The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1809-12-09 00:00:00

To the EDITOR of The munsn PRESS.

Si it—.lf we were to judge from the extraordinary
marks rat exidn.tion, exhibited by the 0. 13.1 since
the verdict obelined by their favourite, iu the Court
of Common Pleas, on Tuesday lost, we should bo
inclined to sappose, that their cause hail com-
pletely triumphed, and that, in future, the prices of
adrift .ton to the Theatre, and its internal ecomuniy,
are to be regulated by any set of men, sufficiently
tin merrier: to prevent the performances being quietly
proceeded in. Had their joy been manifested in a
peaceable manner, I should suppose it to have been
elicited merely by respect for the individual ; lint
the outrage with which it is accompanied. clearly
evinces. that the malcontents are inflated by a fal-
lacious idea of the legality of their proceedings. A
glance, however, at the proceedings iu the action,
" Clifford v. Brandon," will at once prose the futi-
lity of this opinion; and show that the original
question, the right of an audience to overawe the
managers of a theatre, by noise and violence, re.
mains exactly where it was. The Plaintiff iii the
above cau.e sought to recovcr damages Irons the
Defendant, for assault and false imprisotisneist ;
he, the Plaintiff, having been arrested at Cuvret.
Garden Theatre, on the night of the 31st Oct.,
direction of the Defendant, us an abettor of riot;
and, to support his claim, witnesses were celled
to prove, that, on the night of his urresee. he
had demeaned himself, at the Theatre, in the
most peaceable manner ; and that the 0. P.
insignia, displayed in his hat, had been placed there
by a stranger, out, as might be supposed, by the
Plaintiff. On this evidence, the Jury, in direct
contradiction to the perspicuous charge of the
Learned Judge, found a verdict for the Plaintiff.
On the Foreman bong requested to state the
grounds for this verdict, he said, that the Jury
wished to give a general verdict, without entering
into the reasons of each individual. He afterwards
said. the Jury agreed unanimously, that the arrest
was illegal—some of them thinking the manner and
time improper, and others considering the mere
wearing of O. P. in the hat, an insufficient groans
for such a proceeding. This, Sir, is a plain state-
ment of the case—which has evidently nothing to
do with the question between those who have been
called the public, and the Managers—a question
which still lies over for decision. And here it Natty
not be improper. without arraigning, in the slightest
degree, the motives of the Jury, to examine how far
the principles, alleged as the ground of their ver-
dict, are valid. First, as to the manner and tires of
the arear:-..-If the Defendant, a termini of the Pro-
prietors, felt, in his own mind, a conviction, that the
Plaintiff had been an instigator of the riot, by wear-
ing a budge in his hat, conceiving such emblem ille-
gal, had he not a right to call in the civil power to
arrest him ? Is there any particular time necessary
'for such arrest ? or any peculiar manner to be ob-
served—save that of executing it with as little vic.
lence as possible ?—To both these questions. I
think. a negative must be given. Secondly, with
respect to the allegation that wearing the 0. P. is-
signed. in the Theatre is nut sufficient cause for ar-
rest—l conceive that the exhibition of any badge.
likely to create disturbance, is illegal; and it is
notorious that the hoisting of placards, and the
placing of those initial* in hats, were productive of
very great riot, and, of course, subjected the of-
fenders to the visitation of the police. It matters
nothing whether the owner of the hat placed the
label there himself, or permitted windier, unmo-
lested, to tin it. Its case of rebellion breaking out
in a country, an individual wearing the insignia of
the rebel party, although at a distance from them,
is subject to summary punishment. It would he
in vats for him to plead that the treason lay in h
way, and he picked it up; thut t stranger put the
ensign in his hat, and he continued to wear it after
the stranger had turned his back, and he might
have removed it, had he so pleased :—Thr question
here prevents itself, " If you did not favour the
principles of those whose colours you wear, why
did you not divest yourself of them, when you had
an opportunity ?" 'Phis I conceive to be a case
in point. Here is an individual sitting in the
midst of those who are assembled to do a particular
act, stud wearing in his hat the distinguishing mark
of the party ; he is seen with such badge, and, in
consequence, he is apprehended. If the business
for which these people meet be illegal, and it has
been denounced a: such by the first law authorities,
then, surely, those who, by displuying their insig-
nia. encourage and countenance them, are arced-
series, although they may not be actively em-
ployed; for, it is held, and very justly, qwi tacit
per ilium fade per or. if individual, of rank
and education display such party badges, the
evil is likely to be increased tenfold. They
may plead that they merely wore them---and„
of course, were not activoly employild. It is like
the trumpeter, who had been taken prisoner, and
pleaded hard for his life, alleging, that. during
the engagement, he had not tired a shot ; but was
answered by his opponent, that he had done worse.
for, by sounding his instrument, he had culled to-
gether those who had destroyed his companions.
Summers'-town, Dec. s._ N. P.

An Inquest vas iseid. Thiiaday, at the Three
Kings publ;--honse, near Mitcham Common, in
Surrey, on the body of a boy, right years of age,
belonging to is poor man, who resoles near the
Common. The circumstances which caused the
Inquest were, that seine persons, who lately lodged
in the same house, had witnessed ili-treatment on
the pin of the parents towards the deceased, and
reported, that he had died for aunt of necessary
food.—Mr. PAIL/LOT, Asirgenn of Mitcham, ex-
amined the body, and found a severe contusion on
the head; and, on opening the stompch, only a few
sprius heads. The mother of the child said, that
he and been very ill, and the contusion on the head
proceeded from its falling on a block which wee in
the room. The Jury returned a verdict of--Died
by the visitation of God.
On Monday night, a young man taking two
horses into the river, at Stangste, belonging to a
livery-stable, to wash them, it being, a very dark
night, a vessiel clime against the horses, without his
observing it, and he was unfortunately knocked offs
and wits drowned. Every 'exertion possible was
made to find the body, but all in VIM), till the next ~
morning, when it was fonnd near the Bridge step',
having barn left by the tide. He has left is widow
end three children,

1.4111 INTELLIGENT E.
C3PItT OF LING'S BENCH, wtsystinstea, Dze. 9.
Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Lord ELLEMBO-
RovoH, and a Special Jury.
CRIM. CON.

W. D. TAUNTON V. HENRY WYRORNE, Esq.
Mr. Daatinert stated, this was an action brought
against the Defendant, to recover damages for his
having held w criminal conversation with the Plain-
tiff's wife.
Mr. ATTORN RINGER ERA, /. followed on the UMe
side, and stated, that the Plaintiff was a Solicitor
of that Conti, residing in Essex-street, Strand ;
the Defendant belonged to the same profession as
himself, he was a Barr.ster of that Court, and
else was an inhabitant of the same street. The
Plaintiff sires married, ou the 14th of July, to
Miss Ilenrietta Atkinson, whose father had an em-
iployment at the Mint, in the Tower. He largely
-xpatrated on the respectability of Mr. Atkinson,
sgis I on. the religious and virtuous manner in which he
leash brought tip hisdaughter. lie also entered into
the character of the Plaintiff, from the time he en-
tered into his clerkship, and showed, that it was
truly respectable ; 11.1111 that since he had become
a husband, he was a Italy affectionate one, which
was returned with equal -affection by Mrs. Taun-
ton, until she became acquainted with the Defend-
ant, who was a married man. He then explained
the different kind of adulteries, and contended,
this was one of the worst cases that had ever come
to his knowledge, and he was, convinced, that the
Jury most he of the same opinion, when they heard
this evidence. The parties were friends—the Plain-
tiff, an attorney, assisting the Defendant, a young
barrister, ky giving him briefs, an intimacy took
place between their families, which the Defendant
courted—their wives were seldom separated. The
Attornev-General, in a meat eloquent speech, full
of 'mint and argument, but to which, from the
length of the trial, we are obliged not to do that
justice which its merits would incline us to do.
expatiated on the circumstances of the case.—
lie concluded by saying, that the damages were
laid in the indictment at 10,0001. ; and he was cer-
tain. when the Jury were in possession of the foes,
they would conceive it quite too little ; he would
not have mentioned the subject of damages, only
he expected he would not have an opportunity of
addressing them again ; as he trusted, for the ho-
nour of the profession, that witnesses would not be
examined on the past of the Defendant. He was
sensible if it was left to the discretion of his Learn-
ed Friend. Mr. Park, he would make a speech with
eli that eloquence which he so eminently possessed,
on the subject of damages, and leave it to the
Jury. He then proceeded to examine his wit.
AMMO.
Mr. Smith proved the copy of the register of the
marriage, which took place at the Tower Chapel,
on the Milo of July, 1803.
The Rev. Neville Stowe proved, that he per-
formed the marriage ceremony, and that he also
christened Mrs. Taunton. lie was acquainted
with her father and family ; and he knew that Mr.
Atkinson brought up and educated his daughters
in the moat virtuous and religious manner ; he was
a moat attentive father.
Mr. PARK stated an objection, that it was not
proved that the Awe{ was licenited to celebrate the
ceremony of marriage. according to the Act of
Parliament.
Mr. Arroarrev-Guween said, he would ob-
viate this objection, by sending for the register-
book, and the clergyman of the chapel. who wuuld
be in Court before the caw-se was decided.
Lord Eaamenountrau observed, that he thought
the Plaintiff was entitled to that indulgence; he
did not think it a sufficient cause to stop the trial.
although he might !save saved the point.
Elena Taunton, Esq. Barrister, deposed, he was
a relation of the Plaintiff-e-a third cousin. On the
Plaintiff's coining to London, he introduced him-
self to the \Witness, as his relation, and an inh-
macy had continued between them ever since. fie
was longer acquainted with Mr. Atkinson and
faintly. than with the Plaintiff; he knew Mrs.
Taunton, from infancy ; had always considered
her a most virtuous woman; he knew she was
brau4lit up in the paths of virtue; and, if lie
wile not • son himself, he would say Mr. At-
kinson was the best, kindest, and most affectionate
father in the King's dominions. He had been in
habit's of intimacy with the Plaintiff and his wife,
since their marriage. The Plaintiff was a man of
the most domestic mind ; was addicted tono vices ;
an indulgent and affectionate husband, and fixed
his wide on his wife and children; and he believed
he was perfectly justified in resting his happitiess
on them, until the occasion that produced the pre-
aent action. On the witness's retort) from the

Spring Circuit. in 1808, he found that a very
close intimacy had taken place hetwen the Plain-
tiff and Defendant's families. It nppeared to be
greater between the Ladies than the Gentlemen.
He never perceived any attention from the Defend-
ant to Mr.. Taunton. He never perceived any im-
propriety in her conduct ; but he never saw tge
Defendant in Mr'. Taunton's company, except in
the presence of Mrs. Wyborne.
Walter Preleux deposed. he knew the Plaintiff
)7 years. since be was articled to his father, an At-
torney. at Dartmouth. The Plaintiff was about
33 years of age ; had been in habits of intiinacy
rrer since the conclusion of his clerkship; lie 'wits
of a most amiable disposition ; he had been on a
visit to the Plaintiff** house, and he never saw a
more affectionate couple. than the Plaintiff and his
wife were. ThisGeutleuma belonged to the society
of Friends.
John Lewis Owel, F.sq. corroborated the testi-
mony of the two last witnesses, and stated, that ht
WAY godfather to Mrs. Taunton's last child.
Afary 11111, No. 20, Old Boswell-court. deposed,
tit it her mother rented the front parlour from the
Iluitllortf, Mr: Stewart; that the Defendant, oti the
ltd of Al.irch last, came to the house, and asked
was OWN tint an apartment to let ? she opened the
dour and called tire laiollAy, Mrs. Stewart, who
went up stairs with him, and she understood he
rented the mom, at 131. a-year, by the name of
Jones ; on the Monday following he came again,
at two o'clock, leaving a lady at is distance; he went
into' Mrs. Stewart's room, still returned to the
door, and said, came in my dear; they went op

Tr'..,l

to the room, two stories high ; they stopped
about two hours; there was not any furniture in the
room; the lady was Mrs. Taunton; saw them several
times since, and had no doubt bnt it was the De-
fendant and Mrs. Taunton. On the llth of April,
the Plaintiff sent come furniture in ; a sofa, six
chairs, a Pembroke table, and a carpet; about
five weeks after they first value, they made their
appearance ; they went tip stairs without
knocking, the front thew generally stood open.—
It was about two o'clock ; they staid about an
honr ,and a half, after which they generally came
twice a-week, and sometimes three fintes, until the
latter end of May. Letters nscml to come for the
Defendant, directed to Mr. Jones. The first time
she came, she had on a scarlet-cloth cloak, and a
cottage bonnet, trimmed with two rows of white
satin ribbon. She met Mrs. Taunton in Carey-
street ; she knew it was the sante person who had
been at the Defendant's room; and in a quarter of an
hour, she anol the Defendant made their appearance;
they went into the room and stopped two hours.
She knew them to be there more than 12 times.
She once perceived from the court, that a bile they
were in the room, they had the shutters closed.
On the 9th of July, the Defendant called, and
asked her was Mrs. Stewart ■t home? She an.
swered, yes. He desired her to call her, which
she did ; he afterwards said he would be glad
to have au opportunity of speaking to her in
a few minutes. Mrs. Stewart brought the De-
fendant, in a short time, into the witness's mo-
ther's room; he asked what they had been say.
nag to Mr. Dyer ? they told him they had ant seen
him. He said, be would be glad to know what we
had seen, what we knew, and whether we knew who
the lady was ? The witness's mother said yes, for
she had seen het• go into No. el. Essex-street.—
He asked, could she swear to her person ? and she
answered yes. He said he had twomAht four or five
Ladies there ; she replied that site had never seen
but one. He said lie could bring four or five for
them to look at, who had been there, and there
were more than two alike; ■nd he could brin.;
more than two in scarlet cmaks ; and asked if
he brought the ladies, would they see them ?
they answered yea. He said he would bring two
ladies next day. which was Monday; he accord-
ingly caine with a woman, amid asked the witness
and her mother to go into Mrs. Stewart's room to
see her ; the witness's mother refused; but said, if
he brought her in. they would look at her; he
brought her in, and ►he was not the least like Mrs.
Taunton ; she was not so tall, and had coarse fea-
tures ; Mrs. Taunton was a neat-made handsome
woman, with small features, rather of a dark com-
plexion ; she was dressed differently ; she had a co.
loured gown and shawl on, was dressed liken servant,
when Nit's. Taunton was always dressed like a lady,
and had the air of one. It was impossible to mis-
take the one for the other. Ti►e woman insisted
she was the perAatt, and that the witness said, one
day, as she passed, ff there she goes." The wit- .
twos denied having ever made use of such an ex-
pression. The wanes! afterwards saw Mrs. Taun-
ton, in Essex-street, on the 25th of -July, and
she was certain she was the tame person who
had always accompanied the Defendant to the
room ; and if' the window-shutters had not been
closed, Mrs. Allwright, who occupied the next
room to the Defendant, could have seen what
was carrying on from her window. She then en-
tered into a long detail, merely to phew that the
Defendant was sensinle that the improper con-
nexion load been discovered, and he evaded it by say-
ing, that he took the room to give advice to ladies,
as a barrister ; that he could nut see theist at home ;
and that Mrs. Taunton was one of those. She had
been very ill used by the Plaintiff, who had her
sister in keeping, and she wished to be separated.
She **across-examined by Mr. PARK, but nothing
new arose from it.

Dorothea Hill and James Hill. the mother and
brother, corroborated the evidence of the last wit-
ness; and deginsed, that they had not the least doubt
but Mrs. Taunton was the lady who was in com-
pany with the Defendant fur hours in this room.

Sarah Allwright gave evidence to the same effect,
and put it beyond doubt as to the Defendant and
Mrs. Taunton being the persons who visited the
room ; she added, that the Defendant applied to
her, and said, that the Plaintiff had used his
wife very ill; that she came to him, the Defend-
ant, fur his advice, as she wished to he separated
from her husband ; that during the different times
she had been with the Defendant, she was constant-
ly in tears ; and she would have parted from him,
only for the persuasions of the Defendant. lie
hoped she, the witness, would not say any thing to
criminate him, as Mrs. Taunton's family, and his,
Defendant's, knew that she came there to consult
him. That the Plaintiff had a child by another
woman, and that he forced Mrs. Taunton to keep
her company. That he had used her so ill that
the servants had heard her cry aloud, and her pride
would not allow her to tell them what was the mat-
ter. That Mrs. W'yborne knew of the unhappy
situation of Mrs. Taunton, and pitied her from her
heart ; lie begged that she would not say any thing
against him, as it would ruin him for ever.
Mr. Dyer, No. 10, Newcastle-court, cold-mer-
chant, deposed, that he was requested by a respectable
gentleman to make inquiries about this affair ; that
he accordingly called on Mrs. Stewart, who told
him the I)omi:int was the person who occupied
the apartment, by the name of Jones ; and that
Mrs. Tutinton was the lady who accompanied his;
that when the Defendant first took the apartment,
he stated that he was courting a young lady, who
was not of age ; that both her friends and his
were against the maeriar; and that they could not
meet at the house df their respective families; on
which account he wanted ■ place to meet her
in • that their meetings were so private, and carried
on with such mystery. that her lodgers became
suspicious, and traced Sirs. Taunton to her house,
No. 21, Essex-street. On the day after he had this
conversation with Mrs. Stewart, the Defendant
called on him, appeared perfectly ignorant of the
transaction, but prevaricated so much, ns left the
witness no doubt of his guilt ; lie acknowledged,
after some altercation, that him name was IVyhorne,
hut the reason of his taking the apartment in the
name of Junes was, that the young Lady was of that
wants whom he intended to marry ; he dad not ac-
knowledge that he war a married man, or that he
had a family.
There was no other evidence of consequence to

0

snppart the Plaintiff's case, except that the Rev.
Tho.nas Chambers, chaplain of the Royal Chapel
of the Tower, proved that the Chapel came under
the. Act of Parliament es a licensed Chapel to
marry in.
This closed the Plaintiff's case.
Mr. Pam:, Counsel fir the Defendant, in a
roost able speech, conteaded, that if he made out
a defence, accordmg to his instructions. the Defend-
ant *mild be entitled to a verdict. lie denied all
knowledge of the Defendant, except seeing him at
the Bar, as a barrister ; although he had been 25
years a barrister, he never had a case which he found
more difficulty in defending. Re had received im-
plicit directions to call witnesses, which, if his in-
structions were correct, would give a new colour to
thiscase. At the •ame time, he did not consider him-
self accountable for what their evidence would be, as
he had wirer seen one of them, or examined them,
but lie was acting, as his Lordship well knew, con-
iforinably to the practice of that Court. lie paid
a handsome compliment to the profession, and said,
it was rare indeed to tied a 11111:1 amongst them that
was net a moral man ; but if a black sheep had
crept in amongst them, he ought not to be sent no
the world, as an outcast, without being heard. Ile
then proceeded to call his witnesses.
Anne Bell deposed, that she was nurse at Mr.
Taunton's ; went there first, in Mots ; had been in
the habit of attending her ; after being there about
a month, observed, that words had taken place be-
tween her master and mistress. All the servants
were discharged at Yin time, on taking their mis-
tress back again ; the reason stated, was, lest they
should upbraid her with her misconduct. In suni.l
time after, Mrs. Tanatnn went to a ball in limns-
gate, where she met Lieutenant Read, with whom
she remained till two o'clock in the morning ; he
accompanied her home, and remained with her for
two hours and a half. Witness, and other rev/ante,
were in bed, and Mrs. Taunton, herself, let the
officer out. There was a second hall after-
wards, at which she attended on the Friday,
and returned on the Saturday. She stated thst
her master had called her into the hed-chem-
ber one morning, when she raw Mrs. Breeze a ith
him and his wile ; he had told the witness, on
subsequent occasion, that his wife was jealous, and
had taken mat offence at his stretching over his
hand to her sister, and jumped out of bed on that
account.

On her cross-examination by Mr. ATTORNEY-
GstintAL, she said, that she had Jived in the fa-
mily about twelve mouths ; that she was employed
as wet-aurse, hut was not married, though capable
of performing the duties of that situation ; had
never heard any particular with ravect to
the Defendant, until the last two or three months ;
Mrs. Tanntoptial asked her to take a letter to De•
fondant, winch she refused. Sne had heard that
Mr. Taunton had forbidden the Defendant his
house, and that the Defendant hid forbidden Mr. T.
his; she used to walk with her mistress in the
Temple-Gardens; hid never said to the servants
that her master was a cuckold, or that her mistress
had taken stuff to prevent a young Wybarne from
appearing. Her mistress had left her in one of
their walks to the Temple-Gardens, and on het
return did appear servnewhat confused; this however
she attributed to her having so lately seen her
children. She never said to her fellow servants that
her pelisse was rumpled ; never said that if she
was called into Court, all the devils in hell would
not make her tell truth ; never regretted that so
sweet a lady as her mistress was married; Defend-
ant bad sent for hei to the country ; be wrote a
letter also ; she came to tows to the George and
4iiite Boar, Holborn; saw klefendaitt the day of her
arrival, and his attorney afterwards ; swore two affi-
davits in a place in Chancery-lane ; the Defendant
drew up the affidvit at Stamford. in Lincolnshire;
lived at Defendant's 'loose some time ; about a
week ; had the care of one of the children;
lived with the servants, took care of the house, but
drank tea with her master end mistress twice in the
drawing-mots ; heard of the apartment in Boa-
. well-court ; heard front Defendant that Mrs.
Taunton had been there, but was not inform-
ed whether with a good or bad purpose. She
produced a letter from Mr. Taunton to her, the
purport of which was, to inform her that her evi-
dence would he necessary, in consequence of Mr.
Taunton's conduct ; and that he hoped she would
speak the truth, which was all he wanted.

Sophia Cox was then called. She stated that she
was servant to the Plaintiff; she hail been with
the family at Broad-stairs ; had seen Lieutenant
Read in company with her mistress, after a ball ;
he staid in the house ebout two hours. None of
the servants were dismissed at any time, but Anne
Bell and the cook. Recollected Mrs. Breeze sleep-
ing in the room with her master and mistress ; the
reason was, they had gone to the Opera, and
returned too late for Mrs. Breeze to go that
night to the Tower, which was shut at II o'clock.
Witness had made up the night-chair for her, by
the order of her mistress ; saw Mrs. Breeze take
off her outward dress, and put on a flannel night-
gown, and go into the night-chair : went in the
morning into the bed-chamber, and saw her mis-
tress and Mrs. Breeze in bed; did not think that
any other person was in the room before he, for
no other person had a right; was certain that the
bed of Anne Bell was not prepared for Mrs. Breeze.
On her cross-examination by Mr.Gartsow, she said
that on secret was made of Mrs. Breezes sleeping in
the room. Did not think that Anne Bell had gone
into the room in the morning, as no one but witness
had that liberty ; knew that Mrs. Breeze slept for
an hour and a half a ith her mistress, after her mas-
ter rose. Knew that Mrs. Breeze was a most pru-
dent woman. Mrs. Taunton hod three children,
was extremely attentive to her husband, and to
them, until her last child, after which there was •
manifest alteration. Mrs. Bell had told her, that
her mistiess sets taking stuff, but did not state any
conjecture, with respect to the nature or intentioa
of it. She also told her, that as her mistress wef
going, attended by her, to Mrs. Yates's, one night.
her mistress separated from her ; on her return she
appeared- very red and confused. That, another
night, wiser, they went to the Temple-Gardens, she
left her, and returned with her Waste tumbled, and
also stated, that if ever she was called in Court, she
would be d--. 1 before she would tell the truth.

Timothy Gates W 4.4 in the service of Mr. Taunton
since the year Mr; had never left the service ; was
at Ihuad-stairsia the year 160$; knew that his mil.

tress had ii•nne to Ramsgate Ball; he accompanied
her; she :pt at a friend's house thnt night; he
lied cars., ; her dress; be attended her; the next
day, went with her to the library for music ; he
went bell, eh. ;on her return, she was accompanied
hy an offics. , saw hi:4 afterwards with the officer at
Essex-street ; he wilTnot introduced to his master.
On his cross examination by the ATTOR UT-G
metal, I„ he said, he had heard Mrs. Bell say, that
his master was a cuckold; that she would he d—.l,
if ever she was called into a court of justice, if
she would speak a word of truth ; that at the time
of this expression, there was much confusion on ac-
count of Mrs. Tannton'o affairs.
Daniel Daly said, that lie was an acting Lieute-
nant in the Navy ; was a friend of Mr. Taunton ;
had been No for about two years. Mrs. Tainitoil
had asked him to go to the play one night, hut never •
had asked him to go to a brothel, or to any other
place but the play.
The cnse tieing closed for the Defendant,
The At v-tie e ERAL said, that his Learned
Friend hail tilled vp the measure of his ditty in
calling the witnesses which the Defendant bad
desired. If those witnesses had not been examined, •
he was sure that Mr. Wyborne would have cont.
plaintd of injustice ; but how great would be tl..
injustice of which he (the Attoroey-General) t.oald
have to complain, if that evidence had been sup-
pressed ? His Learned Friend had complained of
expressions used by him in the opening of the case,
in which lie had said the facts did not bear hits to:t ;
hut now that he had an opportithity of seeing how
tar he was supported may I lets, after the fullest ca-
a Mitt:int/11, lie did 11,,1 lit3itate to say, that he was
contirmM in his former opiaioti, and not only con-
firmed, but led to a etronger (Sakti!, and a mine shame-
ful and dishonourable constructinn of the ''De-
fendant's conduct. He hail stated airrady, that
the case of a yeas who had made use of pre•
fences of friendship to commit ar heinous an of-
fence; was visited by the Jury in general with
exemplary damages. lie had also stated, that
die attempt to pick up a derenee from hasty
vi orris, u:)0,1 Wire:ti a rntileroleit construction
was evidently forced, was also punished with stye.
my; belt whvi tcstinion: was brought
forward, that was, of all other, tin: greatest ag-
gravation that could happen: •in all dine cases, he
was sure that they woo:d see the necessity and the
propriety of givitig aropledarnsges ; bait as they had
newer probably heard a case of sucn profligacy as the
present, they would see that he was not more severe
in his opening, nor so revere, as, if he was in posse,-
shin of all the circmn.tances, he would feel himself
inclined and justified to be. The defence set up was,
that Mrs. Taunton was a most abandoned woman ;
but the evidence had gone entirely to contradict
such an opinion, until the last child, after which
period she had been constantly with the Wybornes.
An attempt was made to prove some irregularities
with Mr. Reed. at Broad-stairs, which was entirely
unsuccessful, and which was only supported by
Mrs. Bell, whom he had ntbpornad to commit per-
jury; he regretted that a gentleman of the profes-
sion could have adopted such a line of conduct ;
that he, who must have known so well, what the
duty of a Defendant was, ishonth himself draw out
the form of an affidavit, to be sworn by Mrs. Bell,
who hail been contradicted, in every point she had
stated, by the witnesses. It had been also charged
against the Plaintiff, that he had attempted to de-
bauch the Donut of his own wife ; that he had at-
tempted to debauch, also, the mind of his wife's
sister ; and by such mesas to represent him as a
character, not entitled to a verdict from an honest
Jury. lie (the Attornev-(;eneral) would allow,
that such a character could not demand a verdict,
but he would leave it to themselves to judge, what
that character must be, which could impute
charges, for the purpose of escaping, or mitigating
the extent of the damages. He thanked Mr. Wy-
borne for not obliging him to bring forward Mrs.
Breeze into Court, to defend herself against a
charge of such a nature ; as he had brought an evi-
dence of his own, who served exactly the same pur-
pose. The case was now with the Jury, and it was
for them todetermine,whether such abominable vices
should pass into private life, with impunity ? He
hoped they would not determine so, bet that they
would give damages, as far as it was possible ; greater
he would wish them to lie, but they wonid only
extend to 10,0001., as it was at that amount they
were laid. Ile had not only to answer for the injury
laid in the indictment, but that which he had
brought against the character of the Defendant in
his defence.

^

Lord EL I. ENBOROU GA said, that it would not be
necessary for him to trespass long upon their atten-
tion. The first question was, whether any criminal
intercourse had taken place ? To this point it hod
been shewn, that the Defendant had taken lodging,s
in Old Buswell.court, where he frequently met
Mrs. Taunton two and three times a week; the act
of criminality was seldom proved; and certainly,
taking lodgings in • false name, and on a foolish
story, such a. his, was a strong circumstance. The
whole texture of the story went to prove, how mesa
a measure he had of other people's understanding.,
and how great • one of his own. With respect to the
evidence adduced in mitigation, he said, that,
upon a review of the circumstances of the case, he
was almost inclined to think that the crime of adul-
tery was loct in the crimes of perpary and defamation.
by which it was attempted to be overthrown. What
damuges he ought to pay was for them to deter-
mine.
The Jury retired for some time, and returned
with • verdict for the Plaintiff, of reset nousaND
POU N DS.

OLD BAIL& Y—Dre. e. ,

Mary Weeks was indicted for stealing from the
dwelling-house of Philip Stopford, Esq. in Baker.
street, three silver table-.poops, the property of
the said Philip Stopford, Esq.
It appeared by the testimony of Mr. Stopford,
that the Prisoner had been a servant to him, and
he always looked upon her conduct as irreproach-
able; having had son further .'cession for her aer.
vices, lie dismissed her on the .25th of October last.
About six weeks before, his house had been broken
into, and, four days after her diainissal, a boy, who
had been her fellow-servaut, missed the spoons.
Mr. Perryman, pas•u•hreker, said, that the Fri.
goner, on the 10th of Noreenln.r, entered his shop.
and offered three table-spoons for sale. Upon his
closely questioning hers she appeared much coo-
'

e
t
r
c
t

....

J

..

insea, and said. that they were the property of a
friend, oho was geo Miles from the city. She also
edid, her name was Sally Price. The witness at
• length found out her ,place of residence, and ap-
plied to Mr. Stopford, concerning the spoons.
The spoons were identified by John Rourke,
who hail trecnii fellow-servant of the ['tamer.

The Jury• gave a verdict of Guilty of litealing to

the amount of9s.
Denis Iturt,,n was indicted forstealing from the
person of Jacob Henry Westwell, the sans 4281.
Al. in bank notes and gold and silver, in a public-
house.
The Prisoner, ivlto is a boy •13 years of ageonuch
criopted, and of exceedingly unhealthy appear-
ance, had been drinking with•tlie Prosecutor, who
• is a Prussian ; the Prosecutor hoeing intoxicated,
fell osier/b. and the Prisoner kook from his pocket
the above stomata. The Prosecutor awaked, and
attempted to seize Inin, hut W*4 unable to do do ;
filwever, in some time after, by the assistance of an
°dicer, he secured the Prisoner, who was searebed,
and pert of the property taken from Isiah
The Jury save Si verdict—Guilty.
_ • ..