The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-06 00:00:00

THE THEATRE.

Hay Market.
I?the Company of Performers re-
oved last night to Mr. CoLmAN'S Theatre, and
commenced their career with The Mountaineirs, and
a
new Farce, entitled The School for 4uthors. This
i_aree, as we before stated, is the produCtiOn of the
.21e Ur. ToBIN, author of The Honey Moons and it
"entains.so much!sterling Merit as.ua increase our re-
gret that the Public was so soon deprived of a dra-
rbatic writer so well calculated to afford them plea-
Sure' Mr. ToBIN in• this, as in his other work,
.frils to have been less solicitous to produce a new
foable, than to bring forth diversified charaLlers,
itreible sentiments, bumoUrOLIS .conceits, satirical
tr'kes at htiman life, and neat and pointed lan-
uage.
Th.
" of this Piece seems, in some degree, de-
,ived fro_
he D„:",,l'ocrrE s Patroni and the Farce of Mho's
eve wifte:„ and it will hardly suffer in comparison.
tio'r' the foi•mer. There,is,acharaCter also en-.
mri)vod,4.vhich. bears some -analogy to Seer,the Critic, except that • 1(ormwood is malignant
Pgier than sarcastic. The story is soon. told.
, a wealthy cit, ambitious of literary repute, has
l'ritien a tragedy, which the managers had accept-
bat fearful of public censure, he has induced
tnr. Cleveland to appear as' the 'author. Cleveland
`15.01,,",0ve with Jane, Diaper's niece, and is inclined
ta-•'°llini, in hopes of disposing Diaper to give her
.t.`1,4 to him. Diaper, hoWever, had declared that she
1711 enly marry a great'anthor. IPornzwood, the ma-
11..nant Critic, is also a pretender to hats:and con-
:lvi.Pg that the Tragedy is Clevelintifs, he musters
:oparty to da4-nn it, in order to disgrace Cleveland in
e9l)lniOn of Diaper and secure -rant 'fotit himself-
appears that Cleveland has Written a Comedy,
khieh succeeds while the Tragedy is disgracefully
tilelietted. Diaper is much chagrined at the fate of
frienddwn Play, but is" $o rejoiced at rhe-auccegs of his.,
Cleveland,' that he consents to -his-marriage,
I.:" Jane, and Wormwood is properly punished for;
aan and malevolence.
•- Mt'
. Noxell was excellent in Diaper,' BRUNTON in
11/111t2tda FARLEY in Iforinwood, JONES in Frank,
chaT6N in Jane, and Mrs. GIBBS in Susan,
40(!u!Y Contributed to support the piece. The
lik.el 17nee.reeeived it with great applause, and it is
11 y to L
decdrae one of the stock-pieces of the stage..
1..4 lieatre was well attended.: The .upper and
!°Pci
9r Inhby wererendered warm and Comfortable by
fires, added by the Covent Garden Managers,.
.41 the convenient size of .the Theatre rendered
Ze ry- word audible throughout the performance...
,e were sorry to find IiBMBLz affeeted by a cold,.
vtaerWise his Oaavian had all its.usual merit.
is impossible that any body can murnaucztAlie
Ispetision of free-admissions, considering the recent
!98'9 • which the Managers have suffered, the great ex.;
Fences nightly occur, and the small dimen-
° 5 of the Hay-market Theatre, compared with.
:,svast number of Performers, '&e. who must rte
461 -
be retained in their service.

• , . .
i,The new Play of l'en'Yitzi has been .so -judiciously
i:tiaer_,er; that its Interest is mucla augmented. The
ttesqueraCl Scene, whith so absurdly followed a
It :,"of greatdistresS, is properly omitted.. Mrs;
Yipporzs who is now one of the most pathetic
jEtresses on 'the Stage, appears to peculiar advantage:
ti) Iles Play, and is, indeed, an essential support

It. Mi' • • •
ss Surta, the Actress, late of Covent Garden
T-eat're, is; it is said', about to give her hand to Mr.
oWER-
axiic a gentleman of great fortune in the County
fo, and who is distinguished for 'his taste
' Qdrnatic entertainments.
A .
‘,t' IRE 1.R15.--NORTIICOTE is painting a Portrait of
IRE
SEvuourt, whose recent gallantry in the
'ketis *in live for ever in the naval records of this
tit , entry. The Same ingenious Artist is 'proceeding
his whole-length' Portrait of Sir CHARLES Bats-
-4°411i, which we noticed some time ago. Both of
These pietures will- do honour to the Artist, and it is
be hoped that they will. both come to the En-
;raver; as the Public in general will always be gra-
fted by the sight of British Heroes.
ILKIE has been employing himself on a plc-
thee representing a Child with a cut finger, and
pal 1-atichnother binding up the wound.- It is
nted
lie With his usial excellence, but it is a pity that
has not a better subject.
O..4OLLIKENs is to. make the Statue of Mr. PITT
r thl,senate House; Cambridge, and, it will
ts doubt-
-1.9,,Ti0ur to the Arts of this Country, as' well
i greatest and best Statesman.

..--.
let thi!ir,v7Es..---rt wourd be an injustice to merit to
--- ‘Yentl dropintothe grave without a tri-
bute c ernan
~
‘.l 01 respea. He died yesterday morning, in the
i2' year of his age. He was a truly amiable and'
aevolent man, and' he gave a strong proof of his
Zlilanthropy in being the founder of THE HUMANE
~,,PattlETY, an Institution whiCh has been found highly
"iiertil, iiiir- to establish _ which• he employed many
Years of his life. So much indeed did this Institu-
tion engrois his mind and engage his attention, that
R)s own immediate interests appeared to him to be
41thordinate considerations. Yet he was always
ready to afford his professional assistance to distress,*
blewas solicitous to give his offspring every possi—
advantage of education. It would be difficult
-.
or—thetnemies of Dr. HAWES, if such a benignant
charater could have any enemies, to say any thing-
to his disadvantage. There was a simplicity in his
manners, the result.of an innocent and unsuspeding
'll,!art, 'and his name ought to be recorded among
t"ose.'who added to the charade'. of the nation, b-.
the establishment of an Institution founded in the
.Ibost benevolent principles, and which has beed a
Iree of renewed happiness to many who might -
4Otherwise bare sunk into wretchedness, aiising from
`Le dntitnely loss of their dearest relatives. Dr.
4-lAWit Was
611„ ' ~' Senior Physician to the Lotidola aud
• -,tY Adi spensaries.:

4'7 REP Br.

••-• • ; .
CdtfitT OF KING's MONDAY, Dg6.

• .
. , • .110Wki4 V. tIfAELES-
A.i3bOTT opened. the. pleadingS, And, stated,
that this %%, as an aelion for breach of prorntse of mar-
riage, which. the Defendant . had made to the Plain-
tiff, and afterwards. married another woman,'
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the Plaintiff
was the daughter of a respettable farmer of Penrose,
in Monmouthshire, and that the De. fendant was also
a farmer in that
.peighbourhood, having ati- estate of
1001. a year, and "being likewise a timber-Merchant.
It might be asked, why was not this aaion 'brought
in the County, where the injury arose ? The answer
to this Was, liat had it not been for the illness of one
of the Plaintiff's witnesses, the action would have
been sooner settled by proceeding in this
.Court r
and the Defendant bad declared, that if there should
he -any C-,t'ion commenced against him in the Cou-
nty of Monmouth, he would sell all he had and quit
the spot sooner than he would par damages to the
Plaintiff, so that, it would be seen, celerity of pro-
ceeding was an obje6t with the Plaintiff.
The marriage of she Defendant with Elizabeth
Jones, at Bristol, on the 21st September, 1807, was
admitted.

Mrs. Ann Evans, the Plaintiff's si!ter, said, that
the Plaintiff lived with her father, and that site and
the Defendant were intimate three years ago. The '
Witness remembered seeing them at the Bell, at
Monmouth, in. June, 1807 ; the Defendant then
said, he would marry no other woman but the Plain-
tiff; the Plaintiff appeared to consent to be his wife.
They were all at Monmouth in August following,
. when the Defendant •told the Plaintiff to come to
Abergavenny on a certain day, from whence they
would proceed to Bristol to be married. They im-
mediately went and bought the wedding-ring, and
then parted. The Plaintiff went to Abergavenny at
the time appointed, hut the Defendant failed to keep
his promise of meeting her, and it was not till No-
vember that they saw the Defendant again. At thiS
time it had been reported that the Defendant was
married to another woman. It was in Abergavenny
the Witness and the-Plaintiff now met the -Defend-
ant, and they taxed him with his infidelity. He
denied it strenuously, and asked the Plaintiff if she
was ready to keep her promise; she said she was if,
he was, and the Defendant then bought her gloves
and ribbons for favours, which he gave her.
- Upon her cross-examination' by Mr. GARROW,
.she said she•didn'ot• know of the Plaintiff's sitting
on any body's knee at a merry-making,. one Christ-
- mas ; and knew nothing about a story of a meeting
in a dairy. She had heard the Defendant was mar- ,
ried befbre her last meeting with him at Aberga-
venny,' but did -not know it. The Plaintiff was
about twenty-two, and the Defendant about twenty
five years of age-. .•
Mr. Howell, the father iof the Plaintiff, said he
• had frequently seen-the Plaintiff and the Defendant
together about four years ago, for•they were bred up
as neighbours; but. never was certain of the De-
fendant's courtship of his :daughter till 1806, When
he met the Defendant at Abergavenny. The De-
fendantcalled him aside, and told him he had a great
inclination to the witness's daughter, and asked what
the witness . would. give her. He replied tool. im-
• mediately,. and eOOl. at his death, provided the De-
fendant would make a fair settlement on the Plain-
. tiff out of'his estate. To. this the Defendant agreed,
entrusting the Witness, with some papers, which he
said were deeds belonging to his estate; and they
both went that . evening home to the Witness's
house, where the affair was settled in the presence
of the Plaintiff, the. Defendant agreeing to marry her
in the May following. He .did not come, however,
to the Witness's house till June ; and the Witness,
'being displeased, with his falsehood, did not chuse to
speak to .him. In March 1807, the Witness met

the Defeildant at' the same. house in Abergavenny
again, and told him he had better marry his•present
wife, by whom he heard he had had a child and
That he•was sure, if he did,.his daughter would never
trouble the Defendant any more. The father of this
woman, .who was now the Defendant's wife, was
present, and said.that the child was to be sent out of
the way ; and the Defendant declared he would

marry no Woman but the Witness's daughter.
Upon his cross-examination, the Witness said the
Defendant used to visit his daughter with the rest of
his fainily, and sometimes called her from tea on
Sunday morning, but always with the Witness's
knowledge. Ihis was done some months after the
Defendant's connection with his present wife. The
Witness knew a William Thomas, who used to visit.
his sons and daughters; but never, to his knowledge, ,
left him alone with the Plaintiff. These visits were
three years ago, and if they had occurred since, the '
Witness knew nothing of them.
Upon his re-examination, he said he did not know
any instance in which his daughter had behaved
improperly, either with William Thomas, on with
any other Man; nor had he the least reason to think
she had. He said he was in Abergavenny again in
November 1807, when the A:Tel-Want told him to
desire his daughter to send WM back certain things
to which she would advert. The Witness then ;
taxed hiM with" having been married, but be vehe-
mently dewed it.
That he was married in the previouSSeptember
was, however, proved'
,by a certificate, which was
here put in and read.
Mr. GA-allow then addieSsed the Jury on behalf
Of the Defendant, to whose-marriage with his pre-
sent' wife he shouldpiove' the Plaintiff had con-
sented, and had expressed to a Witness, whom he
should call, that she 'never intended to marry' the
Defendant, 'and that-her Only object was -to flirt
With him.
Robert Davis km:4 the 'Plaintiff and William
Thothas, and retrtembeted a merry-making soon after
Christmis: 1805, at which they.- and`the Defendant
Were present.' The Plaintiff then sat upon Thornaie.s
knee all the evening: The-father went to: bed soon'
after supper, but the young-folks sat up till nearly
break of day. The Witness, a few days after this,
had a• conversation with the Plaintiff, in which he
asked 'her how, she could veithe Defendant, by Sit-.
:ling on Thotnas's.knee :- she answered, she. did%biit,:
laugh at the Defendant, and had 'never had any
thoughts of -marrying hiM, as she did. trot know
how his circumstances stood, and she would never
marry` withottt a setlithient. She added, she hked.
William Tho Mas and her tonsil] a-great deal better
than the Dditindani:.
.TlA's she said too last
contititteil tbd

. . .
flaintiff at her lather's hot.-13e. ;,_\!irlien tile ilness
saw her ' il lig1;?. after thristtria§ last, ,they
then together after, nine o'clock.; aid the P,Ointiff
.told the Witness in may . the was down at her,bro-
.ther's, helping„ hit to cut up a pig. She actually
was with'Thomas-in-a room. ~„ , ~ . ~ ~. •
Susan. Watkins was at the beuSe of lilir-. Howell
one day in. March '1807,' to see a workman of Ho-
well's. ,She then saw the Plaintiff, , who asked bet
if the Defendant still went to his present wife's fa.
ther's; the Witness said he did, and the Plaintiff
added she thOught it Was the best place for him.—
The Witness then' told the Plaintiff, that if it had
not been for her (the Plaintiff), the Defendant would
have married his present wife' before then. The
Plaintiff replied,, she did not want the Defendant,
and the Witness Might tell his present wife she gai,-p.
up all,'right an'd title to him , for she could haVe his
,betters any day to wipe her shoes.
~
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL,2II reply, went through
and commented upon the -whole evidence, 'He call-
ed the attention of the Jury particelfr ly to the cir-
cumstance, that it was as long ago as Christmas,".lBo.3,
that the Plaintiff innocently sat upon Thomas's knee;
and maintained that all these promises'
.of martlage,
which the Defendant had made as lately' as March,
_lBO7, were not 'to be set at naught by a flirtation; •
if it was such, that happened in' 1805. . As to the.
evidence of her declared preference of other persons
to the Defendant, it most probably originated in that
wounded pride, which was the natural consieudnee
of .the Defendant's inconstancy. The Learned
Counsel urged the atrocity of the Defendant's con-
due, in denying his' marriage. after it had aaually
taken place, and said, this could . have been for.no
other reason than to gain possession of the Plaintiff's
person, when he knew he could not be bound to
marry her : it.was for this intended injury, he added,
as much as for the real injury consequenr upon the
breach of promise of marriage, that the Plaintiff was
now to ask for such damages as the Defendant's
..---
circumstances could affOrd. ~.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH summed up the evidence,
and commented on it with much clearness, and the
Jury found a %erditl for the Plaintiff—Damages 1601.

DEBERENGER V. SNEATH.

This was an a&ion for an assault. The Plaintiffs
were partners in a mercantile' concern.-;-The Jury
gave sixpence damages.

COURT OF COMMON PLEASi NISI PRIUS.

DECEMBER 3.

ASSAULT.

MONTGOMERY BEADLE.

. This was an action brought by one of the seamen
of the Surrey E4si ludiarnan, against the Chief-Mate,
for two 'assaults. •

Thomas Dorrel, a seaman, and John. Robinson,
Mate, were called by Mr. Serjeant SEIEFiIIAD to
prove the Plaintiff's case: They both . concurred' in
the general statement of the facts. While the'ves-
sel was lying in Diamond harbour, in .the Hoogly
river, Bengal, the. Plaintiff, with several others,' went
on shore on leave of absence. Si.x of the party,
among whom was the Plaintiff, did not return till the
end of three days after the expiration,of their term
of leave, having been detained for some offence,, the
nature of which did not appear. The Defendant'
recommended to the crew to cob the Plaintiff and
the other offenders. This punishment was, described
as consisting in forcing the person who-is to suffer. to
lie on his stomach on a water cask, while another
person beat him on the back 'with a stave.. -,The-
crew not coming forward immediately to infliEt this
punishment, the. Defendant ordered the Boatswain's
Mate to apply it, which was done accordingly, -and
the crew received a tub of grog from. the Officer.'
The second assault was committed two months after,
at,sea, because the. Plaintiff had not put his ham-
mock in the netting according to the regulations of
the ship. This consisted iti,ropes-ending the Plain-
tiff. .The witness. Robinson, a strong-built map, :in
answer to some questions put by Serjeants;SnEp-
HERD and BEsT,.thanked God he had the use of his
arm, and laid on the strokes pretty thick. ' He con-
fesSed,, however, that some of the crew laughed at
the scene, and that he could not help laughing him-.
self,_ but he said that. the cabbed man certainly did
not laugh. ,
Mr. Serjeant BEST, fOr the Defendant, observed,
that this was nothing more than a summary sort of
punishment intlided by the crew themselves, for
some slight offences which injured.;the discipline of
the ship, but which did not call for the severity of'a
regular trial. It was mercy to the Plaintiff,'for it he
had been brought to a regular trial, the punishment
would have been much more severe. The De-
fendant, as the punishment was irregular, had, how-
ever, not justified, and the verdict must therefore
be against him ; but, Mader all the circamstances,
the smallest coin ought to serve for damages. The
Jury retired, and in about two hours returned with a
verdi6t for thePlaintiff--Damages 51.

The•witness Dorrel in the course of his exami-
nation, had, in answer to a question from Serjeant
BEST, denied that he had ever thrashed the Mid-
ship Man. After hvretired from the box, he saw the
Midshipman, a boy, in Court; and said to him,
that if he had not thrashed him he would. Serjeant
BEST applied for the interposition of the Court, but
as the boy had not been examined as A witness, al-
though subpcened,
Sir JAMES MANSFIELD was of opinion, that the
most proper *Way was to take Dorrel before a Ma-
gistrate, and Oblige him to find security to keep
t►re peace. •• ' •

•