The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-05 00:00:00

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD, APRIL 3.—Tuesday, March 30, the Rev,Arnes
If ellicar;of Trinity College, anti the Rev. Charles Win. Dodd,
of Christ Church, were admitted Masters of Arts.
Friday, April 2, the Rev. Christopher Lipscomb, Fellow of
New College, was admitted Dachelor in Divinity ; and Cosnio
Nelson limes, of 'Balliol College, was admitted Master of
Arts. _ _

Iremsiagnst:chalas enPbr
eeferi7enis
—The Right Hon.• the Earl.of
St.
pleased to .appoint the Rev. Richard
Lynch Cotton, M.A. Fellow of Worcester College, and the
Ecclesiastical
Vicar of Denchworth, BerkS.; one of his Lordship's Domestic
Chaplains.—The Rev. Nathaniel Dodson, ALA. tas been col-
lated tattle Prebend or Cannonry- of South Searle, in the Ca-
thedral Church of Lincoln, and in the gift of the Lord Bishop
of that diocese.--The Rei% John Ideate, D.D. has been pre-
sented, by t 1 Dean affil Cannons of St, George's Chapel, Wind.
sor, to the Rectory of Hartley Westpall, Hants, vacant by the
death' of the Hon. and Rev. Thomas Alfred. Harris.—The'Re-v.
Jonathan Asbridge has been presented by Sir John Cope, Bart.
of Bramshill Park, Hants, to the Rectory of Eversiey, vacant
• by the resignation of the Fie; ,titer DebarY.
The following Gentlerrien of this 'University were ordained
by the LOrd Bishop of Lincoln, in the Chapel.of St. Mary-la-
bonne, London, on Sandy se'nnight
DEacoNs.--Christopher llilnes, B:A. Lincoln • College ;
John Hewlett Watson, B.A. Wadharweollege ; Wm. EdW.
Hoskins, M.A. Brazenose College ; Vere Monro, ILA. Uni-
versity College; Robert Francis Campbell, S.C.L. Magdalen
Hull ; Charles Pitt, B.A Christ Church ;. Richard Hill, B.A.
Exeter College; John Harding, B.A. &alio]. College; Gilbert
Butland, B.A. Pembroke College;- William Penfold,. B.A.
Lincoln College:
PRIECTS.—Charles William Dodd, B.A. Christ Church;
Robt. Hopton Smith, B.A. Queen's College ; Richard Higgs,
B.A. Wadham College ; Richard Charles •Coxe, B.A. Worces-
ter College; John I)igby Wingfield, 11. A. Exeter College;
Tobias Furneaux, Magdalen Hall. -

Wihiam Hawks,•S.C.L. of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, son
of Sir Robert Shafte Hawks, of Newcastle-upop-Tyne,..bas
been ordained to the Curacy of St. Mary's,. Gateshead, in the
county of Durham. The ceremony of ordination was per-
formed by the Lord Bishop of St. David's, at Bow Church;
Durham, on Sunday, the 2i3th ult. by virtue of a special re-
script, issued for that purpose, by the Right Rei,. the Lord
Bishop of •Durham.

VICE-tHANCELLOR'S COURT, ..MAncH

( From the Ccmbridge Chronicle, April 2, 1824.)

Mr. GEORGE lIENRY STORIE, LL. B. was cited befbre
the VICEXHAXCELLon and Heads of Colleges, to answer
a charge preferred by the. Reverend Richard Duffield, R.D.
for making use of gross and abusive language towards him in
Messrs. Deigfiton's shop, on the 10th of March.
The charge against Ir. Stogie having been read, Mr. Duf-
field said it would be necessary for him, in the first place, to
show that the words uttered by the defendant were used
transactions which had taken place , .
mali-
ciously ; and he would therefore menit,ieotnwernmie,iomfstihlef previousan:oie
defendant. It appeared from this statement, that Mr. Stone
entered at St. John's College, as undergraduate, in the October
term of 1817, at which time Mr. Duffield was Dean of the
College. The defendant being very irregular in his attend-
ance at chapel, Mr. Duffield had frequently occasion to pu-
nish him for. such neglect, and in May Ib2o convened him
before tile Master. Mr. Stork was in the habit of coming
into chapel at the conclusion of the service, wishing that
ti ys hail.
to be considered as a regular attendance, which induced
Mr. Duffield to mention the , conduct of the defendant
to the Master again • and after that time Mr. Storie
IJI II n—'s
eTe
11 see dd
etfoen
tpl
aanyt 11alfrte.r,13vaunilii,eldw a tnht a r etsop e feta
vdett es
atior, t
college, and Mr. Duffield had at firSt objected. to sign his bene
departurelir onntuilffiFeiedb riumacriy,s
0:L810210n,
when he entered a , ,
sho on Wednesday evening, the 10th Of March,
seen Mr. Stogie from that time until he met him in Messrs.
day he had taken his degree, and the defendant
decessit, which delatylef!inlil
wDleiiicghlitwolaiss'the
was then in an intoxicated state. On that occasion, the defen-
dant came up to the place where Mr. Duffield was Speaking to
language, which he applied to Mr. Duffield,
and made use of some most abusive
who soon after left
.akEohuigffi Duffield
did
df
liootri sonic e :hiveA
la' terms,waiting w Itiiiicrhee,
dhaoyws:
the
lice.
shopJ oh n; Danetilgohntonh,i dun. and
out the defendant continued his
aevbeirs,e,Mnri
expecting to receive an apology for this insult, Mr. Duffield
mentioned the circumstance to the Vice-Chancellor. On the
Monday after he had waited on the Vice-Chancellor," Mr. Duf-
field received a note from the defendant, stating that he under-
stood he had made use of several abusive words towards Mr. •
Duffield in Messrs. Deightons'- shop, when he was in a
state of intoxication, for which he expressed his regret ; but
with respect to the more offensive expressions, which had been
ascribed to him, he said he had never uttered them--and he
begged Mr. Duffield to belie:N he was as incapable of using
those expressions as he (Mr. D.) was of deserving them ; and
hoped he would not consider' that his character required that
they should be refuted. Mr. Duffield waited on the Vice-
Chancellor with this note on the saiste evening, and on 'Mors-.
day following another apology from tile solicitor of the defend-'
ant was sent, requesting him not to proceed further in the case.
To this note Mr. Duffield did not reply, the case being already
before the Vice-Chancellor.

Mr. John Deighton, jun. stated, that Mr. Duffield was in
their shop on the evening of the 10th of March about seven
o'clock, and was speaking to him about the price of some books,
when two gentlemen came in. One of them he afterwards
found was ,Mr. Stone, and the other his brother. Mr. gtorie
came up to the place where Mr. Duffield and witness were
standing, and addressed himself to him (Mr. Deighton) mak-
ing use of several terms of abuse, which he applied to 'Mr.
Dtiffild le'h oeir. d. appeared quite intoxicated at the
time, and h
requested Mr. Stone to go into
Duffield. The
the further shop, and remonstrated with him on the impropriety
of his language. The defendant, however, continued using
several abusive and offensive expressions towards Mr. Duffield,
who soon after went out. The expressions did not seem to
mean any thing but abuse. There were two other gentlemen
in the shop at the time. The words used by Mr..Storie were
not spoken unusually loud, but loud enough for any one in the
shop to hear.
Mr. Gaye and Mr. Fearon, undergraduates, who were in,
Messrs. Deightons' shop on the evening in question, corro-
borated the evidence given by Mr. Duffield and Mr. J. Deigh-
ton, and stated that Mr. Stone had made use of a most offen.
sive expression as Mr. Duffield was leaving the shop. It was
also stated by Mr. Fearon, that the defendant, accompanied by
his brother and another gentleman, called upon him a few days
after the transaction took place, and said he understood that he
(Mr. Fearon) was present, and could swear to the language he
used. He told the defendant that he was there, and tgat he was
so confident that the defendant had used the expressions with
which he was charged, that if put on his oath ho must swear
to them. Mr. Stofie said to him, " the shortest way for yoy,
and the pleasantest way for me, would be to say, that what I
said was so detached and incoherent, that you could not swear
to the expressions used."--Mr. Fearon, in his cross-examina-
tion by the defendant, admitted that he had said, he might be
mistaken, but so certain was he as to the expressions used, that
he could not hesitate to swear to them.

Mr. DUFFIELD said, that in consequence of some imputa-
tions which had been thrown out in the cross-examination of
Mr. Gaye, with respect to his conduct when chaplain in the
navy, he should not feel satisfied unless the Court would allow
him to call Mr. Ryder, son of Lord Harrowby, who was in the
same ship with him nearly the whole time he was in the navy,
and who had voluntarily come forward to speak to his uniform
excellent conduct in that service.

Mr. STORIE begged to deny that he had made any such im-
putations on the character of Mr. Duffield, nor did he ever
imagine it possible that any such imputations could attach to
the character of that Gentleman.
The COURT felt it would be paying too much respect to
what had been said by the defendant, to allow Mr. Duffield to
call any one to refute it. They considered that the only ten-
dency which the questions put by the defendant to the witnesses
could have, was to aggravate his offence.
Mr. STorat: being called upon for his defence, applied for
an adjournment of the Court, to allow him time to prepare it.
He had only had the charges delivered to him 24 hours, part
of which time had been consumed in negociations, and it had
been impossible for him to obtain evidence. He complained
that he had been denied the assistance of Counsel, and said,
that the 47th statute, under which he .waS charged, applied
only to undergraduates, and did not extend to him. As he most

unequivocally denied having u.ed the ticptessions ascribed to
him, Mr. Duffield could not, he said, suffer by the delay.
The CounT overruled the objection,-observing that any de-
lay mightprov.e injurious to the character of Mr. Duffield, and
as they saw no reason for it Mr. Stone must' proceed with his
defence.

Mr. Storie then called his brother, Mr. Thomas Chalmers
Storie, who stated, that he went with the defendant into Messrs.
shop'on the evening in question. He corroborated
the principal part of the, testimony of the former witnesses,
thoughhe denied having heard his brother make use of the par-
ticular offensive expressions with which he was charged; The
words, he said, did not appear to be uttered with a view to in-
jure Mr. Duffield's character, but were merely tile accidental
words mishit; from the'effeets of intoxication.—This witness
said he was quite sober at the time, and must have heard every
expression his brother made use of.
Two other witnesses were called, whose evidence did not bear
particularly upon the efise, and after Mr. S:orie had closed his
defence, the Court adjourned to Wednesday.
On Wednesday the Court assenibled.at 10 o'clock, when the
;
VICE-CHANCELLOR addressed Mr. Storie, observing that he
had been charged with having used-gross and abusive language
towards the Rev. Riehard atifield, and With haviN. malicious-
ly defamed his chikracter-; these charges the Court were of opi-
nion- had been fully proved, and therefore sentenced the de-
fendant to be suspended from his degree .
. .
,for the space of one
year..

This case excited extreme interest, and we believe that it was
to the surprise and regret of every member of the University
that a much more severe and adequate
..punishment was not
awarded.—lt is understood, however, that after mature consi-
deration of the University statutes, it was as severe as the
Court was able to inflict.
It is but justice to state that the defendant repeatedly in
Court not only denied having used the most offensive of the
expressions with. which he was charged, but also declared that
he neither had .heard of nor believed that there was any imPu-
tatien on the character of Mr. Duffield.

LAW ,INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF. CHANCERY, Amur. 3.
DEL/,OT V. DETASTET.

The arguments in this CRSe were resumed to day. The LORD
CHANCEI,LOR said he would look into the papers, and give his
opinion upon it on Tuesday.

GARRICIC V. CAMDEN.

Mr. HART moved, that Mrs. Payne, who was entitled to en
Bth share of the property, should be allowed to send in a solici-
tor to be present at the proceedings in the Master's office, upon
the sale of Mr. Garriokis villa.

The motion was opened by the SOLICIT 011.-CE NE RAL and
Mr. PEPYS; on the ground that there was no necessity for a
measure which was calculated to cast a reflection on the Mas-
ter, and on Mr. Carr, the solicitor, who had proposed becom-
ing a purchaser.
The-property, it appeared, had been advertised several times,
and no person would bid more than 4,0001. for it. The price
fixed upon it by valuation was 4,800/. ; and 11r. Carr was al-
lowed by the Court to propose himsrlf as the purchaser, on con-
dition that he first lodged 1,000/. in the hands of the Account-
ant-General ; which, however, (it was stated,) he had not yet
done.

The CHANCELLOR granted the motion, observing, that he
would never allow a solicitor in a cause to become a purchaser
of the property, without directing that another solicitor be ap-
pointed to act adversely to him. In saying this, however, he
did not mean to cast imputation upon anybody.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Arun 3.
EX-PARTE SHAW AND OTHERS, IN RE HOWARD AND
GIBBS.

In this case an action had l)cen commenced against the as-
signees by Durwood, the messenger, for the amount of his bill.
The defendants said a deficiency had occurred in the properly
-entrusted to Burwootl, and claimed a set-off.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he should direct an inquiry
to ascertain whether he was chargeable by the estate for the de-
ficiency-of the property entrusted to his care, and at the same
tune he should express his opinion, that if he was chargeable
with any loss, it must form! part of a set-offin the action he had
commenced against the assignees.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

GLOUCESTER ASSIZES, APRIL a

THE STAFFORD BARONY. '
SPECIAL JURY.—Tnr KING v. COOKE AND OTHERS.
Mr. TALFORD opened the pleadings, detailing the diiKrent
counts of the indictment; seven in number.

Mr. TAUNTON stated the case. He thought it one in which
the defendants would not have called witnesses; but under-
standing, from what had passed, that it was their intention to
do so he should he compelled to pursue a course very different
from that which he had originally proposed. The charge against
the defendants was, in fact, that of having put their heads toge-
ther, and devised means of obtaining money under false pre-
tences. Sir G. Jerningham was the party against whom these
malpractices had been ,devised, and to whose injury they were
brought into action. The defendant Cooke was a Solicitor, and
might be supposed to know that the law was sufficient to esta-
blish a legal right. The meerest school-boy knew that an
undisputed possession of more than fifty years of property,
no matter how originally acquired, gave a good and legal
claim to such property in the absence of title deeds on the part
of those claiming the rightful possession. Not upon this point,
however, did his client mean to found his claim to the valuable
possessions which the defendants had as illegally attempted to
get in their hands. Sir George was a gentleman of most an-
cient family, of lineage the most direct, and of connections the
most respectable and honourable. Such were the titles of the
plaintiff, and it would ere long be seen of what-nature those
intended to be opposed to them really were. In order, how-
ever, to meet the misrepresentations which, had been most
industriously made, he should enter into some description
of the lineal descent of Sir George Jerningham, as a more
historical statement, as recorded in Acts of Parliament, ana
enrolled in the archives of the .High Court of Chancery. Sir
George is lineally descended from the Duke of Bucking-
ham, who was attainted and beheaded in the reign of Henry
the Eight. On his death, and after the attainder, to blood of
the Barons Stafford was restored to Henry, one of the sons of
the attainted Dille. In the reign of Charles 11. a great
grand-daughter of this Henry married a Sir William' Howard,
-who was then created Baron Stafford. This Nobleman was con-
victed of treason on the perjury of Titus Oates,' and was be-
headed 1680. He however could not make his heirs forfeit
rights which they inherited from his mother, as Baroness
Stafford, in whom, and in whose heirs, the fee-simple of the
estate and title were undeniably vested. - From this Baroness,
and from one of her heirs who was created Earl of Stafford,
the present Sir George Jerningham was lineally descended.
The Learned Counsel then stated the nature of an applica-
tion made by Mr. James Cooke to Sir George Jerningham in
November, 1822. This application however was of course un-
successful, and the conspiracy to defraud wasthen first embodied,
James Stamp Sutton Cooke forthwith gave a dinner at his lodg-
ings or house at Somers Town ; one of his guests, named
Crank, he appointed his. Secretary, receiving 50/. for such.
appointment. On the 30th of December, they met at Stafford,
-and associating themselves with one Smith, a Sheriff's officer,
went .on the same day to Stafford Castle, which was not then
completed. This Castle was shewn to strangers ; and when .the
party arrived, Smith told the old woman who lived in and ex-
hibited the Castle that the two strangers with him wanted to
see the Castle ; they were admitted, and then it was that the
defendant Cooke declared his brother the heir of the estate,
and took possession ; he then endeavoured to bribe the old
woman, who, however, instead of obeying the mandate of her
new Lord, Richard, Baron StaffOrd, applied instanter to Mr.
Seckerson, the steward of Sir George, and who, on his ar-
rival at the Castle, finding Mr. Crank, the Secretary of
the new Baron, left in possession,' forthwith ejected him. The
party immediately set to work. They first enlisted- a Stafford
schoolmaster of the name of Jenkinson, who was the other de-
fendant to this indictment. The next Step was to publish no-
tices addressed to the tenants of Sir George, Mr. James Cooke
having-taken his abode in thelown. There, in all -due pomp,
lgegenalts h or
Baron
to
n
and apparently oppressed with business, lie received such of the
tenan tsTofhe first
rrsGt enoorgtiec'eassehrivsed noticeswas d
haadtedinodnucteldieto3ip,
tahy a. e
visit.
'ember, 1822, from Stafford Castle, and cautioned the tenants
,•
not to pay any rents to l(i. Jerningham or
Cooke, leis
a s a
any other person than to Richard Sutton
•
of Stafford, or to his bailiff; steward, or agent. On the Ist
January the second notice was dated. It was in effect a eau.
Coi

tion to the tenants,. thatlf they did not pay their, rents and ivy
rears to Baron Richard they would be distrained on. It offered
!. a. reduction of one half the rents, for the ensuing seven years;and pledged the new Baron not to, ejectany one of his ten-auto
from his occupancy. The first thing the defendant .dick;Tto,
get the money, was resorting to acts of trespass and violence
of .a description. such as had never been seen since the days
of the Civil Wars. Men were. employed to cut down timber
on the estate. To quiet the scruples of these men an axe .was
drawn round the bottom of the trunk of such as were to
be cut down, under. the persuasion that this ceremony gaye
a legal title to the cutting down. Many were the trees that fell
in pursuance of this system of devastation, and even sold to
those who had no objection to advance money upon such secu-
rity. Sir George, however, obtained.an injunction agrainstahe
further cutting down of trees, this plan waslor the time aban-
doned. James Sutton Cooke also appointed game-keepers
to the manors of Sir G. Jerningham:— For these acts of trees
pass and fraud the present indictment •was .preferred. On the
15th of January Baron Richard visited his barony; 'not, how.
ever, with all his baronial hocoars,not in his baronial splendour,
but under the appellation of simple Mr. Brown ; and as a mean
of further disguise, he put up at a humble public-house, drank
ale and smoked tobacco at night, and drank rum and milk in the
MNPlThip,'„ This disguise was certainly effectual, for the host Odle
Inn never for a single instant dreamt that had he been honoured
by the patronage and support of so noble a guest as Baron
Richard. Stafford. He shortly after repeated his visit; again
smoked tobacco, and again drank ale ; but still his Lordship
thought proper to travel incagnifo. On the 13th • Jan. a third
notice was served upon the tenantry, fixing ,tha Ifith January
for the payment of rents, at the George Inn, for which receipts
were to be given by James Stamp Sutton- Cooke. Jenkinson
was stationed at the room door in which the steward of Sir
George was sitting to receive the rents, at the Swan Inn, for -
the purpose of using such misrepresentations as should induce
the tenants to repair to the George Inn to pay their rents to
the agent of Baron Richard. The result was, that James
Stamp Sutton Cooke, as the Solicitor, and young Crank as the
agent, received from some few intimidated tenants the amount
of 101. for rent, and he believed a whole hatful of halfpence.
What was the next step ? A distress for rent was put into
the house of Mr. Seckerson, Sir George's agent. whilst he was
attending his professional duties at the Statierd Quarter Ses-
sions ; constables were called in, and the agents of Cooke ex-
pelled. A second distress was put in the house in the after-
noon, by tour men forcing themselves up stairs, and intruding
upon the privacy of Mrs. S. and some female visitors
of that lady, in . a manner he should not then describe.
James Stamp Sutton Cooke next applied to an old maiden
lady named Mary Peake, for the purpose of endeavouring to
induce her to acknowledge his brother as her landlord. . For
this purpose he told her that Sir George had given up posses-
sion to his brother, who only was kept out of his right by Mr.
Seckerson. He further said, that the House of Lords, the
House of Commons, and the King himself, had. ackoowledg-
ed the rights and titles of his Noble brother. With this
maiden lady, however, he was unsuccessful in every particu-
lar. Under pretences, equally false however, he obtained
the suns of eight pounds from a man named Rogers and
171. 10s. from another named Dudley. To these men he
produced a letter, which he said he had received from Sir
George, although he had never received any letter of any
description whatever from that Baronet. The time having
arrived when the Noble Lord was to make his formal en-
try into Statiiird, the btli March, it took place with all due
display of ribands. First appeared a hired London carriage ;
on one of the pannels were painted the arms of the Statibrd
family, on the dickey-box sat Baron Richard and the Hon.
James Stamp Sutton Cooke, inside sat Mr. Miles, the first who
had as yet appeared, tag-rag and bobtail followed the carriage,
the horses were unyoked, and that which is usually done on
such occasions was done by the mob of the day. Speeches
were also made, and as Staflbrd is famous for its ale, that
potent beverage was plentifully distributed. A dinner was
also given, at which speeches were again made, and the false
pretensions previously made by the Hon. J. Cooke were re-
peated by Baron Richard. The next act of the farce, or
comedy, was the holding of the Courts Leet and Courts Ba-
ron, preceded of course by formal notices in the usual tech-
nical form of words. These were signed " John Russell
Miles, Chief Steward." On the day fixed the Courts were
duly held—a Mr. Ward, acting as bailiff, with a wand in his
hand duly painted and emblazoned, and John Riissell Miles,
officiating as chief steward. Mr. Seckerson remonstrated, and
warned the defendants of the illegality of their proceedings;
but his remonstrances and warnings were unheeded, -and the
Courts were held with much form and ceremony. The Learned
Counsel, after stating the nature of his evidence, observed that
the conduct of the defendant was unexampled in the annals of
imposture. He concluded by informing the Jury that they
could not find, on the present occasion, a verdict against Mr.
Richard Cooke or Mr. Miles; that it was not necessary he
should prove Mr. James Cooke to have conspired% with Mr.
Jenkinson to defraud Sir George Jerningham, as Lordship,
would inform them that, if the former was proved to have frau-
dulently conspired with either his brother Richard or with
Miles, he would be equally liable to their verdict against him
as if he had been proved to have conspired with. Jenkinson,
although neither of the other two defendants appeared to this
indictment.. Miles,
etamteedntth; aatnildlrt.haßtiteillartiiCngoo,skeilletandchr
heaaddelddlohwisedpe7ie-
one of the defendants, was out of the country.)
Mr. James Stamp Sutton Cooke stated to the Court, that as
one of the defendants of this indictment, it was his intention to
avail himself of his right as an Englishman to conduct his own
cause. He also suggested the propriety of the witnesses on each
side being ordered to withdraw.
plea.ag (eitn wa:
sb

His LORDSHIP—You are entitled to the claim you have
made, Sir.

Witnesses were then examined at great length, who detailed
the circumstances mentioned in the Learned Counsel's speech.
His Lordship charged the Jury, that there was not a doubt
but that the acts charge amounted to a conspiracy in point of
law, nor was it necessary that a previous meeting for the pur-
pose of conspiracy should be proved. No matter with which of the
other defendants. Cooke had been proved to have conspired,
whether with his brother Jenkinson, or Miles, it it was proved
with respect to either, although two of the three were not now
on their trial, it would be quite sufficient to establish the alle-
gations on the record. With respect to -Jenkinson he could
not think the evidence had proved any conspiracy against him.
With respect to Cooke the case was entirely different. His
Lorpship said he had taken 26 full folios of notes this day, and
if the Jury had any, doubt on the subject; he was certainly
bound, late as it was, to go through the evidence at large. He
was perfectly ready to do so.
Several Jurors said they were quite satisfied, and there was
no necessity. for his Lordship to do so.
His LoitDsuip thought this the most outrageous case that
had ever came before him. lie called upon tile Jury to recol-
lect that we were living 'in a country governed by law, and that
if arbitrary acts, such as those proved against Cooke, were to
be tolerated, there was no saying what property would or would
not be safe from the operations of persons similarly disposed.
He thought that the act of conspiracy was not fully proved as
to Miles, but that it was so with the brother.
The Jury,
againstury,alt Cookeer fiveand
minutes
acquitteddeer jkaetoionilisroenti.irned a verdict
of