The National Register.
London, England, 1809-12-10 00:00:00

ONAL. REGISTZR.

THE N

When'Mr. Clifford catee-iniiitlie p.-Tf,;ev-Was welcomed.bitTre-
jalutatitm of " here comes the honest Counsellor;" and way was
'Shade for him- to go to the centre of the pit. How did it happen,
'that at his entrance he was saluted by the observation, " here
coMes the honest Counsellor? How came it that a word from.
Aim* was sufficient to prevent a man from springing his rattle ?
If he in any way encouraged the rioters, he was guilty,
He must allow that the rule of law was, that no private per-
eon could arrest another for a bare breach of the peace, at a
time subiequent to the commission of it, without a warrant from
a Magistrate. If the riot had been over a long time, and Mr.
Clifford had taken the 0. P. • out of his hat-some hours before,
and ceased to give any assistance or encouragement to the rioters,
Mr. Brinition, or any other private person, would be justified in
arresting him without a warrant for such his past offence. If the
performance and the riots had been at an end for the night, the
arrest would not be justifiable in law. By law a private person
'bad 0010i:right to arrest a person rioting or breaking the peace
at the tiate of his committing such offence.; hut the Jury would
eonsider;* what was the ordinary and fair signification of the
words " at the time of his committing the said offence," and
whellwrthey did not apply to the circumstances under which
Mr. Clifford was arrested. If, however, the Jury should lind
a verdict for the Plaintiff, he would request them to state to
'him the grounds upon which they so found, whether it was
'from their opinion of the arrest being illegal in point of time, or
whether they did not believe the plaintiff to hare assisted or
encouraged the riots.
The Jury then retired to consider their verdict.
Sir Jamas MANSFIELD thee addressed himself to the multi-
tude that filled the Court; and said, that he hoped the many
,who had been misguided, would now understand that their con-
duct was illegal, and that it could no longer be endured ; and,
that they would subject themselves to very heavy punishment,
if they persisted.
The Jury after an absence of about I 0 minutes, returned with
a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages Five Pounds.
Sir 'TAMER MANSTIEUD wished to know the grounds of the
verdict. The Foreman of the Jury said, it was their wish to
give a general verdict, without entering into the particular rea-
sons ofeach individual. He afterwaeds said, that the Gentle-
men of the Jury were unanimously agreed that the arrest was
illegal althongh some were more influenced by the manner and
time of the arrest, and others thought that Mr. Clifford had not,
merely by Wearing 0. P. in-his hat, become a rioter, so as to
justify his being arrested. Sir James Mansfield expressed much
regret at the verdict, from which he feared very ill consequences
were likely to result.

-
COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, TEUR6DAY, Dsc. 7.

N '► • i

THE KING V. THE. DUKE OF GORDON:I
Mr. WIGLEY opened the pleadings, lie stated this to be an
indictment against his Grace, on the prosecution of Thomas
Waite and Sarah his wife, for an assault, with an intent to com-
'snit a rape on the said Sarah. There was also another count for
a common assault.
Mr. PA It s. said, that it was his constant custom when con-
ducting prosecutions, rather to understate than overstate the
facts which he expected to be proved in evidence. From this
,vractise.he should net now depart, in consideration of the rank
• "or is itua tion of either of the parties, but simply relate, to the
:Jury sthose facts which be understood could be proved. Sarah
Waite, the Prosecutrix, was the wife of Thomas Waite, a jour-
.sle.ytuan carpenter, and was, at the time the assault was commit-
.ieit, a doniestic servant of Lady Margaret Stanley. It was a
,circuinstance in favour of her character, that she had lived live
yeas in the service of that Lady, who reposed in her so much
,toofidence,, tliat when she left town iti the spring of 1808, she
Arusted het with the care of her house, plate and furniture.—
,:Laitly Margaret Stanley wished, as many persons of fashion
40. to let her house furnished while she was out of town, and
tynko OnOon. took it. Sarah Waite remained in the
,torti:yer servant. She was unmarried, and of irreproach-
-0 e charfiCter. The Duke of Gordon was more than sixty
?,ear* Rr. ege,.and had not lived for a considerable time with his
1)1iu os. it might be said that it was improbable that a man
of hts.a a Would attempt an offence of this nature ; but whoever
was sicgminted with the annals of Courts of Justice, and the
histOiy.' of' inauk hid, would know that such offences have been
committed at a i eriod of life still more advanced. The Duke of
pordhon very frequently dined alone. On the 23d of March,

10.

1808, he desired' one of his- feetinittriirelie name of Fleming, to
bid the girl of the house:come in, and shut'the shutters. She res•
fused upon the first message, and said that it was the business of
his footman to do it; but upon a second message, sfie
The Duke got into conversation with her; asked her whether
she was a town or country girl, and pressed 'her very much to
take a glass of wine, which she at last consented to. A {few
nights afterwards, he sent for her again, to shut the shutters;
and again pressed her to take wine, which she refused, but took
a few apples. He insisted on kissing her, which she objected
to. He then forced a piece of money into her hand and bid her
buy a gown with it. This piece of money afterwards turn-
ed out to be a new shilling: but his Grace must have giveh it in
mistake for a guinea, as he could never suppose a gown was
to be bought for a shilling. Some time afterwards, on the
2d of May, he sent for her again to shut the shutters; and she
purposely left the door open, which he desired her to shut.—
After pressing her very much to take wine, which she refused,
he came between her and the door, .and behaved with great in-
decency. She resisted ; and he being an old man, she threw
him down against the furniture, and went away. About a fort-
night afterwards, heasked her why she was so shy and bashful.
and why she refused to comply with his a, ishes. It might be
well judged, that these liberties were highly disagreeable to the
Prosecutrix, as when they began, she was on the eve of being
married to a man of nearly her own age, who would, probably,
be more agreeable to her than an old man: and the 2d of
May, upon which the assault was committed, was the day after
her marriage. The fact was, that she constantly related these
things to the young man to whom she was now married, and
wished to gilt the house; but he, considering that she was a
young girl. aisle to resist any liberties of that sort, and that she
was trusted. with the charge of a considerable property, advised
her to Nay.. Having stated these circumstances, he could not
say that they amounted, in. his mind, to a proof that the Duke
absolutely meditated a ilspe. on the Prosecutrix, but that Ise
first tried to win her to his wishes, and did actually make a very
violent and indecent assault, which would be sulficiept to sup-
port clue part of the indictment. It might be objected that this
alleged assault took place on the 2d of May, ISM whereas the
bill of indictment was only presented at Hicks's Hall in April,
1809. In order to account for this delay, he could only say.
that the prosecutors were lew ignorant persons, were not ac-
quainted with the justice and impartiality with which the laws
are administered to all ranks of people, and then as the Duke
of Gordon went soon after to Bath, and then to Scotland, they
thought they must wait, at least, till he came back to England.
If the other party could prove the delay arose from any at,
tempts to compromise the matter with his Grace, or that any
proposal of that nature was made, he would give up the cause.
In a prosecution for a rape, the lying by fur many months
would be a decisive circumstance against the prosecution, but
it was different in the case of an assault of this nature. The
trial had been put off' at the last sitting, on account of the ill-
ness of the prosecutrix. Some iusinuations were then made
against her character, but he believed it was tthimpeached, and
unimpeachable.
Sarah Waite was then called as a witness, but did not an-
swer. The attorney then went out of Court to look for her,
and, after waiting a copsiderable time, returned, and said she
was not to be found. . •
The Jury of course immediately acquitted the defendant.

CRIIII. CON.—Fmn4r, DEC. 8.
TAUNTON V. WYHORNE.
This was an action for damages brought by the Plaintiff
against the Defendant, for criminal conversation with the wife
orthe former.

The Plaintiff', Mr. Taunton, is an Attorney of eminence,
resident in Essex•street, in the Strand; and the Defendant,
Wyborne, is a Barrister, who also lives in the same street, and
is besides a married man.

The Plaintiff laid his damages at 20,0001. ; the Counsel for
the Plaintiff were the Attorney-General, Mr. (farrow, and Mr.
Dampier ; for the Defendant, Mr. Park, and Air. Marriot.
The following were the principal facts that appeared upon
the evidence. The Plaintiff had been married to Mrs. Taunton
about four years, and had several children by her. There was
a variety of evidence adduced to chew that after their marriage
they were a very affectionate couple, and that they had lived
together with the greatest harmony and affection until the period
of the unhappy coweetioa which Mrs. Thuutoß had formed with