The National Register.
London, England, 1811-07-14 00:00:00

4.16

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, hr.? ii.

maroal TilL LORD? CUM' DAAQtr•

PROPERTY ACT.

.. ..

the floor towards their mistress's bed, and iminediately tbt bed
Save a-crash, and heard a noise for about twenty :Wastes, so as
to leave them little doubt of the fact. They watched for his
sivarture, but could not ascertain when or by what means he
contrived to escape. Early the next morning the servant boy
pet a ladder to the window of the china-closet, but could see
nothing more than a chair in it, which had been missed from
ti.e lady's chambeothe preceding day. On that day Mrs. Moore
discharged the cook-maid from her service, and shortly after
these facts were developed to the unfortunate husband; the
consequence of which was, the immediate dismissal of the de-
fendant from his stewardship, and the commencement of the
present action.
Lord Henry Fitzroy, Colonel Rushbrooke, and some of the
domestics spoke to the terms of affection and connubial happi-
nem.; upon which these parties had previously lived together,
but it came out upon the cross cxamination of the latter, that
;or tke last three years they had frequent bickerings and warm
disputes, and some friends in the neighbourhood were applied to
conciliate between the parties. It also appeared that they had
kept separate beds for some time previously, nor was there proof
of any extraordinary acts of seduction on the part of the
Defendant.
Mr. Park , in an ab'e address to the Jury oh behalf of the de-
fend; ut, urged the incredibility of the witnesses who spoke to
the act .f adultery and the improbability of their stars, and in
tniiioition of damages, supposing the Jury sholild And th fact
of adultery, he urged the youth and inexperiehee oftifioderend-
ant, the bad te-ins on which the parties lived, an 1 theVlitidoned
wantonness of the lady.
Lord ELIANBOROUGH, in summing up the evict.'
Jury, severely animadverted upon the briaohef
the serf:l,m towards his master; at the same tirn.e...4,
fit) eon.ider what damage any than coOlitonscainni
siciety of such a woman.
The Jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict foi the
Piaii.tiff—Damages 501.

. .
.- • • .•
er:wibt,
hOco.-•by. .

CAUTION TO BROKERS ON DISTRESSES FOR RENT.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. JOSEPH DALES.
This wag an information filed by the Attorney-General at the
instance of his Majesty's Commissioners for the Affairs of Taxes,
against the defendant, Joseph Dales, a broker, for the penalty of
801. ircurred by his having, in making a distress for refit due to
one. Henry Clark Granger, the landlord, refused to allow Jo-
seph Walden, the tenant, the sum of 11. Bs. being the landlord's
property-tax, charged on, and pain by Walden, for two small
tenements in Upper Thames-street and Elbow-lane.
Mr. Dennery,the Counsel for the Crown, having proceeded
to state the facts in support of the prosecution—
The defendant, by his Counsel, observed, that he was con-
vinced. of Li 3 c rror, and that he had not any defence to offer in
mitigation, except that he acted under the express direction of
the landlord,Granger, by whom he was employed to distrain fos
rent, and who is not now to be found.—Verdict for the
Crown.

On Friday, in the Court of Chancery, in the ease of Morris
v. Colman, Proprietors of the Haymarket Theatre, Sir Samuel
Romilly moved for an injunction to prevent the defendant from
engaging other performers than those already engaged. Mr.
Hart obj. cted to the motion, as the defendant had not an oppor-
tunity of answering the plaintiff's affidavit, and trusted that his
Lordship would allow it to lay over until the next Seal. The
Lord Chancellor observed, he would rot object to its remaining
ever, on condition that in the intermediate time, the defendant
should not engage any performer. This was assented to by
I‘lr. Hart.

- .
On Thursday, in the Court of Common Pleas, Mr. Fuller,
2,..(W5..-cary, of Piccadilly, obtained a verdict of 75001. against
Sir Jam e 3 'Montgomery, Bart. Edward B. Douglas, and Wm.
Murray, Esqrs. _Executors of the late Duke of Queensberry, for
his attendanqe on his Grace for seven years and a half, during
which time. he had made him 9340 visits. The action was
brought for 10,0001.

OLD BAILEY.

On Wednesday these Sessions commenced. No trial of any
importance took place until Friday, when
John Francs was indicted for feloniously forging and uttering
as true, knowing it.to be forged, a certain order for the payment
of 151. purporting to be the order of one James Cooke, jun. on
Messrs. Praed and Co.,with intent to deft and Jemima 'Ware.
Ann Ware deposed that she lived with her mother-in-law,
Jemima Ware, in Sydney-street, Croswell-street road, and that
on the 15th of August 1808 the prisoner came to lodge in their
house, in the name of James Cooke. On the githot September,
in the same year, he called witness into his room, and asked her
if she thought she could procure for him cash fur a draft of 121.
she said she would c deavour so to do, and he immediately
wrote a draft for that sum, and addressed it to Messrs. Praed
and Co. which she took to a public-house in the neighbourhood,
but was unable to procure the amount. On her return horns
she told her mother-in-law what the prisoner wanted, upon
which she said she had a 151. Bank-note in her possession. which
the prisoner might have for the draft, provided he would give
her the difference. Witness then returned to the prisoner, and
hich he expressed
Terence he
what GS se-
another
of Erigland
be draft in
Haynes, to
initials upon it.
returned#
Prat d and Qo,.
this. in ti=4.

from hetv •
brit:Ube to
dicrivritit
there will be no
went down ta„
white conversing
prisoner went out, saying return to tea.
He did not, liiewever. return on that night AO. at any other
time, and the ensuing morning Haynes returned again with the
draft, on which was written, by one of the °elks in the house
of Praeci and Co. 14 the drawer not known here." Witness did
not see the priso• er from *hat time until the month of June last,
when she saw hin: in custody at Flattetnarden Office, where
he confessed tie:: his name was John Frauds, and tibt Cooke.
These facts were corroborated by several witnesses.
On the prisuuer being called on for his defence; said he had
received the 151. on account of the first draft for IM. which he
had drawn, and which had been de aroyed, and not for that up-
on which the present prosecution was founded. He did not
produce any witnesses to character.
SirALLAN CYAMaaE having summed up the evidence with
great perspicuity, the Jury returned a verdict of Guilty—,
Diaz&

told him the proposition of her mother, at which he e;
some satisfaction, and said if it would make no differ
would draw a draft' for the whole sun—to which wil
ceded, and the priAoner tore the first draft, and wrote
for 151. in return for which be received the 1.51. Bank of
Note. During the same evening witness delivered the
question by her es_dtit-e, to a man named Hs
whom aim. vs* „yrevioydr placing her initials
Ift A abort flaytiechaereceissa the draft he n
41147111.410-*Cilia4oo. dieThouse of Prac d
itt name" .140.' 'Mattoon, on receiving
10-4'4nl, retuitteAlppop , tabor him .the ref
tron tirade by Haynes.' b!.tndk the draft ti
and on reading it said, fee my mistake; I have fors
place the ward junior after my hornet" and he then c
that word, and returned it to witties.i itayinc," there w
objection to paying it DOW" Witness then went
Haynesond again gave hum the draft, ant white co
with him the prisoner went out, saying he should retun