The National Register.
London, England, 1816-07-28 00:00:00

L. 1117 INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—S AMMAN'.
MAINTENANCE OF A LUNATIC.
muslin V. MOOR V.
'The plaintiff in this ease was Dr. Munro, the proprietor of
Ttruke-Ilause Lunatic Asylum, at Clayton ; the defendant was
Mr. Thomas Moore, a merchant, having an establishment iu
this country, and ulso at Aliemat, in:Spain. In 1800, Mr. Moore
sp,slied to the plaintiff to receive under his care Mr. Peter
Moore, hts brother, who WAi at tkat time in a lunatic asylum.
Accordingly, in consequence of an agreement being come to
between the plaintiff and defendant, Mr. P. Moore was taken
to Rroke-House on the 80th of dune. Here he remained
11x12; his half yearly bills being regularly transmitted to Mr.
Thos. Moore, and regularly paid by him. In !KU!, however,
the defendant, on pay ing the summer's half year's bill. stated,
that he was going to Apain; he deckled himself perfectly sa-
tisfied with the manner in which his brother was treated, and said
he WAS happy to have him in such an asylum; he might perhaps
be gone to Spain more thou six moutha ; but he desired his bro-
ther should still be treated in the same manner; and that at the
end of six month', if he, the defendant, should not he bark by
that time, he desired the bill should be sent to his mother, with
whom he would leave instructions to pay it. At the end of six
months, therefore, the defendant tint being come back, the bill
was sent to Mts. Moore, who, however, said she had no funds
in hotel, all Mr. Peter Moore's property being in the hands of
Mt. Thos. Moore. From this time the plaintiff had received
'Rotting, though Mr. P. Moore remained there till July 15th,
1814 ; when he was removed in consequence of a commission
Of lunacy having been taken out against hint.
The defence set up was, that the plaintiff well knew that the
eprendant was not solely liable for the maintenance of his bro-
ther; hot that an elder brother, Mr. George Moore, was the
person in whose hands Mr. Peter Moore's property was ; that,
an tar from the plaintiff ennsidering the sit fendant as the per-
Non having a control over the lunatic, he had, on one occasion,
forbidden Mr. Thos. Moore from corresponding with his bro-
ther, and had even sent a letter addressed by Peter to his bro-
ther. the defenthint, to his other brother Mr. George Moore.
It also appeared, that at one time the plaintiffs bills were
made out to Mrs. Moore, and at another period to Mr. George
Moore.
The witnesses on the part of the plaintiff. however. proved
'tat this was only in consequence of Mr. T. Moo e's absence;
and further, that the orders for Mr. P. Moore's accommoda-
tion and treatment, were always given by Mr. T. Moore, the
Eefendant, and by no other person. These facts were proved
by Mr. Holmes and Mrs. Richardson, the Superintendant and
Matron of Broke-House ; and the Jury, tinder them: eireurottun-
crs found a verdict fur the plaiuta—llamages Still. Us. 6d.—
Coats, 40s,

COURT OF COMMON' PLEAS, GUILDHALL, JULY 23.
CRIM. CON.—SPECIAL JURY.
WRIGHT r. altariaat.
This was an action for the recovery of damages, brought by
Ur. Wright, the Plaintiff, against Mr. Firaham, of music cele-
brity, for criminal consolation with his wite. The damages
were laid at 5.0001.
Mr. Serjeant Len+ stated the case to the Jury. This was, he
said, a case of a very different description from some of those
which, though they arose from a similar offence, were yet at-
tended by extenuating circumstances. It was one which re-
quired the most serious attention. The Plaintiff stood in a
Welt and responsible situation in life—he was a Purser in the
East India Company, and wax of course, firquently absent on
his professional duties. What aggravated this case was, that
It was at such periods the Defendant took advantage of the
friendly and uususpectiug intercourse withal subsisted between
him and the Plaintiff's family, and seized those moments which
ought to be doubly sacred, to commit the crime which led to
the present action. During the absence of Mr. Wright, he
had, of course, made every provision in his power for the
'roper maintenance of his wife, whom he bail is er treated with
the greatest affection. He had long bceu intimate with Mr.
Braliam and Madame Storace, and this intimacy was preserved
in his absence with that confidence which one man places in
another. Madame Stutacc lived with the Defendant as his
wife, and was so received in respectable families ' although, for
some objects of a professional nature perhaps, site did not as.
same his name; there could theretbre he nu surprise at Mrs.
Wrights receiving and visiting Madame Storace, whose com-
pany, as well as Mr. Ili ahem's, was of course 11111114 courted.
It was during this euntidential family intercourse that, in the
absence of the Plaintiff on Ins professional ditty, the Defendant
thought proper to quit Madame Storace, and to carry off the
Plaintiff's a ife from her husband's house, where she lived with
her children, not only with adequate uyciuts, but with that cre-
dit in a pecuniary :mint of view, ahidi belonged to her hus.
band's station in life. On the return of the Plaintiff to this coun-
try, he found to his cruet' and astonishment that this seduction
had taken place, and that his wife was (lieu in a state of preg-
nancy under the domestic roof of the Defendant, fur which
she had been induced to quit her home and children. 14 to
that moment to could prove that the Plaintiff and his wife lived
in the utmost harmony and affection, What defence could he
set up for f10..11 % iolal ion of confidential friendship, lie could
.cot anticipate or apeenlate upon—it would be for him hereafter
to advert to that, and for the Jury to appreciate it. But in
looking at the quantum of compensation, so far as a pecuniary
verdict could administer it, it would be for the Jury to remem-
ber that the Plaintiff was affectionately attached to his wife up
to the moment of her departure from him—that his absence
from her was not voluntary, but for their mutat benefit ; they
*null then weigh well the reparation to which such a husband
was entitled, from one who had so grossly violated the ties of
i:onf &nee and friendship. The degree of datiimgcs was only
important so far as it would denote the feelings of au uptight
Jury on such an occasion; for, it must be obvious that nothing
timid repair the wounded feelings of the sufferer. The Learned
het j: ant regretted much, that a man like Mr. Brahatn should
have thus exposed himself'. If, by this act, he had tbifeited
hopes and expectations of an admiring public, the fault
'was his own--his ow n misconduct bad occasioned it ; he had
'rbased the enufalence of a friend, and openly violated the mo-
te' duties of society. Mitch as they may lament such a de-
-1 lulu* from rectitude on the part of such a mandhey would teel
Void, me higher duties which devolved upon them, rendered it
accessary for the ceaeral good, that the offemier should be
loathe to feel the responsibility he had lactated by the flagrancy
'of his act. He *mild now proceed to reel his witnesses, and
the .1 ury would, flout a review of the evidence, apportion the
measure of that re:Toteataaty.
Mr. holicet Cuysli roved that the plaintiff; who was a mate of an
Fast Indiumaa, maenad his present wife, Mrs. Wrig' ht then th • wi-
7,1! '"rk• on the 155. 'fool' ,r; .t.A% at
. •

.4,, • 4 . a

TILE NATIONit nansTru.

customed to visit the pleintiff and his wife, and they appeared to live in
the greatest harmony.
On his eross-examination, he said, that in 1811 they lived in New
Millman-street, Foundling Hospital; after which they wens to live at
No. 35, Lamb's Connuit-strect. He aid not know that Madame Sot-
race and Mr. Brabant lodged in the seine house with the plaintiff and
his wife. He had eon Mr. Brahaw, but he did not know him at that
time.
Miss Walphew, a lady about 55 years of age, odd she had been ar-
quaintest with the pluintiff and his wife since 1311. Stte had vistual
and been well acquainted with them ; they.appearedto live re: y happily
together. Mr. Wright was it sery affismonate and ten:ler husband.
and Mrs. Wright returmsl his atrection with equal ardour. On her
cross-examination. she said she had slept in the same house with Mr.
and Mrs. Wright sine.: Mr. Brahma had bacome acquainted with them
in 1811. Mrs. Wright was a pattern of wives. Whiles: did not re-
member the pLtintiff ;ind wife and Mr. Brnharn going. to Cheltenham
together in the carriage of the hitter. Mr. and Mrs. Wright were very
intimate with Madame storao, and they wed to visit teat lady very
frequently at Herne Hill. Mrs. Wright frequently went to Madame
Storaee's in Mr. Braham 's carriage, but she never saw foe latter alone
with Mrs. Wright in the carriege. Madame ,itorace and Mr. Botha:::
had lived together for many years as man and wife, they slept in use
84111,± bed, and this pattern of a married woman nevertheless visited
Maclaine Storace. The latter never wait by the name of Brehm, or
was married to the defendant.
Captain John Deelinnip, who had been formerly in the lin?. hut now 1
a Captain in the Militia, said he had kilos n Mr. Wright for many
years. and had visited him sines, his marriage. lie had considered the
plaintiff and his wife to be a very happy couple.
Win. Patterson had been footman to Mr. Braham for about three
months, and entered his hawk': in the month of March last. which he
quitted about six works ago. lie was with the defendant at Tunbridge
It'd's, when Mrs. Wright lived with him as his wife. • He was after-
wards with the defendant and Mrs. Wright, at No. 50, Tavistuek-sq.
where they also lived upon the same terms.
Cross-examinssl—During their residence in Tavistoek-square Mrs.
Wright did not go by the name of Braham. but was often called so in
the tradranens bilk. Witness, e hen he first went into their service,
found them living together as tram and wile. Witness was discharged
from Mr. Itraham's service about six or seven weeks since, when he
told that he and his wife, who lived as cook in Mr. Braliam's ser-
vice. were no longer wanted, as Mrs. Wright was going abroad. Upon
leasing the defendant's service he was told that he should have a good
character and a month's wages in advance. Witmas never knew any
thing about al:titanic Stowe.
Ite-examined.—About two months ago Mr. Braham toll witness,
that Mrs. Wright was going abroad. This was just after Mr. Antes-
ley, the defendant's attorney, had called upon the latter and had dined
with him. In Tavistock-square, the defecdant Lot two man servants,
and two maid servants. Ile was mite sure that the defendant and Mrs.
Wright slept together in Tavistock-stimire.
Hester Patterson, the wife of the last witness, corroborated the fact of
the defendant's living with Mrs. Wright, as wan and wile in Tarts-
tock-square.
Mary Grycr lived servant to Mrs. Wright in October last. Mr.
Wright was then absent upon a voyage to the East Indies. Mrs.
Wright then lived in New-eh-Jet, Foundling I hospital. The defendant
was a eiin•tant visitor at airs. Wright's. IVitness remembered that
one day in Christmas week last, the defendant dined with her mistress;
and in the evening of the same day, her mistress left her home in a
carriage with a person whom she supposed to be the defendant, but as
it was dark she could not speak positively as to his identity,
Isabella DOOM, a midwife, proved that she visited Mrs. Wright
about two months since; her husband being then absent for above a
year. and found that she was pregnant, and that she expected to be put
to bed in next September.
Crose-examined.—She had never visited Mrs. Wright, except in her
professional chanteter. She had delivered her of twins a tow years
since.
Here the case closed for the plaintiff:-

The Solicitor-General rose on the part of the defendant. 'I Tc
prefaced his observations nn the case by observing, that it was
impossible to defend or justify the criminal connection of one man
with the wife of another. But in this case, as in all other cases,
there were shades of character which in fact defined the na-
ture of the offence—diderent circumstances altered its com-
plexion, and dictated the amount of damages which it became
a Jury to give. In the present ease there were sonic singular
and peenliar features which distinguished it from others. Here
was a gentleman, the plaintiff in this cause, from
to leave
his wife, when his avocations absented hint from her, in proper
society, well protected, and with ample means for her support;
Wile had made out his ease, and that under such circumstan-
ces the affections of his wife had been estranged front be by
a seducer, then indeed he would have a right to demand from
a Jury excessive damages. But was that the case here? The
plaintiff knew perfectly well who Madame 6teraee and Mr.
Braliam were, aud the first female witness called here to prove
the domestic felicity that subsisted between the plaiutiff and
his wife, was herself in the odd predicament of being also an
intimate acquaintance with Mr. Brabant and Madame Storace.
She, us well as Mrs. Wright, was in the habit of passing her
time with them; that is, in plain English, in familiar and inti-
mate association with a man and his mistress. Now it could
not he concealed that its the present state of society there were
many connexions that were overlooked, because they were in
a certain degree domiciliated, and their example, not prominent.
In le crowded concourse at routes, assemblies, fetes, and
dejeunes, great professional abilities were always a passport,
without reference to the immediate mural habits of individuals
—and why? because neither men nor their mistresses could
influence such assemblies, nor did their any. arance there im-
ply any thing like familiar intimacy with the party. There
was in fact no contagion in their presence— no implied intro-
duction or intimacy. It was most certain an object of regret,
• that in such societies, or in any large circle.there should be such
inmates, but he reincii.bered to have heard it observed, that
on such occasions, however objectionable the momentary as-
sociation, it was yet not catching.. But he was afraid that in
smaller circles in private life it was catching, and he was per-
suaded that no husband tit ho felt for his own honour, and the
character able wife, who wished her (as he ought), like Ovules
wife, to be above suspicion, could for a moment suffer her to
hold an intimacy, or allow the visits of those, who, thoughad-
missible in public company, were not the most fit associates
elsewhere. He would not say, that by allowing visits of that
kind, the husband could be said to give a license to his wife
to play an improper part, but he would say, that such negligent
conduct on his part went close upon the last degree of pro-
priety, and that he in a guest degree diminished his claim for
ulterior compenautier, by admitting such a course. If he al-
lowed his wife to become familiar, by association, with the ex-
ample of a man and his mistress, he had no great right to com-
plain that she, io her turn, became a mistress also. It was in
evidence, that Mrs. Wright was in the habit of going with Mr.
Braltani to Herne-hid. Now he was instructed that the de-
fendant could in evidence further chew, that the plaintiff's neg-
ligence as to his wife was more than that before his last voyage.
He had suffered an intimacy between his wife and thedefendant,
e heat no man of delicacy or common sense could for an in: taut
allow. If under such circumstances he had not suspected what
was passing, he must have shut his eyes upon what was as clear
as day. A great deal had been said by the witnesses about
Lamle?, Conduit-street aid Herne-hill ; bid it was singular,
eel* n”•••• sett... witnetaea proved that Mr. Brilliant lived in the
' • •- • e'

JULY R.

that sorb was the fact, anti that Mr. %t right wise privy to it.
When the defendant was with Mrs. W. she was denied to every
body else, even her OWII husband walked out. A ho,,bauti who
oonid he so easily satisfied, had no right to complain, that if
lie hail nourished a smothering dame, it at length found a vent
and fanned itself into a blaze; he had nu right to have- his story
told in a Court ofJustii e with sympathy for himself. It would
also be proved, that so late as eleven o'clock at night, Mr.
lirehans had called at the plaintiffs house, when he was himself
at home, and taken his with away on a visit to Herne-bill,
where she staid that night, and longer. Oa some oceasious
the age of the female would account for such volatility, but
here was au experienced lady, thirty ses en years of age, who
must he supposed to know and feel the con requenee of such
acts. 1t those facts be posed, as he was lash maell theywould
be, if they did not go the length of calling for a verdict for
the defendant, they would at least reduce the claim for dama,ets
to a mere nominal • . he defendant, like cs cry otht r man
in the professiou of which he was an ornament, depended for
his means of life oft the estimation of his talents iu the public
eye. In an inquiry of this sort, he stood in so delicate a si-
tuation, that he ought nut to be. prejudged, or inconsiderately
condemned. This delicacy was occasioned by that good and
honest principle of morals about John Bull, which led him to
make a riotous comment upon the moral characters of those
dram-air personage:3, over whom lie holds au exclusiseaid
conanauding control—This was a feeling salivary in itself,
and one of which he (the Solicitor-General) was proud for his
country. But yet it was, front the nature of things, zealous,
and sometimes rash iu its decisions—it was therefore right to
protect an individual from the excess of its operation. lle
therefore felt it incumbent upon him to point out to the Jury,
that in tlint rase there was no wanton or profligate violatiou of
friendship on the part of the defendant. It was no such cir-
cumstance. Ile had notoriously fallen into the arms of a
mistress, with the eyes of the husband wide open. The lath r
was therefore deprived et' that right which other men, who
acted differently, would base a right to receive the benetit uP
from the hands of a seducer.

Mary Clarke and Fliinlieth Ilaverstock, who had lived with Mr.
and Mrs. Wright in Lamb's Conduit-street, during the year 1814.
and pat t of the year iBl5. proved that Mr. Rraham was in the constant
habit of visiting at Mr. Wright's; that Mn. Wright frequently gat up
for hours after lur husband was gone to bed; that she often went our.
in the defendant's ...arriase with him alone; and that the defendant fre-
quently slept in the platntirs lodgings in l.amb's Conduit-street.

•
The case of the defendant being closed,
Mr. Eierjeant Lens rose to reply, and observed, that he
had opened the case, by stating, that he could not anticipate the
defence, and he really was uninformed, until he heard it, of
any of its bearings. It did certainly appear, that a cautious
or a jealous man would not have countenanced that sort of con-
duct on the part of his wife that might be deemed equivocal
AO far the plainta might, perhaps, be blameable. But could
such an unsuspicious confidence on his part be misconstrued
into an absolute license on his par; r Certainly nut, nor any thing
like it. It' the whole of the evidence for the defendant could
be supposed to imply the easy connivance of the husband to
his ow u disgrace, where was the necessity for the defendant's
carrying away the woman? Did it sound like common sense,
that with such such open intt.reaurse as it was attempted to
establish, with such a facility and accommodation tbr his pur-
pose, he would be driven to the necessity of carrying away tiro
object of his passion, and thereby publishing to Cut world thz,
whole story of the Intercourse? That the plaintiff, in his int-
',licit confidence, had been wrung, no one could doubt- that
he was connected with unguarded circumstances. might also
be surmised ; but it should be recollected, that matters uhieli,
when committed, appear trivial and not worthy of notice, ate
oftentimes. by subsequent steps, rendered glaring and impor-
tant. How, then, was the unsuspecting and confidential friend
and hushand to divine his own disgrace in the spirit of pro.
!Awes- ? Considering the intimacy that subsisted bete him
and Mr. Brahma, there could be nothing thought of front tho
late hours of his visits. Mr. B. was in the evening profession.
ally occupied. It' be slept in town, he came occasionally to
Mr. NWri,elifs, to save the expace of a town residence. if
• Mr. or Mrs. Wright wished to go to Bane-kill, they availed
themselves of his carriage, either by day or night, as it suited
their convenience. If the Jury could believe that conduct,
for which the p'aintiti could so fairly and rationally account,
bad a right to lie weighed against hint, they would of course,
lean that way. If; ou the contrary, they thought, however
careless in the confidence of friendship, it was yet natural and
likely, they would, of course, not allow him to antler more than
lie had done by such unsuspecting intercourse.

•.
Sir Vicary Gibbs, in charging the Jury, said, that the Conn-
ect on both sides had pat the question fairly. 'the plaintiff had
said, that if there were no alleviation, the case would be a most
serious one; and the defendant, that it was one ,übject to a va-
riety of shades, according to the finis of the case. It was on
those facts that the Jury were to found their vcr ict ; and from
thou circumstances of alleviation (if any there be), that they
.were to measure their damages. The facts proved, in the pre-
sent vase, furnished a striking instance of the danger that at-
tended a deviation from the strict and decent rules Of propriety.
It exemplified, that alien persons indulged in a course of
life that cannot be jnstified, they not only contaminate them.
si Ives, but taint whatever approaches them by contact. This
observation arose from the circumstance, that the only allevia-
tion which the defendant's Counsel was instructed to make, liir
the act of the defendant, was, that, living in the state in which
he did, the plaint if had carelessly suffered an intimacy to soh.
sist with his family. The Learned Judge wade some strong
moral animadversions upon this feature in the case. In consi-
derations of this kind a Jury had better take a middle course,
and well consider, that though the plaintiff had diminished his
claim for damages' by allowing such au intercourse us that
which had subsisted between his family and the defendant, it
by no means followed, that, when he committed his wife to such
society, he bad consigned her without reserve into the arms of
a seducer. He had also the natural confidence in her behalf,
which the age of his wife afforded. When he married her Mai
was a widow, of the age of 30, with three children. When this
intimacy with Mr. graham wa§ carried on, she was 37 years
old. True, indeed, he allowed her to mixTwith such company ;
but this fact, faulty as it certainly was, did not deprive him of
kis remedy against the act of the defendant. The Learned
Judge here recapitulated the evidence to the Jury, and com-
mented on each part of it with his accustomed perspicuity ;
leaving to them to determine, from the retrospect, the quantum
of damages to which. the plaintiff was entitled, under all the
circumstances of his case.

The Jury, after a consultation of ten minute:, returned t
verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages, One 1 homsasid Pouads.

BRECON CIRCUIT.
Pre:Meier, Munelny, August 25.
Thermo, Saturolsy. Anprt 51.

JUL): 23.

POLICE.

BOW-STREET.

APPREHrNiION OF VAVGIII,I.-03 Wednesday three addi-
tional informations were received acainst Vrogintif ; and 3lr.
Naas issued A warrant for his apprehension. The officers de-
puted to apprehend him were Linibnek and the junior Read ;
and Frilav at one o'clock (in conAlpience of information) they
proceeded to No. 3, New-street, Fteldgate-sweet, IVliite-
chapel, and there apprehended him. lie was immeliately
brought before the Nlagistrate, and committed to the floihe of
Correction. 'Vaughan had a brace of loaded pistols on him
when taken.
Archibald Rutlivin was also examined; and Dickins was
ordered to tind bail, himself in 1001. and two sureties in 501. each.

The following confession has beta made by William Drake,
the man with a wooden leg:—
" I, William Drake, was at a public-house called the Fea-
thers; and on the skittle-ground of the same house, I heard,
amongst a set of mon, conversation conccruinr their breaking
open some honse. I communicated the same to Robert Mackay,
late officer in the city, and also to one Brown, who took me to
the Wells, and introduced me to Vaughan, to whom I gave the
information, who directly gave me money, and told are to snake
haste back to the same house and introduce nayself to the
parties above mentioned on the skittle-ground, winch I did not
think proper to do that night. But George Brown and I the
neat day introduced ourselves to one of the melt, named Dien,
and talked of diffiurent cracks ho had made, and several other
Bash words I did nut properly uuderstend; till at last Dine
opened his mind, and also talked of different cracks, and how
be had frisked a house in 0 sithrd-road of three dozen of shrouds
and other articles. This infirmation was given to Vaughan;
and he said, take more money, and task them well, and I will
get a friend of mine in Gray's-lam-lane, where they shall make
a crack. Brown was sent to the parties, and the time was
appointed; and the parties met there at 11 o'clock, from that
to 12. Mackay found a lantern, Vaughan the small crow unit
screws. Vaughan ordered the watchman to keep his box, and
put his light out. The watchman refused; and said, he would
keep his beat: for which be has been called before the com-
mittee, and through the representations of Macke y and
Vaughan, for his misconduct, has been dismissed; and the
crack was not made that night, according to Vaughan, Mackay,
and Brown's wish. The next day Vaughan told me to introduce
Mackay and Brown to Ann M•Donald, the prosecutor of the
men that were taken for the burglary; and Vaughan wished
me to speak to the said Ann M'Donahl to suffer the crack to
be m tile at her crib (I am now stating the very words used),
which I refused to do, and we had some trifling words. On
my refusal, they told me I should share equal with themselves;
but still I refused. Brown and another man called upon the
said Ann M‘Donalti, and promised to drink tea with her; but,
to my great surprise, they were all out, and the house close
slint up. I went to Vaughan's house, he was out; butt the
night previous, Edwards was taken into the concern, another
officer belonging to Bow street. I then called on Edwards;
he gave me 6s. to go to the Feathers and watch the parties,
and supply them with gin: mite!, Mackay and Brown was
in company when I received the money. Brown went to the
parties with me, and we saw two; as no more could be pro-
cured that night, Vaughan and Edwards would not unifier the
crack to be done. I then declined any thing to do with it: but pre.
vines to parting, Vaughan and Edwards told them to Pend for
Inure money which they did by a boy, and received 10s. when
Mackay and Brown promised to get every thing ready the
next night. I told Vaughan—' I have given you the informa
tion but I will not be seen in the transaction ; which he did
not require. The time was appointed. Brown took the
woman away, with a sailor lately from the East Indies; and I
have every reason to believe that the woman was totally
ignorant of what was going forward at her house, and it was
not by her consent. Vaughan was to meet me that night, after
the business was done, at the watering-house in Shoreditch,
which he did, and informed me, that three were taken out of
the five, and two the next morning by Mackay and Brown:
but I have every reason to believe that the ring was not taken
by the robbers, but placed in their pocket by Vaughan or Ed-
wards ; but there is not the least doubt but the men committed
the burglary."
In addition to the above, Drake has since made further dis-
coveries, and also charges a gentleman in a respectable official
situation, whose name it would at present be right to mention,
with employing Vaughan, and other infamous characters, to
detect persons for various offences, that lie might, on their con-
viction, receive what he was by his situation entitled to.
Read and Limbrick, the two officers who were the means of
unravelling this plot, have been actively employed, day and
nieht, ever since, iu following every clue that might lead to its
full development.
Mr. Segar, who keeps an iron shop in Gray's-inn-lane ; the
landlord of the Horse and Groom, corner of King's-road and
Gray's-inn-lane; the landlord of the Crooked Billet,Kingsland-
road ; and the landlord of the Crown and Anchor, near the
same place, have been examined at Bow-street, and their de-
positions agreed with the account given by Drake on the night
of the burglary at Sogar's, in Gray's-inn-laue.
About 50 years ago something in the plan of' the present dia-
bolical system of conspiracy was practised iu London, on which
occasion two of the wretches were hanged. One of the urti-
tires which they employed upon that occasion was, to prevail
upon some innocent man to hold a bundle or a horse, or some
other property recently stolen, and to have him immediately
apprehended as the real offender. Another practice about the
same time was, for two or three of the villains to go a mile or
two from the metropolis, and charge any poor luau lbr)
petted to meet with a robbery; and by a concerted plum, there
appeared on the trial an doubt of the unfortunate man's guilt;
fur, as the wretches were couveyiug the victims to peewit), they
always put into their pockets such articles as their accomplices
swore to ha, c been stolen.