The National Register.
London, England, 1815-07-16 00:00:00

TILE NATIYINAT, RMISTER.

to various other facts related by Mr. Holland, which demonstrated, in
Olt strong st manner, the mental derangement of the deceased, he
added, " Never did there exist a man, upon whose jue!gment and in-
-IFegrity I should have ,00ner relied, upon any case, either public or
private, as a countell, ror friend. In these relations I had consulted
him for mane years. But troni what I have observed cf his conduct
fol. a cur Siderable time past, he would have been the last person in
the world to whom I wuu!d have committed the slightest subject for
cousiderat;on !"

The evidence of John Weir was next taken. He deposal that he
)tad lived in the service of the deceased for 27 years. His master had
retired to rest on IVednesday night, about half-pzst ten o'clock, in ap-
parent good health. On the following morning he observed him
come down stairs, and go into his dressing-room, which was situated
on the ground floor, and looking into the garden. It was then half-
past nine o'clock, and the witness, as was his daily custom, went to
Wing some hot water to shave him. On reaching the door of t! e
dressing-room, however he found it fastened, and immediately
knocked. He receiv✓'d no answer, but retired, supposing his master
•Was particularly engaged. On his going through the passage, how-
ever, lie met the r rivate secretary of Mr. Whitbread, to whom he re-
lated the singularity of the dressing-room being locked ; a circum-
stance never be'Ore -known ! The secretary replied, it was equally
strange to hiM, as he himself had been trying to see Mr. W. and to
receive s, me orders, when he feund the door fast; and no answer
gi*en to his call or knook ng ! They both than determined upon
peeping in at the window froin the yard, which, having passed, and
not distinguishing the deceased in an upright posture, they looked more
riatfowly, and beheld with terror the body of their lamented master
sveltering in his blood. The wiliness instantly burst in the window,
and entered the room, Where he found the deceased with his throat
tut from ear to car, and the vital spark completely extinguished.
Medical aid, though called in, was quite useless. Perhaps no instance
elf self-destruction was ever mote complete ! A razor, with which
he elleCted the dreadful act, was found by his side on the floor. The
private secretary of the deceased confirmed the account given by the
List witness, hut such was the terror and confusion into which he
was thrown, by his first view of the shotking spectacle, that he could
riot recollect wnether he entered the room through the door or by the
window. This witness also deposed to many circumstar•.ces, which
Jed him to believe that the deceased had long laboured under strong
si•tnptorns of derangement. An eminent Physician proved the fact
Nkhielt had caused the death of the deceased, and after some other cor-
roborative evilence the Coroner left it to the Jury to decide, whether
under the strong and respectable testimony they had heard, they could
for a moment hesitate upon the verdict. In his opinion and the exer-
cise of his unpleasant duties a clearer instance of derangement had
never came before him.
The Jury, after a moment's consideration, concurred, and returned a
iitraict of—insanity,

JULY tG

the wii..esm, as usual, asked after Mary.- The rlefe•ndant replied,
that he knew nothing of her—his marriage with her was good for
nothing, sand tithed done with it. At the time of the marriage the
defendant was under are, and an apprentice.
Two letters of the defendant'• to the plaintiff were then rut in
and read. They were dated to the year tkilJ, in which he address.
cd her with great affection, and spoke shortly of completing their
union by a new marriage with the consent of the father of the plain-
tiff.

The sentence of nullity of marriage pronounced by the cycle:if:is.
tical Court was put in and read, by which it appeaied that at the
suit of the defendant the marriace beh. eon them was declared 1101
and void, on the around of infancy in the defendant.

The attorney for the plaintiff proved that he carried au offer frrm
the plaintiff, that she %ras ready to marry the defendant, but he re-
fused.

tiord Ellenborough here interposed, and ie-ked if the parties could
net now be brought together, which would be the best end of the
action. He remembered a similar ease, where the cause was ad-
journed, and the litigating parties WI e immediately married, and so
concluded the suite.—lt was replied, it could not be done in this
ca.e.

Espinasse then addressed the Jury for the defendant. He
complained that the defeinlatit, when a very young man. had int-
prudently formed the connection in question, when be wai not awate
of the consequences and important remits of such an engagement—
,
that as soon as he came of age be renounced it--that the 1411 Y wag
considerably older titan the young man, Mot what he chiefly re.
lied upon was a complete renunciation of the promise at a ,4 Wisc.
quest period by the plaintiff herself—that he should prove this at an
interview in June, 1/113 ; and that it was in const voice of this
new arrangement that the dr fendant prosecuted his suit in the Lc-
desiastical Ccurt ()Inutility of marriage.
To prove this last fact, Edward Monk, a brother of the de•
fendant's was called, who stated, that in June,lBl 3. lie accompanied
the defendant to the plaintiff. His brother, for some rea.on, had
for sonic time neglected his eorrespOndenee with the plaintiff. They
met, and had some discussion. in which his brother and the lady
both said that nothing more titan the ceremony of marriage had
passed between them. After some altercation, the lady said—" It
he did not write, she would not write more ; that he might do as he
pleased, and she wcnk! do as she pleased.' fhey then shook hands,
and said they would part friends.
Lord Ellenbormigh having summed lip the evidence, left it to the
Jury to say, whether what passed at the last interview was a formal
release of tie protnise by the plAint;tf; which the defendant had
clearly previously made to marry her ; or whether it was the mere
expression of anger at the moment, at being sc,pected of any thiaq
improper. There beim!, however, no evidence to impeach her con-
duct in any way, the Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages ,3001.