The National Register.
London, England, 1809-12-24 00:00:00

THE NATIO

t mgaccount; and Francis Wright has sworn not that the good
were put down to my account, but to the account of Mrs. Far-
quhar ; and that the goods sent in upon hire to Mrs. Clarke
before I became acquainted with her, were also put down to
the account, of Mrs. Farquhar for the following curious reason,
which I will give to your Lordship in the words as they were
sworn io the answer of Mr. Francis Wright. " And, therefore,
" this Defendant, having explained that the first entry of goods,
" sent in upon hire, to the said Mary Anne Clarke, had been
gg made in the name of Mrs. Farquhar, the mother of the said
" Mary Anne Clarke, as the said Mary Ann Clarke WAS, AT
66 TH AT TIME, APPREHENSIVE. OF BEING ARRESTED FOR
64 DEBT, AND MANY PERSONS HAD BEEN MAKING F.NQUI-
-44 RIES AT THE SHOP OF THIS DEFEN DA NT (Francis Wright),
46 AT WHAT PLACE THE SAID Mary Anne Clarke LIVED, the
" Complainant (Gwyllim Lloyd Wardle), suggested, that tht'
" entries of the said goods, should BE CONTINUED to be made
66 in the same manner, and the said articles, goods, and furni-
" titre were entered in the books of this Defendant accordingly."
Now, my Lord, Mrs. Clarke's evident object was, to lode the
statute of frauds, and thereby subject me to the whole of Mr.
Wri;lit's demand. But, my Lord, not only is Mrs. Clarke's
account contradicted by the Weights, but the statement of the
two brothers is at variance ; for if Francis Wright's statement
is taken for the truth, then, all the things hired, as well as solo'
c rt! entered in the name of Mrs. Farquhar, and formed ONE
CONTINUED ACCOUNT.

I observe your Lordship to have stated, that, " as to the
46 litle circumstances of taking the house in llolles-street, and
'6 the transaction with Curt, they are hut trifles in the cause.'
The insurance is another circumstance ; '6 hut that, (says your
46 Lordship) I cousideras a MERE IRREGULARITY of the par-
" ties, who had made a FOOLISH INSURANCE. on which they
could not have recovered." With great submission to your
Lordship, these circumstances do not appear, upon attentive
con,ideration, to be very trifling; I beg to put it thus to your
Lordship : You. have, my Lord, the fact, that the house was taken
by Mrs. Clarke, in the name of her mother, Mrs. Farquhar;
that the lease was in the name of Mrs. Farquhar; that MN.
Farquhar was the person debited in Mr. Wright's books; and
that the insurance was made in her name. 'Why, my Lord, all
this was done, the Defendants do not condescend to inform us;
and your Lordship even appears at a loss to guess at a reason.
But I think, my Lord, I can point out very substantial reasons
why all this is not to be considered " as trifling" and attributa-
ble to " mere IRR EGU LA RITY." If my lord, the lease had
been granted to Mrs. Clarke, or any person in trust for her,
without the concurrence of her husband, might not .that hus-
band, have taken possession of the house? If the goods had
been sold to Mrs. Clarke, might not that same husband have
possessed himself of those goods, or might not his creditor.? have
taken them in execution ? If too, my Lord, Mr. Wright had
debited Mrs. Clarke, might she not have pleaded her coverture
against him ? And 'ten., my Lord, I again peg you to consi-
der the remarkable reason, stated by Mr. Wright, for debiting
Mrs. Farquhar ORIGIN ALLY in His books, for the goods
sent in Upon hire; and I put it confidentially to your Lordship,
whether it is a creditable reason. Can it, my Lord, for a mo-
ment tie believed, by any man of ordinary capactiy that because
Mrs. Clarke was apprehensive of being arrested for debt, and
many persons had been making inquiries at the " shop of the
" Defendant, a' w hat place Mrs. Clarke lived," that thriv-
fore Mr. Wright should without any sugge4ion front Mrs.
Clarke, or permission from Mrs. Farquhar, debit the latter in
his hooks? Who, inv Lord, that enquired at the shop of Mr.
Wri4lit. for the residence of Mrs. Clarke, would ask to inspect
the Loa.ks of Mr. ‘V right ? What right could a person have to
do so ? Was stt,sh a thing ever heard, or dreamt of ? But, my
Lord, as I have said before, the reason is obvious; Mr. Wright
would not give the credit to her, lest be should plead her eover-
ture, as she did do, in a variety of actions. wherein Mr. Wright.
was her 6761, and who thereby became a part:;, in d.-featin!: the
just claims of her creditors. Respecting the insurance, I
understood Your Lori!-hip upon the.first trial, to hove thought,
tiiqt circumstance savoured more of hire, than a sale: and Now a
motion for a new trial, your Lordship observed, toat 66 people
" or the desc ri pt ion of the Defendants, are gentroffir shrewd and
well informed." How then, my Lord, is this to be reconciled
with the opinion, last delivered by your Lordship, that, " the
" insurance was a mere irregulurito of the parties, %s ho had
made a vOOll5ll one, on which they could not recover ?" Is
this like the conduct of " shrewd and well advised pei.sonl?" If
Mr. Wright read the policy, or even the proposals of the Are,