The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-12 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS

.111,
(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)
FRIDAY. JULY 9.
SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read ; Motion made, and Question
proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair :"
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That"
to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " there
he laid before this House so much of the Correspondence or
Reports of the Inspectors under the Act 10 Vic. c. 7 (with
the name, rank, and residence of the parties referred to), as
sustains the statements made Ly the Commissioners of Relief
in their third Report, condemnatory of the conduct of com-
mittees, or of individuals, in carrying out the provisions of
the said Act" instead thereof :—Motion made, and Question
put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of
the Question." The House divided :

MAJORITY—AYES, 81.
Ainsworth, Peter Ellice, Edward Flumridge, Captain
Anson, Colonel Gore, Robert FriCe, Sir R.
Baine, Walter Gower, Leveson Repton, G. W. J•
liaring, F. T. Greene, Thomas Rich, Henry
Baring, W. B. Grey, Sir G. Richards, Richard
Barnard, E. G. Grosvenor, Lord R. Roßeston, Colonel
Berkeley. Craven Hastie, Archibald Russell, Lord J.
Berkeley, Captain Hatton, Capt, in Rutherford, A.
Bodkin, W. H. Hawes, Benj. Shell, R. L.
Bowring, Dr.
.:2 Howard, C. W. Smith, R. V.
Brotherton, J, Jervis, Sir John Somerset, Lord G.
Buck, L. W. Labouchere, Henry Spooner, R.
Buller, Charles
Lmyi gi
do nn,,,aGy,e
ll.n.
Langston, J. H Staunton, Sir G.
Byng, G. S. Lawson, A. Strutt, Edward
Clive, R. H. Lemon, Sir Charles Tancred, H. W.
Courtenay, Lord
aaarndingelyto, Tn.;:n.
S.
Craig, W. G. Masterman, J. Townely, John
Denison, J. E. Manic, Fox
St. John INT':
Vane, Lord H.
Divett, Edward
Dodd, George Miles,:P. W. S. Walker, Richard
Douglas, J. S. Milnes, R. M. Ward,
Duckworth, Sir J. Mitchell, T. A. Wilshere, T. W.
Duncan, George Molesworth, Sir W. Wood, Sir Charles
DuncombelA. Morris, David Wynn, C• W.
Dundas, Admiral Morison, General
Dundas,iSir David Mostyn, E.
Ebrington, Viscount Pattison, J.
Egerton,X. T. Philips, G. R.

TELLERS.
Tanen, IL ,
Pater, John

MINORITY—NOES, 19.
Aglionby, H. A. Gregory W. H. Wakley, Thomas
Blake, Martin J. Hamilton, G. A. Williams, W.
Borthwick, Peter Hayes, Sir E. 4 Yorke, Henry B.
Burke, T. J. Hume, Joseph
Clements, Viscount Jones, Captain
Cole, Hon. H. A. Lowther, Hon. Col.
Collett, John Pechell, Captain
Ferraud, W, B. Vesey, T

TELLERS.
Norreys, Sir D.
Ross, D. R.

Motion made, and Question put, " That a sum not exceed-
ing 36,2141. be granted to her Majesty, for Non-conforming
and other Ministers, Ireland." The Committee divided :

MAJORITY-AYES, 68.
Aglionby, H. A. Dundas, Sir David Morpeth, Viscount
Anson, Colonel Ebrington, Viscount Mostyn, E. M.i
Arkwright, G. Ferguson, Sir R. Neeld, Joseph
Arundel, Earl of Fox, C. E. Newdegate, C. N.
Bankes, George Grey, Sir G. Ogle, S. C.
Barkly, Henry Grogan, E. Paget, Lord A.
Baring, F. . T. Hamilton, G. A. Palmerston, Vis.
Baring, Thomas Hatton, Captain Parker, John
Bellew, R. M. Hawes, Benjamin Pinney, William
Bennet, P. Hayes, Sir E. Russell, Lord J.
Bentinck, Lord G. Hayter, W. G. Rutherfurd, A.
Berkeley, Captain Henley, J. W. Sheil, R. L.
lodkin, William H. Howard, C W.G. Sheridan, R. B.
Borthwick, P. Howard, E. G. Somerville, Sir W.
Buller, Charles Hudson, G. Spooner, Richard
Burke, T. J. Inglis, Sir R. Strait, Edward
Burrell, Sir C. Jervis, Sir John Tancred, H. W.
Byng, G. S. Jolliffe, Sir W G. H. Ward, H. G.
Colvile, C. R.
Csurtenay, Lord Wood, Sir Charles
Craig, W. G. Lygon, General
Dawson, T. V. Law,LabouccheEre., Henry Watson, Henry
31acaulay, T. TELLERS.
Dickinson, F. H. 31aule, Fox Tufnell, Henry
1 Dundas, Admiral Monahan, J. H. Rich, Henry

Bretherto n, J. MINORITY—aIpNOES, 13.
Wakley, T.
Brown, W. Perfect, Robert
Duncan, George Rice, E. R.
Hindley Charles Talbot, C. R. Williams,TELLERS.
W.
Hume, Joseph Thornely, Thomas Bowring, Dr.
Lowther Colonel Trelawny, J. S.

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES (IRELAND) BILL
Reported ; Amendments agreed to ;--Amendment pro-
posed, page 5, line 29, to leave out the words " or tithe
Question put, "That the words or tithe' stand part of the
Bill." The House divided :
MAJORITY—AYES, 38.

Arundel, Earl of HaStie, A.
Rich, Henry
Bellew, R. M. Hawes, B. Russell. Lord John
Berkeley, Captain Howard, E. G. Rutherfurd, A.
Bodkin, W. H. Jervis, Sir John Somerville, Sir W.
Brown, W. Maxie, Fox Talbot, C. ft.
Brotherton, Joseph Labouchere, Henry ltrutt, Edward
Buller, Charles Moffatt, George Thornely, T.
Craig, W. G. Monahan, J. H. Wakley, Thomas
Dickinson, F. H. NorPeth, Viscount Watson, W. H.
Dundas, Admiral Mostyn, E. M. L. Wood, Sir Charles
Dundas, Sir D. Napier, Sir Charles
Greene, Thomas Paget, Lord A. TELLERS.
Grey, Sir George Palmerston, Viscount Tufnell, H.
Hallyburton, Lord Pechell, Captain Parker. John

MINORITY—NOES, 9.
Yeripion, Sir R. Spooner, Richard
Mayes, Sir E. TELLERS.
Jolliffo, Sir W. H. Hamilton, 0. A.
Newdcgate, N. Grogan, Edward

Batikes, G.
Bennet, Philip
Christopher, It. A.
Colvile, C. R.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 10.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly after Twelve
o'clock.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Mr. HUME moved that the petitions of brewers and
others in and near the metropolis, against the Thames
Conservancy Bill, be printed with the votes.—Motion
agreed to.

LAW IN TELLIGEN CE.
COURT OF ( 1-IfrIACEI?Y, ort,?/ 1n-
Tike LORD CIIANCI.I.I.-II • t;le LiDUOID'S
Inn, and heard appeals to-day.

ROBINSON V. WALL.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, which came before his Lordship upon appeal from
the decision of the Taster of the H Us. The bill was
filed for the specific perlf,vmance of an agreement en-
tered into by the plaintiffs as the assignees of Sir Thomas
Champneys, an insolvent, for sale to the defendant,
Flight, of the interest in certain property to which the
insolvent was entitled in right of his wife, who had a
life interest in it. The assignees being desirous of selling
the interest of the insolvent, who was advanced in life,
Lord Mostyn, whose wife was interested in the pro-
perty, subject to the interests of Sir Thomas and Lady
Champneys, made a prcposal to the assignees for the
purchase of their interest. He was anxious, also, to
purchase the interest of Lady Champneys, and he offered
to pay 35.0001. for the interest of the assignees, and to
pay 4001. a year to Lady Champneys for her interest.
An arrangement was come to on this footing, which was
carried into effect by a deed, dated 13th August, 1838.
It recited that the assignees were of opinion that it
would be advantageous to the creditors to accept Lord
Mostyn's offer, but they had no power to sell except
by auction; that they were willing to put the pro-
perty up to sale by auction, and if Lord Mostyn should
attend and bid 35,0001., and there was no higher bidding,
he should become the purchaser at that sum; but if there
was a higher bidding at the sale, it should be accented.
And Lord Mostyn to contracted purchase the interest o
the assignees, and to pay 35,0001. foriithe same, and to
pay an annuity of 400/, to Lady Champneys for her in-
terest. And it was provided that the contract should
be deemed one entire contract. And the assignees were
to procure the assent of the creditors to the arrangement,
and the sale was to be without reserve, except so far as
the bidding of 35,0001. by Lord Mostyn might be con-
sidered a reserved bidding. By this arrangement the
assignees secured a bidding of 35,000/. for their interest.
They procured the assent of the creditors, who passed a
resolution that the reserved bidding should be 35,0001.;
and on the 10th of Newember, 1838, the sale by auction
took place. It was expressly stated in the particulars
of sale that this property was sold without reserve.
There was no reference to the contract with Lord
Mostyn. There were many biddings at the sale, and it
was said that a bidding was ultimately made, on behalf
of Lord Mostyn, of 49,8001., and that Wall, as agent of
Flight, then bid 50,000/., who became the purchaser at
that sum, and the usual contract was signed. Sir
Thomas Champneys died in November, 1839, and this
bill was filed in the following April. The bill was to
compel Mr. Flight to perform his contract. Perform-
ance was resisted on several grounds. The first was
that the estate was professed to be sold without reserve,
and that no notice was given of the agreement with Lord
Mostyn, securing a bidding of 35,000/. On the
case coming before the Master of the Rolls,
that Learned Judge was of opinion that whilst
the agreement remained in force, the sale ought
not to have been professed to be made without reserve.
A reserved bidding was a right to make a bidding to
prevent a sale for less than a certain sum. Lord Mostyn
had entered into an obligation to advance the price to
55,0001. It did not appear to him to make any differ-
er.ce whether the bidding was made by the vendors per-
sonally or their agent, or some other person, who, for a
consideration moving from him, had entered into a con-
tract to do it. The auction appeared to him to have
commenced in error. It was from the beginning with

reserve, when it was expressed to be without reserve.
He thought, in the absence of notice of the agreement
with Lord Mostyn, the auction was improperly con
ducted, and that the contract was one which ought not
to be specifically performed. The bill must be dismissed
with costs, except as to the costs occasioned by the
denial of Flight, in his answer, that Wall was his agent,
a fact which was admitted. From this judgment the
parties appealed to the Lord Chancellor. His Lordship
this morning, after going at some length into the case,
stated his opinion clearly to be, that the Court below
had come to a right conclusion, and he should therefore
order that judgment to be affirmed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOICS COURT, July 9.
(Before Sir J. KNIGHT BRUCE.)
BLAIR V. ORMOND.
This bill was filed for the purpose of recovering the
sum of 877/. 4s. Id.. Navy Five per Cent. Annuities and
the dividends of the same, which one Jose ph Buckley
lent to Thomas Wood, and which the latter alleged to
have been repaid or forgiven.
The plaintiff, Mr. James Blair, a solicitor of Uttoxeter,
is the surviving executor of Thomas Buckley Bridger,
who was the nephew and only relative of Joseph Buckley,
the lender, and is also the administrator of Joseph
Buckley. The defendants, Mr. William Ormond and
Mr. William Hayward, are the trustees and executors
of the will of Thomas Wood, the borrower.
The facts out of which the suit arose appear to be as
follow :—Buckley was a ticket porter in London, and on
the death of his brother, some time before 1812, he be-
came possessed of about the above-mentioned sum of
stock. Thomas Wood, who was originally a Vintner's
porter, in London, formed an acquaintance with Buckley,
and the former lodged with him and his wife Prudence
from 1796 to 1802, when Wood bought some property at
Charlton, when Buckley accompanied him from London,
and paid 10s. or 12s. a week for board and lodging.
Every half-year Buckley went from Charlton to London
to receive his dividends. Upon representations made to
him, Buckley early in 1812 sold out part of his stock
and lent the produce, 1001., to Wood, and afterwards
sold out the remainder, and received the produce, 7331.,
in Bank notes, which he took to the house of Wood's
nephew, who sewed up the money in Buckley's shirt-
sleeve, under his arm, and apprised his uncle of the fact.
On the sth of December, 1812, Buckley lent the 7331.
to Wood, and Wood's solicitor prepared a bond for him
to Buckley for 2,0004, conditioned to transfer 877/. 4s.
Id., Navy Five per Cent. Annuities, and to pay a sum
equal to the dividends in the meantime; and also a me-
morandum by way of equitable mortgage, or a deposit of
title deeds, relating to a house and land at Charlton, be-
longing to Wood, and which deeds were, therefore, de-
livered to Buckley, but afterwards came back to the pos-
session of Wood. Buckley continued to live as a
boarder and lodger with Wood at Charlton until his
death. which happened in September, 1842, and during
that time Wood supplied him with moaey to pay for
clothes, and with very small sums of money, such as two
crown pieces, which Buckley carefully preserved as
pocket pieces. He frequently demanded payment of his
n oney from Wood, and also possession of the deeds, and
when very troublesome Wood used to humour him by
talking about a nobleman's deughter who he thought
was in love with him. Immediately after Buckley's
death, which happened after a week's illness, during
which he was insensible, Wood directed his nephew to
write a letter to the nephew of Buckley, which letter
Wood signed, informing him of Buckley's death, and in-
forming him that he had lived to spend all his money,
and that nothing was left; and on going over to Charlton
the same story was repeated, excepting only that it was
said Buckley had left an old coat with silver buttons,
two crown pieces, and a watch. These articles the ne-
phew Bridger refused to take, and demanded his uncle's
deeds, but could not get them, and then went and con-
sulted the defendant, Mr. Ormond, a solicitor at Wan-
tage, who declined to act for Bridger as he was solicitor
toe Wood. He, however, made some inquiry of
Wood, but then declined further interference.
Wood, the debtor, died in March, 1843, having. by will,
devised his real estates to the defendants in trust for
sale, and appointed them executors. Bridger having
died, but that fact being unknown to William Wood, the
nephew of Wood the debtor, a letter was written by
William Wood to him, offering to disclose the facts re-
lear, to the loan of the money. This letter was for-
warded by Bridger's surviving partner to Mr. Blair, the
plaintiff, who thereupon investigated the matter and
took proceedings, giving notice to the several persons
who had agreed to buy Wood's estate not to complete,
for that he had a claim by reason of the bond. The de-
fence set up by the answer was that Buckley gave Wood
the money, and on his death-bed acknowledged that he
had done so; and the statute of limitation was set up as
a bar to the claim if any; so long ago as 1824, the de-
ceased, Bridger, knew every fact relating to the case, but
never took proceedings, and that, although Mr. Wood
died early in 1843, yet the bill was not filed till the latter
part of 1844. Buckley died on the 11th of Sept., 1824,
and the bill was filed on the 4th of Sept., 1844, seven
days within the 20 years.
Mr. Swanston and Mr. Wright appeared for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Russell, Mr. Kenyon Parker, Mr. Heathfield,
and Mr. Haynes for the defendant.
His HONOUR said, that if the defendants required to
try the validity of the bond by an action at law, he
thought they were entitled to it ; but the plaintiff's
counsel could be heard against such right.
Mr. RUSSELL said he wished to try the action.
Mr. SWANSTON was heard in opposition to the right to
bring an action ; and Was followed by
Mr. WRIGHT, who contended that in sucha as
was no need of an action. The plaintiff' had craaedtehoeuret
such a case as entitled him to a decwreehoenintihgehetvhidaeznarcde
as it stood. If the plaintiff went to ltk ,
his case by the caprice, thetfodllay, lintdtletheasigyneoorapnlecenaouflad
jury. Even in the presetnossepup
for. If a jury were
believe it, verdicts were
food,
or drink, when half
shut up, without Sre, or
would not toss u p for a
starved, who could say they
verdict?
His HONOUR remarked that the Learned Judge now
on the bench had allowed a jury water, holding that
that element did not come within the description of
drink.
Mr. WRIAMT would not like to trust even a water-
drinking jury. It might happen that all the jury but
one might be of the same opinion, and yet the eleven
might be beaten by the one. Such a case did happen in
Ireland, and the one who stood out against his companions
admitted that he could not afford to convict a prisoner,
who, if convicted, would have been hanged, because he
was the last life in his, the juryman's lease
His Hosioust said, that if the counsel for the de-
fendant would consent that he should give his decision
on the whole case without any reference being made to
the jury, he would do so.
Mr. RUSSELL declined to accede to the proposition.
The defendant ,was entitled to have the right tried at
law.
His Hosionn gave judgment, in which he detailed
the whole facts with great minuteness, and said, that
considering the date of the time when Mr. Bridger,
through his solicitor, Mr. Simpson, communicatedt with
Mr. Ormond knew, when, if not before, hknewtla
Ormond had been or was Mr. Wood's solicitor, and thatnd
the
Mr. Bridger then having his suspici
, sstill lived for
know, at at least,of hitshca eon
nt
Wood lived three
teen years and took outline a
years after and nothing done;step Mr. Blair, the executor,
of Bridger, and Bridger hini:.elt, must be considered as
identical. In such a case it was
bondnot proper that the
Court should interfere unless the were established
at law; an action must therefore be tried on the bond.
The bill must be dismissed with costs as to the pur-

chtmers. end-in all other respict,s the cause must sttn
over until after judgment in the action.
ir, of l ttoxt tk r ;
Messrs. Fennell, Child, and lit lly.

for Mr.
or dcleLdants,

COURT OF QUEEN%-37—B,tivC11, July 10.
(Sittings at :Nisi Prins. at Guildhall, before Lord DEN-
MAN and a Common Jury.)
CRIM C. N.-WI:STON r• LILL.
Mr. Dowdesweil and Mr. Clea,i}y were counsel for
the plaintiff; and Mr. llumfrey for the defendant.
Tt.is was an action for criminal conversation with the
plaintiff's wife. The damages were laid at 1,0001.
Mr. DOWDESWFLL, in opening the case to the jury,
expressed his great regret that in the absence of Mr.
Martin it had fallen to his lot to state the case of the
plaintiff to them. The plaintiff was a person who, at the
time of contracting his marriage with his wife carried on
business as a butcher. The marriage had taken place about
four years ago ; he then gave up his business as a but-
cher, and took a public-house, called the Sun and Sports-
man, in Marylebone, which was exactly opposite some
extensive mews kept by the defendant, who had also a
house in the Regent's Park. He frequented the plain-
tiff's public-house, and a familiarity sprung up between
plaintiff's wife and the defendant. At first this was a
slight familiarity, but afterwards it became stronger, and
the defendant had been seen sitting with his arm round
her waist. The plaintiff gave up the public-house and
went to reside in another place, but the intimacy was
continued, and the defendant was in the habit ofne tf
Weigffnodhi
Wnae
sa
obliged g
to the house when the plaintiff was from home ; but the
defendant being a married man, and not very young,
the plaintiff did not think anything of it. In the begin-
nn
t, .
dnt
iaiffnygainnodf a
the
hch
aee r predrieaefges
ene
,nd tat
defendant
sits
hhr
00 i
u_st
ti
dwu
siagpesoaagedmrorrnour
tarwnnt
so:g_he,,
tunt
the
narpdt l
oaciit
nh et
hp
el af ians -t
waswin dnoowt
however, ttooof
tgcthiaotelelppf elsewhereloaarrilnohtuiimfplaintiff
t tori
iel
callril :nt wr noe
hisde r
wht
ihofrme e:
een
,bgo:'
het ael
uo cpwk .0
onn
ltotookitnhge
in, he saw the defendant and his (the plaintiff's) wife in
such a position as could leave no doubt in his mind of the
fact of criminal intercourse having taken place. While
the plaintiff was standing in a state of the greatest asto-
nishment and misery, the _defendant came out, passed
the plaintiff, and jumped upon his horse, which was
waiting for him, and rode off. They might easily con-
ceive the state of mind of the plaintiff. He left his house,
roamed about the streets all night, and the next
morning he went to the house of the mother of his wife,
and related to her what he had seen. The mother called
upon the defendant, who at first said there bad only been
a slight difference between himself and the husband, but
eventually admitted the fact, and begged for pardon ;
but yet the defendant would now attempt to say that the
act had not been perpetrated. He called on the Satur-
day, and requested to see the plaintiff, and an interview
was arranged for the following Tuesday, at which the
mother of the plaintiff's wife was present, and on that
day the defendant expressed the greatest contrition for
what he had done, and offered to make any compensation
if the matter could be arranged. These were the facts
of the case. It was impossible the wife, who had one
little child, could ever again be the inmate of her hus-
band's house, and he now came to this court to ask for
compensation—a compensation which must always be
inadequate to the wrong done. He should call his wit-
nessef, and leave the case in their hands, and they would
say what damages the defendant should pay.
Mary Ann Charlton—l was present at the marriage
of the plaintiff and his wife in September, 1843. I have
visited them two or three times, and they appeared to
live on very affectionate terms.
Mr. Smith—l am the mother of the plaintiff's wife.
The plaintiff was then a butcher. He afterwards sold
his business and took the Sun and Sportsman public•
house in Marylebone. Opposite to that were the defend-
ant's livery stables. My daughter then had one little
b' y. I visited her, and she and her husband lived on
very aff ctionate terms. He was remarkably kind to
her. He sold that business in April last, and went to
live in Caledonia-n.ad. He came to me on the fast day;
he was in a most distracted state of mind. I went to
the defendant's in consequence on the following day,
and saw him. I then asked him what was the matter
between him and Mr. Weston, and he said that he did
not know. I afterwards saw him aglsain on a Satur-
day, and he , g zed pardon, and denied that any-
thing ciminal occurred. He said he was very sorry
for what had taken place, and begged to see Mr.
W eston. I afterwards saw Mr. Weston, and then Mr.
Hill, and I told the latter what the former had said. I
asked him if he was aware he had parted man and wife.
He said he would do anything, either in money or any-
thing else, if Mr. Weston would but forgive him. I
said, if I could get Mr. Weston to see him, I would send
and let him know. Mr. Weston consented to see him on
the following Tuesday, and it was arranged that I should
be present. We met on the Tuesday. Mr. Hill was in
great agitation. Mr. Hill asked what had taken place.
Mr. Weston asked him if he did not see him in a certain
position, and Mr. Hill admitted that it was not a false-
hood, and begged Mr. Weston to forgive him. Mr.
Weston said, how can I forgive you when you have
ruined me and my family for life ? Mr. Hill begged me
to have another interview with Mr. Weston, but Mr.
Weston refused. I had seen Mr. Hill at Mr. Weston's
before this ; they were on very intimate terms.
Cross- examined—When Mr. Hill came to the house a
person was placed to hear all that took place. I ad-
vised that. He was in an adjoining room, with the
door open; his name is Summers. At the interview,
Mr. Hill said the fact of criminal intercourse bad not
taken place. My daughter now lives with me. I can't
tell how often the plaintiff comes to my house; he calls
to see the child, sometimes twice a week. Mr. Williams
succeeded Mr. Weston at the public-house. The plain-
tiff's wife has gone there to collect the debts, and what
money she collects she keeps. It is not requisite I
should tell you how much she has got. I never inquire
into other people's business. She sends her brother
Joseph. I have three sons. Mr. Hill is younger than
Mr. Weston; I believe him to be about thirty-five; my
daughter is twenty-three.
Charles Summers—l am a tobacconist. I called upon
the plaintiff on Tuesday, the 20th of March. I was
asked to remain. I went into the next room to that in
which the plaintiff and Mrs. Smith and Mr. Hill were.
Mr. Hill said he was come to apologise for what had
taken place. so help him God it had not taken place.
Mr. Weston said it would have taken place, if it had not.
Mr. Hill said, " My dear soul. it would have taken place,
I have no doubt; but it did not." Mr. Weston said,
you have been there when I have not been at home.
Mr. Hill said, yes, he had ; he did not deny it. I bad
never seen anything wrong between Mrs. Weston and
Mr. Hill when I called at the public-house.
Sarrah Watson—l was in the service of the plaintiff
at the public house on the 3d of May last year. Mr.
and Mrs.• Weston lived un very good terms. Mr. Hill
used to come very often. I saw nothing particular. I
have heard him call her my dear. She has said, Mr.
Hill, I'm not your dear."
Cross-examined—There was a barmaid in the room

at the time.
Mary Willis—l also lived servant in the public house.
The plaintiff appeared affectionate to his wife. Mr.
Hill came there frequently. I orce saw his arm round
Mrs. Weston's waist. I have seen them meet on the
stairs ; he has gone up stairs to the billiard rcom, and
Mrs. Weston has gone up stairs.
Cross-examined—Mr. Hill used to take Mr. Weston
out for a drive.
James Smith—l recollect Mr. Hill coming to Mr.
Weston's on the fast day, on horseback ; Mr. Weston
was out. I took care of the horse ; he remained for
two hours.
Crosseexamined—l am living with my mother now.
I have been to collect the debts at the public house by
the desire of Mrs. Weston. I have given the money
to her.
Hester Macey—l live with the defendant, in the Re-
gent's Park. On the day before the fast day an arrange-
ment was made between the plaintiff and defendant to meet
the neat day at Red Hill, near Edgeware, to shoot spar-
rows, and the ladies were to go in the evening. The
defendant was to call for the plaintiff.
Joseph Tewsbury—l lived with the defendant ; he
kept livery stables opposite the Sun and Sportsman.
Mr. HUNFREY then addressed the jury for the
case brought before a jury. His friend had de-
fendant. It had never been his fortune
cases, but here
common-
place phrases, which would do for
rs'friend had said that
utsoedseesuchathey were a little out of plabce.
on account of Mr. Hill beingb a
did not know what Mr.
young woman ;
the little familiarities which
Weston a wentn o(nidwernraenn, ontndnotliciresd.
old gentlemen, was about two
stead of being thisthanlilt.
Weston himself. He had never
years younger
Weston would think of that, but Mr. Hill,
heard a case so attempted to be got up ; but he in-
ut must
say that this husband had presented himself with as
little pretence of being injured and heartbroken as any
man he had ever known. This had taken place on the
fast day
ay. The attorney (Wednesday), and the writ had been issued on
the Frid
said, " Oh, I will issue the
writ; I shall get 21. 3s. 4d. for that; but then what is
your case?" Mr. Weston would theu look a little blank.
The attorney would say, you must have some evidence
upon which, by the advice of the attorney, the heart-
broken husband arranges with his mother-in-law that a
conversation should be got up, so that some person
might hear what was said, because if they could
manage a little admission that would tell before
the jury. The interview of Tuesday was to
take place, and he had no doubt Mr. Weston had
gone cif to the attorney, and said we have made a
good shot, much more effectual than shooting sparrows.
We have knocked down the bird, for Hill has
agreed to meet us. Then the attorney would say
and
admission is not so good if proved by one witneesisn,
the
therefore if you could just quietly get r
in one barrel and , .
gun ; put Mrs. Smith
e
shall be sure to have
next room to hear what is said would then beona double-
barrelledmrhim. It was. discreditable g
let tfho
fur
m a c
quarter nc e i%' e
tog eeact ['said, could this
cube
Summers in the other, and then
tweu a case of this sort
by conversation, and hie tjtie
wire ;
him sitting in the room
toba " ' listening• cconisi. was in
of an hour, while the worthy
"tsh at interview bilt
band ever again live withat
the other room. The defendant had said that nothing
criminal had taken place, and then the husband (no
doubt on the suggestion of the attorney) said it it had
not, don't you think it would? Ile had never seen a case
in which there Yves such evidence to lead a jury to the
conclusion of guilt. He submitted that the proof was
not sufficient to induce them to find a verdict for the
plaintiff.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, said it was a question
of facts for the jury. A great deal depended upon the
evidence of Mrs. Smith. Surely the feelings of the
mother of the wife who had committed such an act
were to be spared in some degree by all parties in the
evidence she had to give. Let them consider what her
feeiiugs atu,t have been during that conversation, and
what tier feelings must lie when in a public court of jus-
tice she came to state the guilt of her child. Were they
or not satisfit d that this had ti.letn place ? He thought
it a most serious case. If thtse parties were adulterers,
be thought the defendant had much aggravated the c