The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1841.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec, 22.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on taking his seat this
morning, intimated to the gentlemen of the Bar, that
it was his intention to take the unopposed Lunatic Peti-
tions the first thing to-morrow morning.
EXPARTE THE MASTER, &C. OF CATHERINE HALL,

CAMBRIDGE.

- This case came before his Lordship upon the petition
of the Master and Fellows of Catherine Hall in the 'Uni-
versity of Cambridge, praying his Lordship to correct
.several rules that had been laid down by a Mrs. Rams.'
den for the regulation of the Ramsden Fellowship. From
the statement of the petition, it appeared that Mrs.
Ramsden, in the year 1743, by her will left certain pro
perty to the College, for the purpose of founding six
Fellowships, the management of which was to be accord-
ing to certain rules and regulations which she had herself
drawn up. The 33d rule provided that in case any error
of mistake should arise with reference to any of the
rules and regulations that an application should be made
to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord- Keeper, and he was to
make such order as in his wisdom he should think fit.
Under that provision the present petition was presented
praying for an alteration or correction of several of the
rules drawn up by Mrs. Ramsden. By the sth rule it was
provided that the persons competent to be elected to the
Fellowship should be either Bachelors of Arts, complete
Masters of Arts, or 'Bachelors of Law or Physic, but
they were not to be more than twenty-four years of age.
That provision, according to the present period of rating
young men at college completely excluded all persons
from obtaining the Fellowship except the Bachelors of
Arts, and the petitioners, therefore, prayed that his
Lordship would, under the provisions of the rule giving
him power to correct any of the regulations laid down
by Mrs. Ramsden, extend the age for the admission of
Fellows to twenty-eight instead of twenty-four years.
Then by the 11th rule it was provided, that within ten
days of a notice of a vacany in one of the Fellowships,
the College was to give notice of the election of a new
Fellow, but that election was not to take place till the
expiration of twenty-four days, but at the latter end of
the rule it was stated that the election was to take
place on the 3d Tuesday after the notice. That rule it
was found impossible to carry into effect, and the peti-
tioners therefore asked that the time might be increased
to four months from the vacancy. There were two other
of the rules that also required alteration. Mrs. Rams-
den in founding the Fellowship, had given the rents and
profits of the estate to the foundation, but she had di-
rected that in the interval between a vacancy and election
of a Fellow the rent should go to the College stock. Now,
it was proposed by the petitioners that the new Fellows,
instead of taking the rents and profits from the•date of
their election, should take them from the date of the
vacancy, the College giving up all claim. •
Mr. BARBER and Mr. HILYARD appeared on behalf of
the petition, yvhich was not opposed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR granted the whole prayer of
the petition with the exception of that part which sought
to extend the age of persons competent to become Fel-
lows from 24 to 28. His Lordship observed that as the
petition was not opposed, it became him to be cautious ;
he should therefore take time to consider his judgment
on that point.
The Court then proceeded with the hearing of lunatic
petitions.

ROLLS COURT, Dec. 22.
The MASTER of the ROLLS was occupied all the morn.
ing with consent petitions, of little public interest.

VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 22.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
WINKWORTII V. MARRIOTT.
This was an application for a decree to annul a con-
tract, or to compel the plaintiff to its performance.
It appeared that, in the year 1827, the defendants,
Marriott, who were brothers, had taken a lease of a brick-
, field for 21 years from a Mr. Curnoch, since deceased,
and now represented by the plaintiff in the present suit.
By the terms of the contract between the parties, the
defendants were to have the option of purchasing the land in
perpetuity, if they should think proper, within threeyears.
It was also covenanted that the vendor should obtain fur
the put-Chaser the right of free and absolute wharfage on
the Grand Junction Canal, which lies in the vicinity of
- the field, for the conveyance of the in:icks when made, and
of the materials for making them. The right of wharfage,
had been obtained from the Canal Company for the
period of 21 years, the term of the original lease; but it
appeared that a right of wharfage in perpetuity
could not be procured. The defendants refused
to purchase the land in perpetuity until the plain-
tiff had at the least obtained the longest possible
term of a right of wharfage. It was alleged for the
plaintiff that the terms of the contract could not, as the
defendants were themselves aware at the time it had
been entered into, be performed ; and that the right of
wharfage for the term of twenty-one years wonld answer
every reasonable object which the defendants could have
in view.
His HONOUR said that it was clear that as the contract
could not be completed he could not order its perform-
ance ; and he should, therefore, dismiss the present bill,
but dismiss it without costs.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His HONOUR disposed of several cause petitions in-
volving no feature of public interest.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Wrart.tx.) ,
MONTRIOU V. CARVICK.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case,
which was on Monday heard in his private room, at the
request of Mr. Wakefield, on behalf of the plaintiff
Muntriou, whois an attorney. The Learned Counsel having
stated that the answer of the defendant contained serious
charges against the character of t.be plaintiff as a.ooli-
eifor, the case came before the Court upon exceptions
to the Master's 1.4)44 the Master having found that
certain statements in the answer were scandalous.
His HoNdtra' gave judgment in public, observing it
was not necessary he should Mention the subject matter
of the supposed scandal, as the parties themselves knew
what the matters were, and he had only to give the rea-
sons upon which he felt compelled to differ from the
Master. The bill was filed by Mr. Montriou,
stating himself to have been the professional ad-
viser of Mr. Carvick, and that he had rendered
him professional services, for which he had received
no remuneration ; that he had advanced to him
large sums of money ; that Mr. Carvick had from time
to time made payments to him ; and the result was, that
there was an account current between the two parties.
The bill prayed an account, alleging that there was a
balance in favour of the plaintiff. The bill then interro-
gated whether Mr. Carvick did not under various, and
some, and what unjust pretences, refuse to comply with
the application or request of the plaintiff. One of the
grounds on which Mr. Carvick stated that he resisted
complying with the demand of the plaintiff, was because
the account was not correct ; and in answer to the ques-
tion under various, and some, and what unjust pretences
he set up two items, one' of! 3,5001., connected with a
transaction of the Norwich Assurance Company, and an-
other sum of 72/. 15s, Bd. costs, paid by him in respect of
a transaction which he traced home to Mr.Montriou. That
was simply the way in which the case stood. The defendant
had, in very strung language, complained of the conduct
of Mr. Montriou with respect to those two items, and it
was with respect to those two items that the question
whether there was scandal in the answer or not, arose.
The Master had found the answer was scandalous in
respect of all the matters objected to, and the exception
taken to the Master's report was, that the answer was
not scandalous in respect of all the matters objected to.
If, therefore, there was anything in the answer not
scandalous, and which was included in those exceptions,
then the Master's report would be erroneous. His
Honour's opinion was, that the whole of the matter was
not scandalous. His Honour, having referred to several
cases, and noticed the points which had been made in
argument, allowed the exceptions.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 22.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Lord DEN..
NAN and a Specie! Jury.)
I.IOPRINS V. HARDWICRE, CLERK.
This was an action for a breach of promise of marriage.
After the Jury had been sworn, Mr. ERLE, for the plain-
tiff, said the defendant had consented to a verdict for the
plaintiff, with 5001. damages.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 22.
(Sittings in London, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
and a Special Jury.)
LOAKE C. THE MARQUIS' OF WESTMEATFL
The plaintiff was the solicitor to the Marchioness of
Westmeath, in the proceedings before the House of
Lords, in the celebrated case of her Ladyship and the
Noble defendant.

This action was brought to recover the amount of the
bill of costs. The defence was that that the defendant
was not liable ; and secondly, as to some of the charges,
that they were excessive, or otherwise such as shopld
not fall upon the opposing party to the suit.

COURT OF BA2I*KI?UPTCY, Dec. 21.

IN THE MATTER OF ROWLAND MITCHELL, OF LIME-

STREET, MERCHANT.

The bankrupt has been the principal, and now the
'surviving partner of the house of William Rowland,
Samuel Mitchell, and Co., and filled the situation of Di-
rector of the Bank of England, and Director and Chair-
man of various Companies. The principal creditors are
branches of his own family, to the extent of 200,0001. ;
Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Co., 57,000/., who are covered
by securities en valuable West India estates. The cre-
ditors increased amount to 292,3501..45. 3d., and those
holding security to 93,3971. 13s. Bd. The debts, &e., to
the estate are 27,1801. 4s. ld., and mortgage dbts
30,5691. ; property given up to assignees, principally in
West India estates, 76,4161. ; and the property held by
creditors. 83,416/. 10s. ld.
_ _

Mr. WrioriTE then handed in the balance-sheet, and
the assignees having expressed their satisfaction in the
accounts, the bankrupt passad his final examination.
WEDNESDAY.
IN RE.ALEXANDER,L. NEWTON.
The adjourned examinat on of the bankrupt was re-
sumed at two o'clock this day by Mr. Clarkson, who ex-
amined him at great length respecting the alleged debts
which his sister and other relatives sought to prove
against his estate.
Alr. KEANE, who appeared for the bankrupt, cross-
examined him, and then applied to have the case ad-
journed for a short period.
Mr. CLARKSON, on the part of• the assignees, said the
long examination which the bankrupt underwent, justi-
fied him in saying that his accounts were fabricated for
the purpose of cheating his creditors. Ile stated that he
sold a diamond brooch for only 801., when he re-
leased it from a pawnbroker's where it had been de-
posited for 1001., a fact which no man in his senses conk',
credit. He need go no further in the enumeration. of
these facts, but as he said before, reiterate that the b-Ank-
rupt, and all those acting for him (with the excepcton of
Mr. Keane), had manufactured many of those r.ccounts
for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of i:ne estate.
Mr. KNIGHT (the bankrupt's solicitor)—l emphatically
pronounce Mr. Clarkson's assertion to be a gross falsehood. ,
Mr. CLARKSOIi—I don't mind the barking of a dog.

Mr. KNIGIIT—You dare not use such language as that
to me outside the door of the Court.

Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE—Such indecent ob-
servations as these must be stopped by some means or
other. I shall adjourn this case sine die, and that there
may be no misapprehension, I shall give my reasons. The
bankrupt endeavours to establish a debt due to his sister
against his estate for 1,7771. This Ido not believe. The
statemenLabout the diamonds is too ridiculous for any
man of common sense to believe. Throughout the whole
examination have observed a disposition to deceive the
Court, anddsi)ppress the truth until the last moment; and
under such circumstances, I shall adjourn the case sine
die, at the same time allowing the bankrupt the protec-
tion of the Court for two months, and I shall not be dis-
posed to hear any further examination until the debts al-
leged to be due to his sister shall be proved, and some
more satisfactory explanation rendered of the disposal of
the diamonds.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Dec. 21.
MAYBERRY V. LORD WM. PAGET, M.P.
This Was an action brought to recover the sum of
101. 10s. for work and labour done, to which the noble
defendant pleaded that he was not indebted to the
amount claimed, and that a tender had been made and
refused.

Mrs. S. Brown deposed that in the month of August,
1839, she was chambermaid at the Custom-house Hotel.
She recollected Lord Wm. Paget coming to the house
with his son, who was lame, who, when he went away,
walked upon crutches ; the child used to call his Lord-
ship papa. Witness was acquainted with the plaintiff,
and saw him several times at the Hotel in his professional
capacity. Lord Wm. Paget and his son remained at the
Hotel four or five days. The plaintiff visited the child
three times the first day, and twice each succeeding day.
Lord Wm. Paget appeared exceedingly anxious for the
child's recovery.
Dr. R. Rowley deposed Vi' t the usual fee given to a
consulting surgeon was a guinea each visit, he had re-
ceived that fee. Sir Benjamin Brodie and Mr. Callaway
were paid that sum for their visits.

Mr: JAMBS—We want to know from you, what in
your opinion would be a fair remuneration to the plain-
tiff for his attendance, as there is no bill of particulars to
guide either the Court or the Jury ? Doctor Rowley—
If medical man acted both as an apothecary and:sur-
geon, he is allowed, if he practises as the latter, two
guineas for visits by the College of Physicians, indepen-
dent of the medicine which he may supply.
Mr. JAMES—What would be a fair charge for the
plaintiff to make for each visit ? Doctor Rowley—He
should think 10s. 6d. each visit to be a fair charge.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. PRICE addressed the Jury. on behalf of defendant.
His Lordship, he said, had all along been anxious to pay
what was a just anti reasonable demand, but all the
answer he could obtain to this request was the demand
of 10 guineas. Send us in a bill of particulars, to this
the same answer was returned, pay 10 guineas ; and it
was solely on account of this exorbitant demand being
made that his Lordship was unable to pay for the atten-
dance on his child. A very handsome sum had been
offered but refused.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 41.45.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 22.
IN RE JOHN EDWARD CAREW.
_

At the sitting of the Court this morning the case of
this insolvent was continued. The first witness called
was Mr. Murray, who stated that be was agent to Messrs.
Rhymer and Murray, solicitors, of Petworth, who were
solicitors to the executors of the late Lord Fgremont.
The total sum which Mr. Carew admitted in his balance
sheet, since 1833, was 9,760 L, and the total sum he ad-
mitted, in answer to the bill in Chancery, was 6,0401.,
received since 1833, and he admitted that he had received
3,718/. since the answer was filed; yet still he stated that
he had a balance owing to him from the executors. In
May, 1833, he received a cheque for one thousand pounds
from Lord Egremont, and on the 16th of the same
month, in 1835, he received another for 6001, and on the
9th of November, 1836, 'a further cheque for 2501., and
the executors were prepared to prove this on the trial ;
but they had no opportunity of doing so. In May, 1833,
the insolvent admitted that he received 431., and a cheque
for 1,000/. ; but he only put in his schedule 1,000/.
The witness was then cross-examined at great length
by Mr. Cook ; but it is only necessary to give the prin-
cipal questions:—
I believe you issued a writ of fieri facias upon the studio
of the defendant, as agent to Rhymer and Murray ?—I did.
I believe you got judgment in that action ?—We ob-
tained a verdict, but we did not get judgment.
I believe a motion has since been made that that ver-
dict should be set aside ?—lt has, and the Court has or-
dered a nonsuit to be entered, and we have paid the costs
of the action.
Have you received further instructions to issue pro-
ceedings again ?—No; we have received no instructions
at present.
Pray has a fiat of bankruptcy been issued against Mr.
Carew ?—I am not aware of it.
Has the docket been struck ?—I am not aware.
I think, when Sir Wm. Follett was addressing the
Court at LeWes, be stated that your clients had under-
taken to pay the costs of the action, and I believe Sir
Wm. Follett's speech run thus :—" Mr. Carew said I
have this claim against the estate of Lord Egremont.
You say you will not pay me. You are rich and I am
poor, and the costs will be ruinous to me. They, in an-
swer, said we want a full and fair investigation ; we will
pay your costs and expenses, and permit you to bring
this action against us." Is that correct ?—Yes ; that is
quite correct.
Did the executors advance any sum to bring the ac-
tion ?—No.
Have they paid the plaintiff's costs ?—No.
The next part of the speech of Sir William Follett
that I call your attention to, is where he says the de-
fendant furnished the means to bring the action. Is that
correct ?—No ; but we have offered to pay the costs
twenty times.
Upon what condition was that ?—That Mr. Carew
should release the executors from all claims, or submit to
a verdict, or consent to a nonsuit being entered. - , ,
Did Mr. Carew refuse to do that 2—lle did.
Did he not say that he would never so far ,disgrace
himself as to say that his claim was unfounded:?--He
did not say so to me, because I have never known itlr.
Carew, or spoken to him in my life.
By the proceedings in Chancery, you have obtained,
by the answer of Mr. Carew, certain admissions ?—Yes.
Have the defendants admitted anything ?—No.
You say that the insolvent has claimed between
16,000/. and 17,000/. ; pray, Sir, do you include in that,
or I should rather say, do you not exclude the statue in
Chichester Cathedral ?—Certainly, Mr. Thesiger said
so in his speech.
monument ?—Certainly.
r,-piece wa5,3,0001., and
You Now altshoeexclude charge
forth e Huskisson's
altar,-piece
ta
for Huskisson's monument 2,0004 wiiich was reduced to
1,7604 by the subscription, and you refused to give him
credit for them, together with 3601. for a statue of Wil-
liam the Fourth ?—We did not refuse to allow anything
that he proved.
When you say that Mr. Carew's claim was a certain
sum, and the payments were a certain sum, do you in
such amount exclude from his claim these three articles
I have mentioned ?—Certainly. But if you give them,
the balance will still be against him.
Mr. CooKE—I will show that the balance will be in
his favour if you will allow me. And Sir, if you allow
me these three items I have spoken of, would not the ,
total of his claim be 21,872/. ?—From the commence-
ment, certainly, it would be, if we allowed all these
items. It would be more than that if you want the
fignres accurately. It would be 22,807/. 18s. ld.
Well ; and, on the other side, you allege payment of
21,3311. 9s. sd. That would leave about 1,5001. due to
him ?—Somewhere thereabouts. i

That is exclusive of time and attendance, &c. ?
Certainly, exclusive of the 10,0001. which he claimed for
compensation. ,
Nov, in the course of your inquiries respecting these
other articles, had you any doubt that he had executed
the altar=piece at Brighton ?—Not the least doubt of that.
Nobody ever attempted to deny it ?—No.
In the course of your inquiries of the Earl of Egre-
mont did you not ascertain, if he did not order it, who
else did ? We know, from papers in our possession, that
he did not order it.

But supposing that he did not, did not you find out
who did ?—No, we did not.
Will you venture to say, after all your anxious in-
quiries, if Mr. Carew ever received one shilling for those
articles from any human being ?—I made no inquiries
about it all.

Why did you not make any inquiries ?—I can't say.
But can't you tell me what you did in the matter ?—I
cannot tell you clearly what was said, but by the bill.
But what I want to know is, who ordered this altar-
piece?—l believe it is alleged in the bill that it was ordered
by some Roman Catholics.

You do not know who they were ?—No, I do not.
Perhaps you thought that as he was a Roman Catholic
he did it for the honour and glory of his religion?—I
never thought about it ?
Now, then, about the Protestant work with respect to
Huskisson's monument in the Cathedral at Chichester;
do you know who the munificent persons were there ?
Certainly ; a Committee formed at Chichester ordered the
work.

Do you not know that that Committee intended the
work to be a tabular monument ?—Yes.
Do you know that that Cotnniittee raised by subscrip-
tion the sum of 3501. ?—I know no more than what Mr.
Freeland's evidence said upon the trial.
Do you not know that Sir Richard Westmacott valued
that statue at 2,000 g. f—That %%ill appear by his evidence.
Do you not know that the marble would cost 300/., at
least ?—No, I do not know.
Did you ever see that statue ?—I have never been in
Chichester since it was erected.
Did you ever learn from any member of this Commit-
tee —?—l never heard anything about it, except from
Mr. Freeland's evidence.
Well, now, with respect to the model of William the
Fourth; did•you refuse to include that simply because Mr.
Carew had no specific order from Lord Egremont ?
Certainly not. We made inquiries concerning every-
ghton, on spec
every-
thing admitting of doubt, and, from those inquiries, we
ascertained that this model was made for a
ulation, and.
gentleman of
the name of D'Egville, at 13ri
we had evidence at the
to prove this.
Do you reside in London
Do you knot': what has become of soma
paper which
were hande;; Lord F.:g rernont to Mr.,
before death ?
I do not know ofany such Carew
papers
s
bein'-‘ handed to him.
fon never heard of it ?—Certainly not, except what
. Mr. Carew has stated.
Did you hear that any papers were destroyed after
the Earl's death ?-4 heard that some private documents
were destroyed, but I had better not answer that, as
there are other persons here who were present at the
Earl's death.
Re-examined by Mr
both
bo.
et
hreason;pay
sides,the o,
dots . PLATT--You say that you offerexi
said au
htosa
ntooivf
ttal
sisee
iota et?ht—ia7i,
ft at
?—After
inr, do
luv3l,hdo
autb
hp
aar
seb arbebeaoecuni:

• fidence to state what Mr. Thesiger said to me, when I
met him in the Queen's Bench, when he asked why the
costs were not paid; he had heard there was some difficulty
about it. I told him the were perfectly ready
to pay them, but they did not want any further claim
made by Mr. Carew; if he would be satisfied with a ver-
dict being entered for the executors, that we would pay
the costs, together with the taxation. Mr. Thesiger said
if they consented to a nonsuit, it ought to be final; and
certainly they ought to have one or the other ; and he said
he would communicate the same thing to Mr. Carew's
solicitor.
Upon what ground did the Court direct a nonsuit to
the action of ejectment?-0n the ground that the pro-
viso in the lease was insensible, it was a clerical error,
there was no verb in the sentence.—(A laugh.) I should
just say that this was no blunder of Colonel Wyndham's
present advisers.—(Laughter.)
Now, you said that Mr. Freeland gave evidence at the
trial?—He did.
He was produced as a witness for Mr. Carew ?—He was.
I believe he said there was a subscription for the pur-
pose of paying for the monument by Mr. Carew ?
He did.
Mr. PLATT then read the folio ?Ong letter from the evi-
dence on the trial, dated March, 1831, and addressed to
Mr. Carew, which was as follows :—" A subscription,
amounting to 3501., having been raised for the purpose of
erecting a monument in the Cathedral to the memory of
the late Right Hon. William Huskisson, the Committee,
anxious to carry the object of the subscription into effect,
are desirous, on the reeommendation of Lord Egremont,
to avail themselves of your talents on this occasion, and
lam deputed to communicate the same to you. You
will therefore be so good as to prepare suitable designs
as soon as engagements will permit, and forward the
same to Lord Egremont, it being the intention of the
Committee that the designs which shall be adopted shall
have previously received the unqualified approbation of
his Lordship. I much regret the amount of the subscrip-
tion will not allow all the scope we could desire for the
exercise of those eminent talents which have secured to
you his Lordship's patronage." This letter was signed
J. A Freeland.
Mr. PLATT—Was a copy of that letter read at the
trial ?—lt was.
Did Mr. Freeland state that Lord Egremont had
subscribed ,Cl. ?—He did.
Sir C. Burrell wai then called into the box, and exa-
mined by Mr. PLATT.
Sir CHARM:6-1 believe you are subpcenaed on behalf:of
the insolvent?—Yes.
You are ore of the executors to the late Lord Egre-
ment ?—I am so appointed.
Do you remembJr the day his Lordship died ?—Yes.
Were you in the house at the time ?—No; I went over
immediately on hearing he was ill.
Did you arrive in time to see him alive ?—No ; I did
not.

Do you remember what time in the day it was ?—lt
was late. A second message arrived, and we were at
dinner at the time. The distance was about 15 miles.
When you arrived at Petworth did you see Colonel
Wyndham ?—Yes.
Where did you see him when you first arrived ?--I
can't exactly say ; but I remember that Mr. Murray
came to me and said we were appointed his Lordship's
Do you recollect anything Mr. Murray said to you ?
He said, as a man of business would say, that it was ad-
visable that I should seal up.all the papers, &c., till the
will was opened.
Was that suggestion complied with ?—lt was.
Did you do so ?—We did, everything.
Do you know any particular place in which his Lord-
ship kept his papers ?—Yes, in closets in hisyoom.
In the room in which he died ?—Yes, he usually kept
his papers in his bed-room.
I believe that bed-room was on the ground floor, next
the library ?—lt was.
Now, his papers having been sealed up, when were
they opened ?—Not till the will was read.
How many days after the decease of his Lordship was
the will read 2—Mr. Murray will perhaps answer that
question. Ido not recollect. It was on the day of the
funeral,
Were the papers of his Lordship examined before the
will was read ?—No, after the will was read, when we
proceeded, on the recommend ation of Mr. Murray, to
examine all the papers.
Did you find any other testamentary paper besides the
one you proved 2—No, not one ; nothing of the. kind.
Did you find any bundle of papers in which Mr. Ca-
rew's name was mentioned ?—Not one.
Were they examined carefully and minutely ?—Yes.
Were any papers destroyed 2—Yes ; after we had ex-
amined the papers, those we thought worthless were
thrown into a basket.
What was the nature of those papers ?—Private cor-
respondence, &c., and letters to his Lordship when he
was Lord Lieutenant of the county, relative to the Ma-
gistracy. There, were various private correspondence of
his Lordship, particularly with the late Lord Holland,
Lord William Gordon, Lord John Townshend, and per-
sons of that description.
Were there any destroyed in which the name of -Mr.
Carew was mentioned ?—I am perfectly sure my good
will towards Mr. Carew at that time would have led me,
to preserve any paper I had found containing his name.-
Carew—l may say I believe so too, Sir Charles ;
I believe that.

executors.

Mr. PLATT—You were taken into his Lordship's con-
fidence ?—l,was honoured with his Lordship's confidence.
Do you know that Mr. Carew was paid by his Lord-
ship ?—I do not think he had any other mode_cl liveli-
hood.

Do you remember the altar-piece at Brighton being. the
subject of public conversation ?—I do.. • •
Do you remember seeing Mr. Carew when the altar-
piece. was the subject of conversation ?—I remember
haring a conversation with hith at hiS work; and I 'recol-
lect he told me. I do not know whether it was in an-
swer to a question or not ; but he said he was sorry to .
say he was not remunerated a. 9 he.had reason to expect.
Did he consider himself very ill-used by persons who
had set him on the work ?—He did write to that effect.
I asked him, to the best of my recollection, what steps
'he intended to take, and he said he did not intend to take
any steps, as he supposed he should be obliged to
make them a present of it.
,Did you learn froin him in that conversation to whom
he alluded as having given him the order 7-1 under-
stood from some Roman Catholics, who were desirous to
raise a subscription, anc4iwAate4 Lord Western to give
the ground, who was not p,Homan Catholic, but I am
sure he never mentioned the(Earl of Egremont.
You were frequently at Petivorth ?—I was.
Did you see Mr. Carew there at work ?—I saw him
occasionally.
Have you seen him at the -studio in Brighton ?—I
have seen him there, but never saw him at work.
Do you know of any other work but that of his profes-
skin that he was in the habit of doing for Lord Egre-
mont ?—I do not know. I have understood that he su-
perintended building a lodge at Brighton for his Lordship.
What was the size of that ?—lt was but a small one, a
one-floor lodge.
Was there any more than one room in it ?—I should
suppose there was a bed-room and a sitting-room.
Are you at all aware if the services ie rendered to
Lord Egremont would entitle him to demand 10,0001. at
his death ?—I am not aware of it.
Cross-examined by Mr. WOODROFFE—I am quite
aware you will not suppose we have originated any sus-
picion about these papers ?—Certainly not.
Perhaps you are aware, that between Colonel Wynd-
ham and his brother an angry quarrel took place in
Brighton. Will you tell us the occasion of that ?
Mr. PLATT objected.
Mr. WOODROFFE—I am not going to put it in evidence.
Sir Charles Burrell—l can answer, for I had nothing
to do with it.

Mr. WOODROFFE—After the death of the Earl of
Egremont, did Mr. Carew state that papers had been
shown to him ten days before the Earl's death, in which
he had made provision for him ?—He never spoke to me
of it. I heard it stated that he was to be provided for,
but that was but hearsay.
Did not Mr. Wyndham say it was very indiscreet to
destroy those papers ?—Never. I never had a conversa-
tion with him on the subject.
Have you not said that the money paid to Mr. Carew
was not from his Lordship's bounty, but for work that
Mr. Carew had done ?—No. I know that his Lordship's
bounty was unbounded. 'I recollect going into his library,
where Sir 'William Beechey was, and he said, with tears
in his eyes, that his Lordship had rendered him one of
the greatest services possible, for he had been in difficul-
ties, and his Lordship had written a cheque for 1,0001.,
and left it on the table for him.

Now with the knowledge of this fact have you not
reason to believe that some of these cheques produced
were given to Mr.Carew, independently of work done ?
I have no reason to think so. I should suppose they were
in payment.
What should you suppose would be a fair remuneration
for the work of Sir Wm. Beechey ?—I should say that
he would have been satisfied with 2001.

Why do you think then that the Earl should be so
liberal to one gentleman Who was not living with him,
and should not be so to one who was?—For that reason
that Mr. Carew lived with him; that is the only con-
struction I can put upon it ?
I am aware of his Lordship's bounty amounting.to
prodigality. Did he not usually on such occasions write.
the cheques to bearer?—l have no means of knowing. I
have certainly received cheques from him to pay things
for him in London, but whvtber they were to bearer or
not I can't say.

Have you not heard that when he has made presents,
instead of putting the name of the party, he usually
wrote to bearer?—l do not know. I know that some
time previous to his death he destroyed a bundle of
papers, consisting of acknowledgments of loans, saying
that they should not be brought against the parties
when he was gone, and by this means he cancelled the debt.
When he made a gift, was he not in the habit of
writing the cheque payable to bearer, without the name ?
—I have no Means of knowing that ; though liberal he
was very secret in his acts of charity. He acted on the
principle of never letting his right hand know what his
left hand did.

Now, Sir, when he paid money to Colonel Wyly: hem,
was he not in the habit of writing -" To bearer ?"
I know nothine of Colonel Wyndilatn's transactions, ex-
Q0111;0 far as fatu trustee with him.
You have been kind enough to remark that if you had
found any papers bearing. reference to Mr. Carew; your
feelings would have prompted you to their preservation?
—lt would have been my duty.
But independently of your duty ?—I certainly should
have had the inclination; •
Now, for many years before the Earl of Egremont's
death, had not Mr. Carew been almost exclusively his

companion ?----I am not aware of it ; I never heard it.
Did he not frequently go out with him in his carriage?
—I cannot speak to that; but I should think not, as his
Lordship generally went alone."
Don't you know that Mr. Carew was employed in
gther ways besides in his profession by Lord Egrepont ?
7—No ; Ido not. I never heard.
But is it likely ?—lt is very possible.