The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-23 00:00:00

r=---
nnoderalt c sum of money, he gave Col. Grant an order on his
half-pay. He was not imitried by Cul. Grant. There was no
indictment preferred against him by the keepers of gaming
bowies, before he appeared as • prosecutor against them. lie
was in the King's I:. itch. lie lust 1001. io the house rb, Pall
Mall ; and 20001. Em other housev.
The collector of taxes for the parish of St. James proved the
house 75 to be iu that
Mr. Curwoud addressed the Jury for the defendants, and con-
tended, that the wituessea were unworthy of credit.
The Lord Chief Justice said, the Jury could not expect to get
evidence in each a case if they did not take it front the clear of
person► who were ruined in such houses.
The Jury found all the defendants guilty.
THE NINO R. RUttIER AND ANOTHER.

The defendants were also indicted for keeping a common
gaming hits°, namely, No. 313,1.a1i mail,
'lnc hots of this case were stated by Mr. Phillips, and
proved by Mr. 11 ondrutre and Mr. Smith.
The defendants, Itugisr and Humphries, were masters of the
bottle ; they superintended the Reaye et Nuir table. The Jury
tumid them guilty.

PRIDAY, DEC. 20.
PERM:M-111E KINC. I. MEAD.

. _
The defendant, who was found guilty on Thursday of perjury,
on the trial of Mr. James Law, in the Coort of Exchequer, was
to he hind this day upon a second indictment. The manes of
the Special Juror► having been called over, five only appeared
ia the box.
Mr. Abbott then asked Mr. Jones, who conducted the prose-
cution, whether be prayed tales !
Mr. Jones acid he was authorised withoot the Consent of the
Council fir the Crown, and he wished to know whether the
Solicitor General would consent to take talesmen ?
The SolicitorGeueral said lie should not con;eM.
Mr. Jones observed, that the great expense the prosecutor
bad beau put to, in getting up the prosecution, might perhaps
induce his Lordship to interpose his authority, and order tales-
men to be taken.
The Lord Chief Justice said, he bad no authority to make
such an order.
The Solioitor-General having refused his warrant for a ides,
eighteen prosecutions which stood for trial went off, and were
disrobed of for the present.
uha v V. PIOtWOR TH.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover a com-
pensation in damages for a serious injury sustained by the neg-
logence of the deltwatit's servant.
The plaiuta, who is an utticer's widow, and who supports
herself by teaching the harp, was driving in c gig with a gen-
tleman, named Tiler. They were going towards Vt.:tabu%
nod Mr. Tier having stopped at the door of a friend, alighted.
A few minutes after be heard a scream, and, turning his heti,
saw the gig was overturned, and Mrs. Berry thrown out. A
caravan bdonging to the defendant had done the mischief.
Mr. Tiler ran to her assibtance, and found her arm WAS brot:en.

On the part of the defendant, an attempt was mole to prove
the caravan did not come in contact with the gig ; but the Jury
under all the circumstances, found a verdict for the plaintiff.—
Damages 1251.—Costs 41.15.
duwattps v. PLANE. AND ANOTRF.R•

This was; as action to recover (lunges for an assault sad
false imprisonment.
The plaintiff keeps an old iron and marine stores shop, in
Shepherds Market, and the defendants are Police officers be-
lougin+, to Nlarlborough-street. It appeared that an ittliabitiwt
of Park-cane had been robbed of come property, and the de•
fondants went to the shop of the plaintiff for the purpose of
searching the premises. They did not lin•i any of the stolen
property, but they found a box curtaining lire-works and 18
sovereigns. This they removed, and struck the plaiulilt, who
endeavoured to rescue her properly. Accordiog to the evi-
dence for the plaintiff, they used her grossly, took her before
a magistrate, and kept her in custody for two days.
Ou the p.i, t of the defeudant, In:eclat witnesses were called.
They proved that Mrs. Edwards refused to give up the box,
and seizing Plank arid the other talker, heat them severely.
After the cause had proceeded some tenth, the Chief Jos-
ioe said, he was of opinion there ought to be a verdict for
damages in this case whiell would carry costs. The taking
away the lire-works, if justifia'ole, ought to have been pleaded.
If the Jury were disposed to hind it verdict for the plaintiff,
they might assess such damages as would carry costs. There
was much to disapprove of 011 the one side and the other. A
verdict to vary costa would be a very good lesson to the de-
fendants. _ _

The Jury found a verdict for the plaiutiff. Damages 40s.
costs 40s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
WEDMEiDAY. NON. D.
BARKER V. Purli.

.......
There not being a sufficient number of Special Jarymen in
attendance, a tales was prayed.
Mr. Chitty opened the pleadings. This was an a lion to
recover compeiiintion fur a criminal intercourse with the plain-
tiff's wife. The &tam es were laid at 10.0001.
Mr. Sergeant Lens rollowed on the same side.
The plaintiff, a Captain in the army, married in 1815 as
amiable young lady, and the defendant was elan a military
officer. They were in the lirst instance married according to
the laws of Scotland, and were afterwards married in England.
'f he young lady had a considerable estate. A separatiou arter•
wards took place, and a settlem..nt was made in March, p. 2.0
five years after the marriage ; hot they, nevertheless, after-
wants came together, and but for the artifice of the Alireridant,
who stepped in and put an end to it, February, W, their
happiness had continued. Most fortunately there were no
children to share the disgrace of this unhappy lady.
Mrs. Francis Barker called and eaamined by Mr. Chitty._
She is the mother of Samuel Barker, the plaintiff. Was pre-
sent at the marriage at Hutton Bushell, in Yurkshire. The
bride was not seventeen years of w;e—had good property.—
The plaintiff was abiut thirty —had been an officer in the wary
—he was in the Nottinghamshire militia. His connections were
in Nuttingliantshire—he was a Captain. They resided with the
witness eight or nine months—they lived very happily together
—they were kind to each oilier. They left the witness, and
went to I liftuit, near Bristol. _ _

By Mr. Sergeant Vaughan—Witness bad seen her before—
she was married by the name or Barker, in Yorkshire ; by the
name of Amelia Penelope Banker. alias A. P. Born. They bad
b:en living before togrtlier as man and wife—she knew timer
—the plaintiff had run away with her—cannot swear she was 17
it Alas a match without the consent of her friends—ii was a run
away match. Plaintiff was nut forty years of a;e—he is two
yews short of forty—never saw her afterwards.
Eaainined by Mr. Chitty—Mis Barker is a vicar.
Mr. Sergeant Pell—We propose to read the letters.
Chief Jubilee—Lettere are aimissiole which pass between
husband and wife, wider particular circumstanoes. The cause
twist p...tcred, resort tug wy opinion until the cod of the trial.