The National Register.
London, England, 1812-03-22 00:00:00

MARCH 20.

John Turner, of Cranbourne-passage, Leicester-square, silk-mercer,
March 24, at ten, April 14, at eleven, and May 2, at twelve, at. Guild-
hall. Attorney, Mr. Oakley, Martin's-lane, Cannon•street.
William Wilkinson, Thomas Greenhalgh, and James Wright, 'of
Dither°, Lancaster, calico-printers, April 18, at five, 14, at eleven,
and May 2, at eleven, at the Black Bull Inn, Blackburn, Lancaster.
Attornies, Mr. Beardsworth, Blackburn.; and Messrs. Milne and Parry,
'1 emple, London.
James Smith, late of the Greenwich-road, Kent, builder, March 24,
April 14, and May 2, at ten, at Guildhall, Loudon. Attornies, Messrs.
Holmes and Lowden, Clenienti Inn.
Thomas Etheriugton, of Lawrence Pountney-lane, London, drysalter,
April 4, 14, and May 5, at eleven, at Guildhall. Attorney, Mr. Old-
ham, Earl-street, Blackfriars.
Daniel Hyde, of Waltham Abbey, Essex, grocer, March 28, April 4,
and May 2, at twelve, at Guildhall, London. Attornies, Messrs. Hall
and Drake, Salters'-Hall, Cannon-street.
George Sizer, of Oxford-street, silk-mercer, March 24, April 14,
and May 2, at ten, at Guildhall. Attorney, Mr. Stevenson, New-
square, Lincoln's Inn.
John Francis Desanges, late of Wheeler-street, Spltalfields, colour-
dyer, March 28, April 4, and May 2, at twelve, at Guildhall. Attor-
ney, Mr. Church, Paternoster-row, Spitalfields.
John Wharlton Bunney, of Clapton, cow-keeper, March 24, 31, and
May 2, at ten, at Guildhall. Attornies, Messrs. D. and G. W. Russell,
Crown court, Aldersgate- street.
David Lopes Pereira, of Artillery-place, Finsbury, underwriter,
March 31, April 7, and May 2, at ten, at Guildhall. Attornies,
Messrs. Pearce and Son, Swithing's-lane; Cannon-street.
Jeremiah Lewinzton, of Leman-street, Goodman's-fields, plumber,
March 28, April 4, at one, and May 2, at eleven, at Guildhall. At-
wales, Messrs. Holmes and Lewis' Mark-lane, Ftlichtirch:Street.
CERTIF I CATES.—APRIL 11.

Charles Hughes, of London, merch; nt.—John Child, of Neath;
Glamorgan, flour-factor.—Samuel Holmes, of Limeh MSC, soap-maker.
—Thomas Limbrick, of Hawkesbury, Gloucester, linen-draper.—
Charles Hoyland, late of Warrington, Lancaster, dru:,est.—Charles
Webb, late of Howard-street, Strand wine-inerchant.—lsaac Stone
and Parson Custance, of Great Yarmon.h, shipwrights.—Edward
Roberts and Joshua Welch, late of Suffolk Anne, Cannon-street, cotton
and indigo-brokers.—William Tipple, late of Whitecross-street, grocer.
—John Becks, of Chenies-street, Bedford-square, poulterer.—Tohn
Morley, of Stewardstone, Essex, silk-throwster.—Stephen Glover, late
of Petticoat-lane, victualler.—John Lewis Pasteur, late of Stoney-
stratford, grocer.—George Notley, late of Dartford, Kent, innholder:
—Peter Greaves, of Manchester, innleeper.—Thomas Earl', of Hamp-
stead-road, linen-draper.—Samuel Headen, of Lime-street, insurance-
troker.

PROVINCL4L ASSIZES.

LINCOLNSHIRE.
CRIM. CON.-- POC:K LI Ncyrom V. BALL.
This was an action for criminal conversation with the plainlifrs wife.
I he damages were laid at 3001. - -
Mr. Clarke, in stating the case, observed that his client was a Mr.
Wm. Pocklington, a mariner of Boston, and the brave nun who had
been the steersman of Admiral Nelson's ship, at the time that inimot-
tal hero lost his arm in the battle of Santa Cruz. The defendant was
a master bricklayer of Boston; and whilst the professional duties 'gf
the plaintiff (who was employed at the time of the injury complained
GI in the coasting trade) called him from his home, took alvantTige of
the occasion to seduce the plaintiff's wife, and to 'rob him of those
affections and that domestic felicity Which coistituted the bohd of the
conjugal state. It was in the nionth of October last that this injnry *as
sustained by the plaintiff: and an injury more secare, it was im ios-
sible fur one man to sustain from the base condUct of ant,tilier. - He 'the
Counsel) should call witnesses to prove the facts cf 'the case, and he had
no doubt the Jury would set a Meg: and proper vahie tipon' the 16,s the
plaintiff had sustained, and award him a handsome cOnipensition in
damages. ,
Several witnesses were examined as 'to the marriage cf the pa ties,
and their manner of living together, from Whose evidence it appeared,
that the plaintiff's wife was subject to drinking, which gate rise to quar-
rels between them, and that some " flying reports," nut very favourable
to her character for modesty, were in circulation. . .
Mildred Fenby lived servant with Mrs. Pocklington ever fee last
Mayday; there was only one child in the family; plaintiff had 6een on.
avoyage only once since witness lived with them ; then be was out
four months and a fortnight; saw Ball at her master's hose a fortnight
beforetl he the plaintiff returned ; it was nine or ten o'clock at night ;
trle child was up • it was ten years old ; the child was ordered by her mis-
:s.3 to go to bed' she would not ; defendant gave her Milf-a-trown to
fr witness put the child to bed • on returning down stairs ia 's few inl-
,:;'", saw Ball standing very close to Mrs. Pecklingtpn ; she called
A c.nce_43 t) light the candle;' witness' did light it ; then** Went softly to
'n hatitber stairs again, and looked over the door of the middle robin,
lil which her mistress and Ball were, and saw -what 'passed between
tueul, it was on a Saturday ; he camp again at eleven o'clock on Sunda,'


1~R9:

morning ; sent witness out for a quart of ; witness went again and
stood on the stairs, and made the same observation.
Mr. Serjeant Vaughan, in a speech for the defendant, observed, that
in the present case ft had,.b.een clearly established, that the wife of the
plaintiff was an habitual drunkard; and in the loss of the society or
affections of .stieh a watnatilivhat injury could be said to have been•
sistalned ? Drunkenness -Was in bath sexes the inlet to every other
vice; there was no seduction proved on the part of the defendant—ite .
pretence for saying that this plaintiff's wife had been encompassed with
the wiles of a designing man, and- bad fallen into the snares and rent.
lar advances of an adulterer: nothing of the sort could be said. 'lire
plaintiff's wife and the defendant met for the first time at a public-
house, full of liquor; she invites him home With her; he _yields to Her
solicitations. What made the servant suspect that such sanatter was in
the wind • and what led her to go softly to be a witneu tie the proceed-
ings ? The Learned Counsel would call witnesses to prove•that her sus-
picion were very natural, and that the conduct of the plaintiff's wife, at
the public-house, was such as couldlead to no other conclusion, than
that which had beer di-awn. Having shown this, the only matter fcr
the consideration o? the Jury would be, what damages were small
enough to be given, in a case where the law and the equity of the
thing were ill in agreement; and they would have to determine merely.
whether their verdict should be for One Shilling or One Ila rth ins.
Witnesses were then about to he called for the defence; but after a
short consultation between the Attorney and the Counsel. it was thought
right to leave the case as it stood ; as by refraining front calling wit-
nesses, the plaintiff's Counsel was prevented from speaking in reply.
The Judge charged the Jury brit:Ay, observing, there was none of the
general evidence of seduction., that the woman wa, proved to have been
given to drink, and that, therefore, a shilling might probably be all that
the justice of the caserequired.
The Jury, in two minutes, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages One Shilling.—The Judie refused to certify, and therefore the,
damages do not carry costs.