The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-21 00:00:00

THE LISTOWILL PEERAGE,

Sir HARRIS NICOLAS addressed their Lordships on behalf of the
claim of the present Earl of Listowell to vote at the election of Repre-
sentative Peers fotalreland. Several witnesses were examined to prove
the marriage and death of the late Earl and the title of the present;
and the further consideration of the claim was adjourned to three o'clock
to-morrow.

CAMOYS PEERAGE.
The further consideration of the claim of Mr. Strange Styleman to
this peerage was proceeded with.

Lord Charle3 Townshend, who was examined on behalf of the
claimant, produced from Itainham.hall, in the county of Norfolk, an
old pedigree book, the property of his late father, who was President of
the Society of Antiquaries, by which it appeared that the fa.
roily of Townshcnd became; joined with the Lewknors, through
whom Mr. Strange Styleman claimed, in 1635, by the marriage of Mary
Lewknor with the then Lord Townshend. Lord Charles said that by the
directions of his father's will, the whole of his library and manuscripts
were sold, but he had puremsed the book hi question together with
many others, which he considered valuable.
Several other witnesses were examined, which
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, 011 behalf of Mr. Strange Styleman, stated
concluded his case.

Sir 'Limns Nrcor.ss, on behalf of Sir Jacob Astley, stated that he
had no further evidence to offer on his behalf.
Mr. TuEstoEit, who appeared for Madame de la Cainea, another
claimant, stated that it was not his intention to offer any evidence on
her behalf, as she intended to adopt the pedigree of her competitors;
the only question, therefore, was, whether it would be necessary for her
to print her case ?

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said that the rule of tha House was impera-
lye that the cases in all claims must be printed.
Lord Bitouou Am—She can make it as short as she pleases, by refer-
ig to the others.

—Mr. FLEMING on behalf of Mr. Stoner, trusted their Lordships would
consider how long he had been struggling for the title.
Lord BRouGIIA3I thought that Mr. Stoner had no right to complain.
Mr. Hope Johnstone who claimed the title of Earl of Annandale, had
been kept waiting for six years.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL on behalf of the Crown, must claim some
time to examine the enormous mass of eviLlence that had been given on
behalf of the different claimants.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said by the rules of the House, fourteen
days must expire from the time of laying the case of any claimant to a
Peerage on the table before it could be taken into consideration.
After some further conversation, Madame-de la Cainea was ordered

to lry her case an the table of the House within a week, and the further
consideration of the claims was adjourned sine die.

Their Lordships proceeded to hear Scotch Appeals.
THE COLLEGE OF GLASGOW v. TILE FACULTY OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS

OF GLASGOW.

The ATTORNEY..GENERAL was opening this appeal on behalf of the
appellants, when our Reporter left. The case appears likely to oc-
cupy some days; we shall give the facts, when the case has been more
gone into.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.

EMMOTT V. TILE LION. G. C. NORTON.

Mr. V. Len having opened the pleadings,
Mr. Serjeant Bomeas said, the present action was brought by respec-
table livery.stable keepers in Bond-street, to recover the sum of
1423. 10s., due for the hire of horses and carriages, used by Mrs.
Norton, the wife of the defendant, while she was living with her uncle,
Mr. C. B. Sheridan, between March, 1837, and January, 1838. The
defendant did not deny his liability, as he had paid 731. into Court, as
that was the case, he could not conceive what defence was to be
set up, because he would have no difficulty in proving the hire
and use of the articles, as well as the reasonableness of the charges
The principle demand arose out of the hire of a carriage, horse, and
harness, in which she drove out, and in which it would be proved
that she had driven out her own children at the time they were living
under his own roof—that was hired for six months at fifteen guiueas a
month—the other charges as well as that would be proved to be the
fair and reasonable charges. He could not conceive what the defence
might be, but he would not, unless he were driven to it, enter into any
extraneous matter. He would prove that the income ofthe defendant
amounted 3,0001 a-year.

Lord ABINGER—HOW can that have anything to do with the case ?
Under the pleadings the only question was whether the husband had
contracted or was liable for the contracts of the wife.

Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS was then called upon to show that the car-
riages were used with the knowledge and sanction of the defendant, who
had seen Mrs. Norton at his own house in them, and his children were
taken into them from that house. It would also be necessary for him to
show that Mrs. Norton had been excluded for her husband's house, and
that also with violence, and that she had not, up to the present moment,
received one farthing of an allowance. That alone rendered him liable
to all the debts contracted by the wife, so as to keep her in the station of
life she had a right to occupy. He would prove these facts, and then
he would confidently rely upon the Jury for a verdict for his clients. He
then called

William Heard, examined by Mr. V. LEE—Had been in the service
of Mrs. Norton from March 1837 till June, as footboy. She then lived
at 16, Green. street, and Mr. Norton at 10, Wilton-crescent, where he
accompanied her three times. Mrs. Norton went in and sometimes
stopped an hour. He had accompanied her to Lambeth-street Office,
where Mr. Norton was. She went in and stopped about two hours, and
he had carried about twelve letters from her to that places. He proved
the having ordered the horses and carriages frequently from the plaintiff.
. . _ _

Cross-examined by Mr. KELLT.—Mrs. Norton had sometimes a horse
and fly from Shenstone's ; that was used when she went out to parties or
the opera.
Stephen Wareham had been coachman to Mrs. Norton for six months.
Had often driven her to the house of Mr. Norton, and had seen him
twice. Had taken out the children for a drive, and had again taken them
home in the evening.
Cross-examined—Mrs. Norton had a britscha from another person, and
Mr. Sheridan had rode in the carriage once or twice. Witness did not
know that Mrs. Norton had horses from any other than the plaintiff.
The only times he had taken out the children were in June. The last
time she went for them Mr. Norton violently shut the door.
James Smith, a servant of the plaintiff's, proved the hiring of the
various vehicles.

Thomas Kenrick, John Cripps, and Henry Rymer, proved the reason-
ableness of the charges made by the plaintiff.
Colonel Leicester Stanhope was acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Norton
when they lived together. He kept a cab, and she occasionally hired
carriages and horses for riding. Mr. Norton was a Magistrate, at 8001.
a year. Did not know anything of his other property.

Cross-examined—Did not know that Mr. Norton was obliged to lay
down his cab in 1835 from the distressed state of his circumstances.
Could not recollect him driving the cab since 1836, and had heard him
say that he was in difficulties, but had not known much of him since
March, 1836. Was still on visiting terms with Mrs. Norton, who had
always lived with her uncle, C. Brinsley Sheridan. He believed the
house they lived in was a joint concern. Parties were given, he sup-
posed by Mr. Sheridan, but he did not ask who gave the dinners.
A written authority to the servant, to refuse admi►sion to Mre. Nor-
ton, or any of her family, was put in and read.

A number of letters from Mr. to Mrs. Norton, during the negocia.
Cons, were put in and read—they were written in affectionate terms.

Mr. Joan Bailey, barrister, last November attempted to mediate be-
tween Mr. and Mrs. Norton, and it was no fault of Mrs. Norton or her
friends that a reconciliation did not take place. He knew of no allow.
ance then having been made.
This closed the plaintiff's case.

Mr. KELLY then submitted to his Lordship that he was entitled to a
non suit, on the ground that no contract had been proved which was not
fully covered by the 731. paid into Court.

His LORDSHIP thought the case was a fit one for the decision of a Jury.
Mr. KELLY then addressed the Jury. He would not follow his
Learned Friend in the course he had been instructed to take, he would
not break into any confidential or sacred matter. Let the Jury for a
moment think who these letters were produced by. They were not
produced by Mrs. Norton, or any Counsel acting for her, but by a livery-
stable-keeper. Into his hands were these confidential—nay sacred and
confiding letters placed, for the purpose of working out a fz.vourite
plan. Whatever sacrifices Mr. Norton was willing to make—whatever
offers he made, he was on every hand met with a demand that he should
part with his children, and give them into the hands of one of whom
he would say no more than that Mr. Norton would have neglected his
duty, and would have betrayed the trust reposed in him had he con-
sented to the proposal. It was found that he firmly resisted the
proposal, and then it was determined that he should be ruined in his
fortune and driven from his country, and that action was a link
in the chain. The whole plan was to inforce him to do
that which would enable Mrs. Norton to say, what she had
not yet had the power of saying, that he had for a moment departed
from that line of duty which was imposed upon him as a man of honour
and of honesty. He contended that the only question for the jury to
consider was, whether there was any contract binding upon Mr. Norton
beyond the 731. he had paid into Court. That sum bad been so paid
because, in the month of June, some negotiations were going on which
it was hoped would have allowed the parties to live together, and then
Mr. Norton allowed his children to go out with their mother, and he
therefore considered that something was due for coach-hire, and he paid
for the whole month of June. Again, he heard that Mrs. N. had been
in ill health, and might necessarily want a drive into the country. He
t4aarefore allowed for that, and paid 731., which was an ample allowance
for the hire of carriages and horses for a lady living apart from her
husband for ten months. Even had it been competent for her to have
gone to the Ecclesiastical Court, even the very utmost aliment which
that Court could have given, considering the income of Mr. Norton,
would have been 3001. a year, would the Jury then say that it was
reasonable that she should spend 1421. in less than ten months upon
carriage hire. If so, where would she get money to keep her house or
to clothe her. He trusted the Jury would consider the 73/. as sufficient,
and not lend their countenance to the attempt now made to ruin the
defendant.

His Lot:usurp then summed up the evidence saying it was a question
peculiarly for their decision.

The Jury consulted for a few moments, and then begged leave to
retire.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(THIS DAY.)

OLD-COURT.

Michael Godwin was indicted for embezzling three sums, of 341., 61.,
and 31. l 55., the property of Messrs. Pickford, the well known carriers.
It 'appeared from the statement of Mr. DOANE, who conducted the
prosecution, that the prisoner was employed at a place in Northampton
as the agent or clerk of the prosecutors ; that in this capacity he had to
collect their accounts, and that it was his duty on receiving the money
to put it down to his weekly accounts, or to send up the cash to London;
that he received the sums in question from various parties, and neither
transmitted the money nor placed it in his accounts.
These facts having been proved,
Mr. KEAN (who was for the defence) said it was impossible for him to
struggle with this evidence.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty; but with a recommendation to
mercy, on the ground of previous good character.
Mr. Sergeant ARA BIN said the Court was so far disposed to give effect
to that recommendation that they could not sentence the prisoner,
which they had the power of doing, to fourteen years transportation, but
would reduce the term to seven years.
On hearing the sentence, the prisoner became so overcome with
emotion that he nearly fainted, and had to be carried from the bar;
his little son (who was in court during the trial, burst into
tears, and some females who were in the gallery (who appeared
to be related to him) seemed convulsed with grief. The scene altogether
was one of the most affecting we ever witnessed in a Court of Justice.
About ten o'clock ➢lr. Justice LITTLEDALE took his seat on the
Bench, and proceeded to try a case of burglary, which presented no
public interest.