The Sun.
London, England, 1822-04-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.—MONDAY, APRIL 15.
The LORD CHANCELLOR sat this day for the first time
since Easter, to hear the further arguments of Counsel in the
cause of Cox v. Cox, which has already been before the Court
on several former occasions. The question to be decided was
the proper construction of a will ; but there was nothing in the

circumstances of the case which would render a report of the

proceedings interesting to the general reader. The Court did

not continue sitting later than 1 o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APRIL 15.
FABER V. BARCLAY AND ANOTHER.
This was an action in which the plaintiff, who is a merchant
in London, and whose father had been a banker a Paris, sought
to recover compensation in damage' from the defendants, who
are also merchants in this city, for having caused him to be
arrested and confined in the King's Bench prison during a
period of six months, for a debt of 8001., when he only owed
them 2001., which it was all that time in his power to have
paid them ; and which they finally accepted upon his paying
it into Court, and discharged the plaintiff.
The several transactions connected with the cause of action

which took place between the plaintiff and the defendants, and
also between him and a Parisian house, Thurette and Co.,
were specially set forth in the declaration; and the plaintiff's
arrest at Dover, and the various proceedings which took place
up to the period of his discharge, were proved ; but it appear-
ing that his arrest was at thq,suit of Thurette and Co., and his
counsel not being able to Wing home the approbation or know-
ledge of it to the defendants, the plaintiff was nonsuited.

RIIADER AND ANOTHER V. ELLIS.
In this case the plaintiffs, merchants residing at Amsterdam,
claimed the price of 57 puncheons of geneva,which the defendant
refused to ay upon the ground that Mr. Dtenbrockenkhed,
the plaintiff's factor, to whom they consigned the gin, becom-
ing embarrassed before its arrival, received advances upon it
from the defendant; in whose name it was therefore put into
the London-docks ; and the factor failing subsequently, the
defendant kept possession of the goods in lieu of what the for-
mer owed him. But the property having evidently come into
the possession of the defendant in the nature of a pledge, and a
factor being unable, rn point of law, to pledge, although he
may sell, the goods of his principal, the Jury, under the direc-
tion of his Lordship, found a verdict fur the plaintiffs—
Damages 5231.

MICHESON V. ALCOCK, EXECUTOR OF DARDY, DECEASED.
Mr. GURNEY stated, that this was an action in which Mr.
Micheson, who had been married to the testator's daughter,
sought to recover the amount of a promissory note for 5001.
which he had presented to him shortly before his death, in ful-
filment of several promises which he (the testator) had made to
him at various times, of doing something for him, to make
amends for having given him little or nothing with his wife. In
an ordinary case, it would be sufficient for him (Mr. Gurney)
to prove the hand-writinr, of the signature to the note, and then
I sit down ; but as he understood that the defence intended to be
sst up against this demand involved a charge against the plain-
tiff of a the
and criminal nature—namely, that he had actually
forged the instrument in question—he (Mr. Gurney) should
call a host of witnesses who would prove, not only the identity
of the hand-writing on the note, but the testator's frequent de-
clarations of his favourable intentions towards the plaintiff; and
such other circumstances as would place the matter beyond a
doubt. Indeed, it was impossible to suppose, that if the plain-
tiff was conscious of the commission of such an offence as this
imputed to him, he would be rash enough, after having been
given to understand that this defence was intended to be made,
to incur the risk of coming into Court, and subjecting his case
to the investigation of a Jury.
Robert Duke was then sworn, and stated that he knew the
testator James Hardy. He lived at Gateshead, near Newcastle-
upon-Tyne,, and died in December, 1820.. The • witness had
often seen him writer and believed the signature to the note now
handed to him to be his hand-writing.
On his cross-examination he said he was a builder, and had

been a bankrupt above three years ago. He knew the plaintiff
20 years ago. Ile never said he saw the testator's name on a
blank stamp in the plaintiff's possession. He has heard of the
plaintiff's being in prison. He was on the Jury which ac-
quitted him ; but could not state how long ago.
Mr. Thomas Wilkinson, an attorney, who drew a codicil to a
former will of the testator's, believed the signature to the note
in question to be his hand-writing.
John Jackson also swore, that he believed the signature to be
genuine, and that he heard the testator declare that he wculd do
something for his son-in-law.
On his cross-examination he stated that he was in difficulties
at the time that the trial was formerly expected to come on,
" from lawyers and those kinds of things."
Robert Francis's evidence was to the same effect with that of
the preceding witness. He was, as he stated on his cross-exa-
mination, only once in :prison for five days, most unjustly,
about a fortnight ago ; and became a bankrupt about six months
before.
Dawson also spoke to the identity of the signature; and
stated that he, too, had been a bankrupt.
The plaintiff's case here closed, and
Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Jury for the defendant. After
commenting upon the evidence on the other side, he said he
should be able to show that it was utterly impossible the note
could have been signed by the testator. He was taken ill in
September, and continued to grow worse until the day on which
he died. The note was dated on the 16th of December, and
he (Mr. Scarlett) should be able to shew that, at that time, the
testator's hands were so swelled and paraliied, that he could
not possibly hold a pen ; and that during his illness, and for
some time before, he could never see Micheson without expe-
riencing the greatest irritation of mind; for that he (Micheson)
had made away with a great part of his money; the present
not being the first occasion on which he attempted those
kinds of practices against his father-in-law's property. In
conclusion, Mr. Searlett observed, that he would produce evi-
dence as would satisfy the Jury that the plaintiff had been too
long at large.
Mr. Abraham Dawson, solicitor, knew the testator ever since
1810. The signature in ytestion was nothing like his hand-
writing. Two or three of the letters might have some resem-
blance to his, but the name altogether had not his character of
writing. It was much too free. He saw the testator write his
name three months before his death, and it was hardly intelli-
gible. The plaintiff, upon that occasion, having been arrested
by his present attorrues, applied to witness to put in bail for
him, which witness refused to do without an understanding for
him from his father-in-law, which the latter at length consent-
ed to give. It was then that he saw him write his name, which
was merely scrawled.
Mr. Brofield, another solicitor, and Ed. Charleton, clerk to
the defendant's attorney, who had frequently seen the testator
write, were quite satisfied the signature to this note was not in
his hand-writing.
Elizabeth Keely, daughter to the testator, having released
her claim under the will to the executor, stated that her father
was 82 years of age when he died. Ile was taken ill in Sep-
tember' and before his death his hands became very much
swelled. They were so before December ; and he lost the use
of three fingers of his right hand altogether. Her sister, Mrs.
Micheson, had died four years before. Her father had not
beeit on good terms before his death with the plaintiff. Wit-
ness's sister, Mrs. Thomson, or herself, was always at his bed-
side during his illness. He could not have signed the note un-
known to one or other of them. That signature was not her
father's hand-writing. He never could write so well as that
in all his life. The plaintiff came to see him before his death,
but her father did not like his visits at all.
Jane Thompson, the testator's other daughter, corroborated
the preceding witness's testimony.
Mr. Binns, solicitor, drew the testator's will on the 10th of
Sept. He told him that he already had a will in his drawer,
with which he was dissatisfied, because Nlicheson's name was in
it; and he therefore wished to make a fresh one. The signa-
ture to the present note is not his hand-writing. It is a much
firmer hand than he ever wrote.
Here the Jury interposed, to state that they were unanimous-
ly agreed upon their decision.
The LonD CHIEF JUSTICE reminded them that they had
not heard the plaintiff's Counsel in reply.
Mr. G on. NIA' said, that after what had fallen from the Jury,
he could not expect that any thing which he could say 'could
have any effect towards shaking their opinion. He should
therefore submit to a nonsuit.
The Loan CIIIEF JUSTICE.—I believe it is easy to say
what is the opinion of every person in Court upon the subject.
The plaintiff was then called.
Mr. SCAItLETT applied to his Lordship to impound the note.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE thought that he could not well
do so, as the Jury's decision had not been pronounced upon it.
His Lordship, however, directed the associate to endorse upon
it that it had been produced and read upon the trial of this
cause, which was accordingly done.

A dreadful accident happened on Sunday
morning, in the neighbourhood of Sutton. A man of the name
of Flinders, with two other persons, all of Sutton, had gone out
poaching, and in a close near Mr. Tunderdine's brick-yard,
Flinders cocked his short gun to shoot a hare which he saw ' • at
this moment' a gentleman on horseback came in sight, and he
thrust the gun under his smock.frock for concealment, with the
muzzle pointing upwards. It by softie means in a few moments
went off, and lodging the contents in his head, killed .him upon
the spot.

LONDON SESSIONS.

BRUTAL ASSAULT UPON A YOUNG FEMALE.

Ye;terday Win. Head, who is in the service of a horse-
dealer, named Joseph Tapley, of Croydon and Aldersgate-
street, was tried upon an indictment charging him with having
beaten and attempted to expose the person of a very interesting
young woman named Harriet Harding.
In opening the case Mr. ANDREWS said, he hoped, for the
sake of human nature, that the statement he had to make would
be contradicted to the satisfadion of the Jury, for he did not
suppose there was upon earth a brute in the shape of a man
who could have acted as the person at the bar was said to have
condneted himself towards an unprotected female. Mr. An-
drews then stated the following circumstances, which were fully
borne out in evidence :

Haniet Harding, 22 years of age, lived with Tapley, the
horse-dealer, 7 years, and had by him four children, all of whom
died except the youngest, an infant two months old. For some
cause not stated upon the trial, Tapley thought proper to de-
sert this young woman, but allowed ss. a week for the support
of the child. Harriet Harding, in her anxiety to see the father
of her child after her illness, went,accompanied by a Mrs. Scales,
a widow, to his yard with the child. Upon entering the yard,
Head presented himself to her, and asked what she wanted there.
She replied that she wanted not him, but the father of the child.
Tapley was in the yard at the time, and Head pointed to him
and said " There is Joe." Tapley then approached and desit-
ed Head to say what she had invited him to do, upon which
Head said "She wanted me to sleep with her." The prosecutrix,
when she heard this infamous and false imputation, called
Head " a pimp and a swindler," and reproached him with
the services she had rendered him when he first came into the
service of Tapley in a deplorable condition. Head, without any
ceremony, struck her with his fist in the face, and then beat her
with a stick about the neck and back, Tapley all the time be-
ing a spectator of-the scene, and having called upon Head to
expose her person and whip her like a child. Head prepared
himself for this exercise, in conformity with his master's com-
mands, and but for the interference of Nlrs. Scales, would have
accomplished his object in the presence of a number of little
boys who were collected in the yard. Finding himself disap-
pointed in this aim, he beat the poor young woman from one
end of the yard to the other, and as soon as he reached the
street entrance, he dashed her into the street, and she fell almost
senseless against the steps of a hall-door. Head having per-
formed this manly feat ran off. The poor girl had been con-
fined with her child at the time the fellow said she asked him to
go to bed to her.
The RECORDER here expressed his surprise that Tapley had
not been included in the indictment.

Upon a cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution
by Mr. AnABIN,
_ the strongest assurances were given that
no provocation had been given besides the epithets applied to
Head.

Mr. AstAaTN said, upon the part of the defence, that if his
instructions were correct, he could prove the whole story to be
a fabrication. If, however, the facts could not be contradicted,
he was ready to admit that the case was as bad a one as ever ap-
peared in a Court of Jusice.
The wife of Tapley's groom was then called, but instead of
contradicting the circumstances that had been sworn to, she, so
far as she was evidence, corroborated the testimony for the
prosecution. She heard Head say " that Harriet Harding
wanted him to sleep with her," and saw him push her against
the wall.

Mr. ArrnnEws merely said, in commenting upon the evi-
dence for the defence, that it proved the truth of the charge,
and asked why Tapley, who had been in Court in the morning,
and could have served Head if the evidence for the prosecution
was false, had withdrawn himself.
Head requested to be heard.
The RECORDER advised him to be guided by his Counsel.
Head was unwilling to be so guided.
The RECORDER told him he might proceed. Head then
said that poison had been found which Harriet Harding had set
for him.

The Jury instantly found him Guilty ; and he was sentenc,
ed to imprisonment in the Giltspur-street Compter for six ca•
lendar months.

The following is a statement of the prisoners for trial at the
next Old Bailey Sessions, with the nature of their offences :
Middlesex. London.
1 0
9 3
8 0

Muller -
Burglary -
Highway Robbery
Housebreaking - -
Stealing in a Dwelling-house
Embezzlements -
Receiving Stolen Goods - 3 0
Bigamy - . - 3 0
Larcenies - 149 23
Uttering Counterfeit Money - 2 0
Stealing from the Person - 21 4
Fraud - - . - 0 1
*Publishing Blasphemous Works 0 1
Forgery - - - 0 1
Rape - - - . 1 0
Horse Stealing - - 2 0
Maliciously Stabbing - - 2 0
Uttering Forged Bank. Notes . 1 0

1 1
9 1
5 1

Total

217 36-253

~1 .U'

YOUNG WATSON.

( Extract of a Letter from Baltimore February 22.)
" You may remember my telling you f had seen the famous
\VAT soi•T, the Spa-fields leader, at Nashville, Tennessee. The
subsequent history of this unfortunate young man shall fill my
sheet, as I have no private business worth communicating.
In the fall of 1820, Watson married Miss Mary Poyzer, a
most amiable girl, eldest daughter of an English Gentleman of
that name, who aided Watson in his escape, paid his passage,
and accompanied him to the United States, whither he was
then going to take possession of a large property left him by
a brother at Nashville. Watson accompanied the family of
Poyzer terNashville, and got a situation in a druggist's store.
Mr. P. discovering in Vatson a partiality for his daughter,
and this not being agreeable to him, had discharged him from
his house at the time I was in that country ; but the affections
of the daughter had been engaged, and she eloped with Wat-
son, and was married to him. The father would not permit
either to enter his house. The seeds of dissipation were too
deeply rooted in Watson to permit him to 'remain steady ; he
became an habitual drunkard, ill-treated his wife, and turned her
out of doors. The father, moved with compassion at the help-
less situation of his daughter, took her home again. In crder
to procure the means of dissipation, Watson had recourse to
stealing, store and house-breaking, &c. At last he was detect-
ed, and in December last stood his trial at the Criminal Court
in Nashville. He was indicted on two charges :-Ist, store-
breaking and robbery-2d, robbing the Rev. Mr. Hume's
dwelling of sundry articles of clothing, &c. When the Judge
inquired if he had any thing to say why sentence should not
be passed upon him, Watson rose and made such a powerful
appeal to the feelings, as filled the whole Court with tears ;
even the Lawyers wept aloud. Separate sentences were pro-
nounced on each offence ; for the first offence, to be hanged
till dead, dead, on the Bth of February (this present month) ;
for the second to be branded and cropt. (If the first sentence
be put in execution, the criminal will be tolerably independent
of the second.) Mr. —, who was present on the trial, tells
me application has since been made to the Governor for a re-
prieve, but it was not granted. The Nashville Papers subse-
quent to the Bth have not yet arrived here ; no doubt they will
contain an account of the execution.—(Glasgow Herald.)

SCOTCII SEQUESTRATION.
April 8, Robert Stewart, cattle-dealer, Blairtamock, parish
of Campsie, Stirling—Creditors meet in the Lyceum Rooms,
Glasgow, 19th April and 10th May, at 2. •
EXAMINATIONS, DIVIDENDS, &C.
Alex. Macgregor, merchant, Dingwall, to be examined in
Mackenzie's inn there, 24th April and 13th May, at 12.
Creditors of George Sinclair, merchant, Stromness, meet in
the office of John Fleet, writer, Kirkwall, 20th April, at 12.
Creditors of Thomas Murdoch, woollen-draper, Falkirk,
meet in the Coffeehouse, Stirling, 30th April, at 12.
Creditors of Thomas Ritchie, cattle-dealer, Glenahurrich,
near Strontian, meet in the office of John Campbell, jun.
writer, Inverary, 24th May.
Creditors of Muirs and Crombie, paper-manufacturers,
Netherlee, will receive a dividend from the trustee, 25th May.
States of the affairs of John Smart, merchant and insurance-
broker, Leith, lie with the trustee—No dividend.
Charleg Fyfe and Co. merchants, Aberdeen, have applied for
a discharge.

We understand that a meeting of county gentlemen will
take place at the Grand Jury Room on Wednesday next, to
consider the steps necessary to be taken, in order to introduce '
Banks on the Scotch principle of Local Stock CoMpanies into
this county.—( Durham Advertiser, April 13.)
The weather, since our last, has been extremely boister-
ous, accompanied almost daily, with hail or snow, which has
tended to check vegetation, previously, perhaps, in too forward
a state.--(
1 EXTRAORDII4ARY TURNIP.—A white globe turnip was
pulled on the farm at Craufurd Priory, Fife, weighing twenty-
one pounds eight ounces, and which measured in length
eighteen and a half inches; in circumference thirty-two and a
half inches.=-011 the same farm in January last, a large brood
of chickens was broughrout in the open air, and are now ready
for the table.--(Cupar Herald.)