The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-24 00:00:00

THE PRITISH PRESS.

ont.lto.mottow, in order to give time to ascertain the fan last re-
ferred to, but his Honour now refused the motion itstlf.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, THURSDAY, JURY. 22.

(tilting' after Trinity Term, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
anti a Special..lury.)

The following case not having been concluded on Thumlay,
we postptmed the publication of it until this d.y.l

lIUGOETT v. THE ROYAL. EXCHANGE ASSURANCE COMPANY.
This was an action for recovery of a sum of iffiji. die amount of
a I oat by fire ; the plaintiff baying insured at the office of the de-
fendants to the amount of 1,000/.
A legal difficulty, with regard to the valility of the defendant's
plea, hissing been disposed of,
Air. GURNET stated the case for the plaintiff. Ile observed, that
Assurance Companies took sufficient precautions to preserve them-
selves from fraud or loss, which was perfectly justifiable, when they
did not deviate from the line of fair dealing in the accomplishment
of this end. They required a claimant to lodge his claim within a
certain period, fortified by the certificates of a parish officer and
other persons. On some occasions, the injured parties were not
able to procure these certificates; and the defendants in this cause,
or their agents, had endeavoured to entangle his client in an em-
barrassment of th's nature, by going round to the parish officers to
dissuade them from giving the necessary certificate. The plaintiff
was a manufacturer of tallow candle'', which he had forirerls car-
ried on on a limited scale, and effected an insurance on his stock
for fitta, and, having lately extended his dealings, lie doubled die
insurance at die same office. His factory was in a place called
Stangate.niews. It would appear frcm the evidence, that the fire
in laic!' the plaintiff's misfortune originated was purely acci-
dental, and that the amount of compensation claimed was not at all
exorbitant, since he had witnesses to prove that they had picked up
hundreds' weight of tallow which had been niched, and flowed in
its liquid slate into the common sewer. He would lay this proof
before the Jury, and thus, as lie hoped, obtain for his client the
justice which he had in vain sought from the defendants.
The policies of insurance haying been read,
James Boland was called for the pl tintiff. lie stated, that in
the early part of 1824, the plaintiff took certain premises in Stan-
gate-niews, and employed witness to make certain alterations, for
the purpose of adapting the concerns to his business of candle.
making, which trade he carried on in that manufactory down to the
time of the fire.

Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLTTT.—The plaintiff' had a shop
and dwelling•house next door to rimless in Lambeth-marsh, about
three minutes' walk from his manufactory. lie employed two per-
sons to assist hint in the management of his business.
Mr. Christopher Alderson tCated, that in the year 1821, witness,
at the request of the plaintiff, advanced him a sum of 500 f. ; after
which witnesssaw a considerable stock upon the plaintifrs premises.
11'i'ham flogged, brother of the plaintiff, was employed by the
latter to assist him in consequence of the increase of his business.—
Witness remained in the plaintiff's service down to the time of the
fire, which occurred between eleven and twelve o'clock on the nig
of the 28th of January, lb'•ls. Witness about five o'clock that
afternoon had lett the premises, in company with an Excise-officer,
who had been to sec the fire in the furnace extinguished. A lad,
named Hughes, slept on the premises, Witness was 'deemed in
his bed, and on repairing to the manufactory, he found it in flames.
Witness, as well as his brother, assisted in extinguishing the fire.
One part of the premises was burned down, and the emainder was
considerably damaged. There were two casks el tallow in the
roam where the candles were made, and three or four in another
rcom, all of which were destroyed. The account of the losses by
the conflagration was, as tar as witness could judge, a fair and just
account.

Cross-examined by Mr. SCAR LETT—Abnut ten o'clock on the
night of the fire the plaintiff came to witness's house, to return
the keys of the factory, which he had before taken for the purpose
of locking Hughes up in the premises. Hughes afterwards got
out, and it was he who first infomied witness of the fire. There
was some understanding between the plaintiff and a Mr. Fry, re-
lathe to a part of the factory. Some men of Mr. Fry's had been
on the premises two or three days before the accident, but they
were not engaged in making repairs. Witness did not know of
his brother having sent out any quantities of goods on the day of
the fire, nor for two or three days before. That part of the fac-
tory in which the boy slept was on the opposite side of the street
front that pertiott which was burned down. The boy always slept
in the same place as long as witness knew. Witness himself
several limes locked in the boy Hughes. Witness did not join his
brother in the affidavit relative to his losses by the fire. Dom not
know whether the plaintiff asked a Mr. Shaw to join him.
The affidavit made by the plaintiff, estimating his loss at Bs7i.,
WWI next read

A watchman deposed to the strenuous exertions made by the
plaintiff', his brother, the witness, and other persons, to put out
the names.

Similar testimony was given by James Bennett, who observed
quantities of telluw melted and consumed.
IVilliam !ame, a tallow-merchant. WAS Hied to prove the
extent of the plaintiff's purcha%es of that commodity. Between
the 22d of March 11121, • id the 28th of May 1825. the i'ay or the
fire. the tallow sold by witness to the plaintiff amounted in value
to 5281.

A number of other witnesses were examined, who described the
plaintiff's dealings in the tallow trade as very extensive.
A great variety of witnrases alma deposed to the extent of the
plainliff's loss, and the fairness and moderation of the estimate.
One of these witnesses, a labourer, stated that the, with others,
after the fire. picked up more than two hundred weight of melted
tallow in less than twenty minutes.
A certificate, signed by three chtrectwarelens, one overseer, two
ciliates, and fifteen other persona, wan read on behalf of the plain.
tiff it stated the belief of the atihacribers that the tire hod ne-
curred without the procurement of the plaintiff, and that his account
ef his loam's was a just and fair representation.
All the plaintiff's witnesses, who were exeeedingly numerous,
having given their evidence,
Mr. Sca ft t.v.TT opened the case for the defence. He promised
the Jury, that however multiplied the testimony on the other aide
had been, he would not at that late hour needlessly occupy their
time, but would confine Lei comments within as narrow a compass
as was possible. The defendants were nut resisting the payment
ofa sum of money, which to them could be no material object; but
were on a public ground withstanding what they conceived, and
what the Jury, when they should have heard the proofs which he
was instructed lie would be able to adduce, would find to be, an
attempt on the plaintiff's part to defraud and impose upon the In-
surance Company. Ilia Learned Friend. Mr. (Gurney, had ex-
pended a great deal of his time and labour in chewing the extent
of the plaintiff's dealings ; he had called a multitude of witnesses
to prove the quan idea of tallow purchased by his client ; but all
thin proof was feeble and worth less wittioutevidenee as to how much
remained unsold at the time of the fire, lie (Mr. Searlett) would,
as he was instructed, be able to prove that the plaintiff had before
the 20th of January, the day of the fire, sold off all, or nearly all,
his stock, so as to be unable to supply the demand of a customer.
It h.: were able to establish such a case, and to spew that the plain-
tiff hail wilful), misrepresented the amount of property on his
premises at the time of the fire, with a view to impose upon the
Insurance Company, this would debar the party of any right to re.
cover. But he had reason to believe that he would be able to
carry the case much farther ; and to shew that the fire Wan
nor, as wait represented, perfectly casual, and that the plain-
tiff' himself was neither ignorant nor innocent of its origin.
Why had not his Learned Friend produced either Mr. Shaw or the
boy Hughes ? He (Mr. Searlett would call both those persons.
Mr. Shaw would prove that the plaintiff had solicited him to sanc-
tion the :account which he drew up of his pretended losses by the
file, which Mr. Shaw declined to do. as he could not conacentions-
ly 'swear to its triith. He would shew from the boy's own lips that
he had been accusterned to sleep in a part of the building on the
opposite aide of the street to that where the fire took place. and
that a week before that incident he was removed to the other part of
the premises by Mr. lluggett's order. The Jury would please to
remember that none of the persons employed in Mr. Ileggtrt'a
shop had been called, to shew how he hail been engaged on the
evening of the fire, or at what hour at night lie returned home.
Now, he would prove, by means of the boy Hughes, this extra-
ordinary fact—that, after ilr. !Liggett had retired, having locked
him up at night, as was his custom, he returned again to the room,
and passed the light of s candle over his face, as if' to try whether
he was asleep. The boy, without knowing what was the object of
his master's experiment, counterfeited sleep. He would be able to
follow up this proof with the deposition of a watchman, who
almost immediately after this occurrence saw a flame in a part of
the premises, which appeared like a flame proceeding from slitt-
ing., or chip., which had been just ignited. Other witnesses, and
they respectable and uninteri steel persona, would prove that, for a
length of time before the fire, the plaintiff' had been removing his
:cock in quantities from his premises, and that at the time of the
tire there was little more remaining than " a beggarly account of
elipty boxes." He was also prepared with the evidence of a Mr.
Wise, who was employed as an agent for the Company, although
he was not known to the plaintiff' in that character ; that the latter
made to this person an offer of what, in tallow-chandlers' language,
is called " a score," and which means, 201. if Mr. Wise would as-
sist him in procuring the money from the Insurance Office. This
evidence he was satisfied would be sufficient to convince the Jury,
if not that the plaintiff had himself been the plotter and author of
the fire, yet that he had wilfully, and with a fraudulent design,
exaggerated the amount of property consumed ; in which case the
Jury would not be at liberty to indulge in a mistaken, but nut un-
usual feeling of commiseration, for a poor man having to contend
with powerful adversaries, but they would, he was convinced, ad-
minister impartial justice between the parties.
John Allen, a carman, was examined by Mr. Sergeant Rosati-
QUI:T. and deposed that on the evening of the fire witness was
alarmed by Simpson, a watchman, and on looking through, a win-
dow into Mr. Huggett's cotton-room, he law a flame rising, as if
from a few sticks thrown on the floor. Witness ran off, and gave
information of the tire; and brought back an engine, and the fire
was extinguished in the space of an hour anti a half'.
John Simpson, a watchman, stated that at twenty minutes after
eleven on the night of the 28th of January. witness heard a crack-
ling noise, and observing a feeble light in Mr. Huggett's premises:
Witness called out, `• Who is there?" and having received no an-
swer, lie gave an alarm of tire.
Cross-examined by Mr. GE EC—Did not take home any can.
diem, but brought them to his watch-box, in order to take care of
them. Witness gave them tip to Mr. Huggett on the following
th'li Mr. nugget' bad not threatened to prosecute witness.
John Mee, a fishmonger, living at the corner of Stangste-mews,
proved that, at a noarter before eleven o'clock on Ilia night of the
28th of January, Hughes, the lad who lived with Mr. Huggett,
came to witness for a light, which witness accordingly let him have.
Fur several days previous to the tire, Mr. Huggett a carts lad been

constantly used in bringing goods out of Mr. Huggett's premises,
and always came back empty.
Slam. Hughes stated that he has lived from a year and A half to
two years in the employment of Mr. Huggett. Had note inversed
with Mr. Huggett for the last six months. Witness then had some
conver ttion with him about the fire. For the week yrec:ding the
fife. witness slept at the Ride of the concern which was opposite to
that where the hue took plate. Formerly he had been accustomed
to sleep iii the stable, at the same side where the fire broke out.
Was removed by order of 31r. Huggett, but does not know for
what cause. On the night of the tire, witness procured a lizlif from
the last witness, which he delivered to Mr. Huggett, and the latter
carried it out of the room when witness had lain down. Mr. Hug.
gett locked the don; on witness.
Cron-examined by Mr. (]vawEy—His maitre was in the habit
of staying in the (room until witness was in bed, mid of Waling
witness up.
Re-examined—Witness was first alarmed by the watchman
springing his rattle. Had known nothing before of the file.
Thomas Harris stated that he, on diseoveting the lire, broke
open the door of the stable, and of a room abuse stairs, where there
I was but a single cask of tallow, which way rolled out into the
Mews, and about twenty pounds of candles. This was all the pro-
perty of any value which the witness diacoverel.
John Spencer also stated that Inc was early on the spot, and he
corroborated the tormer witness as to the small amount of property
on the premises.
Edward Actaeon stated that he was employed by Mr. Fry to ex-
amine Mr. Iloggett's premises, which, as the )titter ird anted wit-
ness, Fry had purchased of trim. Witness was on the prentines on
the Monday before the fire, and every day after, down to the day of
the tire. During this interval, and fur a fortnight b. fore. 31r. Hug.
gett had been removing his goods. IVittless observed liugge•en
cart repeatedly, on every thy, go out loaded and return empty.
Had seen goods removed in the evening alter the witness had left
off work. In the room above the atnre.ronm, which was called the
factory, witness, on the day of the fire, observed a bin, a small
quantity of candles, and three or four boxes, most of which hurt the
covers off, and were empty. There was also a large sheet hung up
between that room and Mr. Fry's factory, next door. Th..re did
nor appear to be more than thirty or forty dozen of candles. There
were, in another room, a hogshead, three small empty casks. and a
utensil for making candles. lit the third wont witness found an
empty hogshead.* few staves, and some loose cand es. 'there were
not more than 200 staves, 20 casks, and 3,030 candles, in the whole
of the three rooms which witness saw. Witness, on the lost day
that he was on .11r. fluggett's premises. saw as many utensils as he
had observed on the first day. Ile could not say whether Mr. Hug.
gett had removed any of his utensils.
None of these three lust witnesses underwent a-1 cross.exa.
mination.

It being now seven o'clock, the letrd CHIEF JUSTICE post-
poned the further hearing of the cue, and the Curt brute up.

FtiIDAY, JUNE 23.
This day the defence in this case was resumed.
Two witne•ries spoke to the tenusval of the stock, confirming the
evidence given yesterday on that subject.
Richard Westcombe, al oilman, stated that he hail been in the
habit of dealing with the plaintiff for candle., and a short time be-
fore the tire occurred, he ordered one hundred and fifty dozers, but
could not get his order executed, as lluggett assigned as a reason
that Ile was going into the country to live, and would ire able 0
supply Mtn better thence. Formerly the witness saw a large quan-
tity of goods on the plaintiff's premises, but a week before the Ste
he did not see an many.
Sti iw stated that he was in the service of Mr. Huggett
from ilk first entering bli.ineas, which at first was carried on in
witness's name, but afterwards was °ordained in Huggett's own
name. The boy Hughes had been accustomed to 'deep in the
stable on the hay. His ideeping.place was changed some little
time before the fire, by Huggete's order. The business was consi-
derable for the size of the premises. When Fry was about to take
possession, witness was employed in cleaning the goods from the
factory. There were about twenty dozen candles on the rods.
There was a full cask of tallow, and part of one in the copper—in
all, from three to five hundred weight ; also between three and five 1,
hundred staves; also sixty rod., and two dipping moulds. On the
night of the fire the witness left the keys of the warehouse with
Haggett. IVitnees was in bed at the time of the fire; went down
stairs on the alarm being given, and ran ti the premises, where he
bloke into the mews. Before witness went, nuegett caught hold
of his anti, and said, " Come away, it is all right." Witness said.
" Have you made an addition to your insurance ?" nugget' said,
" I have." Oac morning atter the tire, nugget' observed that he
must send in another account to the Insurance-office, and he de-
sired witness to copy an account which he gave him. About a
week after that, Huggetea brother said to witness, that as he had
copied this account, he should expect him to swear to it. Witness
said he should do no such thing. Afterwards Mr. Rogers, the
plaintiff's attorney, asked witness whether that account was comets
but the witness answered, that if all the tuba and casks stated to
the account were full, they wauld not contain the quantity emu-
prised in the account. Mr. Ro4ers said that he had bets, r alter
the stateinent. When witness observed to nugget' that the se-
c.runt was quite out of the way, he made answer, " Never mind ;
all above tine hundred we will go whacks in," meaning to
share it.

Much further evidence was given, to slum that the account of
loss sent in by the plaintiff was greatly exaggerated a and after a
short consultation, Mr. ("iu IN XY, for the pliuntiff, submitted to a
nonsuit.

SINCLAIR V. KIMBLE AND OTTIF.II9.

This was an action of assunipsit, brought by the celebrated vo-
calist against the proprietors of Covent-garden 'I heaue, to remoter
from them a compensation in damages for non-fulfilment of an en-
gagement for fifty nights, a. 2dl. a-night.
Mr. F. POLLOCK opened the pleadings.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the cam to the Jury. He
said that Mr. Sinclair, who was a gentleman of considerable cele-
brity, both as a composer tend performer, was under the necessity
of bringing this action, for the purpose of recovering a compensa-
flan in damages for the breach of a contract made with him by Mr.
Charles Kemble, on the part of himself and the other ;proprietors
of Covent-garden Theatre. In 11123, when Mr. Sinclam was in
Italy, an application was made to him on the part of the proprietors
of Covent-garden Theatre, to enter into an engagement to perform
on the boards of that house ; and, after sonic negotiation, Mr. Sins
Blair received a letter, dated the 30th January, 11123, in which he
was informed by Mr. C. Kemble that his terms were acquiesced in
bc the Commitment Management.and that he was to be engaged for
litty nights, at 201. per might. Sir. Sinclair received this letter in
the latter end of September, and he was to be in England by the
commencement of the October following, in order to fulfil his en-
gagement. Ile arrived before the beginning of the winter season,
but was not called upon to perform until the 19th of November.
After that, however, he performed forty-live nights ; and though
the first engage cut was set out in this declaration, he (Mr.
Sinclair) did not now go for the salary of the five nights
out of the first filly on which he was not called upon for his see-
vices. At the dose of that engagement in 1824, Mr. Sinclair being
in Dublin, the defendants were desirous of engaging his services
for another season upon the same terms ; and accordingly Mr. C.
Kemble wrote to him to that effect, stating, that as a new opera
VIM to be produced, it would be requisite for him to be on the spot
nt least ten days before the commenci me .t t f the season, to
attend rehearsals, &c., as there win Id he much new am!
difficult music to study. After this. it the Sept-mber following,
Mr. Sinclair received a letter from Mr. Fawmtt, the stage manager. ,1
stating that Der Frei:Mut:: was to to brought out on the 1 lth of
October, and it would be Absolutely neceu.ary that 31r. Sincleir
should be in London at least a fortnight before that day, in order
that he might study his part. To this Mr. Sinclair wrote back
word, that it would not be convenient for him to be in London
before the 15th ; and receiving no reply to this communication, he
concluded that if he was in Landon by the 15th of October, that
would be quite time enough. Accordingly he came to London on
the day appointed, but was astonished t., lind that Der Frcischtilz
had been brought out, and the part of Wilhelm, which he was to
have taken, being the principal character in the opera, had been
assigned to Sir. Pearman. Nothing very definite took place after
this until the 3il of November, when Sir. Sinclair received the
usual call to attend a rehearsal; anti accordingly he studied a pert
in a new opera, which was only performed two nights, and was un-
successful. After this he performed I's hire Orlando. in the Cithi.
net ; but altogether he was only called upon to perform for nine
nights during the season.—llere the Learned Counsel was in-
terrupted by
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, who suggested that perhaps this
case might be perjarnred it; private, with greater advantage to all
parties, than in open Court.
Mr. SCARLETT expressed his belief that it might as well
he performed publicly ; and he hoped it would go on without much
discord.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed, and disclaimed all feel.
ings of discord on the part of Mr. Sinclair. He believed the
gentlemen on both sides were on the very best terms with each
other. Thus niawrs passed on until the month of June, when the
English Opera-house being about to open for the summer season,
Air.Arnolellwas desirousof engaging 31r.Sinclair on very advantage.
ow; terms to that gentleman, as he offered to secure his services for
three nights in a week, ut 35 guineas per night. 3lr. Sinclair, of
course, said that he could not make any engagements which
might interfere with his undertakings at Covent-garden Theatre ;
but he requested a friend of his, Dr. Kitchener, to wait on Mr. C .
Kemble, and to inform him of the nature of the offer made by
Mr. Arnold, begging to know whether lie would be allowed to ac-
cept the offer. Sir. C. Kemble said he was many lie could not
allow Mr. Sinclair to forego his engagement at Covent-gaiden
Theatre, as two new oratorios were coming out, in which Sir.
Sinclair's services could not he dispensed with ; and conse.
quently Mr. Sioclair lost the benefit of Mr. Arnold's offer. It
was on this ground, therefore, that the present action was brought.
Mr. Sinclair had been engaged for 56 nights, and having only
performed nine, he now sought a compensation in damages, as
tie had been preven,cil from forming another engagement, which
would have secured hint from loss.
The letters that had passed were now admitted, were put in, and
read.
Dr. Kitchener was then called, and proved the offer of Mr.
Arnold, as well as the reply that Sir. t!barles Kemble made, when
the witness applied to him on behalf of Mr. Sinclair.
31r. SCARI.ETT then addressed the Jury in behalf of the defen. '
dants, and set out by stating that the gentlemen who defended this
action were not prompted by any disrespect towards the valuable
„nice, a the plaintiff, which they highly appreciated. He (the
Learned Counsel) also could bear testimony to the great talents of
Mr. Sinclair, and he only wished his public avocations allowed him
oftener to hear that gentleman, instead of tt.iibling Juries to listen
to himself. But the defendants had to complain that it was Mr.
Sinclair who had broken the contract. The Gentitmen of the Jury

were well avfare that the music of that great composer, now recently
deceased (Von Weber). was of that extrdordmary and shblimc
cost which necessarily required the greatest study and attention;
and it could not fail to have attracted the attention of the Jury, that
Mr. Sinclair was distinctly informed bin attendance would be re-
quired in London at least ten days hrfhre the 14th of October.
when the opera of Der Freitchulz, which had enjoyed en unpre.
cedented run of more titan fifty nights, via to be brought oat. Mr.
Sinclair( however, wrote, to say that he could not come until the
15:11 of October; and ot course, as the piece was announced, and
as 31r. Sinclair could not fulfil tilt. part of hi. engagement, it be-
came necessary that another gentleman should study and fill the
part which Mr. Sinclair was to hare urplertaken, suit accordirigly
it had been agaigned to Mr. Peaftnan. Oil this ground the Learned
Counsel submitted to the Jury that there was a «Aid defence.; and
he stated he (shoed be enabled to /thew (though he presumed Mr:
• Sinclair had now forgotten the fact), that in a conversation with
Mr. C. Kenible, he admitted that his coetraet had been forfeited by
his not arriving in time.
The followi• g witnettera were then called
Mr. John Fawcett !bated that he was *Gage-manager of Covert_
garden Theatre in the season of 1824-25. I':e nertbrmanees com-
menced on the 22d of September, UN, and Drr Freisehulz WAN
annotfnce'd for the 14th of October following. The company be-
gan to rehearse it immediately after the season commenced, and the
part of Wilhelm, which was the leading character in the piece, wan
intended for 31r. Sinclair. That part, however, was given to Mr.
Pearman, in consequence of 31r. Sinclair's writing that he multi not
mnke it convenient to Come to London until the 15th of Octi.bee,

. .. .
Cross-examined by the ATTOIIET-GENERAL—Mr.
was no doubt perfectly cafirit with the part, from having repeat,
wily acted it at the Lyceum. •
Mr. H. Robinson, the treasurer of the Theatre, stated that he
was at the Theatre wh-n Mr. Sinclair first presented himself Uwe,
after his arrival from Dublin. Mr. C. Kemble and Captain Forbes
were there at that time, and Mr. C. Kenible told Mr. Sinclair dm!.
in consequence of his not arriving at the time lie was expected, .he
could not consider his engagement as binding. tre could not,
therefore, undertake to employ him for fifty nights; but if he Wee
disposed to undertake characters as his services were wanted, he
(Mr. C. li:wade) would employ him a. Wren as he could ; ansl roe
this proposition Mr. Sinclair acceded. In the course of the erasson
the witne•s conversed several times with the plaintiff, on the sub,
ject of his engagement, and on one D7CSsiiM he regretted his own
folly in not corning in time, as he said had only taken IN!. Our-
mg the season, which was a much smaller sum than he had taken.
during any season since he lirst commenced the pngfes.sion.
Cross.exarrined—EnOtgemears wi•h principal performers era
son:climes made by word of mouth, though principally in writing..
The engagements of Mr. Sinclair's services as often as he calms
wanted were not reduced to writing.
Mr. Alexander Olititi also prn`eed that h~ bad heard Mr. Sin.
chair regret his tblly, as he calkd it, in not coining in time. Olt
the oceaidon of his benefit, particularly, he remarked, that it would'
be productive of great injury, as he had thereby missed the oppor-
tunity of being frequently before the public.
The ATTORNEY-CANER/If, replied shortly upon the whole
case; after which
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up all the evidence at
length, and observer', that atter Mr. Fawcett had reccaved Mr.
Sinclair's letter, saying that he cmilti not come to London until the
15th of October, the detendaeta ought then to have rirudiateti
their contract; instead, however, of pursuing that course, by their
silence on the subject Mr. Sinclair bright fairly and reasonably con-
clude that the 15th of October would be quite time enough.
The Jury, after a short conmltation among themselves, found
for the plaintiff--Damiges, 4101.

ROBINSON V. W. J. CLEMENT, ESQ.
Thin WV% an lictioa brought by an a•torney of Clement's-inn#
against the proprietor of the Morning Chronicle, Observer. and
Englishman newspapers, to recover a compensation in damages fix
an alleged libel published in those newspapers. in the form of • re.
port of a trial, which was designated as a paltry aciion, brought,
merely for the purpose of putting costs in Mr. Robinson's pocket.
The alleged libel having been proved, and it being established
that Mr. Clement was the sole proprietor of`tbe above-named
Jot rnals,

_
The ATT,IRVEYMENF:RAL addressed the Jury for the de.
fendant, and contended that he should be able to prove that Mr.
Robinson was a person of the description which the libel alleged,'
namely, a person whu brought ac inns for the sake of costs.
The Learned Counsel then called witnesses, who proved that Mr.
Robinson had brought two actions against Mr. Knight, the Editor
of the Windsor Gazelle, for the same cause of action, cad had al-tts
brought actions sever..lly against the British Prc44, Alormitig
Chronicle, Morning Post. Mo7ning Aduertiker, and other Jour-
nals, for the reports they had inserted of the trial in the first mili-
tia:led action.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

CONSISTORY COURT.—FRIDAY, Jt:NE 23.
WINNINGTON WINTUNGTOg.
Thu rue came on tor the ckcision of the Court today. Thu
suit was instituted by Lady Winnington for divorce, on the mond
of her husband having been guiity of repeated acts of adidteer
with Lady Briscoe. The evidence„brought forward to submit,.
tilde the charge consisted t f parties chiefly with whom Lady Bris-
coe and Sir John ‘l'inningtun lodged in different lams of the me-
tropnlis.
The Learned .once (Sir Clir stopher Robinson) expressed his
satisfaction that the case had been sufficiently established, and dui
Lally \Vinningtnn ,vas entitled to the divorce sought.
Sir John Wilmington then addre•sed the Court, hoping that the
sentence now pronuotwed would not be acted upon, and alleged that
in consequence of his pecuniary embarrassments he was unable to
prosecute his defence. _ •

The COURT declared that the evidence was so dear, that DO
otherdecision then the one pronounced could possibly be given.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOLTH. r. TUE COUNTESS OP POUTS.
atorvw.
Dr. LI:SIIINGTON said, that the last Court day ha had stestd,
an application should be made to the Court of Chancery to obtairt
the herring of a petition connected with two caul, praying this
Lady ,e Portsmouth might have funds given her by Lord Ports-
mouth Committee, to enable hrr to carry on the suit which
waeoinstituted against her in the Eeclesitunicri Court for a divorce.
'f has application had now been made, and the Chancellor had ex-
pressed his concurrence in the prayer of the petition • but the sur.
plus funds in the hands of the Committee could only be permit.
red to be appropriated for Lady Portsmouth's defence, and he was
fearful that those funds were very limited. Ile was at a loss to
conceive why Air. Florae, who was of Counsel for Lady POY!•.
mouth, and others interested in the proceedings, should have op-
posed the petition, as far as her Ladyship was concerned, and hei
was still more surprised that it should have been asserted that the
expenses of the suit would cost so enormous a sun, as 30.0001.
The Learned Dr. then proceeded to call the mtention of thd
Court to the motion made on a termer day by D:. Jenncr, that the
Committee of Lord Portsmouth should either be pronotmc din
contempt, or that the proceedings instituted to pr. cure the divorce
between Lord and Lady Portsmouth should be stayed. With re-
gar] to the former part of the alternative, he (Dr. Lushingtcr
cou!d not for a m .rent suppose that the Court would proceed upon
it ; and to to the latter, he homily hoped that the Learned Juego
would not stop the proceedings.
D)r. JENNER concurrent with Dv. Lushington in expressing sur-
prise that it could hare been asserted that the pr ,battle expenses tv(
the present i.uit would amount to so large a sum as nO.OOO/. With
respect to the motion, which he hat made, he must again repeat it,
and he trusted the Court would be pleased to grant it. The Court
at all times provided the wife of a person who W3S suing for a di.
vorce means to carry on her defence; and therefore, in the present
case, he hoped Lady Portsmouth would receive the same indul.:
genre.
Dr. Ist.titeovow, in reply, said that he saw no rearm why
Lady Portsmouth should not herself advance the money ttecersatv
to sustain her defence, seeing that she had 1,2e01. a year alluvreti
lit.r by order of the Lord Chancellor, and seeing also that she would
undoubtedly receive the full amount of the costs hereafter.
Sir C. Rowtwsurr observed, that he could not in equity enters;
tam the motion. If granted it would have the effect of stispentitvf
the inquiry for which die suit was instituted.
The application was then refused.
__ cox a. cox.

The Proctor on behalf oithel,steYitierman Cox said, that his
client kiting de3d, the sail instituted for a divorce was no* at an •
end.

lite Proctor on behalf of Mrs. Cox remarked, that there wts
some alimony now due to her.
The COURT thought tho present not the best time to introduci
the subject, seeing that Mr. Cox had died so recently.
The Proctor remarked, that his object was merely to hare tho
eir:unritanee recorded among the nets or the Court, as he did not
then wish to found a motion upon it.