The Sun.
London, England, 1809-11-10 00:00:00

LAZY REP 'liT.

COURT OF K 1 NG's BENCH, 'llstinsoiky, Nov. 9.

WRIGHT V. WARDLE,- ESQ. -
. ,
" Mr: Serjeant BE ST, 'O.ll the part of the Defendant
moved for a Rule to bhew cause, why;the verdict for

the Plaintiff in this case 'should not be set aside, and,

a new trial granted.

'the cirtutEstances and event

of aetioo are to fathiiiar to the memories

of our readers.to need recapitulation. -The learned
Serjeant grounded his present motion upon se-
.

. _
veral long affidavits of Witnesses, who were not
called at the trial, and who denied the Plain-
tiff's whole case from beginhing to end. It- Was
quite impossible that these witnesses should be called
at the trial, as the
.Defendant could not at all know
what Mrs Clarke would swear.

Mr. Justice BAILEY.—" Is not that the case in
most all actions 1". . •

• Mr. Serjeant BEST -proceeded to say, that be bad
now the -aflidai,it of Major Dodd,
• Lord -ELLENEottOuqu„—".l think it eras men-
tiooed at the:trial, that Major Dodd. was then in
the Hall,"

Mr. Serjeant BEST admitted that heWas, and sub.
pcenaed on both sides;' but it was then thought
prudent to call Major Dodd, on behalf of the De-
fendant, without obtaining 'possession of other cir-

cumstances, Which had been got at since. -Since the
trial, the Defendant had obimined knowledge.of an.

important fact, by the putting in of the Plaintiff's
answer to a bill in Chancery, which the Defetidant
had filed against him. From that answer it appeared

that if the Defendant had, at the tila);eallediar th
Plaintiff's books, it would have been seen. that the

&Otis which were furnished by the
.Plaintiff to Mrs

Clarke, were charged to her under the name of Far-
quhar. What occasion could there be for any se•-

exec), in the Plaintiff's own books ?
Mr. 'Justice BAILEY.—" Many tradesmen make
entries in their books to false names : their books are

• .
liable to inspection." '
Mr. Seijeant BEST.—" Not without their consent.
The circumstance of the concealed entry is decisive
to'Whom credit was given."
Lord ELLENBOEOUGH.—" There might have been
a motive operating in Wardle's mind for the insertion
of another name in the Plaintiff's books."

Mr. Serjeant BEST proceeded to shew from the
affidavit of the Defendant himself, in which Major
Dodd joined,, that the whole story, which had been

fabricated by• Mrs. Clarke *and Mr. Daniel Wright,
was false.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH reminded the learned 'Sex-
jeant,, that it was of-little consequence what the De-
fendant swore, as he could not ne a witness.
Mir. Serjeant BEST replied, that he thought it pru-
dent that the
•Djendant himself should explain the
transaction as far as he could.
• Lord 'ELLENBORduGi commended the learned
Serjeant's diecretion.
Serj. BEST proceeded to read his affidavit, which
stated, that the Defendant and Major Dodd were
going with Mrs. Clarke on busineSs to Clifford's Inn,
and that on their' way they called at the Plaititiff 's,
where Mrs. Clarke ordere‘l.her • goods, and gloating
paSsed between the-Defendant„and Mrs. Clarke and
Mr.,Daniel Wright, as the two latter had swern..--
The Defendant, also swore that the first, intimation
he had that there was any. demand to be Maca by
the Plaintiff against him was a day or-two before. the
anion was brought. 'Mr. Ellis,' who was now the
Defendant's Attorney, had discovered that the Plain-
tiff's evidence 'on the trial •was brought forward by
Conspiracy, ancl supported by perjury. The fact was,
that the Plaintiff would not trust Mrs. Clarke; and'
the learned Serjeant now called the attention.of the
Court to the dealings of these persons. On the sth
July, 1805, the plaintiff, took a house of a person
of the name of Buil,- for the occupancy of Mrs.
Clarke, not in her narne, but in that of Farquhar.
Mr.- Bull asked 'Who Mrs.' Farquhar was,' and the
Plaintiff replied, that she was a respeetable married
woman, whose husband, was absent, and that 'she
would not stay long in Mr. Bull's house, being about
to•take'another, which the Plaintiff. was to furnish.
This. was 'sworn -by- Mr. and 'Mrs. Bull, and a
third -person,: who was- present at the negocia-
tion. Mr. Bull afterwards discovered his tenant. was
Mrs. Clarke, and determined she should immedi-
ately quit his house, complaining to toe. Plaintiff. of
his imposition. Mrs... Clarke then took a'house of.
Mr. Kirke, in Westhourne,place,..referring him to
.the Plaintiff for a charade. Thisyvas in October,
1808, .at the time when. Mr. Daniel Wright Swore
the Plaintiff gave her no credit. Mr. Kirke saw the
Plaintiff; who told him Mrs. Farquhar was a most
respeCtable lady, and that it he, the Plaintiff, had
fifty houses, he would give her the choice of them
all, and that he had taken several thousands of her
money. In consequence of this, the house,was let.
Lord ~ELLENBOROUGH.- Farqdhar was Mrs.
Clarke'3 maiden name ?"
Mr. Serjeant BEST replied_ it was.—Upon Mrs.
Clarke's entering Mr. Kirke's house, there, was 1081,
to be paid for fixtures; and for 'this 'sum the Plain-
tiff gave Mr. Kirke a cliecque. This was at the time
the goods were supplied, tor. the pay ment.of which
the action was brought. The first quarter's .rent
became due, and was riot paid. Mr. Kirke -found
out he was cheated, and distrained for the reht by
Mr. Robins the auctioneer.
Lord ELLENZOROUGH..--i` There was evidence
given at the trial, payments by the Plaintiff for
coals and insUance, and that was left to the Jury,
with its operation on the whole case."
Mr..-Serjeant BEST continued to 'state, that the se-
Loud quarter's rent was also distrained for, and also
Paid by the Plaintiff.
Mr. Justice BAILEY. —" He might think that be
was in some degree bound, that Mr. Kirke should
not be a loser."
'Mr. Serjeant BEST next`. produced ..the.affidavit
of Sir. Riehard Phillips, who stated that, he was
applied to by Mrs. Clarke to publish thoe
;Memoirs, for the, suppression of which .he was
afterwards applied to by sa: Noble Lord. Mrs.
Clarke urged to* the. Defendant, as a reason fOr
her making the most of her negociation, that she
°bad 2,0001. to pay-the Plaintiff for furniture in
'Westbourne-place. This was after the investiga-
tion of th; House of ConirnonS in March, and with
this the Defendant's own affidavit swore he was not
acquaintec till after the trial. The, aeticitivit of Mr._
-Glennie stated, in answer to the testimony of
Mrs. Clarke and Mr: Daniel 'Wright, as to the
5001. part payment by the Defendant, that- on .th

'l‘4ll •of Clarke •driea iVrr.'dle."9.-
Ide, with tears in her 'eyes, to request the liefend.-
ant to become security in 5001,, for, her in two dr
three months. Mr. Glennie replied', that he conla
not think .of the, Defendant this,' as he kneW
him to have entered into na:erigageinent to pay her
debts; but if Mrs: Clarke would point out anY
way of paying it again in three months, he WOold
be the bearer of her request. She assured hin't
she could pay it in less than three months, out of a
book, she was about to pUblish. Mr. Glennie
jet Sled 16 her ektravagance in furnitare, arid told her
it would be more to her credit to keep a smaller house;
and. that the Defendant thought so too., She replied',
What.is it. to Col. Wardle ? he is not to *pay for it:
The Defendant, the Learned Serjeani observed, Wits
► Very anxious-that Glennie should be examined
upon this at the trial, • and sent him into Court for
that purpose ;,butiowitig to a difficulty of coMmani--
-cation,,this was not done. The next affidavit was that
Mr: Illingworth, a Wine-merchant, in Pall-Mall,who
,accepted Mrs.. Clarke.'s' bill of Exchange for 5601.
He was applied to by the Defendant, who stated
that Mrs. Clarke would be able to pay it by 'the
sale of the book she was to publish ; the Deponent
wasnnacquainfed -with .the Defendant, and lie and
Major Dodd gave him .their acceptances for .2krl:
each : he then called on Mrs.„Clatke,-.and told her
be would accept her note. It was given, but not
honOurecL He knew nothing of any dealings be-
tween the parties, and no i?‘1,11 of seerev was ex.
pressed tobitiv,‘as had been sworn at the trial.
The next was the affidavit of Mr. Bennet; a cabin
net-maker, in Tottenham-court-road ; of Whose tes-
timony it was sworn the Defendant bad no know-
ledge till after the' trial. He had long . been ac.
quainted with the Plaintiff; The furniture wa
transferred from the Duke of :York's name to the
Defendant's, as they Well, knew which Was :the best
paymaster of the two.

The next was the affidavit of Mr. tecktt, Attorney
of Thomas Allen, taylor, who brought an zctiuri
against Mrs. Clatke, for servants' liveries, in which
she was bailed specially by the two .Wric,rhts and
the last was the affidavit of Mr.- Ellis, the Attorney;
who swore that the WI ights had been herbail in 36
causes.

Mr. Justice BAILEY.—." The Plaintiff knew her
to be in distress then, and was not likely to trust lies
on her own credit."

Mr. Serjeant BEST 'Continued to urge the grant of
his motion upon he ground-of all this improper con-
dua between Mrs. Clarke and the Plaintiff, which
bad been disclosed by his answer to the Defendaut'S.
Bill in Chancery. • •
Mr. M. Justice BAILEY. If the Defendant ha
filed his bill. before_ the trial, the cause would kith,
been staid till the Plaintiff's answer Was put in."
Mr% Serjeant BE.sT also urged the circumstance of
insurance-Of the goods, parr of which Were in-.
sured in the name of Clarke, and part in that of
Farquhar, in the same office.
Lord ELLENEOROUGII.----" The eircarnstancei of
the Plaintiff's insurinc, the ,goods looked more like
hire than sale, and I that obServation to the

Jury." • • .
•
Mr: Serjeant BesT, confirmed': the je*els were
insured 'in the name of Clarke, and the furniture in
owl; uf.Fauquhar: The Learned Serjeant ConelUdcri
with hoping the Court would grant him the iula
plicin any terms.

Lord -ELLt•raoßoutt was afraid 'of violating the
rules of the Court, where a party had had full op-
portunity to prove at his trial what Was now stated
by affidavits. At the same time, circomslances were
adduced in the present instance- WhiCh`fixed Mrs.
Clarke with the Plaintiff in
_a cOnne6tion more;
from the beginning to tie end of the business, than
appeared at the timeof the trial; and it might,
therefore, be
,as,.well..to grant the rule nisi.—Rule
granted.

LOVEDEN, ESQ. V. BARKER, ESQ.

Mr. GARROW, on behalf of the Plaintiff, moved
for a rule to shew cause, why the verdict for the De-
fendant in 'this rasa should riot be set aside ai
contrary to evidence, and a new trial granted. Our
1 Readers will recollect, that this was an anion for
1. criminal coM'rersatif,n, tried 'on the Same day as
that of Wright v..Wardle. In this case the Learn-
ed COUnsel said, that the fad of the
.tiff's former happiness with his wife was undisput;
ed, and the -fad of the criminal conneaion rested
upon , the strongest,• presumptive evidence that"
could, in
.the. present state of society, when the
publiCation of such trials had put parties upon their
guard; be givenlO.asCourt of Justice. The Learned
Counsel recapitulated- the proof that had been given;
and Lord ELL.VABOROOGII read the evidence Iron'
his notes ; but the Court was of opinioni" that the
quiestion of la6t.. having been fairly left to a Jury
there :was now - iicr pretence for putting that question
to another4ury.-,—../iu4 &lased..

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. q.

- Mr.- RIeffARDS., before any other business tva's
-got-2 into, .begged leave to call the • attention of 114
Court, for one moment, to the case that had lately
exCiteds so much interest, that of .NichOlSon and
Giles: On behalf of the guardians, he took the
liberty of stating.to the Court the necessity of plac;4.
hag Miss .Nicholson under immediate and sufficient
prote&ion, as that young lady had; in no equivocal
mariner, avowed 'her intention of taking the first
opportunity of giving bet guardians the slip aod tun-
niag 'off to Mr.
,Gdes. - He therefore humbly con-
ceived, that n 9 time should be lost in the. adoption
Of such measurei.tiS' the Court, in its wisdorn, should
think fit, to cot nterdet the desigtis of the young
lady: . •
._ • - -

Mr. BLYIII,B, on the part of Mr,. Gilesi. and his
Coadjutor, Mr. Smith, stated to the Court that lA.
had irnporiant'circinnStances to.corinntinicate to the
Court,. which he liacl,na.donht would, in the judg-
ment of his Lordship, operate considerably 4.ex:
tent-mien of their'birenCe against the authority off'
that 'Court, Those circurxstancei,, however, he
would; in the present stage of the.proceedings, for.,
bear to make public, and in this forbearance, he
was actuated Solely by a Wish to avoid making any
matters public whiCh knight haVe a. tendency to
wound the feelings of The
_friends of Miss Nichol-
son. But he could assure his Lordship, that neither
Mr. Giles nor Mr. Sinith w6re at all aware that,
Miss Nicholson was a ward in Chancery and he
held in his hand an affidavit made to this 'elle& by
Mr. Smith. He, was instructed to say that Mr,
Giles and-Mr. Smith were ready to appear, and

-.7. io ltiswer all such queFtions'as,rnight be put to
r lative, to this case, and that.:Mf. Smith, for
nvolnntary offence- of which he may have been
lgninSt the Court, was anxious to make every
:011 in hi.; power. Mr. BLYT4E,OCII read a
itlidavit from Mr:Smith to the above effef-t,
decl by stattog, that snch were the very
mined_ means of Mr. Giles, tilat long imprison-
be procloOlVe of ruin, as he had nothinc.
4:3
d on 'but. his. professional 'exertions as ati
),..r! •

/:er.r. I.

.f~Ci

Lord 111,DON said, that it was„ his intention to
t!Hie of the care td-morrow. That as to the cir-
c!im.,tances, it might be advisable for the parties to
the .Court, on the ground bf the allega--
Jiot)4 a;ready made, and'_ that sncli petitions should
be pre;ented before the Court decided on to-morrow,'

His Lordship said, that he did not mean to 1113- I
pule any improper condu& to" the Clergyman who
üblished the banns.—He had felt it his duty, in this
case, to put% certain questions to that Gentleman ;
and from the answers he learned; that it had been
the custom to hand up-the banns 'to the Clergyman, '
who was in-the habit of publishing them forthwith ;
and that accordingly persons were often proclaimed,
neither of whom were resident in the parish. He
was borne out by the authority of hiS predecessors,
in 'Saying, that the Clergyman thus a&ing, subjedr-,
himself to ecclesiastical and other 'censures.--In fad,
the Ad of Parliament was not aded up to ; for the
Ad provided; that seven days notice should be given'
to the ClergYtnanl3efore the publishing of the banns,
setting forth the Christian and Surname's of the
parties, the, houses in which they respedively re--
sided, and the length of titne.each had resided.—
The objet in' giving this notice evidently was, that
the Clergyman might, in-the interim, ascertain the
truth or falsehood of. the statement contained in the,
notice; which certainly it was his bounden thaty, ac-
cording to the ACS, to do. If, howeyer, it was not
the custom, it rendered.the deviatiOn from the legal
.p;aaice more excusable, but could not, °many- ac-=
count, justify that deviation. He thought itt-his duty
to state the law thus tar, He recollected one case
where the exatse given for not conforming to the
letter of the Mt was near.giving rise to a, serious
proseCution :—the -negleti was obvious, and the
Clergyman pleaded his having imposed .striti ob-
servance on his Curate ; the Curate transferred it to
the Clerk ; and the Clerk transferred it to his wife :
but-the negligence of all could not justify the negli-
gence of any one of the patties:
Petitions ere presented inthe course of the day
from Messrs, Giles. and Smith, in _Obedience' to the
suggestion of the Court.
racnoLs v. THE SCOTCH CORPORATION.

The Scotch Corporation had onie.' time ago ob-
tained 2n ininnetion to. restrain Nichols trotubuild-
ing a wall beyond a certain height,,on the grout's)
tha: it would become a nuisance, and obsttria the
light of their
.bou,e in Crane-court, Fleet-street.— 1
Sir SAUUE.I. 1102+IILLY,‘911 the part of NiCholS, now
moved that the injunction should be -dissolved, for
tWo reasons : first, that it Wad not-been drawn, op
according to the affidavit of appficattad ; second,
that the injury to the Corporation 'Could not be of
sa serious a nature, even it the P:iiintitY chose to per-
severe, as .to call for the interposition of the Court
doting the pi-Ogress of an a&ion
Atter some observations' Item Sir 'ARTHUR PIGOT, !
On the other side, the CIiANCELLOR decided, that the
irtjunaion ought to be dissolved, the patties under-
'taking to try the question of right irnmediAely,
,and the Plaintiff, Melia's, engagiog to comply with,
out delay with
.the verdict, provided it should go
against him, subjel, however, to the opinion of his
Lordship.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

IN THE CASE OF EARL I.E4CESTER -V. WALTER AND

OTHERS, PROPRIETORS OF THE MORNING HERALD.
Mt. Serjeant. MANLEY, on the part of the De-
fendants, moved for a Rule to chew -cause why the,
verdi6t in. this case should not he set aside; and a
new trial granted. The Learrred Serjeatit obierved,
that the verdict against hiS .was for one thou-
sand- -pounds—a verdict under
all the circumstances of the case, aosl the evidence
adduced, was totally without precedent. _ Never was
so strong a case of justification adduced by any -De-
fendant ; nor could he conceive how it was possi-
ble for a 'Jury of -rational men upon their oaths to
find such a verdict for the Noble.- Plaintiff ;. for
though, they might consider themselves bound to
bud a verdict against his Client, elle shilling was the
utmost•that could have bebn expeeted at their hands.
Front the evidence of his Lordship's own Solicitor,
end the testimony given by sever-al persons who wrist
knew the Noble Lord, it was impossible his charac-
ter could have been injured by the paragraph on
• which the action was founded ; for the Solicitor ac-
knowleilged, upon repeated interro'gation, that it was
the general 'report of his Lordship's character uhich
induced him to believe the paragraph in question al-
luded to Lord Leicester. .
Sir JAMES MANSFIELD admitted the fOrce of the
arguments urged by the Learned Serjeant, and Said,
that, from what hti reeolletaed of the circumstances
of the trial, no inconsiderable degree of surprise had
been excited in the Court at the high quantum of
damages awarded by the Jury. In his own opinion;
it was scarcely possible any cause could'have been
"more palpably rebutted ;• and if he might venture to
suggest a line of condtiet for the Noble Lord and his
friends, he should think the wiser course for them to
take would be to avoid,. if possible, any further ex-
posure of this case in d public Court, and to remit
the damages ; for he-should extremely regret the
necessity imposed on him, in case of a new trial, of
recapitulating the evidence in the case. •
Mr. Serjeant MA,N LEY urged a further ground for
his motion, of which he was no; aware at the time
of trial, Or he should have then taken notice of
.it ;
namely, that one of the Jury was sworn by a wrong
name. He meant no itriputation on either the Jury-
man, or the Officer of the Court ; but the faa of it-
self was sufficient ground for a new trial.
Mr. Justice LAWRENGE observed, that his Learn-
ed Brother was mistaken. Indeed, such obtaining
were sometimes allowed in criminal cases, but in

none other.
Mr. Serjeant BEST said, if there was a new trial,
he should entertain no doubt of obtaining for MI;
Noble Client a verdia for 20,0001.