The National Register.
London, England, 1818-08-02 00:00:00

GEE V. PRITCHARD.

This was an application to dissolve an injouctien which had
been obtained, restraining the defendant from publishing cer-
tain letters of a coatidential nature, which he had received
from the plaintiff, his step-mother.—The case was as tot-
loos :—W. Caress, Asti° Ind taken the name of Gee, in con.
fortuity to the conditions by which he became entitled to e
large property, had no issue by his wife, Anne, the plaintiff,
hut was the father of a natural child, W. Pritchard, the pi e-
sent defendant, whom, when lie was 11 sears old, he (nought
home to Beddingion, die place of his residence, in 'Surrey,
where he was received and rega-ded with the utmost kind-
new and tenderness by Mrs. Gee, as well as by his father,
who placed hint first at anninieent seined in the neighbour-
hood. Front that school he was sent to St. John's College,
Cambridge, where he was entered first as a pensioner, but
afterwards as a fellow commoner, coining house during the
vacations, mid being always treated as if lie were a legiti-
mate child,4tot only by his father, but Mee. Gee, thou lie
was accustomed to call his mother.— Dui ing the time of his
being ateollrge, and afterwards, until the death of his father.
a correspondence was kept up between the plaintiff and
defendant, of a most tender, kind, and confide utial nature.—
But in AprillSlZ, the father, Wiii.Gee, died, having by will
made a disposition of his property in the manner following
To W. Pritchard, the present defendaut, lie left 40001. and the
interest of4:0001. during his life, while the residue was to go'
to his children, Mr. Pritchard having been married in 1510.
To Mrs. Cree he left the interest of 17,0001. dean e her lile,
directing that the principal, unless by will or deed, she should
otherwiseslispose of it, sitoald go to Pritchard and his family.
Shortly after his father's death, a great change, according to
the defendant, took place in the behaviour and deportment
of the plaintiff towards him, for instead of the former kiud-
ness that she had shewu for him, he was treated with slight,
aversion, obloquy, and contempt. That limn the manner ill'
which he had always been regarded by his father, he was
naturally led to eater-Min the es pectatitni of being vius idea
for by him M the most ample measure, an expectation which
the apparent eoncitrrence of Mrs. Gee was calculated to con-
firm, and which belted not scrupled Ls signify to his friends
and acquaintance, all of whom, by the subsequent conduct.
and representation -of the plaintiff, who was actuated by te-
sentmeitt and malevolence, were led to entertain doubts of
the deftindent's veracity and honour, to clear which, he found
it necessary to take measures for fussiest?, the oorrespontlence
widish passed between the plaintiff and himself, printed and
distributed, not by sale or pebliely, butauiong his friends-and
acquaintances.
Oil the part of the plaintiff it was denied that any motive
of malice had. influenced her; on the eoutrary, it gave her
umeli pain to reflect, that the misconde et of the defendant
had forced her to Mange. her manners t tovvards him. It was
not i roe that either User .tale husband or herself had ever a .-
cited ally higher expectations of inheritance in the defendant
than his father's will had extended to; that Ito far from her
regards being immediately alienated from the 41elesidaset on
his fatheies death, she hail subsequently, by her interest and
exertions, procured for hints being, the rectory of Walton,
• worth typwasdiviof 4001. a seat , that she had farther given
, him a muncluseney, amounting to 4,5001. afterwards 4001. and
,
• other sums. Age was not, however, so to be satisfied, but
wanted to 111111% the interact ou the 17,0001. made over to hint,

Al nt 4

.I.wl ;we 14:711iii'•44/n1•1 ?",f ill is a.tl,
It, , , •,(1 11, r . " "
I''' • • •
~ L. 'ln 111•4/10'• t 11.11,‘.. ••I.t. • • • •9
; -nlis •%, '4l Palls, al ai.o AO o I P.••.* '.ll on of
, . I;.lirs
• • 'iii. • 11,1,,1 I, 1:,•1 1,•.‘
, I 1,1 14.1%1 Hod !VIII' In a ca. • 61 411
. j
• s • 1 01 • 4,f, telt
t •I •, • • • •', • • Ito

,• •;•• I

Iters,
to ',1...., i• •Mi
r) IA • 1•11.i1.1 111.1, by
1,• PI, v, b•••••., t
S,I
Veit ; %%ith

. . , .
• si.• id' a Clerp ail, -.11 h'i ihtlt. .1111 i niter.
••••11 .teecdules, ...Sze." I; to it ri t tit iii. 1:116:iCA-
-1.1011 Look, that all for the reasons blated,
irr(l bet.o aii; dht the Crilicr,llll(l dissolte that initial-lion
na; iii onjetst of the present at plu anion.
li wax n• gael, in ta'.'olir of the app.lea non, that the letters
e.• r 11,1, prove:ly an the person alio had received them, and
noo nas Hid buuud, by any rule of law or equity, to keep
them sem. led. list lefty's% between friends were not be
eunsidered as what is usually vaned literary property ; but as
the object of the defendant, as stated in his affidavit, was to
clear his ',potation, and justify his character, he was, in
common jusi ice. entitled to publish them for that ',orphan., -
The ease of Pet cesal and Phipps was cited as being
g, us, in %%hie!' the present Master of the Rolls refused the
application male by Lally .Pereeval to restrainllr. Phippa
Com publishiog knees on a ground similar to that on wind.
the injunction in this case had been granted. -On the other
hand, it was contended, that the property was rather in the
miter than with the receiver of letter a, as it had been decid-
ed by Lord Hard.vieke, iu the case of Pope and Curl, and by
Liii al Bathurst, in the ease of Lord Chesterfield's letters.-9a
to the suppose(' analogy in the case of l'ereeval and Phipps.
i s application Will denied, inasmuch as that it-was proved
there in Conrt that Lady Pereevai lisrsell had conntenancea
the publication, which she afterwards wanted to restrain.—
That it was plain the object of the defendant was not to clear
his character, but to indulge resentment at the 'Annuli's re-
fusal to comply with his unreasonable and insatiable demands,
and that the ease was most clearly such a oue as called for the
protection of rue Court.

COURT -OF REQUESTS, SovviwAßK, Jo::: 28.
LIVION V. SLTTON.

The defendant in this vase was summoned for the sum or
11. Ss. the sum paid for a gold ring set with pearls. The
plaintiff is shopnian to an eminent linendraper, and pays his
addresses to a young lady, who lichls a situation of equal
importance in the establishment of a fashionable milliner and
dross meeker, in addition to which they are each of them vo-
taries of the drama, and occasionally fret and strut their
hour upon the stage at it ,private theatre in .tlrc neighbour
hood of Bankside. From the statement now made by the
plaintiff, it appeared, that he having undertaken to play
Antonio in the Jlerchunt rf •Venice, whilst his lady was to sup-
port the character of Portia, he determined oil taking this
opportunity of presenting her with a handsome ring, ,at
opportunity which one of the situations of the play afforded
hint. Being very intimate ,with the defendant, who is a
working jewaller, lie inentimed to him his wisll to hive such
a trinket, and Ins friend immediately volunteered his ser-
vices to procure him one at prime cost. The ring in question
was accordingly provided, and 11. Bs. the pliee demanded,
was paid for it. The lover waited with impatience the arrival
of the period when he should have the.oppottniiity of carry-
ing his gallant intentioa into effect. It art ived, and the
proudest moment of his life was that in which he placed the
Offering bauble on the Mager of his belayed. The lady.
proud oldie Uuphy, next day exhibited it to her amanita:we.
wile. to her great mortification, and to the still ge eater of the
plaintiff, to who en she communicated the iiiformation she lead
gained, site learnt that, instead of real pearl ant/ sterling utat,
the trinket was composed of beads of the comininiest de-
scription, set in a metal almost %taintless, called jeweller's
gold. The plaintiff i. mediately applied to the delendaut.
remonstrated with him on his coattail, and demanded leis
money back. Remonstrance and demand were equally (his.
regarded, and the plaintiff had been obliged to adopt.the
present course to obtain justice.
Several jewellers were examined, who stated that the riag
was of the most paltry description ; the material and work-
manship together not being worth Ss.
:she defendant contended, that the ring was as good es
things of this description usually were. lie observed it
was a fashionable article, and people must expect to pay for
fashion; and further added, that with the large stork oleic.
jewellers were obliged to keep on hand, utiles' they get a'►
44oderately good profit, they would not lie able to live at all.
;The Commissioners decided, that the defendant •.huuld
return the full sum of M. Ss. and pay all costs of suit. On
doing this, the fashionable article wa, I COOlell to him.

LIST OF THE SIXTEEN SCOTCH .PEERS.
Elected July 24, ltslB.
„Duke cf Ros6rgh... ...... 45 ri.t. oh 0. A rbulknot 41
Marquis of queensberig...s4 Lord .Forbes
51
211itriltis .?f nreedale 56 herd !ialtoun 55
Ain/told of Loth; An 57 Lord Gray 55
..i.:111i qf En of 31 Lord Sinclai• 5(.1
Earl of Kellie 54 hur4 Colvilk 57
Earl of Bah:arras sq I Lord Napier 51
-Earl ve Aueberry 54 I Earl of Home.-- ...... ...bil
The Peen in Italic:sate New Petro.
PEERS NOT RETURNED.
E..rl of Caithness I Earl of Selkirk . Earl of GlArgow :
Harlot Dalhousie° 1 Earl of Aboynet ' I Earl of Aberdeen.
' A Peer of the United Kingdom (Lord Dalhousie.
1. A Peer of the United Kingdom tLord Aleldttun.)
; A Peer of the United Kingdom (Lord Ross).

DA'allta ROBBERY AT WATigRLDO BRIDGE.—The
fot-
lowu!g daring robbery was committed oetwceu two and three
o'clock on Friday se'enight Moorheuse vies sitting in
the toll-house on the Surrey side of Waterloo Bridge (as is
customary all Night for the purpose of receiving the toll),
when two mail, wills black crape over their rushed
and seizing hint ity his arms and leg,„ held him down, while
they rifled his pockets of 11.35. Out: tot them stood over hips,
11're:dim:lug to put an end to his existence, it he made any
noise, while the oilier took out of adr .ss er .11ourhouse
heard a third person on the outside of the toll house, during.
the time the two mu were plundering the iiitideou whom oilcan
then) conveyed the property, and wietclunasi's rattle, which
was kept in the tull-house for the purpose of smennounig the
patrol upob .an emergency. The thieves ran ott, alter the
robbery, down the steps fin the left hand ut tole tu:l
house, and crossed the stone-field, and their tieing ini watca..
man or patrol stationed there. they escaped. The rattle
.was.iotind as Wan as it was lightly one of jibe bridge-patrol.

A .

ASSIZES.

ESSEX.
•pfili.COT V. MORTI.UCi AND °THEW/.

This important case was tried at the last Assizes for this
tenuity , before Mr. li,eron Wood, when a verdict was found
for the plailibtf, with damages, to the aliment of 1,2001. but a
new trial was granted.
The declaration stated, that the defendant !Mortlock, had
maliciously, and without any reaeonable sir prohibit cause,
made an affidavit before one of the Barone of the Earaiequer,
that he and his partners were debtors to the. King, anatliat the
plai'''t ails indebted to then' in the -
eal int eer.s ; that the plaintiff was us failing eireinnstances;
that unless stone extraordinary measure was adopted to compel
the payment of she said money, they would be the less able to
'Advt), the Kiiteas debt. That in consequessee of this alhelavit,
they rated out a writ directed to the Sheriff uf Essex, by which
he was directed to take the plaintiff's body, and to distrait)
his lands and goodaahat the Sheriff did execute the said writ,
Ly reason whereof the plaintiff was put to ti great deal of
lacenviatienee, suffered muds in his credit. and was greatly
touted in hit eircuinstauces. The deleudant pleaded nut
Mr. Gurney said, the plaintiff resided at Thaxted, was a
farmer nod nusitater; and had a a and eight children. He
Ii oh lot inerly beets in very respectuble circumstances, and
maintained his family with credit and comfort; bust in douse.
(1 •ore of the conduct of the defendants, instead of' being
:w
what he had been, he was now a ruined man ; his business
destroyed, anti himself and hi, family turned out of house
and home; and for the last two years and upwards, had been
unable to do any thing for the maiutaissance of them. The ,
defendants Messrs. Murdock, were hanke:a at Cambridge,
eat! at Bishop's Stortford, and Receiver General of his Ma-
jesty's taxes for the county of Cambridge, for the due ills.
charge of a hick office, they gave security to the Crown,
to the amount of 90,0911. Of the legality of the extents in
aid, c,e, NIr.G.) did not meats to complain ; Ina it became a
matter of very edam's consideretiou with the Legislature,
wife thcr a emintry bunker, uniting the anomalous character
of I. utit.rr, and receiver of the King's taxes, should any
!cove lie petinitted to sue out the Kiiig's prerogative pro-
cess. The plaintiff had banked with the defendants, and in
the year Isla, he had overdrawn his account, and became
their debtor so the amount of about six or 7001. and they were
desirous of some seenrity for their debt. The defendants
well knew the eirennasteneesofthetimea; they knew the depre-
ciation of agricultural property, stud they knew that at that
tine it was impossible for a man, however solvent he might be
iu bin circumstances, to make Ilia property available to satisfy
present demands. The plaintiff at that time bad consider-
able iiroperty ; he carried ow a very extensive Gutsiness as
farmer and inaltster,l and he had landed estates, upon which
there was then a small mortgage of titsal. In coma:fluence of
an application made by the defendants to the plaintiff, lie
signed an agreement, whereby he itsidertook to give them a
Lund end trxisagage, to secure their debt, upon his landed and
other lit °limy. Accordingly, on the 16th of March, lalfa a
promissory note was' signed to that tfleet. The agree:man
was for a bond and mortgage, mid no more. 'after the exe-
c-360a of the agreement. the plaintiff's attorney prepared an
eh 'tract at' the title to the real property, which was sent to
the defamlant's attoiney, to enable him to complete the bond
and mort ae. In illiS slate matters remained till the 6th of
Ana ust following. when the securities being prepared, she
parties and their Ott orisies met together, for the purpose
having them usiecuted. Mr. 'Murdock slid not himself atteasl,
lint he appeared by his attorney. On that occasion, the
latter produced a warrant of attorney, which the piaint iff was
ealled mint' to exernte as a raitlier security for the debt,
although that WO not been stipulated for its the agreement
entered into ill March. Hos% ever, the plaintiff slid nut hp abate
to execute all three securities, namely, the bowl, mortgaata
and warrant of attorney. These iustnntents having oven
thus executed, the plaintiff vet), naturally demanded his pro.
niissory note hack again. It was Hat, 'eta ever, then forth-
coming, hut it was promised to be deliverel up by Mr. MUtt•
lake's :scent, Mr. Hassan, in eight 'r ten days; but is never
was given 1111. In the month of March 1917.111 a plaintiff was I
occiatis ,1 in pi eparitia his tar nu for seeding, contiaent that he
was perfectly severe frons any pecuniary entbarraasnieut in
conssapienre of the triple securities lie had given, none of
hkli could he put in force before a certain time, alien lie
would be in a condition to pay off the silos t gage, and get rid of
his liability to the dots ndanta. But an officer came dawn of a
sudden from Loudon, with au extent from the Crown, al the
suit of Messrs. aloi dock, fonialed upon the very promissory
note which they had posttith4v promised to deliver tip. The
plaintiff, with that spirit whieli became an honest man, deter.
milted not to he crushed so easily, and theretOre resisted the
extent its the Court of Exchequer ; and in the result, the
Jury found a verdict against them, thereby negativing the
exietence of any debt on which it could be founded. It
taight have been expected that after the vet diet in the Coat t
of Exchequer, the defendants would have immediately aI It.
drawn the extent. Bet no, the officer remained in possession
until the warrant of ;atonic, became due, and on that day the
extent was as 'dish ass n, but the warrant of attorney na,
pill in force. The plaintitra furniture and all his property
were aold otf ; himself and his family homed house:ass and
peinsyless tutu the streets. to ending: all the horrors sit famine
and assist, and reposed to the indemeticy of the season.
ll4l'l'ilY,llirott2ll the Ininianitv and kindness of neiAlletuis.
the Outdid' were taken in and prevented Irian pei &siting jot
mast.
:several witnesses proved the ftteta of' the cage, and the in.
rrs the piaintitt bast reeds ell la his business tlitonalt ,:e cot).
t. or the (krondmits, anti the Jury found a verdict fur the
phi titt.—Datinierall At Guineas.
The anantinceinesit of the verdict pronounced an Itivelan•
tars burs" of aliphatic taunt many of the altdstura.--Tbe As.
sites for ais county elided.