, and myself, were in the bar or the
.parlour during any part of
the affair. Two persons were called in after it was over. My
master did not return Gardner's ill-language, because I suppose
he was afraid. Ile seemed much alarmed. I stn still in his
service.

The plaintiff's attorney's clerk produced a copy of the letter,
written on the 17th of April, informing him that an action would
be rernmenced unless a proper apology was made.
The A T TOR 11E Y.GE X EE•L, for the defendant, said he would
not make an apology, because he was satisfied he was not wrong;
and if the case were to be decided only on the evidence at that
moment before the Jury, the plaintiff could recover only nominal
damages ; but the defendant Insisted upon having his witnesses
called, by whom it would be shown that the assault had originated
in the violence of die plaintiff himself.
Wm. 'Jaycee:la ewom—l was at the house uf Gardner, the de-
fendant, on the Ilth of April. I saw °Wing, the plaintiff's wit-
ness, go in the first time alone. l law him afterwards go into the
liar with Isis master. Thpre mjaeoaverastion about some bill. I
want into the parlour, and 1./reentry Theard a noise. Me.alluener
said, " They are quarrelling about those cursed checks." At this
time a man named Lovett was in the bar with them. I went into
the bar by desire of .51rs. Gardner. Gardner said to beton,
" You have called me a shuffling fellow ; my character will bee as
much inealigation as yours in this neighbourhood." Laxton was
walking shout on tiptoes, with his hands in his pockets, and he
went up to the defendant, who immediately said, " tam% spit in
my face, Mr. 'eaten. otherwise I shall knock you down." lax-
ton was calling Gardner a shuffling rascal, and a scoundrel." He
was asked whether he would take off the checks ? and he answered
" Yes, yes ;" and also as to some deduction of ale. Ile then be-
came more tranquil, and left the room with his clerk. No com-
plaint was made by Laxton that he had been struck by Gardner.
Johnson Levan gave similar evidence. Ile swore that Luton
was strutting about the bar like a crow in a gutter, abusing Gard-
ner ; and that Gardner never used his hand at all to strike Laxton,
who finally went away, " quiet, calm, cool, and comfortable." In
the opinion of this witness, if any one was entitled to make a com-
plaint, it was the defendant. The witness indulged much in meta-
phorical language, and illustrated his meaning by very significant
gestures, which excited a good deal of merriment in the tame
Another witness, named Cook, stated that he saw the plaintiff
leave the house in a great pOSSiGn.
Illy. Guar; Er replied.
The hams Cuter JUSTICE having summed up the evidence,
said, if the Jury believed that the assault had been committed, as
stated by the plaintiff's witness, he would be entitled to a verdict.
The evidence for the defence did not contradict the plaintiff's wit-
nese, because an interval of time had elapsed before the defendant's
witnesses saw the panics together. If there was any apparent eon-
, tradietiun, it would then he the duty of the Jury to weigh the evi-
dence on each side. They had witnessed the warm manner, and
heard the loose language in which one of the defendant's witnesses
had given his testimony, and they could therefore estimate what
I was this to his evidence. The question of damages would not be a
matter of ditlieuliy.
The Jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages, 51.
CRIM. CON. ~,, ea,.
LODGE V. 11 UDELL L•
Thiele* an action to recover compensation Weleshages for cri-
minal conversation with the plaintiff's wife.
6!r. ABRAUAM opened the pleadings.
Air. linnet:llAM stated the case. In discharging his duty, he
said, on that oecision, it would not be necessary fur him, in stating
the case, to occupy much more time than his Learned Friend had
rensumed in opening the pleadings. The facts of the case lay
within a narrow compass. The plaintiff was a clerk, at a consider-
I able salary, m the house of •respectable solicitor. The defendant
I was the son of a gentleman possessing considerable property, and
entitled, ultimately. to an amide fortune. Up to July 1821, the
plaintiff had lived on the most friendly terms with his wife, when,
in emoiequence of somefamily disputes, not between hint and her,
but between hies and her mother, who then lived with them, and
who be insisted should leave thee, they separated, but not alto-
gether, from the society of each other, though it was tound better
that they should live in separate hour' s. No blame could attach to
' him on account of the separation, tor es to her insisting on her
I niether continuing to form part of hh family, it was clearly neces-
sary that he should chew that he was the master of his own house.
aln. hedge bud a lucrative business of her own, which, with her
family, it was agreed she should carry on as usual, and he came to
the resulation to live apart from her. Ile saw her, however, front
time to time. They Lad lost one child, but had another surviving, I
and this child led them occasional 4 to see each other. There was
an intercourse of visits, but it went no fur:her, and this habit of
visiting to sec the child, continued until within a few weeks of the
period to which the attention of the Jury had been called. Before
this partial separation, 31e. Merril had become acquainted with'
them. He knew Mr. Lodge, as well as his wife, with whom it'
would appear he soon formed the imimacy which hail laid the Mun-1
dation of this action. The jury would be satisfied that a criminal'
intercourse had taken place between them by evidence that would !
admit of Do dispute. Mrs. Lodge, during the period of her Pepe-
ration, not from the society of her husband, but from cahabitation
a ith him. became pregnant by the defendant. When the child was
born, via. in May, 1P2.2. twelve months after the separation, care
was taken to conceal ire birth from Mr. Lodge, anti the maid was
ordered not to COGiC in his way with it, or, if she happened to tall
iu his way, to get out of it as fast as passible. This cor.oealment
was practised a considerable time after the birth of the child, until
die 'meth of September 11122, when, from the accidental circum-
stance of the elda child speaking of its little brother or sister,
whichever it might be, Mr. bodge's suspicions were awakened,
and, to his sulpha,, he found that ale. Lodge had hen confined
in the Hay preceding. It would be the duty of the Jury to consi-
der, first, whether the facts were proved, and retiredly, what
amount albumens ought to be glen. It was unnecessary to enter
into any tapirs of argument to show the injury sustained by the
plaintiff. In this case there had been only a partial estrangement
of stein?, indeed oily the mere intercourse of man and win. In
same cases, where there had been a total and voluntary separation
between the parties, and that separation entirely the fault of the hus.
band, though of all circumstances that seemed best calculated to being
down the damages to a eominal amount, yet it was known that as
' large verdicts had bee obtained as if the reties had not been se-
parated. The plaintiff looked to the Jury far such compensation
at the circumstances of his case entitled him to. According to the
evidence they would apportion the Minima. There was another
object to which the plaintiff weight to obtain through their verdict,
a diems bar which he should be released from his connection with

a woman who had aishenourecl him, and his liability for debts
which she might henceforth incur for the support of a spurious
issue.

Mrs. Ernester Blakey, an aged foreigner, was then sworn-1
knew Mrs. Lodge before her marriage; her name was Ilarriet
Clough. I was present at her marriage at Mary-la-bonne church.
I have visited her subsequent to the marriage. Ales. Lodge before
land since her marriage has been a milliner.
('ross.exsanined by the ATTOR N EY-6 ENERAI..—She wan RHO,
ried in December 18111 Before May she had her first child. It
was quite obvious the was in die family way when she was mar-
ried. I remember her confinement in BM; I was under the ne-
cessity of assisting and supporting her, as her husband had then
Left her; I provided all her necessaries. Ido not know whether
t!icy slept together or apart. I don t remember exactly whether
they were quite separated; I think they were.
George Bruce produced the certificate of the marriage of
Richard bodge the plaintiff, and Ilarriet Clough, in December
181 n, at Mary-fa-bonne church.
Elimbeth Hughes sworn._l was *ferrule of Mr. Everett, where
Mr. and Mrs. Lodge lived in 1821 ; they had one child then. He
is an attorney's clerk, I believe. His office is somewhere about
tiolden-square. I know Mr. Burrell perfectly well. Ile used to
be there three or four times a week. bin. Clough. Airs. Lodge's
mother, also lived with them. Mr. Lodge left his wife in the''
summer of 18'21, or 1822. I think about two years ago. She had
a child born afterwards, at Mrs. Moore's. I have seen it with
Mrs. Lodge. The first time I saw it, her servant brought it down
to me in Charles...street, Grosvemonaquare. That was in 1822. I
have seen Mr. Lodge call once or twice on his wife. Mrs. Lodge
continued at Mr. Everett's about three months after Mr. lodge left
her. I know the defendant was often there, before 31r. Lodge left
and since. I used to let him in at all times in the day, and in the
evening, when Alr. Lodge was out. He generally came when Mr.
Lodge was out. Me used to call on Mrs. Lodge. He generally
asked if Alr. Lodge was home; if I said yes, he would go away ;
if not, he would ask to go up-stain. Mr. bodge has conic home,
imben Mr. Burrell was with Airs. Lodge. Alr. and Ales. Lodge
lived on the first floor; and when Alr. Burrell heard Alr. bodge,
knock at the outer door, he used to go up to the second landing.
When I bad opened the door, and let 111 r. Lodge in, then
Mr. Burrell used to slip out. After Mr. Lodge left, Mr. Hur.
veil came frequently. I have seen them together, both in the
bed room, and In the sitting room, I saw them twice in the
' bed-room. I went in once, and saw them on the sofa in the sitting-
room, when his arm was round her neck. After Ale Lodge left
her, Charlotte Blake, her servant, used sometimes to sleep with
her. I recollect Charlotte Blake sleeping with me three or four
nights. Sometimes she slept in the kitchen, and sometimes with
her mistress. Airs. Lodge rased in general to call Mr. Burrell
" Edmond." 1 recollect one night letting him in late. Charlotte
slept with me that night. She said they had had supper, and were
having gin and water. I heard him go out in the morning, about
five minutes before five. I knew his footstep well. Mr. Lodge is
between thirty and forty. Mrs. bodge is a good.looking woman,
twenty-seven years old.
Crone-examined by the AvroistET.GenEwar.—The defend.
ant is about twenty-one, and lives with his father. Mrs.
had three or four workwonien. She is intimate with Mr. 11u1=
mother. She knew him when quite a boy ; he used to run back.
ward and forward with messages. Before Mr. Lodge left his wife,
they did not sleep together. She locked her door. I never heard
them quarrel. I was rot their servant. Charlotte Blake sometimes
slept with her mistress. The night I mentioned, she slept with me
down stairs, in the back kitchen. She had no particular bed-room ;
sometimes slept down stain, and sometimes up stain. Where she
slept below was the place where the uremia did sleep. I slept
with her because Mr. Everett's brother occupied my_bed that night.
The workwomen came at nine, and generally left off at eight. Mrs.
Lodge had the first floor. The front room was the work-room, and
the back was the sleeping-room. Mr. Burrell was constantly shewn
into the room where the workwomen were.

Did he n4;eo;baciwardsiindlorwuda with orders from his
mother ?—No. I believe he came to see Mrs. Lodge, and her
young women. Sometimes he went away before them, and some.
times atter. _ _ _ _ _

What have you been doing since you left Mr. Everett's P—l have
been in service.
Did you ever live at Mrs. Butler's ?—No.
Nor at Mrs. Moore's, a, Paddington.street P—No.
Look at that (handing up a) ape?) and now say whether you
recollect living there ?—Yes„ I .1o; that puts me in mind of it.
Why did you leave those lodg.ngs?-1 left them bc:ause a per-
son had done a thing she ought nut to hive done. It was not me.
I do not know what became of the pawnbroker's duplicates. I
advised her to take them back. She slept in the same room with
me. There was a counterpane and mine other things taken. I
slept there three nights only. The things taken belonged to Mrs. I
Moore.

Did you ever live at Mn. Butler's, in David-street T—No.
You are sure you neva lived there with a person whom you
passed off off as your huband P—That was my fellow servant. (A
y look at that (handing up another paper). Oh ! now I do
recollect living at Mrs. Butler's. I had quite forgot it. (A laugh.)
bid not somebody live with you tLese P—No, he did not live in
the same room.

Did he not pan himself off as your husband ?—No, he asked me
many times, but I always 'aid " No." (A laugh).
Re-examined.—The defendant is a young man about 21. He
is not any thing. He 10 not much of a gentleman in his looks,
though be is rather so. (A laugh.
Charlotte Blake sworn.—l lived
servant with Mrs. Lodge a
yam., in 1821. She then lived at Mr. Everett's. I left her and
hfr. Murrell er, one nitp, about ten o'clock. I have seen
trim In the frequently sat there to wade..
She called him " Edm " !saw nothing pass. I have seen hint
also in the sitting-room with Mrs. Lodge. He came about four
times a week, generally in the evening. The child was born at
Mn. Morris's, on the 6th of May, 1822. The defendant was not
there then. I went out of town nest day, said was absent a fort-
night. I never heard him as anything about the child. I have
frequently met Mr. Lodge with Henry, the elder child, but never
with the younger. Mr. Hurrell saw it several times ; but never
took any notice of it. I never heard him say anything about any
money, nor give any orders respecting it.
Croes-exammed.—l was never In the habit of sleeping with my
mistress. If anybody said I was, they said what was not true.
31m. Lodge never wrought for Mr. HurrelPs mother.
The Loan CDIRF JIISTICS —You had better ask her no more,
Mr. Attorney ; for she denies whatever is asked her.
Mr. Wm. :Boom sworn.—Mrs. Lodge came to live with me the
12th of January, 1822, and remained till the 7th or Bth of February,
1823. Mr. !luredl came to visit her frequently--genendly at
eight in the evening, after the workwomen had left. He was some-
thing later in going away--generally from ten to half-past ten.
When Mr. Harrell was with her, the servant used to be sent out
with Henry.
The ATTOINEY-OENEIAL—What, at night?—Yee, in the
summer time. 1 cannot say generally how long he remained, u I
was minding my own business.
Mrs. Elizabeth Moore sworn—l am the wife of the last witness.
I remember Mrs. Clough and Mrs. Lodge living at our house;
Mr. Murrell was continually there, three, tour, or live times a week,
at all hours of the day, and in the evening at eight o'clock. I have
seen both Mrs. Clough and Mrs. Lodge let limn in ; I have seen
him smiling at the corner, and then Mrs. Clough let him in without
knocking.
What have you heard him say about the child ?—I never spoke
to him in my life.
The LOUD CHIEF JUSTICE.—You have not proved enough
to go to the Jury.
Mr. BROILIGUARL—I cannot go further, unless I called Mrs.
Clough.
The LORD Curter JVITICE.—Then you must be nonsuited.
Plaintiff nonsuittd.