The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-03-13 00:00:00

ly nest, the 15th Inst.

lth the Seeretstry, before

COURT OF CHANCERY, SATURDAY, 111.tacw 11.

When the LORD CHANCrt.LOR took his seat, Mr. HEALD
applied to his Lordship upon a point of form, connected with
the manner in which a case was directed to be sent tor trial by
a Jury in Cumberland, where the parties at issue were two his•
ten, and the cause of diference the impteed abstraction by one
of them of two bags of guiocas from an rierutoire, on the death
of their father, and without accounting for it in the family set.

tletnent,
The LORD CNANCELLOR suggested, whether it would not
be u well for these sit., rs to come to en amicable understand.
fog upon the subject...ad so shake heads over their differences ?
Mr. HEALD said that his client had no objection, but her sister
must come with tour hundred.gutoeaa In the hand that is to be
shaken.

Mr. Hotter declined this golden condition.
In a conversation between Counsel as to the time of the Spring
Cumberland Assizes,
The Lotto CHANCIELLoR incidentally remarked, that the
Spring Northern Circuit had been, as well as he could learn, pro-
ductive of real additional expense and lnigation, without, he be-
lieved, any accompanying profit to the puolie.
Mr. Hoax applied for a writ of Habeas Corpus, to bring up
a person named Lorne., who had been committed to Lancaster
gaol by the Commissioners of Bankrupt, on account of their
discrediting his answers.
The LORD CNA REELED* complained that such an application
should be made to him, while there were now on the spot, in
!ammeter, two Judges (Mr. Justice Bayley and Mr. Baron Bul-
lock) who could more promptly administer the remedy which was
now snuaht for in the Court of Chancery. The writ was granted
with the understanding that in the course of next week the
bankrupt should be allowed to make his application to the Judges
on the spot.
NR. LONG POLL WI/MLR/WM V. TILE TIGRE OF BEAUFORT.
The further hearing of this cause being fixed for this day, when
Mr. HART VIA expected. on the part of the plaintiff, to reply to
the case stated by the family of his late wife (the great heiress of
the house of Taney), why he should not be entrusted with the
guardianship of his infant children, but that they should remain
under the guardianship of bit, Grace the Duke of Beaufort,
the Court was crowded at an early hour ; but when the case
'was called on,
Mr. HART rose and said—" My bowl, when, last Tuesday,
you appointed this day for the further hearing of this petition, I
had thought, and rationally hoped. that my brief, as to affidavits
in the cause, was then complete, and that the duty I had to dis-
charge was plainly pointed out from the facts then before site ;
but I grieve to say, that what has occurred since last Tuesday
has entirely disappointed me ; and I now begin to despair of
ever being instructed by. my brief to act for my client ; for only
see, my Lord, what has occurred since last Tuesday, when we
thought all the facts were prepared for this day's consideration ;
why, since that day, no fewer than fifty odd sheets of additional
affidavits have been filed against my client, and it was only this
Morning that it was possible for me to have them embodied in my
brief ; 1 am, therefore, obriously unprepared to reply to what I
•hare not yet' had the opportunity of reading. This case bad al.
ready been six times before the Court. and on each successive time,
4f.
and not before, when it ail the eve of being finally beard, a
fresh volcanic of affidavits *Town in, which delayed the pro-
ceedings, and at length ma sham consist of such a mass of mat.
ter, that the reading of the ida4ite alone became most laborious.
Under these circumstances 1 'am tumble at this moment to use my
privilege of bringing on my client's reply ; 1 claim, therefore, the
indulgence of the Court till next Friday, in tee reasonable con-
fidence that it will be then in my power to discharge my duties to
My etlent. lof course dope make the tome ihat Ma op pasha patty
have now done with filing affidavits, and that I now know what I
am really to reply to."
The Soateivoit-GEKEnat disclaimed any intention of em.
harrassing his Learned Friend with affidavits to come upon bins
the very morning when his argument was expected. He thought
these affidavits had been filed several days ago. On inquiry of
the Solicitor he found this was not the case, and that they had been
only tiled since Tuesday, as Mr. Hart had said. But he added,
that any share of lateness 111 tiling affidavits did not tome with
a good grace frnm the petitioner, who, no Eater than last night, had
sent one himself whirlt would require to be answered.
Mr. Ilanv.—Well, titer, to put an end to further delay, I
shall advise my client not to file another affidavit, if you will do
the same to yours.
The SOLICITOR•GENERAL—You know I am bound to meet
your case. We have overturned, by our affidavits, the statements
of yours. I cannot therefore say, beforehand, what you may com-
pel us to answer.
The LORD CHANCRLEOIt—What objeetion can you both have
to hear the petition on the affidavits now filed, unless it should be
advisable in the fur:her hearing for the Court to require more by
war of particular elucidation ?
. Mr. HART—Be it PO ; then we are to understand that no more
affidavits are to be filed ?
The Soxterroa-GEargaat —I do not know that till I see
your case. (A laugh) .
Mr. HART—Then before Friday next, if your Lardship pleases.
I shall prepare to go through my brief, for the purpose of seeing
how far I can compress the substance of what I may have to
say, by a proper selection of the materials. I shall then have
line to see what is relevant and what is not, in such a mass of

peptit4.
The further hearing was then ordered to sued over until Fri-
day next.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

cliELNistoit-6, SlARcii 11.

r Before Mr. Baron GRAHAM and a Special Jury.]
THE Kinn C. W. BAnt.EE. 7Stl. AND OTHERS.
This was an indictment against Charles William Berke, Esq.,
the Rev. Fdwarti Barley, and Chucks Clarke, Esq. for • conspi-
racy, falsely to charge Frances Sarah flatter, the wife of the Sod
named defendant, with being a lunatic, or person of unsound mind,
and to take proceedings that a commission in the nature of his Ma-
jesty's writ de lnnalico ialuirrndo should issue against her, the de.
fendants intending thereby, falsely and unjustly, to obtain from
her divers large sums of money. The overt acts laid were. that
the defendants had made certain affidavits in support of a petition
to the Lord Chancellor, by the husband, Inc a commission of
lunacy. statirg, that for a We tgeoe.ef time Mr.. ltarlee had been
labouring under great delltsions relative to herself, bee pecuniary
concerns and connexions, emit was, as thedeponents verily believed,
of unsound mind, and trainable of taking proper care of herself
and her concerns. To this indictment the defendant, C. W. liar.
lee had not pleaded. Tke other defendants had pleactcd Not
The indictment had been found by the Grand Jury for the coun-
ty of Suffolk at the last Summer Assizes. It was afterwards re-
moved by eertibreri into the King's Bench. and in consequence of
the existence of strong feelings and prejudices in the county of Suf.
folk on the Fit bject of the prosecution, the Conrt awarded a retire
for the trial of the indictment in the county of Easex. The trial of
this cause, which excited most extraordinary interest throughout,
commenced on Thersday morning, and after two adjournments,
ended only on Saturdast afteronon, from the anxiety expressed by
the Jury that, the cot shoal be fully investigated.
The prosecution sibs conducted by Mr. uRN II r. NO I.A ,
Mr. Kwox, Mr. ADOI.PUtia. Mr. ',sty, and Mr. S. G. Patue.
The defence of the defendant Mr. Clarke was conducted by Mr.
Maaavvr and Mr. BRODEttica ; and of the Rev. E. Barlee by
Mr. Sergeant l'Antsy and Mr. CHITTY.
It is impossible to detail with minuteness a trial of Finch unusual
length, and embracing such a vent body of evidence of both sides ;
all that can be attempted is to make the case intelligible to the
reader. The opening of the ease for the prosecution occupied
nearly two hount. The prosecutrix. Mrs. Make, was the daugh-
ter of an eminent solicitor, named Mitchell, of Deptford, who at
his death bequeathed her a fortune of about lifk9/. per annum, at
her own disposal. arising from money in the funds, and freehold
and copyhold estates in Suffolk and Essex. Many years time the
defendant. C. W. Barlee. the son of a respectable clergyman in the
county of Sußbik, offered her his hand in marriage, bet it was
then declines', as was supposed in consequence of a prepossession
in favour of another cemletitan. The rejected suitor then went
into the Stithilk Militia. and thence into a regiment of the
line, and went on foreign service. In 1111.1 lie renewed his
prorui of marriage, representing that he had retired from
the army in consequence of ill health, and was accepted.
In •he month of July, 1814, the marriage was solemnized, in St.
George's, ilanover.svare. Previous to the marriage, is settlement
011wasnTetplaeragrilus3.el.".Barlee,and
of the bulk of her 'intone, to her
her own suggestion the Rev. Mr. E.
Barlee, her husband's brother, a respectable clergyman and magi*•
trate for Suffolk, residing " IV°lrlingw"rll,, in that county, was
appointed trustee on her huslatnea behalf, sod Mr. Clarke, the

other dentlant, a gentleman of fortune. residing at Bender, a rela-
tion of her own, was appointed her lustre, at her ewn requiem. An
annuity of 1001. was also settled upon her by the matriage
out of an estate belonging to her husband's father, and it was earn•
dated that her receipt aloof should be a discharge to the trustees for
payments under the settlement. Before the marriage was eolenutuieed.
31re. Bader had established her intended husband in the bueineee ut
a brewer, in Vineattreet, Lambeth, wed had advanced him money for
that tairtmee, to thetunnunt oihetween five and six thnusand pounds.
Almost immediately after quitting the altar, Mee. Barlee conceived
a decided dislike to her husband, in consequence, as was insinuated,
of his having then declared that he had only 'marled her for her
money. She resided n short time at her husband's house in Vine-
street, and the marriage appeared to he productive of mutual un-
happiness. Mrs. Blake discovered that she had been deceived as
to the character and conduct of her husband previous to the mar-
riage; that instead cf retiring frnm the army, an he alleged, In
consequence of indisposition he had been tried by a Court Martial
under an sesumed name and .la:ride:lel the service. A laity was
introduced into the house in Vine-street, between whom and Mr.
Barlee an improper intercourse was supposed to subsist. It mat
also alleged that whilst living with hint, Mrs. Melee was subject to
cruelty and ill-treatment. and at length she (patted his house, and
retired to the residence of her trustee. Mr. Clarke, at Bemire a pa-
role agreement for separation having been entered into. The hue-
band afterwards became emb a set' in his afaare, and a propel-
don was made to .plea. Bailee to induce her to give up part of her
settled property for his benefit. This she declined. It was alleged
that the husband then insisted upon the restitution of conjugal
rights, and for the purpose of obtaining possession of her person,
he contrived to inveigle her to his house in Vine-street, where he
placed her under restraint. After a short time she left the house,
and went to reside at an ir.n st Iteceles. Until the year 1819, an ac.
count had been opened at a Suffolk bank in her name, upon which
the was allowed to draw without restraint.. Being dissatisfied with
her trustees, she filed a bill in equity against them for an Recount,'
complaining of irregularities.' Upon the tiling of this bill, the
trustees transferred the banking account into their awn names, sda-
gesting that as Mrs. Barlee refused to give them acktunwletigments
for money paid to her, they were constrained to adopt this step for
their own security. Pending the suit in equity against the arcs-1
tees, 3lr. Barlee, the husband. instituted a suit in the Eocluametical
Court, for a restitution of conjugal rights, it being alleged. among
Other matters, that Mrs. Barlee had clandestinely absconded from
his house, and that she hail refueetl the consummation cf marriage.
In answer to the libel, Mrs. Beare alleged adultery and cruelty,
but by the advice of her proctors, the latter ground only was
relied upon on her behalf. Sir John Nicholl pronounced a decree
In the husband's favour and airs. Barlee having refused to obey
the monition. she was declared in contempt, and fatally committed
to the gaol at Ipswich, where she was kept in confinement, on the
felon's side, for the space of three years, and ultimately liberated
by an order of 31r. Justice Bayley, before whom she was brought
by Habeas Corpus,. it being discovered that there was a defect in
the form of the ecclesiastical proceeding. This suit instituted by
Mrs. Barlee against her trustees, becoming ripe for a decree in
1824, it was alleged that then the defendants formed the conspi-
racy which was the subject of this indictment, in order to avoid be-
ing called on to account for the trust funds. In 1823 the trustees
had paid Mrs. Barlee 100!. nut of the trust moneys, which it was
said they ought not to have done, if they really supposed her in be
insane. In June, 1824, 3lr. Brake, the husband, presented a pe-
tition to the Lord Chancellor for a commission of lunacy against
his wife. This petition was supported by the affidavits of all the tle-
fentlants, alleging that from expressions in letters written
by Mrs. Bailee to them respectively, and to other persons, during
her confinement in Ipswich gaol, and subsequently thereto, and
from the opinions of divers individuals who had been in the habit
of seeing and conversing with her. deponent* verily believed that
she wan then, and had been for some time past, labouring under
great mental delusion, and was of unsound nand relative to herself,
her pecuniary concerns, marriage, and connexions, and was then,
as deponents severally verily believed, of unsound mind, and inca-
pable of taking proper care of herself and her concerns. The Lord
Chancellor, after hearingg, the matters of the petition, and the affi-
davits on both sides, and hearing the report of Mr. Warburton and
Sir George Tuthill, gentlemen eminently skilled in mental disor-
ders, was pleased, on the Pith of February, 1823, to make an order
that the petition should be dismissed. Under these circumstances
the present indictment was preferred. An affecting appeal wits
made to the Jury upon the wrongs, the suffering:. and the cruelties
practised upon Alec Barlee, from the hour of her marriage until
the date of the present proceedieg. Much stress was laid upon the
severity of her confinement in Ipswich gaol, and the deprivations
to which she was then sehjected ; she having for a considerable por-
tion of the time subsisted upon gaol allowance and the charitable
donations of her friends. During her confinement it was suagemed
that the trustees had offered to make her advaneas of -utoney,
but under such terms as she could nut with propriety accept ;
and it was pressed as a topic of great aggravation that neither
of them had once visited her in gaol to see how she was treated, or
had attempted to rescue her front the crutch imprisonment she was
suffering, at the instance of a husband whom they knew she
loathed and deteeted. It was proposed to give decisive evidence
that she was a person of perfectly sound mind, and that the sup.
posed aberrations of intellect breathing in all her letters and con-
versation, were no mere than the natural expression of a deep sense
of thews sufferings to which she had been exposed. No fact, hew-
ever, was opened to connect the defendants in a conspiracy to effete
the object imputed, or to show that time trusters were in concert with
the itueband with any undue motive. One tact opened was after.
wards disproved. namely, that the defendant, Mr. Edward Barlee,
had accompanied the husband to Mr. Justice Bayley's chambers,
foe the purpose of foreleg 3lrs. Berke to return to her husband.
The prominent tareenteriateeaehed upon aa atingimg the defendants
now on trial within the scope tel the indictment, was the fact of
their having made affidavits in support of the husband's petition to
the Chancellor, without any jolt ground for believing that Mrs.
Barlee was insane.
After the formal and documentary evidence necetsary to support
the averments in the Indictment had been produced, the Counsel
for the prosecution proposed to examine 31rs. Barlee as a witness ;
whereupon it was objected by the defendant's Counsel, that her
evidence was inadmissible, upon the general principle that the evi-
dence of a wife cannot be received ehher for or egatnst a husband,
except in certain cases, and this, it was subatiatu, was not one of
the excepted cases.
After an argument which lasted three hours. Mr. Baron linAilAU
expressed a decided (minim that the wife could not be a witueues un
this issue, and therefore rejected her ustitnony.
Susan Annstead, formerly a servant io the employment of Mts.
Barlee, when she was single, proved; that after the matrituge site
lived, in July 1814, with Mr. and Mrs. B. in Vine-street, Narrow.
wall, Lambeth. About it foramialit after the marriage they Went
into Suffalk, and Mr. Itarlee returned Moab. -Before they went
into Suffolk a widow lady, about forty, who had several children,
visited in Vine-street. She sometimes slept in the house.
This witness veered eircumstabces which left time room to doubt
that a criminal intercourse subsisted between the lady and Mr.
Barlee. Witness was dismissed by ale. Barlee from his service,
because she was supposed to say that he had married her mistress
011 account of her property. •
Mrs. M. Calumet proved that in 1815, she occupied a house
No. 26, Mount-street, Grovenor-square, and that Mr. Barlee
hired apartments of her for Mrs. Barlee, understanding from hint
that they had verbally agreed to live separate, and that he had
agreed not to molest her. Mrs. Barlee took the apartments for
three menthe. About a fortnight after they were taken, Mr. Bar-
lee came there and made a " row" in the house, insisting upon
hiking Mrs. Berke away, which she resisted. At length Mrs.
Barlee agreed to dine with him nest day. provided -wittiest'
was allowed to accompany her, to which he assented. After dinner
oh the following evening, Mr. Barlee refused (o let his wife return
to her lodging, saying he was her master. and would not let her go,
and witness was obliged to return without her. In a few days
afterwards he allowed her to dine once at her lodgings, but sent a
man-strvant to bring her home, with which she was obliged to
comply. Several months afterwards Mr. Bailee called upon wit-
ness, and inked her. if in case Mrs. B. sent for her (witness)
against him, what she had to say, and whether she cola I say that
she had seen him heat Mrs. B. aVitnerasaid she had not seen tarn
best her. Ile then said, " I took care of that," and added, " Let
her give me her money, and let her do as ihepleattee."
Witnesses were then called to prove the hand-writing of the two
defendants to several letters. These persons being asked, on cross-
examination, as to the characters of Mr. E. Barlee and Mr.
Clarke, seal they were both gentlemen of the highest honour, in-
tegrity, seal respectability.
Aun Wincomb proved that she was in Mrs. Barlee 's service
when that lady was living at Beecles, in 1320 and 1821. In Nov.
1320 3lr. Clark called upon Mrs. Barlee. Mrs. Barleefelased to
to see him, but he forced his way into the house. Witness was
present at the interview, which lasted about half an hour. Ile
wished nee to shake hands with him and be friends. He said it
was hey duty as a Christian to forgive him. She saki. an a
Christian it was, but she would seek redress for the injuries she
had sustained." Mrs. Barlee was afterwards taken to Ipswich
gaol, and budged it the Infirmary, where she remained during
the whole time of lure imprisonment. Her window looked into the
felon's yard.
A clerk in the office of Mr. Mangles, a solicitor, proved that he
heard Mr. Bailee, the huebard, say, that it his -site allowed him
1001. a year, be did not care where the devil she went. This was
about die time of the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court.
Mary Crow proved that she was servant to Mrs. Bader whilst
she was in gaol, in 1822. She was with her from eight in the
morning until four in the afternoon, but was not allowed to sleep
with her. Witness aceompanied Mrs. Barlee to wan, in December
1824, when she was taken to Mr. Justice Bayley's. house, to be
dischatged. Mr. Barlee had a coach at the door, wi;h three pro.
teseionel gentlemen and two police officers. Mr. Berke was in the
hall of the house with witness when Mee. Bader was discharged.
airs. Bailee was in some part of the house with Lady Bayley, on
account of Mr. Bathe being there. After Mr. Barlee and his
solicitor went away a tipetaff was sent to take care of Mrs. Berke.
Mr. Shadwell and Mr. Whitntsreh attended.
Mr. A. Murray, one of the solicitors for the proved
that Mr. Melee, the husband. came to 3lr. Justice Ilaylay's
house with two Bovrattreet officers. lie said he came there to
take his wife away, sad that he had a right to do so. That was
stated to the Learned Judge, who sent in for the solicitor'', and
told them that Mr. Barlee would subject himself to a contempt it
.
he took his wife away by force. Mr. peace was then called in.
I
a Magistrate of auffalk, and High aheriff of
that c. A
auoln.t, in 1623., and 111a4. Ile conversed with her frequently,
IyLitB;l72927;troved that he frequently saw Mrs B. in Ips-
end she appealed to be perfectly competent to the management ot
her *Waite.
Cross-examined—Wten he first saw her in 18±2, site complained
of the gaol allowance, and that she was in danger of being starved.
Waimea rectunntetaled h r to use her money, which he understood
she had at her command. Her answer was, " Would you have

me compound's' felony ?" flee answer appeared *nod*, that,
a conaiderable time, lie thnaght her under a delusion of mind, b*
he afterwards found' it was perteraeness and tobstinary. This Kw
concluded front the rational arowers she gave on other athletic,.
She appeared ntiwitiaie. paver's. and extremely provoking
ISelleres she might have aid. that the hlegistrateri were league I
with the trustees egoism's her. Witnewo repeatedly told ber-
tha the had mormy at her corrogisad end she always said,
" Would you have roe orompound • felony ?" She complainalo
of her eccommodations in the pir:Odia. Meat assuredly she *Mod
' the best apartments in -the gad. The Iklag;sttoites had ri
I authority to increase her allowance,/ food. She had bread. theebe
and water. No other maim in the prison was allowed to have IL
servant. She was generally well dresSal in gaol. She (Ni.veroed
rationally on the subject of her trustees. her husband. du. She
complained that her trustees hod robbed Frt. Knew nothing of the
merits of her complaints against hoc ttoutoree and ae„hee,t. She
had every accommodation that weld possibly be gives to ha by the

I,lsuistrates.
Edward Bacon, a banker. e Istswieh. prevved, that in ICTI:
h► bad frequent communications with Mn. 0., atd'lle believed bet
intellects to be as sound and perfect as ane person'a. abe npeneti,
an account with him in March, 142.1. Witness is not a triettic:.l:

m*n.
The Rev. J. bong, a visiting Ju.tify of Suffolk, peeved that her
saw Mrs. B. three or four time. daring het confinement, and she
appesied to be a woman of perfectly sound intellect.
Mr. T. li. Weston. a visiting Magintsate of Ipswich gaol,
proved thit Mrs 11. treqttently sent for him, and from his comma.-
ninitions pith her, he thought h.-r quite capable of manngine
her own &Faint. She had sent to the Justice* on the subject of
the horsey business, and, in November, Ifl 3. &aired en applica-
tion to he made to a Judge, to be edmi *Ted to boil. He found. her
to be a person Of perfectly sound mind on every occasion he had tai
see her.
Mr. C. Berner., an acting Magistrate for Suffolk., saw Mrs. Be
about three times whilst she wan in gaol, and she seemed perfectly'
coMpeterit t'J the management of her affairs. Tlte.interaiews lambi
about ten minutes. Knows the defendant, the Rev. Mr. Barbee
and helieven hint to be a highly honourable man.
Mr. Dorlfrey, a .Magistrate of StifFolk, had, he believed, macs
Mrs. B. once in 11524, anti conversed with her. She wan* person
competent to the management of her affahs.
Mr. P. Derbyshire, a retired surgeon, who had been-In practice
twenty-seven years, and tolerably well acquainted with lunacy
cast*, proved that in August, 11124, he ancolupanied Mr. Sprate
to Ipswich tined. and saw Mrs. If. He wan introttered as a
and not as a medical friend. Mr. Murray mentioned the petition
to her, and a great many papers were read. hhe made comments
an they went on. They appeared to ba the comments of a person in
the full possession of her mental faculties. The hitt-ivies; betted
about two bourn. Witness went down preprneessid wish an nni-
nion that she was insane from the articievita he hail mad- lie lia.
tened attentively to her conversation, and watelitd her countenance-
She wee rather short sighted. In his judgment she was a person
of perfectly setuid mind. Saw her again the next day, and tho eo:onek
interview confirmed his that opinion.
Mr. Pullen, a sorgeon, of lestwith. saw Mrs. B. for the' first
time In August. 1814. She scot for him in consequence of an affir
davit made by the surgeon of the gaol. He saw her again maw
times in December. 11325. Hi 'nide It his business to ascertain the
state of her mind, and in his opinion she was of a perfectly sound
mind. lie sate her eight or nine times ; wonetimen an hour at a
time, never less than half an hour. Ile had a fair share of pease
tice in lunacy cases. Imprisonment itu certainly likely to mouse
mental excitement.
Sarah Parsley was called to prove the' in an Interview whb Mr.
Clarke, In the autumn of Nee, witness silted him if he was pane
to put Mrs. B. into a mail.huu.e. • Ho slid s` hi, no means," but
wind, 't` lit put her to too it you like." Winnow' raid, if fie
could pay her well enough, she should Iliac her servants. Red
rooms to herself. Not a word passed abont affidavits. %Veneta
' had before been employed to take care of a lomnic patient.
Title was in substance the case for the Cecile. Aber the case
IST the prosecution was closed,
Alr. Baron GSAHAPt interposed, and intimated his opltfon
the Jury that, however blameable the imputed conouto of Mr.
Berle° might be, them seemed to he no just reason for saying
that the trustees wore influenced by the motives charged in the
indictment. The question in this case was not whether the
trustees formed a correct judgment al to the state of Mrs.
Settee's mind, but wlsother they acted Loma fide,Mitd ender a than
persuasion that she laboured under mental delusion, and Can in-
capable of managing her own affairs. It was perfectly clear that
the imstees•coeld have *to personal Emmet in establistiing.a cum-
mission of lunacy. Their interest, if they had any, lay the other
way; fee had a commission issued, it was more than probable
thee tee Lord Chancellor would have appointed other wens
as the Committees; and if Mrs. B. was really of unsound mind,
it was for her benefit that her interests should be taken care of •by
the Court of Chancery. Personal benefit could never have arltea
to tea trustees from the success of the proceeding; and eta !be
high character given of these gentlemen, it was too „d *ay
that they were guilty of the foul crime of conspiracy.
The Counsel for the prosecution said that if thin was the ire.
menial on els Lordship's mind, they certainly had no wish to
press the ease any further; they would how to the slightest tart-
' enatieb reining from the-filwaeb.,
Two er three, however, of the Jttry said they took a different
view of the use from the hemmed •Jedge; and observed that
that were some particularn in the conduct of the trustees which
rt quired explanation. There wasnn proof yet before them to justify
the ening out a commission of lunacy. it (lid not yet appear
upon what information they had acted in melting the effidaeito
-instep= of the commission. At the desire of the Jury, theretore,
the case for the defence proceeded.
MARHYAT and Mr. Sergeant TA pm" severally addressed
the Jury on behalf of Mr. Clarke and Mr. L. Barice respectively.
They contended, in the first place. that there wan not a shadow of
evidence to anthill% the charge of conspiracy, even if their clients
had an adequate motive for committing so infamous a crime. Nei.
thee of the trustees appeared to have done inviting whaterer in
concert with Mr. Berlee, the husband beyond sweering to the affi-
davits filed in support of the commission. Bat their conduct in
thin respect was lowa ple, and in the foil persuasion thra they Were
tieing the halt that could be dons for the interests of Mrs. Bathe,
whose whole deportment manifested that she was acting under a de-
lusion of mind, at least as respected her trustees. Mrs. Barlee's
letter were full of the most decisive indications of delusion, mai to
such a morbid extent had this delusion teen tarried, that she fan-
cied the whole world in conspiracy against her happiness aid in.
tercets. It was this coraaet on the part of the unhappy lads that
induced her trustees to believe that her mind was so much sift eted
as to di uglify her for the conduct of her own affairs. The ques.
tion in this case was not whether in fact Mrs. Berke was intone:
but whether the trustees believed her to he so at the time they
swore the affidavits in support of the petition to the Chancellor. Hee
letters bore internal evidence of derangement, And it was upon
their contents, as well as the informs don of other persona, dirt the
trustee"' came to the conclusion upon which they aged. It should
be reehllected that the preparation of the petition was not the joie'
act of all the decadent,. The petition to tee.Chaocellor was pre.
seated by Mr. C. Barlee only and therefore it could not be im-
puted to the trustees that they had conspired to effect the &eject al.
legal. The trustees could have no improper motive whatever for
suing out a commission of lunacy. Their interest. Wilsey had any
lay iu still retaining the coutroul over her property but all levet
tights in them would have been divested by a comminsion of lunacy
and placed under the doniinion of the Lord Chancellor. No moos
was ever committed without some ostensible motive. Here the
trustees could have none but what was for the benefit of their easel
gee truss, if they really believed that her ntind was unsound. That
such was their belief would be demonstrated. The Learned Conn.
eel complained in strong terms of want of candour on the part of
the prosecutor's Counsel in withholding from the Jury evidence
which they knew wen; directly to the exculpation of the twitters.
Among the affidavits filed in support of the petition, was that et
Mr. Stabbing, surgeon to the Ipswich gaol, which was decisive to
show that the trustees were at least justified in doubting the sanity
of Mrs. Barlee's mind. Tltin affidavit was withheld, and theretitte
It became necessary that the defendants shonld produce it in est.
dente. The prosecutor's Counsel also knew that Sir teeorge
Tuthill and Mr. Warburton had reperted uport the state of the tun e
happy lady's mile& These gentlemen had not been celled. 1 t
them this prosecution was really meant to be conducted on pulite
grounds, fur the purpose of punishing the defentlants—if really
guilty, and of demonstrating the ptirity of that, conduct, if inno-
cent, surely there could be tio just reason for withholding cridee,os
of surivvast importance. Why throw upon the defendants the bur
den .of doing that, which the prosecutor, •in • common candour
ought to do in the outset ? The sole point for tine consideration of
the Jury was, whether the trnstees had reasonable and probable
cause for the part they had acted in this transaction ? They judged
from the whole of the lady's conduct and correspondence; they
took the beet medical advice on the state of her mind, and in the
result they were satisfied that it was the best thing which could ha
done fur her, to place her interests in the hands of the Lord Chao-
cellar. It was objected to the trustees that they had not allotted
Mrs. Backe money whilst she remained in custody. This was rfr
fault of theirs. The trustees had ino motive or wish to retain a
farthing of her money ; but the lady having made a voluntary oath
with herself, never to give the trustees any acknowledgment for
money advanetwl to her, she declined taking any from then, lest
she Pliould break her oath. This tact alone was decisive of the
lady's unsoundness of mind, By the terms of tee marriage sear.
nient the trustees were not to be discharged but by receipts under
the lady's own hand. If she would give none, the trustee, had a b
authority to pay. and had they paid without any acknowledgment,
they must have done so on their own personal responsibility. The
Learned Counsel pointed out to the Jury the deep importance ui
this case as it affected the character* of the trustees, tad the titter
improbability that they should have lout themselves to the
sioo of so foal a conspiracy, 1141.11 were gentlemen of the highest
honour, and moat irreproachable integrity. Was it then to tu- be.
lieved that, without any earthly motive, they should knit that:.
selves to a crime, which, if satisfactorily made out, must render
them infamous for ever in the eyes of the world
The affidavit oh Mr. Stehbing (since deceased who hail boot
surgeon to Ipswich gaol for thirty-eight items. Wits then pot in and
read. This affidavit was tiled in support of the is'thiert no the
lord Chancellor, and it expressed the decide.; opibion of the diva-
nent to be after a most attentive observance of Mr. Barite's con.
duct whilst she was in Ipswich gaol, that she was of unsound mired,
and incapable of forming a right judgment of her own aflsirs, and
that she laboured under a mentol delusion as to the conduct of her
husband, of her trustees, sod of every person connected with her
affairs. The affidavit related severe' acts of eccentricity committed
by Moe llarlee whilst in prison. *itch a.voatintarilv pc rtortittrg th,
most menial offices in the gaol, selli.ag to her fellow prisoners tits
daily allowance-of bread, an writing to different penes.. in the
neighboureood soliciting charitabledon.inions. The affidavit Amine
Vaud that various co:nplaints made by 5!:5. S. in prime., suet r
•
teee
, .

!Pingo:toted of food, harsh treatment, want of elothee, and air and
imereive, erre completely unfounded. The affidavit was sworn at
*thetas ?4th July, 1824. It was admitted that the deponent was
between 70 and 80 years of age.
Mr. W. H. Crowfoot, a surgeon of !Inclea. proved that in 1820
he attended Mrs. Barite professionally, whilst she was at the
Jithg's Ilend Inn, in that town, and afterwards visited her in a
felendly *ay, end had had frequent oppowtanities of judging of the
Mate of her mind. Ile found her to be a woman of shrewd inlet.
lict, and of considerable atquiretnint ; but upon the subject of the
disputed subsisting between her husband end the mune, he found
het to 'shone under mental delusion and insanity. He received
three or four letters front hcr. Ile had rommumeations with Mr.
e'larke upon this subject, informing him that in his opinion 3lrs.
B. multi not be morally responsible tor her acts, such was her state
of ;sienna infirmity. ‘Vitness had known Mr. l'larke for 30 years, '
and he believed a more upright and honourable man did not live.
OPTtral letters written by Mrs. Barlee to both defendants teepee.
tinily. to Lord Gifford, when Attorney-Henerel, to Mr. Crowfoot,
anti to Or. lmahlnmen, were put in and read. The first letter was
dated gla May, 1014, requesting Mr. Clarke to become her trustee,
In which she spoke of that gentlemen in cite highest terms of re.
specs and and affection, and spoke of her intended hnsband as the
man of her own choice. The other letters contsineti eloquent com-
plaints of her sufferings arid wrongs. All these letters bespoke a
Pita highly enitivated, and exhibiting great shrewdness and
aptitude of intellect. Some parts were rather figurative, and
perhaps a We exaggerated with respect to her real or supposed
Me. A. J. Suckling was ecnnairted with Mrs. Barlee when she
lived In Mr. Clarke's house, in 1813 and Ililfi. She was treated in
that gentleman's house with the utmost kindness and attention.
She was not fed upon nothing but fat pork. as she complained of in
one of her letters. Mr. Clarke was a gentleman of tbehighest inte-
grity end respectability. It was admitted that she paid for her
board It'd lodging in Mr. Clarke's house.
The Rev. T. :Hecht:Ad, a Magistrate of Suffolk. and Chairman
of the Ipswich division, proved that he visited the gaol to hear Sirs.
Bargee's complaints, most of which he found perfectly groundless.
She was treated with uncommon indulgence, considering her situa.
Lion. The gaoler had paid out of his own pocket about 331. out of
his own pocket to supply her wants, and had purchased a comfort-
able bed foe her, and had provided her with the best apartment in
the gaol. The gaoler had never yet been paid the money he laid
out. The window of Pier room looked upon the misdemeanour and
debtars* ward, and not npan the felon' yard, as stated. She also
Appeared to have plenty of clothes, notwithstanding her complaints
to the contrite!. Witness repeatedly recommended her to draw her
money, but she said she would not violate her oath nor compound
a felony. This the repeated at least twenty times. She constantly
Replied the moat opprobrious termsto Mr. Clarke and Mr. E. Bar-
Ise. Witness wrote to the trustees. and he was told that if she
would love the commonest acknowledgment, she might have what
money she wanted, but she gave the same answer. Undentatxling
from her than Alr. Murray was het solicitor. he wrote to that gen.
tlrman to advise her to take the money. in a few days an answer
was received that Mr. Murray could not recommend her to take
money from her trustees. At this time the suit in Chancery, he un-
ite...ood, Will pending. \Fitness had known Mr. E. Barlee from
a boy, and he Aid not know a better man in all the relations
of life.
Mr. Thomas Warburton deposed that he had had fifty years,
exnerience in emus of madness. In the greater proportion of case.
madness affects the mind in a partial manner; in most uses the
mind is aliened by a particular delusion. In those cases where the
mind is affected upon particular subjects, it is peculiarly sane and
a.:tive upon others. (In the 241 Sept. 1821. in consequence of an
order from the bind Chancellnr, lie visited 3lrs. Barlee in Ipswich
gaol. after having read the petition and affidavits on both aides, by
the Chancellor's direction, He saw her without the presence of
a third peeper,. She appeared to have been apprised of his
coming. She received him with civility, but with some desreee
of levity anti flightiness of manner. After a few minute'ge-
netsl conversetion, the fine question be asked her was, who.
thee she married Mr. C. W. Berke with her own free will
and consent, and whether she approved of the match ? She
answered, that it was with her own free will, uninfluenced by
Map lxaty. %l'imess then said, "Of course you mum have en-
tertained a 'NA opinion of him before you maned hint ?"
She said she hail, Ile then asked her what could induce her to
change her opinion. She said, that boon after the ceremony was
perforated, and at the time she was returning from the altar, she
peeeeived that there was a great change in 31r. 13arlee's manner,
and she was sure he had deceive' her. From that time she had
taken . dislike to him. She said she was distantly related to Mr.
fisrlee's tinnily. She admitted that his family had elvisyx behaved
kindly in her previous to the marriage, and she spoke in high temis
of Mr. Bargee's mother. He then asked her what reasons she had
for charging then at that time with sonspiring against her ? Her
answers were meguc and contradictory—that they had conspired to
..ePtroy tier happiness and comfort. The first interview lasted rather
longer than an hour. He saw her the neat day, end staid with her
and amid with be, .but throe quarter, of an hour.' The result of
both interviews guise satisfied him that the ides of a conspiracy
was a Mansion, which, In his opinion, had commenced soon
st:er the marriage, and continued down to that thue. It is
nemomibie fur a person not acqusinted with mental disonlers,
to form a torten opinion as us the mental sanity of another,
nnlesa the patient is examined on throe points on width the
themes is soppneed to hinge. %%fitness sax clearly of opinion
that. Mrs. Barnes mind was unsound, and in his judgment there
jar ground for the trustees aupysuing that she was of unsound
remit. 'unite a disinctino between general insanity and
and unsoundness of mind. A person might be insane upon all,
%Mein some, or upon only one point. Atestretteilly speaking, and
without Tel.:OW to the truth or falsehoods of Mrs. Badge's coon.
phis is against her husband and her trustees, he should hive pro-
trounced her mind to be unsound from the time of her marriage,
terd should have advised a petition This witness had been np.
permed to examine 31rs. Barlee on behalf of the defendants.
bir George Tathdi, who had been eighteen years a physician,
gelerally, and ten years one of tee presiding physicians to Bedlam
I too Utah proved that he was applied to by Mr. Murray by the
Lad Chsoceflot's order, to examine into and report his opinion as
us the wee of nlrs. Bargee's mind. He saw heron two successive
days, and remained with her two hours each (I.y, and he said he
bad nut the smallest doubt in the world that she was insane, speak-
ing abstractedly, and without regard to the supposed conduct of
her husband anti her trustees. The treatment of which she cont.
ybined sat a delusion of mind. This was his opinion without
liaahation.
Roth these witnesses were questioned by several of the furors,
and they bodeleoucutred in thinking, that assuming Mrs. lierlee's
complaints to be well-founded, rill her ntind was unsound.
The defendants' Counsel were proceeding to call many more
vituesees. when
Mr. Baron tinettax again addressed the Jury, and reminded
them of the question which they had to try upon this record. They
were not en issue, whether Mrs. Barlee was or was not, in fact,
it ...me at the time the petition was presented. It was not incum.
Lent on the part of the defendants to show that she was absolutely
'nee e. All that the defendants bad to show was, that in the
;minim of awn of science end understanding upon such subjects,
there was resentieble and probable ground for applying to the Lord
(Annelle/ for a Commission. It was foreign to the present case,
whether Mrs. Berke was or was not, in fact, insane. The question
use, whining the defendants had conspired and confederated to.
genie/ in one concerted plan—namely, to secure to themselves the
room:y at her person. and the division of her fortune, and whether
that was the (inject of all three; for that was the gist of the charge.
The hardships imposed upon this unhappy lady by her husband
were foreign to the question. The Jury must he satisfied that the
object of all the defendants was to put her fortune into their own
!sockets, and to order to effect that object, lird conspired together
laic ly to we nut a commission of lunacy, sithout any reasonable
or ;on:sable cause. In his opinion, it appeared to him. that it such
Wpm the object of the defendants, tlo y had taken the most efiectual
at ;t to detest their own views, because a commission of lunacy
wojltl hire pat it completely out of their power to tooth a farthing
• of • lie letly's fortune.
Mr. 1111 Er said he quite reedy to submit to his Lordship's
fntimartam

• the in./ told kit Lordship, *ha' they were fully aware of the
ar,..ion they Pori to determine: and said diet' would retire to con-
wit, the arr-c. pi the evidence adduced on the part of the Jelin-
4a: a, They item retired, and after being absent about half an
hams, returned, and said they vac ready to deliver their verdict.
he verdict waa delivered,
CiIINEY though it right to explain, that it was upon con.
nider.diott-mwrog his Learned Comoutors, that they had eh-
Ittornetr Irons Produelug Alr. Stehhing affidavit, and calling Sir
things Tatbill. Their instruetiuns wwe the other was; but upon
tie hest ennaidetation they could give, they thought it wonid be
more astialaetory that the tlfilitllCC alluded to came from the other
aide.

'e Jury then delivered in a ectdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. Baton Onausre then said, he was persuaded that the herd.
egoism of the Jury was attributable to a laudable desire of sifting
II a emir a the bottom; but, horn the first. be was himself perfectly
;milled, that the charge of conspiracy was without the least colour
Of-fenne.atlon t and bethought that the trustees might go forth to
sfifs country with perfectly unblemindicd characters.
.1 Jt: Rot—We do not acquit the trustees of cruelty, in allowing
Otis ur happy lady to lie In a felon's prison for three long years.
Waout Lear having visited her once during her confinement. This
je I. opinion of us ail It is somewhat singular that these trustees
never once visitad her In prison. 1 entertain very strong feelings
wric thot par of the ease.

.4•mtiser Juror said, that the Jury were by nn means unanimous
iu thinking that Uoete was any blame attriburable to the trustees

OXFORD CIRCIJIT.J.3-TArrona, 31Aacu 10.

The Assizes for the County of Stafford commenced here this
CIVIL. SIDE•
WOOLLY P. •ATT.

This. wet an swim brought by tho plaintiff against the deft's-
/Fan:, to reotwee a we at MAL Ist., under the following clients-
oa„rt.,„ The plaintllT anti detendent was partners In the year
id. in o stage coach tbut run front Bilstoo to Birmingham.
w.ut upset by the awdessneta of th:ir driver, and a 311 s.
J•ay.na. wf u VII no protWpasscoger, was thrown from the roof,
Ler and, broken, wig she was rendered a cripple fur la con-
vtayulatee u • thia, 11r. Jeatona brought an action ag2iust the
pbtardsfl add defendant, bat not until they heti diasolv,d partner-
/de* The defendant then suffered judgment to go by default,
but after ;al a verdict Isis found against the prnetit plasma'', Aid.
wi.tt cost. be bad to pay to Mr. Jeavons'a attorney the 11401
HAL Lt. To mom belt of thin mown. Abe present meths was

..