The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-05 00:00:00

(THIS DAY.)

This morning the inquiry was resumed. Before any
witness was called

Mr. PoLLocx complained that certain individuals had
misconducted themselves during the examination of some
witnesses yesterday, and he hoped some more secure place
would be appointed for the ladies to give their evidence in.
By order of Mr. Commissioner COLTMAN, Miss Clay-
ton was recalled, and stated that while she was giving evi-
dence yesterday, Mr. Laver, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Raymond
D'Arcy Newton, and his brother, looked at her in the most
impertinent manner, and stood and sat near her; she
heard them make observations respecting her; she was
quite confident she was the object of their remarks.
The COURT expressed their hope that those gentlemen
would take care not to repeat such conduct, for there was
no question it was highly improper.
Miss Catherine Hett (daughter of the Rev. Mr. Hett.
a vicar, and prebendary of Lincoln Cathedral) examined
by Mr. PoLLocx—She was a distant relation to Miss
B.gster. She had seen Miss Bagster twice when she vi-
sited Alderman Crowder. The first occasion was 13 years
ago, and the second four years ago. On the latter occa-
sion her visit lasted three days, and on the former six
weeks. On the last visit, Miss Bagster conducted herself
very violently. That occurred the second day of witness's
visit. They went in the carriage to call on a lady at
Nottingham place. Mrs. Banter and witness got out of
the carriage, and left Miss Bagster with the governess.
In a quarter of an hour they returned to the carri ige, and
found the governess Miss Sowerhy (now Mrs. Du-
marque) with her hair all "ver her face ; as soon as th
got into the carriage Miss B. attacked her moths', and tot.
her bonnet and lac —witneqs and Mrs. Bagster 11,1,1 het
hands to keep her quiet ; witness talked to her but mail.
no impression upon her. They returned home direct y,
instead of going further, at they had intended ; on cottain:,
home, witness saw Alderman Crowd• r and Mr. J. Crow et
his brother; witness told them what had occurred ; Mr. Jas.
Crowder advised his brother to have a keeper for Miss Bag-
ster. The Alderman said that as long as he lived that show,'
not be, but he expected it would come to that. This
was the first witness saw of her conduct. Tue follow-
ing morning her mother desired her to come to break
fast several times; when she came she threw a te 'spot).
at h-r mother, and then sat down to breakfast. At din
nor there was a party; Miss B was dress d for dinner
and had not sat down many minutes before she burst our
crying and lett the roam. Wi ness knew of no cause fir it.
Witness never attempted to converse with her but to a ,-
vise her to alter her conduct. She did not appear to un
derstand what she was doing.

Mr. LAW here interposed, and asked if this lady tv,,s
interested in Alderman Crovrder's property ?
Mr. Pot.toct; did not know.
To a question from Mr. POLLOCK, Witness said that in
the event of Miss 13curster dying without issue, she,
witness, would inherit a portion of her property.
Mr. LAW thought so, and therefore begged that all that
evidence be erased.

Mr. Pouocx—Why is not her evidence to be received ?
Mr. LAW--,&eatise if this lady cannot marry, slit
cannot have lawful issue, and therefore the witness is
swearing to have so many thousands of pounds in her own
pocket.
Mr. LAW read the will, from which it appeared that
the witness, and the other children of her parents, had a
contingent interest in a very large portion of the testator's
property.
The Coua'r having heard the objection argued on both
sides, were of opinion that the evidence of Miss Hett was
not receivable, as she had a direct interest in supporting
the commission of lun toy against Miqi &Tater.
The Rev. Samuel Smith, chaplain to the Lord Mayor,
stated that he was not acquainted with Alderman
Crowder's family before his mayoralty ; knew him in his
official capacity; it was witness's duty gn reside in th.
Mansion-house, and live with the Lord Mayor's family.
In November, 1629,when Alderman Crowder's family mini-
to reside at the Mantion-'iouse, the Alderman gave witness
instructions, which he then received as nsecret, but which
he conceived himself absolved from by the Alderman's death.
He told witness he would observe in Miss Bagater such de
ficiencies as would expose the family, and be thought i
necessary, as wirrei., was to become one of the family lb
the year, to. prepare him fur the frailties and d.ficiencies
might observe in his grandaughter's conduct, in oriel
that he might overlook them. Witness never even di-
vulged this to the Solicitor in the cause. In conse
pkence of this witness oh,erved, and could not fail t
observe, her conduct at =maid, and attended to her couver-

ration. Witness had frequent and daily opportunitiei of oh-
tying her conduct. Her conversatisn was extrernelychildish,
.hild of eight or nine years o!rl would he her enm-
tr Her manners were not those of a person brought
no in a respectablefatnily. During the first part of t"s
M tYoralty she was much in company, and her conduct had
a tendency frequently to expose herself and her family.
1I conduct was much observed while at table ; she
w mid turn round in her chair and look strangers in the
f ice. One day while she was sitting at table next to Mr.
Windus, a Member of the Corporation, her manners
towards that gentleman was extremely marked.
Mr. Windus was called to prove the conversation with
Miss Bagster on that occasion. He stated that he lived on
his property at Stamford-hill. He knew the late Alder-
man Crowder only as Lord Mayor of London, and himself
b ing in the corporation. On the occasion alluded to he
led out Miss Bagster from the drawing-r mm of the Man-
sion-house to the dining-room, and took his seat next to
her. Previous to that witness did not know who she
w is. There was a party of about fifty persons. After
a•king her to take a glass of wine, she broke silence, turned
riund, looked at witness anxiously in the face, trembled
exceedingly, and said she was very unused to company
aid hardly knew how to conduct herself. In a
le .v minutes after she said she was in love.
Witness stared with astonishment at sueh a deelarstion
from such an apparent child ; she ask, 1 if witness kn w
Mr. Jupp ; witness then asked her who she was, and she
said Alderman Crowder was her grandfather, and the Lady
.Mayoress (Mrs Bagster) was her mother. Witness was
not then aware that the Lady Mayoress was Alderman
Crowder's daughter. Witness asked if her father was
i!ive, and she said he was, but he was very unfortunate,
old she had never seen him. She said she was going to
he married to Mr. Jupp, and pointed nut a ring
which she said he had given her. Her conversation ap-
peared to be quite the contrary of that of a ra lanai per-
son. Witness then conceived her to be abut 16 years old ;
,hat was from her appearance only, bur from her cancer-
s:pion she appeared only to be eight or nine years old.
Wieness thought it due to the family to mention these
circumstances to both Lord Mayor, the D.puties of his
o ard, and to Mr. Sin th the chaplain.
The case was proceeding when our reporter left.

COURT OF C►+ANCERY-(THIS DAY.)

HAYNES L•. BRITTEL.

Mr. IIcorILLY applied up,in the minutes to have the
decree altered. He stated that the decree still reina fled in
the minutes, and that his application wa, in actor ranee
with the rwactlce of the Court.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN r-carded the application as
wholly irregular, and prayed that it might be distnissA
with costs. He complained of the conduct of the soli•
citor on the other side, in having sent a long exparte st ire_
went, complaining of the Judgment which the Cuo t had
elven, and offering argum-nts why it should be altered.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had never seen the era ement.
One of his officers state I that in cons.quence of its not
wing been consented to by both solicitors in the
cause, he had abstained from laying it before his Lordship.
His Lordship said that he would look back to his notes,
which were very full, and then state what ought to be
done.

CODRINGTON HOLDITCH.
In this case his Lordship stated that it would be neers.
nary to alter the issues which had been tram-.,, and as he
was uader the necessity of making a variation in the ordex
could not give colts.

HEALY V. JAGGER.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared to m,we in this ease
for a new trial, which wls likely to nc,upy the day.

VICE-CHANCERY CoURT—(THIS DAN.

JUDGMENT.-LADY'S MAGAZINE.-PAGE AND OTHERS

V. TOWNSEND.

His Honour theVicE CrrArrcEu.ort gave judgment rhis
morning in this case, which was argued b.-fore the Court
some days since on demurrer. Mr. Page and Mr. Corrien
two of the plaintiff, resided in t .is country, where they
published the Lady's MI yazine ; the two remaininT,
plaintiffs lived at Paris, and there published a work caller!
La Follet Courrier des Salons. The engravings appear-
ing in those were desi:rned and printed in Paris.
The plaintiffs alleged, that the defendant, who w
the proprietor and publisher of Townsend's Parisian
Costumes, had pirated the engravings spearing in their
work, by publishing them in his own, and filed their bill for
an Injunction, restraining him from doing so. To that bill
the defendant put in a demurrer, on the ground that, ac-
cording to the true construction of the Statutes relative to
copyright, no protection was given to prints and engrav-
ings printed and designed abroad, and only published in
England. The question was, whether, upon the true
construction of the Statutes, that was the law ?
His Honour, after commenting upon the three statutes
relative to this suhj ct, the Sth of George 11., chap. 13,
the 7th of George 111., chap. 38., and the 17,h of George
111., chap. 57, all of which the Court thought were to be
considered in pari materia, stated it to be his clear opinion
that the protection of the legislature was only gi►•en to
those works designed and printed in Great Britain, and
not to works designed abroad and only published in this
.ountry. The demurrer, therefore. mo-t he allowed.