The National Register.
London, England, 1809-11-26 00:00:00

758

Court, thht the Jury were hours in deliberation on the present
&use; and that with respect to the testimony of one of the
witnesses, after what has passed in another place, no credit can
'possibly be given to her. It was carefully proved on the trial,.
by Mrs. Clarke in particular, that no credit was ever given to
Her; because it was very well known that, if credit was for an
instant given to • the party for whom goods .were furnished, it
had been decided by your Lordship, that any promise of pay-
Mete by any body elsetaust be in writing. Mrs. Clarke knew
this, and therefore ereleavoured to make out that her acquaint-
ance with Colonel Wardle began before any order which had
becu given to the Plaintiff; but upon her cross-examination, I
extracted from her, first, that her acquaintance with Colonel
IVardle began in the autumn, which she said she considered to
be September or October, and afterwards, that it did not com-
mence till the 16th of November."
• Lord ELLENUOItOUtithse--" That went to the Jury, as a con-
tradiction in her testimony, and their verdict was ,pronounced,
taking that into consideration." •
Mr. Serjeant BEST..—" A great part of the Plaintiff's goods I
were sent in to Mrs. Clarke, before her acquaintance with
Colonel Wardle; and this was got over by rsaviog they were •
sent on hire. Here rs. Clarke and Daniel Wright contradict
each other, the former swearing that they were returned, the
latter, that they went in part of the order. Ido not bring ell
these circumstances forward as the ground for a new trial, brit
as corroborative of those circumstances upon o hick I do ask
for a new trial. I have since procured the affidavits of Court,
and a woman of the name of Mumford, servant to Simeon Bell,
end a positive affidavit of Sir Richard Phillips, all of which
for the present 1 must take to be uncontradicted. If your
Lordships feel that it will advance the ends of justice to do so,
you will grant me a new trial ; if that verdict, upon w hich a J ury
paused hours before they gave it—
Lord ELLENDOROUGII.—" I beg that may not he unders-
tood : it Would be a more dangerous doctrine. It might be for
the particular advance of justice, but certainly it would not be
fur the general. It is not because evidence which is unimpeach-
ed at the trial is afterwards contradicted, that the Court grant
new trials."
Mr. Scrjeant LEST.—" But in suspicious casts, where the
evidence is afterwards clearly slice' to be false, a aew trial
may be granted ; and ec may rely upon what Sir Richard
Lord LeLEtenonouGH.—"Certaiely not. It would then give
yea an opportunity of stringing a e hole bead-roll of witnesses
together, procured since the trial, to answer each his Own car-
t icular branch of the Plaintiff's ease. if the affidavits of Mum-
ford and Bull arc material falsifiers of the Plaintiff's case, and
if you will thew me that they could not have been procured
before the
Mr. SeKicaut BEST--" I think they are, my Lord.► far
from Wright's refusing Mrs. Clarke credit, it .4)les:us by Bull's
affidavit, that he recommended her to him as a tenant."
Lord ELLENBOROUGII—" Aye, that's a very different thing."
Mr..Serjeant BEST—" And stated, that he was to furnish a
house for her."
Lord ELLENDOROUCII—" The whole effect of that might
beve been to give her a false credit, iu order to hold up her
heaff, that he might get his 5001. from her."
Mr, Svijeallt BEST—" If the rules of the Court of King's
-Bench are against me, Col. Wardle must sebmit to pay the
1051. At all events, we may say here what has been said else-
where—that infamy, and a great deal of it too, must attach
stomew here ; and, at any rate, Col. Wardle has an opportunity.
of saying, that the same conspiracy which has obtained a ver-
diet against 'him before, has been exerted in the affidavits which
are now at hand to oppose the present rule ; and, 1 trest it • w
ill
be exposed by the same indictment."
Lord ELLENBOKOUGH was of opinion, that if a sew trial
were to be granted ou the grounds that it was applied for in the
.present case, it. would be setting a dangerous precedent. A De-
fendant would have no more to do than to lie by, and not contra-
diet the case made out by the Plaintiir, and w hen the verdict was.
against him, he might then, atleisure,look out for other evidence,
amid apply to set aside the verdict. Ile did not mean to say, that
in this case there was any improper beating up for witnesses on
the part of the Defendant; but it would be extremely dangerous
to permit any Defendant to have such a power. The general
ground upon which the verdict was sought to be shaken, was sur-
prise. Now he wonld ask what was the nature of this surprize
Was it
ht a surprise on Mr. Wardle,to that the Plaintitishould have
broug Mrs. Clarke for ward prove his case or was the so:-

NOV; 26.

prise at the details of the proof ? He certainly knew the nature .
-of the case which the Plaintiff brought, and might have had a
bill of particulars. When the Defendant's Attorney was looking
out for witnesses to rebut the charge, would not his attention
be naturally attracted to Mr. Curt, the landlord of the house in
Westbourne-place, who might certainly be supposed a likely
• person to know something about the furnishing his house ? if
he had been applied to, it now appears that he could not only
have given some evidence on this point, brit also respecting a suns
of money paid by Mr. Wright for fixtures. Why then was Air.
Curt not applied to, and summoned on the part of the Defendant
Was the Court to he called upon for its special interference in
favour of neglect or indolence, or was it not rather to protect
surprised vigilance ? As to the point which had been made
about the insurance of the goods, that was also a point on which
the Defendant might have had full information before the trial.
As to the circumstance of Wright having been so often bail foe
Mrs. Clarke, although he was somewhat struck w ith it w hen first
it was mentioned. yet upon consideration he did not think it ma-
terially contradicted the story which had been told by. the wit-
nesses; and if this circumstance had appeared to him on its first
being mentioned in the same light it now did, after mature consi-
deration, he probably w could not have granted the rule. Wright
knew that there was no dangrr in bailing her, as she had already
proved her coverture, and could at all times shelter herself under
that plea. As to the answer of Mr. Wright to the 11111 in Chan-
- eery, if*the Defendant had thought that evidence necessary foz
his case, it would have been an ordinary application to the
Court to put oil' the trial until that aeswer could be obtained,
or an injunction could have been obtained in Chancery to stay
proceedings at law until this answer was put in. lie therefore
could not see upon what ground the Defendant could justly com-
plain of being taken by surprise. Almost all the evidence which
had now been stated, could, with due diligence, have been ob-
tained upon the trial, and there was nothing new which
treat to overturn completely the case as mach out (or the
Plaintitr. As to the pretence of the Defendant being taken
by surprize, from not happening to be in Court, or to be
able to communicate personally with his Counsel it was
an ()ejection entitled to no weight. The Defendant, it
appeared, was in the Hall during the trial, and either did, or
mie lit have communicated, if he thonght proper, with any of
the persous employed for him.. It seems that he actually keew
what the witnesses had sworn. If the Defendant was not la
Court, and cuuld have served his cause by a personal communi-
' I cation with his Counsel, whose fault was it that he did not do
su ? What was to prevent him from comming into Court, and
personally giving his Counsel what directions he thought pro.
per ? If this cause suffered any thing by his being in the Hall,
inAead of the Court, whose fault was that ? Upon the whole,
he considered that if the Court were to set aside this verdict,
upon the grounds which bad been stated, they would. be shak-
ing all the security for property, and establishiog a precedent,
which would produce incalculable mischief. He, therefore,
should order the rule to be discharged.
The other Judges gave their opinions seriatim, and concurred
with his Lordship.—Ruk for a new trial Refused.

On Tuesday the Court of Kings Bench decided the cause of
tic Lail of Lindsey, against the Trnstees of the late Duke of
Ancaster, in favour of Lordship, by which he becomes pas-
t•essed of his ancient family property of Utlington, near Stamford

POLICE.

PUBLIC OFFICE) BOW-STREET.

Mr. John nobson, of No. 2, America-squser:, 8h:13-owner,
was brought to this wilco on Tuesday, SOP:i after eight o'clock,
by .0: tie of the pat role it° were io thendtince at Covent Gar-
den Theatre. lie exhibited 11.ttl most tattered appezrance, his
coat being or front ;Lirts to the collar behind, and one of
the lappets was nearly tore oil in front. On his entrance. he
Was placed et the felons' liar, where he remained until Mr. James
Brandon tame, who shortly after appeared, and stated that
the performances of the evening had proceeded in the most peace-
able and orderly manner till the commencement of hall-price,
when discord and confusion were excited by the prisoner, who,
on entering the pit, began a fit of artificial sneezing and cough-
ing, w hick, like the application of a lighted match to gun-
powder, was productive of an instantaneous' and general ex
plosion, and riot and tumult became universal. Some of his
Ugvittg in,iittated to him that his conduct Wai cgiatTiC."