The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-16 00:00:00

turned into cent smpt in a native State, where they had carefully read the papers, and had come to the concha.
ma right to send , Commission.—(Hear. hear, hear.) sion that the Raja was an innocent man.—(Loud cheers.)
For nine months after the Commission had been signed he 1 The ther innocent or guilty, he had hail no trial.—( Re-
had been left as Resident at Sattara, but he had received newed cheering.) Yet the Governor-General of India
no intimation whatever from the Bombay Government had, in his letter to Sir James Carnac, urged the neces-
during the whole of the time. He had been utterly left sity of a trial before the dethronement of the Raja should
to himself. He had frequently thought during that time be effected.—(Hear, hear.) The difficulty in which they
whether he should resiem or not. He had determined were now placed was owing to the inattention of the
not to do so, and was glad that he had so determined, for Bombay Government to the instructions of the Governor-
on • mentioning the circumstance to Lord Clare, his General.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Gallant Officer
Lordship had said that if he (General Lordwick) had concluded with stating, that if the original motion should
resigned he would have ruined himself. He had re- be lost, the amendment suggested by the Hon. Director,
mained at Sattara, but his feelings had been deeply Mr. Tucker, might do some good.—(Hear, hear.)
wounded by the neglect with which he had been treated. The Court then adjourned to twelve o'clock to-morrow
During that nine months he had thought that the Go- (this day).
vernment had become ashamed of their proceedings. At
last a report came up that he was to be removed. He
was astonished- at that report, and when he came to in-
quire the cause of his removal, he found that it was on
account of his conduct on the Commission, because he had
suggested that a raked or advocate should be admitted
for the accused. With regard to the ulterior proceed-
ings the Government had adopted no means of in-
dicating their intentions to him. During the time the
Commission was sitting, he had stated to those about him
his desire of collecting information, if information could
be had. But no informers came forward ; and why ?
Clearly because it was thought that justice, and justice
only, was the object of the Government. When the
Raja had sent the present it was by his (General Lod-
wick's) advice. If the Raja had neglected that advice it
would have been a breach of the treaty. When the
Resident was removed that was positive proof of the
animus of the Government against the Raja, because
' everybody knew that'he was the friend of the Raja.
Whatever he (Colonel Lodwick) had done had been by
the orders of the Bombay Government. The persons
who had been seized had been seized under the direc-
tions of the Government, and no person had been seized
without the directions of the Government. They all
had heard of the character of Ballajee Punt. Two days
after his removal had been notified to him a letter had
arrived from the Chief Secretary to the Governor of
Bombay, directed to Ballajee Punt, desiring him to go
and assist the new Resident. Now, let them see
the result of that. Every body knew the in-
timacy
of Ballajee with the Raja's brother,
—in fact he was now Prime Minister of Sattara, and
everybody knew that he was inimical to the Raja, and
every vakeel before he (General Lodwick) left, told
him that it was mentioned as a matter of course that the
Raja was to be deposed. The people of Sattara then,
plainly perceived the animus by which the Bombay Go-
vernment was actuated, and that accounted for the
swarms of informers that then came forward. All who
remained faithful to the Raja became suspected. Infor-
mations were laid against his friends • they were seized
and confined, and all who could be of any use to the
Raja were removedsfrom 'him. It had been said that he
had been entering into treasonable correspondence,
with Meersag. Now if the Bombay Government had
any information-that this treasonable correspondence had
been carrying on, why did they not seize the papers of
Meersag or .take his deposition ? That would have been
the natural course. He did not wish to give his opinion
on the subject. He did not believe that the charges
had been proved, Every one must admit that it was an
ex parte case, and that the Raja had never been heard.
He would fain, if possible, draw a veil over the proceed-
ing, which he must designate as seething the kid in the
niobher's milk. • He alluded to the seizing and shutting
up of an unfortunate individual, and then taking his
evidence. He might have been told that his mother was
dying, and propositions might have .been made to him,
that if he did so and so. he would be released. Such
things might be possible. With regard to the question
of the Jagheerdars, that was a difficult question, and Lord
Clare had been quoted, among others, as deciding
against the claims of the Raja. But what said the Raja
on that subject ? He said that if Mr. Elphinstone de-
cided he had no claim, he would persist in it that he
would abide by the opinion of Mr. Elphinstone, who must
know the nature of the treaty, because he had made
it. Had they attempted to obtain the opinion of
Mr. Elphinstone ?—(Hear, hear.) With regard to
Lord Clare his Lordship had expressed himself subse-
quently, on regretting the decision to which he had
come. His Lordship had said to him (General Lod-
wick), " I was wrong, and the Raja was right—we
were all wrong, and, if necessary for the ends of jus-
tice, do not spare me." After that, he hoped they would
hear no more of the authority of Lord Clare being
quoted as against the claims of the Raja. They might
all be in error at times, but when they had been so it
was right to confess it.—(Hear, Shear.) The Deputy-
Chairman had thought proper to deprecate these discus-
sions, as tending to no good purpose.
Sir J. L. LUSIIINGTON rose to explain. He had not
said anything that could be construed into a denial of
the competency of the Court to entertain those ques-
tions ; on the contrary, he expressly admitted it ; but he
had stated that they possessed no power to alter a reso-
lution of the Board of Directors after that resolulion had
been confirmed by the Board' of Control. He had stated
that he considered the power of the Court of Proprietors
to discuss those questions was most valuable ; ' and
that he could conceive a case in which the
Court of Directors might hen.- forward such subject
before a Court 'of Directors for discussion, but ho ex-
pressed his fear that if the Court of Proprietors was made
an instrument for the useless agitation of such subjects,
they might, by some stringent enactment, be deprived of
this valuable privilege.
After a few words from Mr. Lmwis in explanation,
General LODWICK proceeded—This was a question
proper to be discussed in that Court. It was whether
the Court would sanction an injustice, and the privileges
of that Court could never be endangered by public dis-
cussion and an appeal to public opinion.--(Hear, 'hear.)
With regard to the question of suttee, it was true that
-the late Raja—had not absolutely prohibited it, but he
was so far estranged from the Brahmins thathehad,before
giving his consent to any suttee taking place, always
had the victims before him, and offered to settle a pen-
sion on th'am if they would not perform it. He (General
Lodwick) had not asked the Raja to prohibit suttees,
because he had no instructions from his Government to
do so, but he had no doubt that, if it had been wished,
the Raja would have prohibited them.—(Hear.)
General BRIGGS said that he had been four years a
resident at the Court of Sattara, and during that tinge,
having had opportunities of becoming acquainted with
the disposition of the Raja, he had thought it his
duty, before leaving Bombay, to put the Government
in possession, in the secret department, of his
opinion of his Highness the Raja of Sattara. It was
not for him to ask for the production of the whole of
that letter. It was communicated confidentially. He
had dono his duty when he had sent it to the Govern-
ment • and he thought he had no business to refer to or
publish that letter.—(Hear, hear.) It had passed a
strong eulogium on the Government of the Raja, but it
also passed severe censure on several of his acts, and
severe censure on several of his propensities. Consider-
able misapprehension existed with regard to the position
of the Raja of Sattara, and particularly as to the origin
of his Government. (Hear, hear, hear.) It was
true that the Government of the Rajas of Sattara
had been usurped by the Peishwa in the same way that
the Government of the Raja of Mysore had been usurped
hy the Mohammedan Dynasty. On the destruction of
the Mohammedan dynasty in 1799, it had been thought
politically expedient to restore to the Rajas the Govern-
ment of Mysore. They had restored to them all the
country over which they had formerly ruled, the con-
querors reserving to themselves only those portions of
territory which had been added to the Raja of Mysore
during the usurpation of the Mohammedans. Now, it
was a remarkable circumstance in the case of the Rajas
of Sattara, that the Peishwas always treated them
. with a deference and respect which would astonish
some of the members of the Court. A sum of money
had been given on the occasion of the marriage of the
daughter of the Raja of Sattara to celebrate the nup-
tials. That sum was limited to 50,000 rupees, or about
5,000/. sterling, and that was at the time the Raja was
imprisoned. Now 5,0001. seemed alasge sum to expend
nn themarriage of a state prisoner's daughter. Even in
the time of the late Peishwa, he used to apply to the
Raja to confirm his -appointments, and even for permis-
sion to engage in war he always solicited the Baja of
Sattara. No honours were conferred by the Peishwa,
but by the Raja of Sattara. Individuals were brought
to Sattara; a sort of mock ceremony was gone through;
the Raja was supplied with money necessary for the pur-
pose, butall honours were conferred by the Raja of Sattara.
It was a curious fact, that when the late Peishwa of
Agra Came to the determination of making war with
the British he asked permission of the Raja of Sattara,
though
this Prince was at the time his prisoner.—(Hear,
hear, hear.). „He (General Briggs) heard this from the
llaja hwa
hnhsetles:-:(Hear. hems) And when he asked the
answer did he give, the Raja burst into
laughter, and exclaimed, " What could I do ?"—(Hear,
and a laugh.) The education of the ex-Raja was left
to the superintendence of his mother, a talented and am-
feaaersheifyulplyridinestainll(eidaimnbtoitihoins
wnhiiineenl
sba the
rnitioeu
"n•otimmaenn'tswohfo
father entertained, There was in that family an in-
tense hatred of the Issaamins,
on son, and
his which,ther which descended from
exhibiteduot be ing
tniseiltfiglan"mubtyu atlheanint
mosities between him and the order wb--
en be was sfatrtubcetir to n
re-
stored by the British Power. He was, however, fond of
promoting learning, and when (aswo understood the Gal-
lant General, who was so imperfectly heard that he was
repeatedly requested by Proprietors to speak up)
he was linable to establish a college, on account of the
opposition of the Brahmins, he established schools at the
house of the Resident, and took pleasure in superintend.
ing them.-0-fear, bear.) He could only add, that since
the Raja was released from the superintendence of Cap-
tain Grant, he had religiously showed the conditions of
the treaty. One. of them was, that he should not Weirs
fere 'witthe religious feelings of the people. To this
he adhered so scrupulously, that even when he was ap-
pointed by two oataaling. ties, to decide between
them on a question which involved some considerations
of relieion, he positively refused to do so, until
he (General 13,) suggested that the whole case might
be made a matter of owll jrisdiction, if the parties were
desirous that it should be determined by the Raja. The
suitors acted union that suggestion, and the affair lags
satisfactorily settled. 'Whereupon the Rajaweptb.with
of
joy, that he had satisfied the wishes
ro_and his sul
ej escatisd
without infringing on the tEgaty (Ch e
"If I had even violated one Clanditii" even in a little,
I could not know to what it might loads''
--4aboers,)
Tke Hon. and Gallant Proprietor then went Into a states
ment. of the Raja's revenue and expenditure, to show
that he had conalacted the finances of his state with-
nomy, and at the same tign3 with liberality—especially
in respect to public and cheers. The
Gallant Officer spoke in ..so uiciatznct 140 rtrYing a
tone that it was impossible to follow f)4' det4ils *#l/ 41.4 r
degree of connection.) From these 0444, tiowgyo7 RIP
contended. that the treasure which wars seised la the
palace after the deposition, belonged in right and Justice
to-the ex-Raja.—(Cries of ".Hear.) He (General B.)
was sorry to .differ from so many Hon. Proprietors on
the other sidoof -the bar, but he had only come to state
*fiat justice required of him.—(Hear, bear.) Ile had

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—The Chronicle, in adding some farther quo-
tations from agricultural writers to those which we made
yesterday from Arthur Young, obseries, "We are not
aware that any one agricultural writer of eminence has ever
advocated the Corn-laws." They are forced upon the
farmers by needy and grasping landowners, and are
defended by men who in general know nothing of agri-
culture." The Tories protect agriculture by Corn-
laws, as they protected religion by Test Acts, and
Roman Catholic disabilities. In the former, as in the
present instance, they proceeded against all the autho-
rities which carried any weight with them—even
those of their own party. There is not a single
name of those (excepting Lord Eldon) whom the
Tories affect to claim and commemorate as the past
champions of their principles—there is not one ac-
knowledged really great Conservative name, from Burke
to Canning, which affords authority for religious ex-
clusion any more than commercial restriction. Yet
intolerance was the bond of union which kept the
Tory party together. Monopoly is the bond of union
which holds it together now. What shall we say of a
party, which can only name its great men, without
quoting them ; and, if it quoted them, would only
prove that, in naming, it takes their names in rain I
And what Shall we say of reasoners on corn legisla-
tion, who are capable of making a continual bugbear (as
Sir R. Peel, Lord Stanley, and all their organs have
been doing ad nauseam) of a single passage in the
speech of Lord Charles Russell, in which that scion of
the house of Bedford expressed apprehensions lest repeal
of. the Corn-laws should throw two millions of acres out
of corn cultivation. ,Why, take Lord Charles's bull by
the horns. For the sake of argument—suppose it should.
Suppose a repeal of the Corn-laws Should throw two mil-
lions of acres out of corn culture I Is that a considera-
tion so momentous as to outweigh all others ? -Is the
retention in arable of the two million acres most unfit
for that purpose in England, compensation in full for
compromising the fate of our greatest masses of work-
people, and our most important branches of external
trade ?
COURIER—The present election has taught the
Conservatives the most valuable lesson ever yet read to
a great party—to know its own strength—and under the
guidance of that lesson will their future movements be
directed. We are fully aware of what the journals in
the confidence of Ministers would fain insinuate, but
what is too gross for them openly to assert ; we know
what they are driving at in their dark inuendoes with re-
gard to the probability of another dissolution early next
year; but we also know that there exists not the shadow
of a shade of foundation for anticipating such a con-
tingency. Sir Robert Peel's majority in the new
Parliament will be too powerful, too irresistible, to re-
quire that he should adopt any mode of strengthening
himself beyond what will accrue to him from the gradual
development of his policy: and so fatal has been the
issue of the experiment of a dissolution to the Whig
party, that even had they the means or the opportu-
nity.' to try their chances a second time, they would
shrink from it with that instinctive dread with which
a " burned child" regards the fire. Another disso-
lution would altogether annihilate them ; the allu-
sions to it as a means of recruiting their shattered
forces, in which the Whig journals have been lately
indulging, were intended only to alleviate their sense
of defeat or soothe their wounded pride. The coun-
try has proved itself to be too essentially Conserva-
tive in spirit, that a second appeal should be required,
and it was too powerfully impressed with the sense of
the danger inseparable from Whig rule, to relapse again
into its former inactive state. Had the Whigs not shown
themselves so openly and undisguisedly in the true co-
lour of destructives—had their desperation not driven
them to assail with such virulent hostility the greatest
interests of the empire, their case would not altogether
have been so utterly hopeless as it is ; but detected, con-
victed, and punished as they have been, they are doomed
for life to the cold and cheerless regions of a feeble and
fruitless opposition. Their fall has been too great to
admit of any hopes of their re-ascent. A loss of over
forty members cannot speedily or easily be replace& a
loss not confined to English counties or even English bo-
roughs, but spread over Ireland and Scotland.
STANDARD.—We have to-day to announce the ra-
tification of the dismissal of Mr. Handley from South
Lincoln, and Mr. Wilbrham Irma South Cheshire,
with the almost certainty of three more Conservative
gains in Ireland—namely, two in the metropolitan
county, and one in the adjacent county of Wicklow. The
whole Conservative gain in Ireland will probably amount
to at least ten votes; it already amounts to six—viz.,
Dublin City. two; Waterford City, two, Queen's County,
one ; Athlone borough, one—to these, as we have said,
Dublin County, two ; and Wicklow one, may be added
with almost certainty, making nine gained. Long-
ford County will most probably afford' the tenth,
while it is scarcely possible but that some must be
gained in the otheecontests approaching or in progress, in
Clare, Cork, Louth, Tipperary, Wexford, while it is evi-
dent that nothing can be lost, as the five counties have
been hitherto represented by Whig-Radicals. One Con-
servative seat has been lost pro tem. at Kinsale, and
one is threatened in each of the counties of arlow
and Kerry, but we think not seriously. In Carlow,
indeed, a gain. may be expected ; but, admitting
against appearances the possibility of the loss of these
two seats, the balance of Conservative gain on the
whole of the Irish elections will hardly be less than
ten seats—a respectable addition to the British ma-
jority, but infinitely more valuable as proof of the Con-
servative re-action in that part of the United Kingdom
where it has been thought least energetical, and where
it questionless has had the greatest difficulties. The
Sovereign, the people, and they who may be called to
her Majesty's Councils, must learn from the re-
sult of the Irish elections that there really is such
a class as the Conservative Protestants of Ireland
possessed of power to claim respect and considera-
tion—that they are not the "miserable minority"
they have been described, but the possessors of what-
ever legitimate influence exists in the island. They
have beaten the Queen's Ministers, they have beaten the
Romanist priesthood and the Radical agitators. They
who have done this can be no longer treated with the
contempt which has been too much their portion. Two
of the greatest victories gained through the whole of this
glorious struggle are undoubtedly those won in the cities
of Dublin and Waterford—and, as units in the Conserva-
tive democracy, we cannot but rejoice that they have
been won by the people alone, without aid of any kind
from the higher class of Conservatives. Dublin sends to
Parliament two professio'nal gentlemen, undistinguished
in any way except by their talents, their honourable
private character, and their fidelity to Protestant prin-
ciples ; and the case of Waterford is, if possible, still
more striking.

sT'lktr, LONDON. FRIDAY, vIrLY in. 1.P41.

American Consul, when made acquainted with the fact
advised me and .my companion to remain and give cur
evidence against the mate and crew • but we declined
upon the ground that- we conceived the testimony of the
passengers sufficient. As he was not very urgent, we
were liberated, after an examination before the Board of

Police.
After my health was somewhat recruited, I shipped
on board the Angelo, Captain Jaques, bound to New-
bury Port, where I arrived on Wednesday last. I arrived
in Boston on Thursday, and have made this statement for
the information of the public.
JOHN MESSER, Seaman.
—Boston Mercantle Journal.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF 11 A:V UPTC • jil! 1 15.
(Before Sir C. F. WILLIAMS.)
THOMAS SAUNDERS CAVE'S BANKRUPTCY-THE CORNWALL

MINING SPECULATIONS.
This was a fiat which was originally (Frec'ed against the
bankrupt to he taken before the local Commissioners at Wil-
mer, near Dover, but was, upon a petition presented to the
Court of Review, referred to the London Courts for investiga-
tion. The sitting to •clay was for the choice of new assignees.
'I he bankrupt is described as a " merchant," but his thalings
were principally in Cornwall mining shares, and it appears he
was connected with the mines called Trevarthen Downs, Wheal
Fortune, Rospeath, Wheal Friendship, Owen Vean, and Wheal
Prosper.
The first subject brought under the consideration of the
Court was the taking of the proofs of parties who had advanced
na,meys to the bankrupt to carry on his mining operations.
Mr. Romilly appeared as counsel on behalf of the Rev.
James Ellice to prove for 15,0001. upon a bond for moneys
advanced to the bankrupt.
After a short inquiry the proof was then allowed.
The claim of Colonel Rushbrooke, M.P., for nearly
36,00 a, was then brought forward by Mr. Romilly. Ile
said he also understood that this was to be opposed on the
same grounds as the other proof ; but he thought he should
state such a clear case to the Court, that there could not be a
doubt as'to the right of the gallant Colonel to prove for the
sum stated. To show how the connexion arose between Col.
Rushbrooke and the bankrupt he read a letter, the precise
date of which was not named, but it was within the year
1838. It began by the bankrupt addressing the Colonel as
" My dear Colonel," and proceeded to state that each of his
mines was a distinct, separate interest, that their productive-
ness could net fail to ensure large profits to the shareholders,
and that it was with a view to benefit his immediate friends
that he kept the shares within a " select circle," and out of
the reach of all stock-jobbing adventurers. It also stated that
it was a curious fact that the product of copper never equalled
the demand (we suppose in allusion to some of the mines),
and concluded by stating that it ought also to be borne in
mind that while they were enriching themselves out of the
bowels of " mother earth," they were by the exercise of
their capital and works giving employment to thousands of
their fellow-creatures, who would otherwise be in the greatest
possible distress and wretchedness.
(This letter excited a great deal of laughter. )
Mr. Anderton said he believed that it was not imputed that
the bankrupt had acted dishonestly or fraudulently, bnt that,
on the contrary, he could give an account of every penny he
had received in respect to these transactions. His views as to
the results had unfortunately proved erroneous.
Sir C. F. WILLIAMS did not know how it would turn. All
he could say was, it appeared that the bankrupt had raised
366,0001. through these mines.
Mr. Romilly, in continuation, said that Col. Rushbrooke
did not seek to prove for 40,000/. in respect of shares which
he held, but confined his proof to three sums, which were ad-
vanced for the bankrupt, and composed the 36,000/. before
stated. Each of these sums were advanced for a particular
purpose, and might he briefly stated as follows :—ln the
first case, the demands which the Reverend Mr. Ellice made
upon the bankrupt to repay part of his advances were stated
by the bankrupt to Colonel Rushbrooke to have thrown him
into temporary difficulties, and he asked the Colonel to
enter into a bond jointly and severally to pay Mr. Ellice
10,000/., which he (the Colonel) did, and which he
had subsequently to pay ; that was the first sum.
The second was for another 10,0001., and arose out of
these circumstances :—The bankrupt's private bankers were
Messrs. Stone, Martin, and Stone, of Lombard-street, and he
owed them about this time a balance of 13,000/., which they
required him to pay. He could not do it, and Colonel Rus-
brooke gave a bond to Messrs. Stone and Martin, to pay the
sum of upwards of 10,0001., which he did. The third sum was
composed of four bills of exchange, which Colonel Rushbrooke
had accepted for the bankrupt, one of which was not at pre-
sent in court, but would be forthcoming when required; two
were for 2,5001. each, and two for 5,0001. each. These the
Colonel had to take up, the bankrupt forfeiting his word, that
he would be ready to meet them when they came due. These
facts were, he (Mr. Romilly) thought, sufficiently clear to
entitle Colonel Rushbrooke to prove.
Sir C. F. WILLIAMS thought so too.

Proof was admitted for principal and interest.
Mr. Anderton said, he was sorry to hear that one of the
best of the mines, in consequences of the little confidence of
the shareholders, had been sold for a few thousands, and was
now worth eight or ten times that sum.
Sir C. F. WILLIAMS said, it had certainly gone from the
creditors. It was the " Godolphin" mine. There was, how-
ever, to be a private sitting to investigate that affair, not that
it was to be supposed that it was such a mine of wealth that
the proceeds would pay off the national debt. With respect to
mines in general, he had had a good deal of experience en
the western circuit, and he was told that if the whole mines of
Cornwall were consolidated they would not pay 5 per cent.
Mr. Anderton said, that there was unfortunately a great deal
lost in them, but some of them " turned up trumps." He
knew a highly respectable physician who placed confidence in
these undertakings.
Sir C. F. WILLIAMS said, some paid a profit for a time, but
the shareholders were ultimately involved.
A bill of exchange for 5,0001. was then tendered for proof
by two parties who had discounted it for 4,5001. It was ac-
cepted by the bankrupt and a person named Dl•Donald, and
endorsed by a Mr. Hassey. The proof was admitted.
The debts proved, besides those enumerated, were not for any
large amount.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME ClRCUlT.—Hertford, July 15.
CROWN COURT.

Mr. Sergeant TAnDY, in consequence of the indisposition
of Mr. Justice BOSANQUE?, took his mat on the bench in this
Court.

The Grand Jury having been sworn, and Lord Grimston
being appointed foreman, the Learned Sergeant briefly ad-
dressed them, and said, that there was only one case on the
calendar that would require any observations from him. That
case was a charge of rape, and in reference to that charge it
would be as well to state that during the last session of Parlia-
ment the punishment for that offence had been most materially
altered after very grave deliberation, and the capital punish-
ment would be abolished after next October. The Learned
Sergeant then proceeded to allude to the circumstances of the
alleged offence, and said that it was a charge which at all times
required the most grave and attentive consideration.

CIVIL SIDE.
The following was the only case of interest tried this day

COURTNALL THE YOUNGER. V. COVENET.

SEDUCTION.—This was an action to recover compensation
•r damages for the loss of the services of the plaintiff's sister,
in consequence of her seduction by the defendant.
Mr. '1 hesiger and Mr. Ogle were for the plaintiff ; and Mr.
Platt and Mr. Peacock for the defendant.

Mr. TRESIGER addressed the Jury, and said that the pre-
sent action was brought by the plaintiff, who was the brother
of the unfortunate subject of the inquiry, in the form of a
master claiming compensation for the loss of the services of
his servant, his sister acting, at the time the transaction
took place, in that capacity, and being under his charge. That
was the only form in which the action could be brought before
the Jury. The Learned Counsel then went on to state that the
defendant was a young man, the son of a wealthy farmer,
residing near Sittingbourne, in Kent, and who, having been
apprenticed to the plaintiff, who carried on the business of a
linen-draper at Hadley, and who was assisted by his sister in
his business, took that opportunity of gaining her affections
and effecting her ruin. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to detail the circumstances, as they afterwards appeared in
evidence, and he concluded by calling upon the Jury to give
exemplary damages to mark their sense of the offence which
the defendant had committed, and as some recompence for the
outraged feelings of her friends.
The Learned Counsel called the following witnesses :
Hannah Courtnall deposed that she was twenty-one years
of age ; her father resided at Barnet. In the year 1836 she
went to assist her brother, who carried on the business of a
linendraper at Hadley, and she was engaged to serve in the
shop, and hoarded with the family of her brother. She re-
membered the defendant Daniel Coveney coming to her bro-
ther's, which was about a rear and a half after she first went,
and he subsequently became her brother's apprentice. He paid her
attentions which witness returned, and she considered their
attachment mutual, and after their intimacy had continued a
short time he made her an offer of marriage. In June, 1833,
witness went to see a relation in London, and she informed her
of the offer the defendant had made, and he was in conse-
quence invited there to dinner, and they walked out together
with the consent of her relation. While she was in London
she received letters from the defendant, but she had destroyed
the whole of them. During their intercourse she ascertained
that the defendant was holding some intercourse with a young
lady named Bird, and she spoke to him about it, and
he said he would break off that connexion en her account.
In 1839 their mutual attachment appeared still to continue,
and in the course of that year she yielded to his wishes. Their
intercourse continued after this until the month of June, when
she went to London to spend some time, and during the whole
of the period she was there, although the defendant used to
write to her constantly before, she never received a single letter
from him. Soon after this time she was about to accompany
her father to Beccles, in Suffolk, and she asked the defendant
whether he intended to write to her, and he said if she did not
hear from him by the following Wednesday she might consider
the acquaintance broken off. He said, however, that he would
certainty write, but she slid not receive any letter. Vk !Ale at
Beccles a tradesman named Boreham paid her attentions, and
offered her marriage, and her father consented that it should
take place. Soon after her return from Beccles she saw
the defendant, and he asked whether it was true that
she was going to be married to Mr. Boreham, and
she said it was, and that it was on account of
his not writing to her., The next day she received a letter
from Mr. Boreham, and she showed it to the defendant, and he
,did not appear very. well pleased at it; and the next day he
said, in the presence of a relative, that ho was still the saine,
and that no one else should marry her, and he wished her to
break off with Mr. Boreham and he said if she did that he
would break off with Miss Bird. In the month of September
the defendantwrote to her a letter, in which he again requested
that she should break off with Mr. Boreham, and declaring that
he, and no one else, should have her, and she, in consequence,
declined to have any further conversation with him, Witness
was confined with a little girl, on the 4th of March last.
When she first ascertained that she was in the family way she
informed the defendant of it, and he said he was glad of it, for
she must have him as that was the case,
Cross-examined—She went to her sister's in London in
June, and remained there about a month, and she was in the
habit of going out every day, and her sister was commonly her
companion; but she frequently went by herself. She did not
always walk the same way. She had crossed the different
bridges while she was in London for the purpose of visiting
some friends of her brother. She only meant to take a walk,
and occasionally she went out over one bridge and returned
by another. Mr. Boreham was not in town during any part of
this time. She was not invited to Beetles by Mr. Boreham.
but she aecompapied her father there, and they lodged in that
place at the house of a person named Smith. 11r. Borehain
did not visit them much before he proposed marriage to her.
He might have seen her a dozen times. She went to visit
Mr. Boreham wi'hout her father, but she did not do so many
times. While she was at her brother's she served in the shop,
and it was the custom after supper for the apprentices, witness,
and the maid, to go down in the kitchen, and her brother had
complained of their frolicking and making so much noise
together. Her brother had left her with the ap-
prentices, and they had walked to:ether at night
in the orchard. There was another apprentice named
Smith., and a maid-servant, and they were frequently together
in the orchard at night. The defendant was seventeen years old
when he first came to her brother's, and the improper inter-
course did not take place between them for a year and a half
afterwards. She did not recollect whether the first intercourse
took place in or out of doors. She now remembered it took
place in a house. (The witness being pressed, at length said
it was in the shop that the intercourse took place.) Did not
know whether the fellow .apprentice was in the kitchen with
the maid at the time it took place. While this was going on
her brother was sitting up with his wife. She knew a gentle-
man named Wood, who was frequently at Barnet, but she did
not know where he resided. His father was a clergyman, and
he lived at Barnet. Young Mr. Wood was about one or
two and twenty years old, and on one occasion he overtook her
and another young lady in Hadley Wood, and he conversed
with them about ten minutes, and this was the only occasion he
spoke to her. Believed Mr. Wood was called " Bright-eyes,"
but she never called him by that name. Remembered a po-
liceman being at Barnet. She never walked with him, cr
Called 1401 the nubolled lobster. Her brother had, on some