The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-08 00:00:00

and greeted him with hearty aeclaniations, which the
Bing cJurteoudy returned. his Majesty then pro.
ceded- to view the chapel and castle, and from -Oil
chapel they walked to Hawthornden, which they mi
nutely inspected. Returning to Roslin, they entered
the carriage and drove to Dalmahoy, where a diatin-
guished party was invited to meet his Majesty at dinner.
Yesterday (Sunday), at eleven o'clock, his Majesty
and suite attended the Catholic chapel in Broughton-
street, and, after the sevices, entered a carriage and four,
and drove down to Granton-pier, where his Majesty was
received by Sir William Bain. The Lightning steamer;
sent down by Government for his Majesty's use, was
brought to, and the steps leading from the pier to the
vessel were covered with crimson cloth.
Mr. List, and a party of the county police, kept the
pier; and lined the passage to the steamer. His Majesty
was accompanied by his noble host, the Earl of Morton,
and by the members of his suite. Soon after his Ma-
jesty went on board the Lightning got under weigh, and
proceeded fur Hamburgh, where the King will disem-
bark en route fur his own dotninions.
The steamer is under the command of Commander
Roberta and Lieutenant Southey, brother to the live
poet laureate.

SUMMER ASSIZES.
HOME ClRCUlT—Guilgford, Aug. 7.
(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY and a Common Jury.)

PARRY V. LORD C. FITZROY.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for I,OOOZ
accepted by the defendant. A variety of pleas were
put upon the record by the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Gaselee, Mr. James, and Mr. Ballantine
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Chambers for the
defendant.

Mr. James John Mills, a clerk in the bank of Messrs.
Drummond, proved that the acceptance to the bill pro-
duced was in defendant's handwriting. The bill was
dated Feb. 15, 18.1-1, and was fur 1,01,01.

The bill having been put in and read, the plaintiff's
case closed.

Mr. CHAMBERS then ad lressed the jury and said, that
although there were several pleas put upon the record by
the defendant, the substantial defence to the action was,
that the bill in question had been obtained by fraud, and
that no consideration was given for it, except to the ex-
tent of 2001., which was all his Lordship had received
for this and another bill of the same amount, which had
been obtained from him under the circumstances that
would be detailed in evidence. It appeared that
in the month of January, 1844, his Lordship had re-
ceived a letter, dated from No. 24, Piccadilly, to the fol-
lowing effert:—" MyLord Circumstances having brought
to my knowledge that your Lordship would be wil-
ling to accept a loan of 1,0001. or 2,0001, I beg to in-
form you that I am in a position to obtain that
amount for your Lordship, upon personal security,
and at moderate interest." This letter was signed
"J. Alves ;" and his Lordship, being in want of
money, had an interview with Mr. Alves, and eventually-
it was arranged that his Lordship should accept the pre-
sent bill, and another for the same amount, which Mr
Alves was to get discounted, upon the understanding
that the rate of interest should be 25 per cent. Alves
gave an acknowledgment of the receipt of the bills, and
it was arranged that the money was to be handed over
to his Lordship on the following Friday. He went ac-
cordingly to Mr. Alves' residence, but he did not come
to the appointment. Shortly afterwards, however, that
person sent him 200/., and this was all that he had re-
ceived upon the bill for which the present action was
brought. He was instructed that he should be able to
prove that no consideration was given for the bill, and,
if he succeeded in doing so, the defendant was entitled
to their verdict. In order to make out his case, he should
be compelled to put Mr. Alves into the box, and he
would, if he chose to speak the truth, give them the his-
tory of the whole transaction
Mr. James Alves was then called—He said that he
was an " agent," and resided at 24, Piccadilly, and knew
Lord Charles Fitzroy. The bill now produced was ac-
cepted by his Lordship, and witness endorsed it to the
plaintiff, Mr. Parry. All that he knew of the plaintiff
was, that he was a man of property, and that he had
had several bill discounting transactions with him. Be-
lieved that he endorsed the bill to the plaintiff on the
16th of February, and he received in money for it alto-
gether about 6001. When he handed the bill over to be
_

discounted, he did not state how he became possessed
of it. Witness only gave Lord Charles Fitzroy 2001.,
and the rest of the money he kept in his possession.
Witness wrote the letter now produced to his Lordship,
and this led to the negotiation respecting the bills.
The letter was here put in and read.
Examination continued—His Lordship sent me an
answer to my letter, and he came to see me soon after-
wards. I then informed him that the terms upon which
the money would be advanced were 25 per cent., payable
quarterly. It was then arranged that he should give
we two bills for 1,0001. each, and that I should get them
discounted, but no particular agreement was made as to
the amount of interest. I gave his Lordship an acknow-
ledgment for the bills, and undertook to hand him over
the money on the Friday following, but I could not get
home in time to see him. I sent him 2001. the same
day, and he never received any more money on account
of the bills. I had my reasons fur not giving his Lord-
ship any more money.
Mr. CHAMBERS—How was it that Mr. Parry did not
give more than 6001. fur the 1,0001. bill ?
Witness—We made arrangements about it, and I re-
ceived some pictures to make up the amount. If Lord
Fitzroy had waited a few minutes longer on the day the
appointment was made I should have handed him over
all the money, or have made a fresh proposal as to the
terms. I heard something which induced me, as my
name was to the bill, to be alarmed, and I offered to ar-
range the matter with his Lordship and the plaintiff, but
declined to give any more money. An action has been
brought against me upon these bills. His Lordship did
not know in what manner I had disposed of his bill, and
our original agreement was, that it should be discounted,
and the amount, less the interest, handed over to him.

By Sergeant GASELEE—I acted in the traasaction as
the agent of Lord Charles, and I took the bill to Mr.
Parry, the same as I should have done to any other
capitalist. He knew nothing about my arrangement
with Lord C. Fitzroy. I considered the pictures I re-
ceived with the 6001. were of the value of the bill.

By Mr. Baron GURNEY-It is a difficult thing to say
what a picture is really worth, but I should say these pic-
tures were worth 3001.

By Sergeant GASELEE—His Lordship is between 50
and 60 years of age. He is a MQmber of Parliament.
Mr. CHAMBERS said, this was his case.

Mr. Baron GURNEY said it would not do. It had
been proved that the plaintiff gave 600/. and some pic-
tHres as consideration for the bill, and therefore he was
entitled to their verdict. With regard to the interest
that had been taken, the law allowed it, and therefore
they had nothing to do with that.
The jury then, under his Lordship's direction, gave a
verdict for the laintiff fur 1,0121., the amount of the
bill and interest.

Mr. Sergeant GASELEE applied for immediate exe-
cution.

Mr. Baron GURNEY—No, I think not. You have got
25 per cent. interest, and you can afford to wait a little
while fur your money.

COOKE V. LORD C. FITZROY.

This was an action to recover the amount of the other

1,000/. bill, referred to in the former trial. -
Mr. Horne appeared fur the plaintiff ; and Mr. Cham-
bers for the defendant.

Mr. Alves was again called, and he deposed that he
took the bill in question to Mr. Parry, and received 8501.
Mr. Baron GURNEY asked what amount of discount
was taken upon this bill, and the witness replied " 100/."
Mr. Parry was then called, and he proved that he en-
dorsed the bill to the present plaintiff.
Mr. CHAMBERS—What did you gives Alves for the
bill? Witness—l first gave him a cheque for 4001., then
one for 2501., and then one for 2001.

Mr. Baron GURNEY told the jury there w•as no de
fence, and they accordingly found a verdict for the plain-
tiff for 1,0121, as in the former case.

Mr. HORNE having applied for immediate judgment,
The COURT refused the application, and said the par-
Rs could very well wait until the next term.

CRIM. CON.-KENDALL V. PARRY.

This was an action to recover compensation from the
defendant for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's
wife.

Mr. Sergeant Jones, Mr. Simon, and Mr. Crouch,
were for the plaintiff ; Mr. Knapp appeared for the de-
fendant.

It seems that the plaintiff is a sergeant of police, and
he had been married to his wife at the time of the trans-
action about ten years, and it was represented that they
lived happily together. The defendant is an old man of
seventy, and it appeared that he is a parish broker, and
also possessed of some property. The plaintiff being in
arrear with his rent, the defendant, it appeared, about a
year and a half ago went to his house by direction of his
landlady, and it would seem that he had taken an im-
mediate fancy to the plaintiff's wife, and under the pre-
tence of desiring to relieve them from their difficulties,
he said he would find some sempstress's work for her at
his house, and advanced the money to pay the rent. The
plaintiff not suspecting a man of the defendant's age
could entertain such a wicked design as that of seducing
his wife, did not offer any objection, and it appeared
that she went to the defendant's house, and it was al-
leged that the criminal intercourse took place between
them almost immediately afterwards. From that time
the conduct of the plaintiff's wife became very much al-
tered, she took to drinking, and conducted herself in
in such a manner that the plaintiff
.was eventually
obliged to separate from her. --At this time the husband
did not entertain any suspicion of his wife's misconduct;
but it would appear that at length he received an
ieti-
mation of what was going on, and he immediately took
the necessary steps to obtain evidence of the defendant's
misconduct, and the present proceedings were then in-
stituted.
The jury found for the plaintiff.—Damages, 3001.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Coventry, Aug 5,
(Before Mr. Justice CoLTsiAN.)
Susannah Jarvis, aged 13, a modest and rather pre-
possessing looking girl, was charged upon the Coroner's
inquisition with the wilful murder of Emma Goldsby,
aged 17 months.
Mr. Miller and Mr. Adams conducted the case on the
part of the prosecution; and Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Mil-
ler the defence.
The prosecutrix keeps a respectable house in the city
of Coventry, known as the Wheat Tavern, the prisoner
being in her service as nursery-maid. Some short time
previous to the transaction in question taking place, the
prisoner had brought the baby home,with some scratches
upon its person, when her mistress threatened to dis-
charge her. On the evening of the 22d of April, at
about eight o'clock, Mrs. Goldsby had put the child into
the cradle in the kitchen, and proceeded up stairs to put
an elder one to bed, when she was alarmed by a cry
from the deceased. Coming down stairs she met Jarvis.
Mrs. Goldsby proceeded to the cradle, and took the
baby in her arms, when she found it covered with blood.
She ran out, saying to the prisoner, " lon have mur•