The Sun.
London, England, 1809-07-14 00:00:00

in Baker-street,•at whose house the infant lately had

intercourse with Miss Jupp,where she was on a visit,
an order to restrain hint from permitting_ in future
any interview between the.int-ant and the Defendant's
daughter at his house. ,
Plum the affidavits, it appeared that the infant,
who is aged about 17, had been lett a legacy of
50,0001. and in consequence of an application made
to the Court, on the-part of his friends, in the month
ot'Augustiast,' for the pUrpose of examining into the
state of his property, he became a ward_ in Chan-
cery. In the course of the same month, in conse-
quence of another application, the order above
(led to for restraining all intercourse between :the in:.
Pant and Miss Clara JupP was issued by the Lord
Chancelloc. The application was grounded upon
three affidavits of the friends of the infant, which
imputed to the defendants a wish to trepan the ward
into —a clandestine matrituonial 'co:inexion with
Miss Jupp. The fails alleged in the affidavits were
suboantially, that in the`Month of December, 1807,

his connexion between the young parties coin-

menced in the village of Farnham, in. the County of
Surrey, where-they were at school T the one at Dr.
Locke',l, and the other at the seminary of Miss Wil-'
titer. The friends of the young man having express.;
ed their disapprobation of,this incipient acquaintance
to the Defendant, and Miss Jupp was taken (ionic
for a short time to her father's house at Goring, near -
Worthing. But in opposition, however, to tins
remonstrance, thh young lady wab sent back
again to school, and the intimacy between-her
and the infant suffered to be carried on with
greater warmth. At this" time the infant be-
came a ward of the Court, and his friends
_ap-
plied and obtained the order above mentioned,
for prohibiting their future acquaintance,which
was served on the father and daughter. In the
month of May last, however, the young man went
down to ttie house of the-Defendant, and was there
entertained by him with the- greatest hospitality ; a
ball was prepared, and the young lady and infant
danced- together. Shortly after this period Miss
Jinn) was invited to, pay a visit to .Mr. Esdale's
house, in Baker-street„ where she staid for several
weeks, during which diUe the infant paid Jter se-
veral visits, and on one occasion danced with her at a
ball given by Mr Esdale. The affidavits further im-
puted -to Mr. Jupp, that this second interview be-
tween his daughter and the infant was with his
knowtedte, prikity .and consent. It was for this
contempt of the order of the Court that the coin
mittal of the Defendants to prison was sought.
Sir S. RotIILLY, in support pt tins amended ap-
plication, read Mr. Esdale's affidavit, w inch he said
would of itself be a sufficient indueeinent to his
Lordship, to issue the order tor w hicti he had applied ;
for by his own acknowledgment, it appearedanat tie
was aware that the Lord Chancellor had issued some
sort of order, probibiting4 he marriage of theseyoung
persons, knowing therefore that such a restriction
existed, his Lordship might legitimately issue such
an order. as would in future prevent the repetition
of similar visits at his house. _

Atter a few observations from Mr. RICEIABD3,
in justification of Mr. EsOak's conduct, it was
agri.ed by him to take such an order as his Lordship

might think proper to issue. , .
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY then read the affidavit of
Mr. Jupp, .in answer to the application for the
committal to prison of himself and daughter. It
denied in general terms any wish on. the deponent's
part to form a matrimonal connexion at all between
his Laughter and the infant ;.siifl less' was he dis_
posed to encourage a clandestine match betveria,
them-. On the contrary, the connection had met
with his decided disapprobation, knowing as he did
how opposite it was to the wishes of the yOung,
man's friends ; and he had done all he could to dis-
suade and advise the young persons from the continu-
ance of their acqu tintaiice ;- in order more effec`-toally
to put a stop to which, he had taken away his daughter
from the school at Farnham. He denied - that
her return. thither was for the purpose of renew-
ing her connexion with the young man'; but that
sire merely went there with her mother for the pur-
pose of seeing her sister, whom she had lett behind at
school. So far was he from agreeing with the sug-
gestion with re,ped to the inequality of the match,
in point of birth, education, and property of Ms own
family, that he considered his daughter in no wise be-
Heath the infant in any of those respects; and so tar,
also, from being a humble farmer, as he had been
stated to be,. he could boast. of the antiquity of .
his family, and the affluence of his circumstances.
:With respect to the' particular facts imputed to him,
in violation of the order of the Court, his affidavit
spoke of them rather in louse and indistinct t terms.
Nothing,..he was of opinion, could justify such gross
inhospitality, as to turn the young gentleman out of
his house, when he came down into the country, in
the month /of May, for the purpose of seeing his
daughter. - The visit of his daughter at the house of
Mr. Esdale was scarcely mentioned in the affidavit;
and it concluded by complaining of the extreme dif-
-ficulty of his situation with respect to the liability of
his daughter to the-visits of the you.ng man, who was
Ike.,;a student at. Oxford, and in every respea mas-
ter of his own aaions. He therefore prayed, that
his Lordship would lay some similar restrictions on
the anions of the infant to that:of the deponent and
his daughter.
Mr.'HIELD then addressed his Lordship on behalf
of Mr. Jupp, who doubtless, he said, appeared before
the Court under very considerable disadvantages, in
consequence of the ex parte statement of this case,
which was made some time since; for the minds of
the Court must necessatily be prejudiced against him,
touching the fads, imputed to his cliatge.• The
Learned Gentleman then argued, with consider-
able ingenuity on the matter contained in the affi-
davit of his client, and completely vindicated him
from any wish to violate any of the orders of the
Court. He admitted that the affidavit of the De-
fendant was loose and vague ; but be was persuaded
that ifhis Lordship would allow hint to amend it, he
Woiiild completely satisfy the Court, that the re-
newal of the acquaintance of hiS daughter and Mr.
Horrock, at Mr. Esdale'S house, was entirely- with-
out his knowledge or consent.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if the'Defend-
ant could swear to that fact, the case VI ould appear In
a very different point of view to that which it now
presented to the Court. - Until that amended affida-
vit, therefore, was laid•before the Court, he should