The Sun.
London, England, 1825-12-23 00:00:00

SIR A. M. GIBSON ✓. KNOWLFS AND OTHERS.

Mr. HART stated this to be a petition for the division of a
sum now in Court, and paid under various orders made in this
cause, and for payment of the parties' costs. It appeared that
the late Sir Thomas Maitland, being Colonel of the 49th Regi-
ment of Foot, appointed William Gilpin the agent for that re-
giment. In fife course of the transactions which ensued in con-
sequence, a sum of upwards of 3,0001. became due from Sir
Thomas Maitland to the agent, and the latter being a bank-
rupt, his assignees claimed the payment of that sum. The re-
presentatives of Sir Thomas Maitland were ready to pay any
sum that might appear to be due, but as Mr. Gilpin had re-
ceived various sums from the War-office on account of the re-
giment, they were advised that they could not pay Sir T. Mait-
land's debt unless they should first deduct the sum due to the
War-office. The assignees objected tto this on the ground that

the agent's charge against Sir T: Maitland ought first to be
liquidated, and that the War-office must come in and prove
among the other creditors under the commission, for whatever
balance should appear due to them. In consequence this suit
was instituted by Sir Alexander Maitland Gibson, and Mr.
Maitland, as the representatives of the late Sir Thomas Mait-
land, against the defendants, assignees of Mr. Gilpin, the
agent. On the cause coming on to be heard, the Lord Chan-
cellor directed an issue for the purpose of trying that legal
question, which arose in the course of the suit, viz., whether
the representatives of Sir T. Maitland had a right to set off the
debt due to the Crown against his debt to Gilpin's estate.
On the trial of that issue a verdict had been given in the affir-
mative, and the right to set off was established. The petition
was therefore presented for dividing the funds in Court.
ROUPELL thought the case must go again to the Lord
Chancellor, because the fact of the late Sir T. Maitland having
given a power of attorney to Mr. Gilpin, by virtue of which he
had received the money in question at the War-office, had not
been stated.

Mr. WRAY, for the Crown. only appeared to ensure the
payment of the sum due to the War-office.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR had at first thought that this
question must go again before the Lord Chancellor; but since
it had been explained that the agent acted under a power of
attorney from Sir T. Maitland, the appearance of the case was
changed. That circumstance placed him in the same situa-
tion as Sir Thomas Maitland, and laid him under the same
responsibility. The verdict of the Jury was, therefore, quite
satisfactory, because it established that single proposition to
which the dispute had been resolved—viz., whether Sir T.
Maitland ought to pay to Mr. Gilpin's assignees, without any
deduction, -the sum admitted to be due to him from the regi-
ment, or whether he ought to pay out of that sum the debt due
to the War-office. He should therefore direct, in the words
of the prayer, that the sum of-1,539/. should be paid to Mr.
Maule, the olicitor to the Treasury, together with his costs;
that the costs of the other parties should be paid out of the
residue of the fund in Court; and that the balance should be
paid to the assignees of Mr. Gilpin, in discharge of the debt,
due to them from the late Sir T. Maitland as Colonel of the
49th Regiment.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 22.
CRIM. CON.—PARKES V. CRESWICKE.

This was an action against the defendant for criminal con-
versation with the plaintiff's wife.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Chitty conducted the plain-
tiff's case. Mr. Scarlett and Brougham that of the defendant.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in opening this case to the
Jury, put it as a case of great injury to the plaintiff', of vio-
lated feelings, and of the most artful seduction by the defendant.
It appeared, however, in the result of the inquiry, that no very
great damage had been sustained except by the plaintiff's wife,
who seemed to have been most unfortunate in all her amatory
connections. The defendant resides at Hannam Court, near
Bristol, and is a Magistrate tbr the district of the county of
Gloucester, and also for the county of Somerset. The plaintiff
is at present in possession of a competent property. though at
the time when he married he was a traveller for a London
house. Having had occasion to go, in the course of business,
through the West of England, he accidentally became ac-
quainted with Mr. Latcham, a solicitor, near Bristol. Mr.
Latcham had a daughter, with whom the plaintiff'formed an
attachment and married. This took Vace in 1812. A thou-
sand pounds were given, by way of fortune, by Mr. Latcham,
which was settled upon her, the plaintiff's brother and father-
in-law being appointed trustees. After the marriage the plain-
tiff and his wife came to London, where they remained eight
or tine months ; and then he was induced, by the wish of
his wife, to reside among her friends and 'go down to
Bristol and set up business as a plumber, in partnership
with one .teffries. The 1,0001. which had been settled on
Mrs. rarkes, Mr. Latcham was persuaded to advance, by way
of loan, to assist in carrying on the business; notwithstanding
this, they failed in 1814. and this money, for which Jeffries
gave. his bond, was entirely lost. From this period till early
in the year 1810, the plaintiffand his wife lived together, he
having no employment, when he once more returned to Lon-
don, to see if he could get something to do. Toward the end
or this year, or the beginning of 1817, he succeeded in obtain-
ing an appointment to an establishment near Soho-square, in
which he and his wife were to resftle jointly. He then went
down to Bristol to bring her up, but she refused to return with
him. from this period he had taken no further notice of her,
although her father's affairs having become embarrassed, and
she, with her two children, had very little means of support ;
not only had he not sent for her again, but he had never sent
her even a farthing to help her. About the close of the year
1819 she was introduced to the house of the defendant, with
whom very shortly after she formed the criminal connection
for which this action • was brought. They left Hannam
Court, went to Exeter, thence to Exmouth, where they re-
sided some time, anti ience to Lyndhurst, near Southampton,
in Hampshire, where they remained another period. In this
time Mrs. Parke had three children to the defendant, one of
whom died. Towards the latter end of 1822, the defendant,
tired with the obscurity in which he had been living, and sa-
tiated with his victim, returned to his residence near Bristol,
and disclaimed his conection with Mrs. Parkes, but when
pressed with the charge by a Mr. Fry, an old acquaintance of
Mrs. Parkes's, to whom in her distress she had written, her
father and mother being both dead, he admitted that he had
lived with her, and had only abandoned her in consequence of
her depraved habits. Mr. Fry, determined to ascertain the
truth of this charge, went to see her, and found her living
indeed in a state of great poverty, but diligently labouring to
support herself and children, and appearing to conduct herself
with propriety. In the course of the year 1824, Mr. Parkes
became possessed of a considerable property ; he then brought
this action, anxious to obtain a divorce, and rid himself of his
wife. It appeared that in the successive migrations of the de-
fendant and the plaintiff's wife, they had assumed a new
name at every stage, a circumstance on which the Attorney-
General relied, as proving their desire to keep their connection
a secret from their friends.

Mr. Latcham, the brother of the plaintiff's wife, proved the
marriage. On his examination he said, "My father is a soli-
citor, and at the time of the marriage was residing near Bris-
tol. My sister was then about 19 ; she was the only daughter;
she is a first cousin of Mr. Parkes, her husband. The mar-
riage took place with the approbation of her family. Mr.
Parkes was then a traveller to a house in London. He pos-
sessed property to about 1,0001., and made a settlement on his
wife. He was about thirty years of age. Mr. and Mrs. Parkes
after the marriage went to reside in London. After a few years
they returned to Bristol, and Mr. Parkes entered into business
with a person of the name of Jeffries. This partnership was
after some time dissolved, and Mr. Parkes returned to London,
Mrs. Parkes continuing to live with her father and mother. In
the March of 1821 her mother died, and her father in Decem-
ber 1822. The defendant has acted as a Magistrate of Glou-
cester and Somerset. In the years 1819 and 1820, he was living
at Hannam-court. Mr. Latcham, Mrs. Parkes's father, acted
as clerk to the Magistrates; they became in consequence ac-
quainted. Mr. Latch= was for several months at Hannam-
court. It is twelve years since I lived with my father. In the
year 1821 Mrs. Parkes was missing from Bristol. On my
father's death I succeeded him."

Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—I did not object to the
marriage; they married on the 9th November, 1811, and then
went to London. I am sure I don't know whether they were
in London two or three years. When I was in London on
business, I called at their house, but never slept there ; Parkes,
on going to Bristol, carried on the business of plumber and
glazier for several months ; they failed, and Parkes returned
lack to London ; Mrs. Parkes, and her two children lived se-
veral years with my father and mother after this; they had no
support but what my father gave them ; my father supported
her, notwithstanding she went to Mr. Pickering's and Mr.
Fisher's; I do not remember seeing Mr. Parkes after he return-
ed to London ; I may have said that " Parkes behaved like a
scoundrel to his wife." I don't believe they lived happily to-
gether; she refused to return to London again. I know the
handwriting of Mr. Milward, the plaintiff's attorney.— The
witness here verified several letters which were put into his
hand.)—After my father's death, the eldest of the children was
brought to me to support it; I wrote up to Mr. Parkes about
it, and got no answer, and sent it to the parish, who sent it up
to him. Mr. Creswicke,i about the years 1819 and 1820, was
under great embarrassments ; I know nothing of his concern
now.
Thomas Tippet—l lived at Exeter in 1820. I remember the
defendant coming to my house in August 1820, with a lady,
and introduced her as Mrs. Humphrey, calling himself Mr.
Humphrey. They did not take lodgings in Exeter. He after-
wards went to Exmouth and took a cottage there; I then be-
' came more intimately acquainted with them. He never spoke
of' her but as his wife. She had a child there ; after the birth
of the child he frequently came to Exeter. He made no coin-
munication to me about leaving Exmouth. The child was
brought to Exeter. The child was nursed by a Mrs. Ford.
They left this neighbourhood in 1821 ; the child was left be-
hind at nurse ; they never returned again together. In Feb.
1822, I again saw .11r. Creswicke ; he stated his object to be
to take away the child. I brought away the child and gave it
to Mr. Humphrey. Previous to this he declared who he really
was, and said the lady was not his wife. I had known before
who she was ; I might perhaps have mentioned' this to him
before he told me.
Mrs. Sarah Gourlay—l am niece of Mr. Abraham Kennay ;
my uncle has a cottage at.Exmouth. I remember Mr. Hum-
phrey calling on him about the cottage ; my uncle stated the
rent was 11)01. ; the lady wished him to take it, as it was ex--
pensive living at an inn ; after some time, I observed she was
in the family way ; they were there about eight or nine months;
I saw him again in February 1822, and he said then he did not
know where he was.
Clark--I reside in Exmouth ;, in 1820 I was requested

to attend Mrs. Humphrey, and on the 27th Nov. delivered bet
of a male child.
Mr. Clarke—l am a surgeon at Lyndhurst, near Southall;
ton ; I remember a gentleman and a lady of the name of
coming there, and delivered her of a child, in January 1828
the lady passed as Mr. Hill's wife. I frequently visited'thert
I have subsequently ascertained their real names. She is now
living in a state of great poverty, and her two children with her.
She supports herself by needle-work. I have not seen hurl
there since the 10th November, 1822.
Mr. Fry—l saw the defendant after his return. I show4l.
him Mrs. Parke's letters to me. He promised to give me "'jig
for them next morning. He did not pay this sum to me
next morning, but he did afterwards. He said that he had
lived in Devonshire with her. He said he had one child
bl
her. I found her in a cottage at needle-work ; she apt:wired e
be conducting herself with propriety. The defendant said on
of the children was his, and ascribed another to Dr: Clarke
He asked me fbr her letters to me; he got them about a f0r,...
night ago; he paid me the 201. for her about a fortnight since=
I sent the letters to him a few days ago. I do not know t"
Mr. Creswicke possesses considerable property. 1
Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Before I sent the °.,
ters to Mr. Creswicke, I tried to make something of them of
Parkes. I asked him if he would not give me a sum of n3oneli
for them. I lodged at Mr. Latcham's four years; whilethee
knew Mr. Creswicke only by name. I left shortly after fflAre'd
•
Parkes and her children came to the house in 1816. 'I stay
two months after she came. Mr. Latch= was very P0n.,,,
I did not have to make room for her. I had known Mrs: Pa riitit
20 years. Her father was not able to support her. She weer
first to Mr. Pickering's, and then to Mr. Fisher's.
frequently while there. Her child was put to school by":"
Pickering, who is a naval officer. She remained there `-r.
months. I have heard of her husband getting some little acs,
ters of plate away. I was not in the habit of seeing Mr. Igo.
wicke. It was suspected, when Mr. Creswicke and ,now
Parkes disappeared, that they were gone off together. r sato
nothing of Mr. Creswicke's circumstances. Ido not know
he went off to avoid being arrested. dor
Re-examined by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL...4.ra 01°
lived about two years after she went down to Bristol. • the
Thomas Parkes—l am brother to the plaintiff; I Vet! in
house of Mr. and Mrs. Parkes 8 or 9 months after tbt}
married ; I was in the habit of visiting them afterwards; then
dulged her in every thing she could requite; when InY.b."..ife's
came to London in 1816, he did so on the advice of nts "of a
father, who said he would take care of her till my brother ig the
situation; my brother got a situation in the latter end ° ing •
}ear 1816; he went down to Bristol for the purpose of-hr;,,tgole
her tip ; in 1824 my brother became possessed of a considers
propert.
uler 0, hi
Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT—He got his P the
a distant relation. From the latter end of the year 1810, "'of
beginning of 1817, till the year 1820, I believe he nerel„dge,
her ; he never went to bring her up again to my knorw rar
nor to my knowledge did he ever make any inquiries site'
till the year 1824. wife
Thomas Joseph Severn—After the plaintiff and hies
town'
were married, I was in the habit of visiting them in '•tbeta
'They appeared to be living very happily. I did not visit
much.
the „ear,
By Mr. BROUGHADI —How did they live during
1817, 1818, and 1819 ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Why do you ask sac.. a
tion ? They were not living together then. the
Mr. BitouGHAst—l thought this question as much 04
point as that of the Attorney-General, who asked how
lived during the first six months after marriage. colv
Three letters were here put in and read, to shew the and
nection between the defendant and the plaintiff's wile/To
to shew on what terms they were toward each other• top,
of them were written in 1823, after the defendant toll
doned her in Hampshire. They only related to tire 'wets
sums of money which he was sending her, and
o'culti
no way remarkable, except as shewing . the 01
which he had in raising such small sums as N. titter'
which were sent on each occasion. The otherletterws! "„ rlrsr
in 1819, and marked the period at which this conneaf;diO4
beg:an. Its formal tone clearly indicated that up tO 07 e-, pr-
of its being written no illegal intercourse had taken Phab-ti
tween them. The contrary was attempted to be estabds
the plaintiff's Counsel. Letchittn'
" My dear Madam—Having conferred with Mr. rt,,,,,claf
I think it best to defer illatilda s coming home until 4 re.
or Wednesday, when I will fetch you both. Should heresyo
mining -with you not be attended with any inconvenient Or
thank you to hand her the enclosed ; otherwise do not 001
but give me a line. I feel more than obliged for your kin
and remain, dear Aladam, your obliged Servant,.
" Dec. 2.5 th, 19. " H m. CRESN'elcr at
Mr. SCARLET T, for the defendant, at.!clressed the ••,° tots
considerable length. He did little more than re
as they had been disclosed in evidence, and argue fFollsietif
that, before the criminal intercourse took place, the P atbsc
abandoned his wife, that he had sustained no damage, °Li on'
he brought this action merely because having recently anon.
expectedly become possessed of a considerable property
ed to have a divorce. on
ttenn
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE merely directed the a-
of the Jury to the principal features of the case. far 1116
After a short consultation, they returned a verdict
plaintiff—Damages 50/.
LIBEL.—WILLOUGIIBY V. FLETCHER• The
This was an action by Mr. Willoughby, who keel's 'of Ws
Hotel" at Chester, against Mr. Fletcher, the proprietor of the
Chester Chronicle, fur a libel contained in that Pape of-
24th of December, 1824. The libel was headed '00;
loughby Controversy, and contained allusions to some Pretor
ings in Chancery between Lord Grosvenor, the proPrt oat
the house, anti Mr. Willoughby his tenant, and al„stiZotes,;
papers in the Chester Courant, on the other side :na to sir
tion. The writer of the article, which was very long: !',hat or'
persons not residing in Chester very dull, observed "1
that "c
Willoughby now thought with Mr. John Williams),,,cellor
Court of Chancery needed refbrm, since the Lord td"lberac`
had decided against him, and had stated that whatever
ot
ter of truth seemed to belong to his affidavit in the'Tbe lOC
stance, such character could not be given to it ROW' rs.
of the article was wholly uninteresting to London reargihat
-state thatio
Mr. J. WILLIAMS, in opening the pleadings, Pilger 01
libel, after sonic matter very immaterial to the plaint
one else, imputed to him perjury. hat °et°
Mr. SCAR LET T, in opening the case, observed t
tett e,e
was no species of information communicated thge';eport;
medium of newspapers, so frequently incorrect as a„ction.o,,
of proceedings in Courts of Justice. He meant no reilin
those who prepared them ; but from the mariner technical
those proceedings were conducted, and from their
of thee
nature, it unavoidably happened that the. accotint At. trlsis,
,
were often erroneous ; and he had often seen reports: ....on,
coulda
at which
not
be
h ew
accurate.as net
urae
present bsus
therefore,wtificl h .in
couldca of gpresor
interest, when extraordinary pains were taken,- an din repo_lr,
ceedings were noted in short hand, errors would ocellfs evil
of trials which could scarcely be prevented, To thi in, pubb,ie
ties must generally submit, because proceedings oeuls_,,,
Courts ought to be made public; but no man was
_., ocon.
who garbled proceedings for it malignant purpoie, alcesosf;
parried them with malignant comments. The Lear,nri', client
then went through the libel in question, 'and urged his
claim to damages. 0(10. t
The plaintiff's son being called to proie the ittirtion,
averments in the declaration, stated, on cross-exam'. the Cllr
he had carried papers from his father to the office of
a tbe
Courant, before the publication of the libel. , urge 'AO
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for thd defenno.•9 the ni7,e
distance of the place of trial from that of' puhlicationslie by. ol'oti
spirit of party in Chester ; and the obvious appeal ntlg
plaintiff himself to the press, as grounds for ova'
VI
damages.
returned The Jury retired for half an hour, and then.
diet for the plaintiff—Damages 300/. . _on rt

During the last fortnight there has "t t".l
Ogg .
single debtor in the gaol of Dumfries—a cited"—tan of 1:,0
he-1-
never occurred before in the memory of the ohlest
ness in town. During the last six years, the hikhes...,,sol'
of commitments for debt was twenty—the lowest tvf°
average about seven.—(Dunnfrier Coitrier.)
5

•
BITHS.
Yesterday, the Viscountessß Folkestone, of a daught'eroe"'
On the 22d inst., i\lrs. Thomas Brooksbank, .
street, of a daughter,

------------ _.
M A R HIED. fr3llL
St. NI '4 14iingWri's,pge$
On Thursday, the 22d inst., at t..i. ary ~ , yO.• br,
cis E. J.Valpy, A.M., of TrinityColle,te, Carnbricfe', of °
son of the Rev. Dr. Valpy, to Eliza, 'second daugnte. Smith.
Pullen, ry
Es.. f Canonbu.
On the 22d
inst, at. St. Andrew's, Holborn, RichatiXard-
Esq., of Buckden, Huntingdonshire, secretary 0). bard
Bishop of Lincoln, to Mary, eldest daughter of Rle k'
wards, Esq., solicitor, Castle-street, „Holborn. terr
DIED vocrois9
Yesterday, at his residence in. Duke-street, 1 j.,
Ilidf°r
Nathaniel Atcheson, Esq., aged 54. air
On the 6th inst., at her residence, Alfred-o_oe' of 1°
square, Cydyppto Dutton, wife of John Fowl0,1:•q" 0
of 12
ston, amaica.year _ ti,
ag2notleheßle9vt.hoineoSt;g,eactliiirsaillnroitinne,rso.Dith: in the 7461 of iks
41 yeas rector
more, in the county of Dorset. . - -
..,..1.104,.....•

at the vs
Printed and Published for the PnwiniElong•
OFricz, No. 112, Strand, by J. B. CAT""