The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-18 00:00:00

ine whale effea of this Lady's testimony went
'to sinew much attention_ on the part of Mr. R. and
fathily to Mrs. W. and that they. were often to-
gether, and that the Wit n,_-ss never aseryed any int-
propri t v in Mrs.W.'s ()mina, or any thing to create
suspicion. _

Wm. Sanford, a discarded footman, spoke to the
frerpen, visits of the 1) tendant, dud to his having
fdu►,Ll the parlour (1,,0r ia,fened when the Defend-
ant afid his nnwress were together ; hut he admit-
ted, upon a tiurgtion 'fr,ro Lord ELLENnnaounif.,
that 'hv had n.ver inenfiotied , this circumstapce
either to his master or to any of his fellow-set-.
varrts. •

Esi her Taylor, a `discarded Maid-servant, gave
eyidence that hei mistress was a woman
.of a violent
tetorr ; was coristantly44narrelling with
.her'ser-,
•ran,s ; and t hat" no one could ii‘ e. with tier. That,
she was 01‘4 sat home, ny her express command,
whenever Mr. Reader-called; upon whose visits
,her
temper became immediately composed and cheerful.
She had found the drawing-room. d",or fastened
w,.en the Defendant miller mistress. weretogether.
She !rad known him walk frOrri eight till twelve at
night, backwards and forward betore_the.d6Or, lobk-
ing up ,at her mistress's dressin-2:46nin window on
the two pair, bat admitted, to a ciiie`sticin from Lord
ELLEN 130Rol'arti, that the aitenuant could not have
seen Mrs. W. unless she hail phi her head out of
the window. She also swore that the Defendant
was in the constant: habit, .15' months togethiT,
of spending two or viree :flours it, the morning With.
Mrs. W. between the'hol.rs of 11- and 4,, althougn
the hole Cotirt knew'tliat the greaterpart of all
tinie was spent in the daily ,dis Charge: of his.
pr-tessional unties 'fia the Court .of King's Bench:
One day at Cheltenham, as.the.witness was.passing
the satth g-room, she .saVv. Reader oorne out,
and Mrs. W.obser:ing her,. called .her. in, when
the mita was di,,cotnrsed, and one of the cushions
on the ground. Al r,. W. desired her to " tidey" the
sots, and to get a brush and rub the powder off the
shoulder of her gown-, which witness' did. .That
witness should not have observe& either the powder
or her gown, or the Condition of the sofa, had nut
hei mistress called her attention thereto !! !
Upin her cross-examination„ theeircumstante' of
the bolted do,:r oidently. amounted to nothhig, as
the dour of thelbom in which Mr. R. andklVlrs. W.
were sitting, had no luck- upon it, and The - door
could not oe kept shut without bolting it on the
inside.

' Francis Whit-ey, a discarded coachman,
.swore,
that he wa so much in the habit at meeting the De-
fetithilt while driving his mistress, whether she went
to the east or the west, that he, as a matter of course,
drew up to ler the Defendant in, whenever he saw
hitt), without even the check-string being pulled
But upott being strictly questioned by the Judge as
to the pet tod when this took place, he fixed it to• be
about the middle of March t go 7, when it was uni-
versally known and admitted on all•hands, tliptjhe
Detendaot was on the Midland cirCuit,' . •
Ali the servants_ spoke, with great .acrimony, of
their inistres4's ill-treatment of them, and uniformly
agreed ill weir dislike Ober.
A person of the name of Teasdale spoke of the De-
fendant's following and watching Mrs.W. upon one
-occasion, but upon cross--examination, proved that
the dour of the room where Mrs. W. and Mr. -ftb
were sworn by the servant to have been was so
extretutly didicuit to open that he had comporin#,
ed,ro THE PLAINTIFF HIMSELF of =that CII;Cilril•
stance, and that he iti,d mute than once teconnuend-!.
ed' a toLkstnith to to, repair it ; and he also
provea that all the. respectable. female friends of Mrs.
W. continued to visit her up ao the hour to which
'he, was giving his- testimony. \i/hretvpan Lord, E.
innitediately interposed, and asked the Plaintiff's
COuosel if there was a single circumstance even
SCSPICION unexplainedi• and, _ addressing the
July, Said, " You have heard the,case, Gentle-
men, 'turd Mr. Attorney General_ Will address
you in oelt..lt of . the Defendant, if :youhave any
doubi on your minds. It you have-the least
pause or sulMise, )ou have only to declare it, and
the Attorney CienZ4,ll hill proceed; but the shut-
ting of the parlour door appears to me, even it you
believe the Witnes3 who swore to it, to have been
completely explained by the impellection of the
lock ; and as to the powder dii rue gown; if any
thing. criminal had taken place; it was most impro-
• bible 'ha' 'Airs. W. would have called in the seriiant.
to wipe it off."
_The Jury all declared themselves perfeEtly satis-
f'ie'd, and that• there was no necessity for going into
the defence; and immediately pronounced a verdid
for the Defendant. •
The Court was extremely crowded, and the event
of this extfamuinary case was received with Uni-
versal at is r,,ct
- •

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, IuLY 16. -
rORRESTgIt V. LYON.

This was an aAion to recover damages. It appear-
ed that the pal-6.s were natives of Scotland, and not
of the higher class, the Defendant was a baker, and
the Plaintiff's father ashop7keeirer. The parties had
beep long acquainted ; rifler a tedious courtship, with
the consent, of the Plaintiff s parents they were to be
marricd, and the father agieeu to give her MI. as a
mama-6d portion, with which sum the Defendant
Proposed setting up in a baker's shop in this i.ity, and
Carne to toy a tor the purpose. The brother of the
it!' lived in London, and the Plaintiff was sent
op to' him; preparatory to the marriage taking place.
On Chi tstmas day, 1800, the Defendant asked tile
Plaintiff to spend th'e day with hire and other.
friezids; she did, and he prevailed on her to st;ty
three- days and nights, at the expiration of which
time sae urged him to carry the marriage contract
into- ex..xution; hich he. refused, observing, that
abe lad got what. he wanted without marriage, and
b; would not be toot enough •to marry her; the
Plaintiff had sire proved to he in a state ot preg-
nancy, aid was delivered of a child in October last.
The bro‘hcr or the Plaintiff proved this csse, and
that
,the Detchant had rec.:6%rd tool. as a part of
bls:sister's pertion. it aiso,appeaied that the Plain-
tiff's cobuda had been always pertectly correct, ex-
cept Jo pre,ent instAnce, witn the Delendatit.
there was no defence ste up. The I),..tchdatit's
Counsel proposed a ,_olnploolise, plierlng to pay oth.
cliiniages, and /.51. a' year for the support ot the
chid, secured by a Rule of Court. This , was .ac-.
cepted.