The National Register.
London, England, 1821-08-06 00:00:00

COX AND OTHERS V. TROY.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 2381.
The bill was drawn by Stephen Roche and Co. of Cork,
upon Mathew Tierney Rattans and Co of London, at
sixty-one days' sight; it was payable to the order of
Michael Murphy; and it was endorsed by Murphy,
to Messrs. Cox, Weston and Co. the plaintiffs.
The Solicitor-General said that the action was brought
• under circumstances of some peculiarity, and it involved
a question of great commercial importance. The bill,
receiv Al by Messrs. Cox and Co. on the 24th May, 1820,
was left on the same day for acceptance at the counting-
Muse of Messrs. Tierney Robans and Co. On the 27th
of the same month it was again called for ; and in the
mean time, the act had been done which gave rise to the
Present proceeding. The Nil being left with Messrs.
Tierney Robarts and Co. on the 24th May, was accepted
by them on that day, payable at the house of Robarts,
Curtis, and Co.; but on the 25th of May, news of the
failure of thu drawers, Messrs. Roche and Co. and
Messrs. Tierney Robarts and Co. that endeavoured by
obliteration, to cancel their acceptance.
The bill was put in and read. The defendant was
admitted to be the surviving partner in the house of Mr.
Tierney Robarts and Co.
Mr. F. Wallis was clerk to the plaintiffs. On the
24th of May, 1820, he left the bill in question at the
house of the defendants for acceptance. He put it into
the box it► the ordinary course, and called for it again
on the 27th of May.
Cross-exJmined.—The words " 27th July," denoting
the day upon which the bill would fall due, were not in
the hand writing of any of the plaintiffs, or of any clerk
its their employ. 'Prose words were out upon the bill
(as witness believed) when he left it with the defendants.
Mr. Coles said, 1 ant attorney fur the plaintiffs in tins
80.1011. I have ex.' m i lied the bill since a cattle from
the hands of the defendants. Font my kIHM ledge o!.
the facts I am enabled to make out, under the red ink
obliteration, the whole acceptance; but I do not think
that without such previous knowledge, I could make
out so much.
Mr. Scarlett for the defendants referred to the case of
snaking a bill of exchange. It bail been held over ana
user again, that a bill was out made until after u was
d. livered.

The Lord Chief Justic,, thought tile questiou of I tw
highly important; the better counr would be to put it
into a shape of a case, !eat.* the :,,ct to the jury whe.
they there had not bet.ti au acceptAice writnn tiputt the
bill.

The Solicitor General admitted that the law was
doubtful.

DI r. Scalett assented to his lordship', tilvz,ze.i
The Lord Chief Justice then the fact of a written
acceptance to the jury. Tile cadence of Mr. Coles,
his lordship said, had been giver, won great candour
and caution. The jury nail be. is told Ilya an acceptance
night be written upon a hill by abst,, ke. If such had
been the fact in the present case it would hate been easy
fur the defendants to prove it.
The Jury found a verdict fur the plahlt4s—Darnoges
osi. The question whether delivery he or be not a ne-
cessary part of the acceptance, Of course rettlains to he
proved.

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

WEDNESDAY. AUGUST Li

EARL NALCARRAS, LADY ANN LINDSAY, AND OTHERS,
V. MICHAILL ATKINSON, ESQ.

111 this case a bill was bron3ht into the Court of
Chancery, stating, " that there was no will duly made
by Richard Atkinson, E.g. Alderman of London, and,
if wade, it bad been cancelled." An issue was sent from
the Court of Chancery to try the question whether there
was a will executed by the said Richard Atkinson, Esq.
Alderman of Loudon, in 1782, and if that will had since
been cancelled.

After a body of evidence was given pro and con. the
Jury found a verdict for the plaititilL, egablishing the
validity of .iic will.

CI IM. (.ON.-COVENEY V. YORSTON.

Mr. Holt opened the pleadings by stating this was an
an action to recover damages for criminal conversation
with the plaintiff's wire.
Mr. Scarlet( stated the case. He had to make an
appeal to the Jury for the redress of one of the greatest
injuries a man could sustain, namely, the loss of Ins wife's
alltction. The profligacy of a seducer had destroyed the
happiness of a father, and ruined the prospects of his
children. The plaintiff was a person who cart ied on the
business of a publican. Some time ago he took the 0. P.
and P. S. chop. house, Russell-coin, Drury-lane, which
had been long known as the resort of theatrical persons,
and the pet I ttttt iers of the different theatres: The de-
fendant was a law stationer, carrying on business in
Mitre-court, Temple. lie was very road of theatrical
amusements, and was in the habit ol going into the win-
ter theatres, and kept the company of some of the actors
of Drury-lane theatre. lle was introduced to Mr. Kean,
and (Wier eminent performers, at Mr Covency's house;
and such was Mr. Yorsion's literality, that he gave a
grand dinner to the principal actors and their friends at
Mr. Coveney*s. After this dinner, Mr. Yorston visited
at Mr. Coveney's hint,e, and a great deal cf attention
was paid by him to Mr.Coveney's fatuity, particularly to
Ars. Coveney's sister, who assisted in the bar. Mr%
Yorston became afterwards the constant companion and
professed friend of Mr.Coveney, and took the opportu-
nity of the ansence of Mr. Coveney to seduce his wife
front her duty, and to commit the most base and
treacherous injury which one man could do to another.
He paid particular attention to M rs. Coveney—frequently
invited her to sup with him, and became tery intimate.
The plaintiff having unfortunately become embarrassed,
• the defendant advanced him money, and filially arrested
him, %Virile he was in confiement, the defendant car-
' ried on a criminal intimacy with Mrs. Coveney. The
lady, as he should prove, under pretence of going to the
country to visit her relations, went to Crap:tad, in Kent.
At the Bear and Ragged Staff, in that town, she was
met by the defendant, who inquivd for her as his wife.
He was introduced to her, and they remained together
during Saturday night and Sunday. They Slept in the
Same bed, and passed for man and wife. The identity
would he proved by the servants, and the jury would
have no room to doubt the fact. Adverting to the quo-
don of &mugs, he represented the defendant to be a
person in good business as a law stationer. Ile kept his
gig, and was able to make the plaintiff such compensa-
tion as the circumstances of the case required.
Edward Coveney sworn, and examined by Mr. Holt.
—1 ant the brother of the plaintiff. I was present at his
marriage with Miss Johnson, the present Mrs.Covency.
It took place in 1819, at St. George's, Southwark; she I
was then 22 years of age, and he was 32. After their 1:
marriage I visited them. They had two children—boys.
They lived very comfortable together. Miss Johnson
was a lady of considerable personal attractions; she re-
sided before her marriage at Balden, near Canterbury.
BeAre the plaintiff went to prison, be lived at the 0. P.
and P. S. tavern, Russell-court, Drury-lane. In 1819
the plaintiff went to prison ; he was arrested by Mr. Yor-
sum ; he was in prison nine mouths, and took the benefit
of the Insolvent Act.

Cross-examined by Mr. Scarlett.—l went with my
brother to his wile's lodgings in Canterbury-place, and
found the children in distress, and gave him money to
relieve them. This was after his release from prison the
second time.. I have seen Mr. Yorston in the bar of the
U. P. and P. S.
Miss Felicity Johnson sworn.--1 resided with the
plaintiff and my sister, at the o.l'. and P. S. lie pre-
viously lived in Warwiel-court, Holborn; was a wine
merchant ; he had two boys. The 0. P. and P. S. was
much frequented by the performers at the Theatres. The
house was well attended. Mr. Yorston visited the 0. P.
and P. S. the first time about six weeks after my brother
took the house. { first saw hint on the day of a dinner
being given by him to the performers. Mr. Yorston was
I cry Iriendly y•ith my brother and sister. They visited
Mr. and Mrs. Yorston in Al itre-court, and Mrs. Yorston
visited at the 0. P. and P. S. I remetni.er my brother
and Mr. Yorsion went a trip to Margate. Al y sister's
conduct to toy hr tther prior to Mr. Yostern's visits was
very proper, but subsequently it was very strange ; she
lit.C.lllle cureless towards hint, and 1 observed that her
attentions were lint as formerly directed towaids him. 1
remember thy sister going on a visit to my father and
mother at Whits:Ade, near Canterbury. I remember
when she returned home it was hi the eveninst. She
said that she stopped at Chatham ad night,atul ham come
home by the Chatham coach. When tiiv sister entered
the home she seas exctedin,oly agit:Led, and burst into
tears, and went tip stairs. My sister went more than
mice to visit ht r father and mother while residing at the
11. P. and P. S. My Mother was taken to the King's
haviiig I c n arrested. Alter this period, and
while lie was in priS,,l!, Mr. Y0T,,,11 visited the 0. P.
alri P. S. more frequently illah !Whole. One day Mr.
Coveney bad a day title ; ue sup;.ed with Mr. Yorston
at his house at the 'lentil.... Air. Yorsion enure that
evening to the 0. P. and RS. am: Mr. Covehey entered
the hou-e, while Alt. Yorsniti went ant at one door as
Mr. (twenty entr:ed at the timer. Mr. Covency did
not ts.e Mr Yorsm.i out. r. Yorstun told me not
to tell Mr. Cm envy that he hat: been at the house; for
while he %ea, at (limier wan Into, he told him he was
on a ti>it to swite ,:l.tate at die west end of the

town. After my brother came out of prison he lived in
Salisbury court, Fleet-street; after that Mr. Yorston was
not so friendly towards Mr. Coveney.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney:—The 0. P. and
P. S. was a house of mirth and festivity. Seven or eight
actors were admitted into the bar. I never saw seven or
eight persons take liberties before Mr. Cormley's face
with my sister. I never saw any person rage liberties
with her at all. I never heard any licentioni language,
nor did I ever hear Mr. Coveney cal' my sistcd a " d—
b—." I do not know that Mr. Coreacy was drunk
twice a week or not. I saw Mr. Yorstone once kiss
Mrs. Covenev in the bar ; when it was I can't say. I
knew when Mr. Coveney was Lipsey, he was made so by
Mr. Yorston.

Mary Norman.—l reside at Dartford. I did reside
in 1818 at the Bear and Ragged Staff Tavern, at
Crayford, in Kent. 1 was chaml)::r-maid at that inn.—
I remember in June or July, 1618, a lady and gentleman
coming down to Crayford ; it was about two or three
o'clock in the day. The gentlemi.n came down in a
chaise and the lady in a coach. They (passed by the
names of Mr. and Mrs. Colford.—They remained at the
Bear and Ragged Staff two nights. 1 have since seen
the two persons; they are Mrs. Covvney and Mr. Yors-
ton, the defendant. I went to see Mrs. Covemy lately
over at Walwortn ; Mr. Cuveney went part of the way
with me, and the lady I saw at %Valworth was the laity
who slept at the inn with Mr. Torsion. I have since
seen Mr. Yorston at his house in the Temple. I went to
purchase a stamp at his shop by the direction of Mr.
Abbott the Attorney, and Mr. Yorston supplied me with
it. I know him to be the man who slept at the Bear
and Ragged Staff with Mrs. Curette/.
The landlord of the Bear and Ragged Staff was ex-
amined; he could not prove that the two persons who
boarded and lodged at his house were Mrs. Coveney and
the defendant.

The Lord Chief Justice said, that there was not suffi-
cient evidence to prove that the female was seen at %Val.
worth, by the last witness but one, who slept at the
Bear and Ragged Staff, was the wife of the plaintiff;
and directed a non-suit to be entered.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Aug. 1.

IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM HOLDING'S BANKRUPTCY.

We two or three weeks ago reported the trial of an ac-
tion brought by this bankrupt against three of the com-
missioners for trespass and false imprisonment, in having
illegally committed him to Newgate ; and it will be re-
membered that on that trial a verdict was given for the
defendants, although it now appears that it ought to have
been given for the plaintiff, the validity of the commis-
sion being one of the chief points in issue. This was a
petition to the Chancellor to supersede the COMMiSIIIOII,
upon the ground of no good petitioning creditors debt
having existed at the time of the act of bankruptcy being
committed; and, note ithstandiug the verdict in the action
tried against the commissioners being supposed to have
established the validity of the commission, his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor this day pronotinaed judgment in
favour of the bankrnpt, and directed the commission to
be superseded at the es.pence of the creditor who issued
it.
Mr. Loyal, in support of the commission, stated, that
upon the commission being superseded, the bankrupt
might bring a great number of actions against the com-
missioners, messenger, assignees, and others ; and ha
therefore trusted his Honour, upon granting the super-
sedeas, would itnprose such terms as would prevent any
actions being brought.
Mr. Aluntagu and Mr. Wakefield, the bankrupt's coun-
sel, would consent to no terms which should deprive their
client of his undoubted right to bring actions against all
parties concerned in this illegal commission, and the Vice-
Chancellor declared be could not interfere to prevent Mr.
Holding bringing suck actions.