The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-28 00:00:00

CROFT, BART. V. LYSTER.

Mr. Serjeant MEREWETIIER moved for a rule to
d
bat
been
Learned
thechit;
eatafeoai
ttnuos
before
evidence
ho causetheadmitted,
why
Lordh bedtelreghvi
dhal Imestaayae
which
ntcnnve theadhvabh:i
asideeieeeheisstniconversation,
Justice
ravtge, verdictelln:rhdeetheica et
etdeaes
tdsbanofoundaetenrexcessive.
nel
tcoarnhfordi
as omiie
rejected,
granted,jgtt
lueht
hteceetntd ewept
dobel
aaj.ysfhirnaaot
atnovhmi
ndnef plaintiff
the
csiffrethe:ds
tNiw,htutaeapi
ysnsognlmtsi rytiaheeirndd
e.
plaintiffrMt
ireiiadd ttlelasLetf
for
Sir
y2wr theCTshoerhoonoflrnt. ains damages.JClusrro2yf4t returned a verdict for the
tialeflttepai
together, on terms of affection, until 1827, when
Sir Thomas was obliged, by indisposition, to remove
to Bromley, in Kent, to obtain the assistance of Mr.
Scott, a surgeon there, but his lady refused to ac-
company him, or to give up the gaieties of London,
in which she then very freely indulged. This con-
duct, OR her part, led to a remonstrance on the part
of the Dowager Lady Croft, at whose house the
plaintiff and his wife had resided ever since their
marriage. The result of which was, that Lady
Croft withdrew from the protection of her mother-
in-law, and went to reside with her mother and
step-father, Mr;. and Colonel Marsac, at Caver-
sham, in Berkshire. Upon the morning after her
arrival here, as the Dowager Lady Croft, who had
accompanied her on the day before, was setting out
on her return home, three notes were put into the
hand of the latter, written by her daughter-in-law,
and addressed, one to herself, another to a Mrs.
Milligan, a friend of hers, and the third a short note,
not directed, but apparently intended for her hus-
band. This was in April, 1827, and it was not
until the autumn of the following year that Lady
Croft saw the defendant for the first time, whilst
staying at Boulogne with Colonel and Mrs. Marsac.
These notes had been offered and received in evi-
dence, on the part of the plaintiff, which the
Learned Serjeant contended they ought not to hare
been, as the letters of a wife had never been allowed
Eton
ebnebgoirvoeungbi 1 v,l ein iad ecnacse fore
re he
p ortte
dh uis band,
n until Lord
Espinasse,Lord
Ellenhorough, in a case reported in Espinasse, ad-
ad-
mitted them, for the first time, to be given, on the
ground of necessity, for the purpose of proving
the feelings of affection which a wife, who
was separated from her husband, entertained
towards him ;—because, without admitting her
letters, there would be no means of ascertaining
what was the state of her feelings towards him. But
then his Lordship laid the rule down with great
caution, and in order to guard against collusion, ex-
pressly limited it to the admissibility of letters written
before any suspicion was entertained of the wife's
conduct. In the present case the letters were not
put in to show any feelings of affection towards the
plaintiff on the part of his wife, but rather as an
apology for her conduct; and indeed one of them,
that to Mrs. Milligan., rather indicated an attach-
ment to another gentleman, a Mr. Martin, to whom
her Ladyship expressed her intention of going OS
soon as she was of age. The tendency of the let-
ters, and the purpose for which they Isere adduced,
was to show that the lady was in a state of high
mental excitement, if not absolute insanity; whereby
the jury were to be led to suppose, not only that
this was the cause of the temporary separation which
took place between her and her husband, but also
that the defendant had taken advantage of that state
to possess hinself of her person and fortune. The
other evidence, to the admissibility of which the
Learned :serjeant objected, was the plaintiff's own
letter to his wife, dated the 10th of August, 1828,
and her answer to it, which was after he had been
made acquainted with her conduct at Boulogne.
The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE—Not to the full extent.
Mr. Serjeant MEREWETUER—Not to the full ex-
tent, certainly ; but evidently to an extent from
which he [night apprehend those consequences
which, if not before, ensued almost immediately
afterwards. The Learned Serjeant here read the
letters in question, which mutually alluded to the
unfortunate impression her mind !tad received at
Boulogne, and contended, that as these were written
clearly after a suspicion of the wife's misconduct had
been communicated to the husband's mind, they
were shut out, under Lord Elletiborouell's rule, from
admissibility as evidence on behalf of the
The CouaT observed t hat the Counsel had clearly
endeavoured to get at the contents of a written
document, without putting it in evidence, although
it was in Court, to which he was not entitled, and
upon this point, therefore, they would grant no
rule. But upon the other point, as to the .admir.-
sibility of the letters, there might be some ground
of distinction between these and others letters from
a wife to a husband, which had been admitted in

evidence, deserving of discussion, and, therefore,
upon this the Court granted a rule to show euuge•
PALMER AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES OF MIME Al")

METCALF, V. BERSTON:AND OTHERS.
Mr. Serjeant RUSSELL moved for a rule tdslo`t
,!ause why the verdict found for the plaintiffs, for
11,4561. should not be set aside and a new trial inkciP
on the ground that the action was not maintainable'
;Ind of misdirection by the Learned Judge; or Wbr
he damages should not be reduced to such ium as
the Court should think fit; or why, upon payinellt
of costs, the verdict should hot be set aside, on new
facts disclosed by affidavit.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Said, the Learn-
ed
Serjeant might take a rule to show cause generally.
DOE, ON TILE DEMISE OF LORD TEYNIIAM, V. TYLER'
Mr. Serjeant JONES was about to move for a new
trial in this cause, but

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that in the
present thin state of the Court, ouly his brother
Gaselee and himself being present, he was desirous
that a case of this importance should stand over until
Monday next, when he had reason to believe 614
the Court would be full.

Mr.Serjean t JONES accordingly deferred his motion•

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAL 27.
William Ch►tlicic, sen., a shopkeeper, late or the
neighbourhood of Ipswich, was opposed by Stephen
Ramplin and Thomas Cuthbert, and afterwards re-
manded for a future day.

THE MARKETS.

COAL MAR
Adair's 355. 6d.
Charlotte
East Percy 32 0
flebisurn Main 37 0
Killingworth 39 0
Liddell's 33 0
l'antield _ 34 0
Willington
Wylam 34 0
Walls End Bell and Co. 39 0
Walls End Brown's 37 3
Ditto Bensham 33 6
Ditto Cramlington.......— 33 6
Ships at market, 303i--Shi;

COUNTRY CORN MAR

:ET.—Jan. 27.
Ditto 403.6
Ditto Hilda 97
Ditto Northumkerland S 0 u
Ditto Riddell's. ,40 0
Ditto Russell's ........... 41 ,
Ditto Walker. u4o
Walls End 42 0
Walls End Larobton..., 42
Walls End 92 0
Walls End Stewart's ,42
Greenwich Hospital.... 34 0
Halbeath 50 0

sold, 13%..--Unso1(1, 17%.

DURING THE WEEK•

Wheat. i Barley. Oata. Beans.
----C.---- ----0
Per Quarter. s. to a. s. to s. s. to s. s. s.
Abingdon—..—..... 55 62 32 38 21 92
r 42,
And0ver..........—... 55 65 22 34 20 23
Birroingham...—..... 56 55 32 33 28 90 —0"
Bridport —....... 58 '74 32 99 26 34 54
Cirencester ........... 40 66 20 40 19 22 40
Faringd0n............. 54 86 26 40 26 28 46
Guildford
Henley 54 83 90 35 24 SO .. 4°,. r
Hereford 64 84 38 45 36 40
Highworth .—...... 62 80 52 42 28 34 —. 0°
Maidenhead —. 65 84 29 23 22 30 ... 51
Oakingham ............ 56 76 30 36 18 32 42
Reading ..—..--... 40 81 19 42 16 32 11,
5a1i5bury............... 48 60 21 34 22 22 —r,,
Southampton ....... 54 78 37 40 28 92 —. 11
Stroud 64 74 34 38 22 32 —. ,
46
Tewkesbury ....... 65 '7B 40 42 30 28 43.
Uxbridge ............... 43 71 91 32 19 32 —1,::
Warta e.«.....,.... 46 '73 20 36 16 —v"
Warminster .......... 44 '7O 23 42 22 22 49
Wind50r.......,........ 52 80 25 35 20 SO 53,..,
W0rce5ter............ 60 63 22 36 24 26 44
CHELTENHAM MA RKET.—Jan. 26.
Per Bushel. s. d. to s. d. Pet lb. d. to tt
Wheat 7 0 9 0 Beef 4 6
Barley
Oats 3 0 4 3 Veal
Beans 4 9 5 6 Lamb 6 7
Pease 5 0 8 0 Pork $ 6
Hay ........ ....... X. IJS. to 3/. 15s. per top

DUBLIN CORN EXCHANGE.--Jan. 21.
There was scarcely any alteration in the Corn market
to-day for Wheat, which sold on same terms as on Taw
day; but Oats were dull at a reduction of 3d., and Bare
and Barley 6d. to 9,1. lower. Flour and Oatmeal were ow
altered. Wheat, red, 258. to 31s. ; white, 30s. to 338• ;
Oats 10s. to 1 ls. 6d. ; Bere 128. to 138. ; Barley 138. W
168. ; Vetches 12s. to 16s. ; Rape 308. to 31s. ; Rye 140.
to 15s. ; Oatmeal Ss. 6d. tolls., ditto prime 158. to 168.;
first Flour 19s. to 228., best Seconds Ids. to 175., infe-
rior ditto 12s. to 15s.
DUBLIN MARKET NO'

_TE.--Fatnav, Jan. V.
From To M. r•
~588 Wheat, per barrel 20 stone 17 0 33 0 28 9
636 Bete., ...... 17 stone 12 0 14 3 IS 3
595 8ar1ey..............-- 16 stone 12 0 16 0 IS 9
4,450 Oats
FTihrisrtsds,
....-7._..... from 12 stone 8 6 )2 0 10 IN
10,997 Cwt. F10ur....—,...... 9 stone 6 0 St 0 —6.,
998 Oatmeal 8 stone 10 0 16 0 12 4,9
Sold to 'takers only.
9,146 Cwt. Flour l5 0 24 0 18 Oi
Average price of Wheat and Flour 48s. 4d. Per.,UX.
Receipts of Flour, 12,111
Sales of Do. 10,987 /Seconds, —... from 134. od, to IN: 0d-
: Otl.od. '::2412:: Ott°.

PRICE OF ➢READ•

Quartern Loaf, 41b. soz. St!. I Half-quartern, 2113.20z..„,„434‘1.

THE RAT-CATCHER IN A TRAP.--GEO•
EDWARDS, a person who gains his livelihood by catching
rats, was indicted at the late Chelmsford Session for steal
ing a copper boiler, the property of RICHARD MAYA.LLI
of Great Yeldham. The accused had, a few days pre-
viously to the discovery of the stolen- article in his house►
been clearing Mr. MAYALL'S premises of vermin ; subse-
quently to that day, the wife of the accused informed
JAMES WARREN, who was produced as a witness, thit
her husband had stolen a boiler from his master's premise',
and had afterwards hid it in his own house ! This
witness went on to state, that he had found the
boiler, as described by the wife. The ease for the prose-
cution being closed, the accused was called upon for his
defence, when he put in a paper, which related in sub-
stance, that on Saturday morning, whilst he was about
his work, his wife informed him that the constable was
after him, and she wished him to go away. He asked
what for? and she replied that she would tell him after
he was gone ; she afterwards told him that an old boiler
had been found under the stairs; he asked how it came
there? She said she had borrowed it. That she then
persuaded him to quit the place for a few days, and said
she would go to Mr. MAYALL'S and try to make it up;
she afterwards told him, that as they had found the boiler
in his house, he must suffer the law, whether he stole it
or not ; he replied, that it was a hard thing to suffer for
what lie knew nothing about ; she said it would be bitter
for him if he owned it. When he was taken to the Bell,
at Castle Hedingliam, he discovered that his wife had in-
formed against him, and he was quite confused ; he did
not know what he said, and he there confessed, at first,
that he did steal the boiler; but when they wanted him
to sign a paper to that effect, he told them he would not,
for he was innocent. Mr. WARREN and the constable
told him they thought that his wife had stolen it, as she
was with another man for two nights; and when they
went to his house'to search for the boiler, they found his
affectionate wife and her paramour apparently very com-
fortable. The ruan who had thus supplanted him, had
been, he said, his assistant in rat-catching, and he be-
lieved it was a plan by the wife to get him into a trap,
and leave him to get out as well as he could ; that their
object was ultimately to induce him to leave the place.
The simplicity of the rat-catcher's appeal, and his de-
scription of the conduct of this modern Delilah, being
confirmed by WARREN (the witness), the Court said that
they could not for a moment entertain a suspicion of the
poor man's guilt, and he was acquitted.—Manchester
Mercury.