The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-13 00:00:00

[MORNING, CHRONICLE.]

We were never in any great alarm on account of
the Scotch Banks, though the composition of the
Committee seemed rather to alarm the people of Scot-
land. It i.e understood that several of the Members
of the Committee, most determined on interference
with them, had been led by the force of evidence to
change their minds, tool, indeed, for some days, the
question has generally been, considered as good as
settled. Still, as the late Lord Londonderry used to
say, it is'as well not to halloo, till we are out of the
-wood. We find, to our preut surprise, that the Com-
mittee have begun to vacillate, and that yesterday they
wore keindy debating this question, whether Scotland
4hould he put, with respect to its currency, on the
same footing as England ?. Of the fact we are certain,
but we are left to conjecture the reason for opening up
a question which every body thought settled. Is it
.it mane:tore on the part of the advocates of the old
paper system in England, encouraged by the feel-
in g which now begins to prevail, that Ministers, in
refusing to issue more stamps, added to the discredit
of the circulation of the country bankers, and thereby
to the distresses of the industrious classes ? In such
ai case it might be deemed good policy to force so
powerful a body us the Scotch bankers to make corn-
moil cause with their brethren in England, as their
only chance of beiog.allowed to continue their present
system. We still remain of opinion that the circuhi-
non of Scotland will, heehawed to remain on its pre-
sent footing ; but whether the Scotch will be forced to
vary their tactics, or not, is a question which we are not
in a condition to resolve.. As no, people have a cloaca
understanding of their interests, we may satbly leave
thechoice of means for attaining the wished-for end
z:.) themselves.

We enid that affairs begin to wear a very gloomy
acct in Scotland. Letters dated IVlontrose, the 9th
-instant,' state, that the goners' failure of most of the
linen manufactories in Arbroath had thro,,vn the work,
ing population out of omployment, and on the' even-
?f,the Bth they began to riot, and to' conduct
themselves in the most disorderly :mintier. When the
httara . ware closed, the most serious consequences
rare apprehended. We wish wa could say. that , the
distress watt confined to that spot, but irt, many othcir
di. tricts iti Scotland, the peolile begin to. be without
employment, and those who are best acquainted with
thear, .much fax that the disturbances will becoine
general.-46id.

IfEItALD.]
The lower class of practitioners in the law were;
,
nevor- so ,huay, :as at the present time in contriving ite.
tions alfysinst,the Press.. The joint-stock frauda°hav-
iog.'for the .greater part blown up, and the remainder
1..ei;4? ilt a very precarious state, there is a consequent
d4tilleney of, snug 4ecretaryshipi;, agencies, and other
citric-es, which ,enabled as many solicitdrs to extract
the olid Bari .from the coffers,d,,the _befooled John
:!uil, ;od leaVe him in its. place .only bits of worthless
llaptlr and repentance. The. dlimolition of those
f:;:heruos lila thrown a great many of those needy,
(;onning, Alain eksis, grasping practitioners, loose And
hungry upon society once more, - Many of them had
reQently moved from gar its into drawing-rooms,
with Turkey carpets; hail putchased a stud;_ as-
sullied the swagg.er ofi:-Crolatss ; vied with the
" landed interest' in 'extravagance, and pledged the
" the public in the
.Tuscan LAre the
.414angesiin a inuitninitne tinder the wand ofilariequin,
the finery whicti was so 5na.(1614 P4t:qn: sucl-
denly vanished, .and. "many.- a pettylogger comae; Bends
to`;walk' in very unostentatious garments Avho lately
drove ca the dashing style of ant established Jahu
ts; with bundles, of prospectusses in
through the stree
one pocket, and bags of inoooy in the 44ter. As Trion,
who have by any accident got a.tastefor Juxuries can
not easily reconcile themselves to the condition of
honest poverty, it is tiu wonder that such persons are

11" doubly diligent" to instigate, litigious proceeding,q,.
wherever the least opportunity:, is offered, with the
hopes Tifmaking a harvest of costs. The uncertainty
of the law of libel is too tempting to those adventurers
not to avail themselves of it, And it may be. seen by
the reports in newspapers, that the most frivolous and
vexatious actions are constantly brought into Court
against the Press,• in which, :however poorly the client
may come off. as to damages, the attorney is sure to
make his bill af costs. Some persons too, either from
a dislike to trouble, or an apprehension of the uncer-
tainty of law, are induced to give a sum ofmoney under
the name of costs, and another sum under the name of a
compliment, to obtain a discontinuance of proceedings
on some frivolous and contemptible action. This, like
the sop which the foolish man in Esop gave to
the dog that bit him, operates as an
.inducement to
other animals of the same tribe, to try what they can
get by worrying in the same quarter. This nuisance
has now got to such a head, that the Press ought to
resist it by every means, until it is completely exposed
and abated. We have known some instances where
parties, pretending to go merely for the vindication of
character, would accept of no fair explanation of an
inadvertent statement, unless accompanied by a sum
of money b-eyond the costs incurred, for the attorney
and his client to divide. And indeed an instance
came to our knowledge, where a public character, who
was in embarrassed circumstances, and in the habit of
sending frequent communications about himself to
Newspapers and provoking discussion, actually com-
menced proceedings against several JournalS by the
advice of his attorneys, for the purpose of ob-
taining by compromise the means of paying the
bill which he had long owed them, and which bill
was paid out of the profits of this speculation. There
is, however, a salutary provision in our law, which
it is to be regretted Judges do -not oftener put in prac-
tice, for the ease of those who are harassed by frivo- 1
lous suits of libel, than they do, and that is the power
of certifying, to deprive the plaintiff of his costs when
the damages are below forty shillings. This, if more
frequently acted upon, would save -a great deal of pub-
lic time in Law Courts, and prevent the law itself from
being, on so many occasions as it is, converted into a
mere machine for manufacturing attorneys' charges.
We can value the respectable members of every pro-
fession, but a greater evil does not torment society,
than that low speculating race of lawyers, who per-
vert the law into an engine of exaction and plunder by.
the abuse of the forms of Justice.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY IV.
CRIM. CON.
Rosy T. ELACKMORY..

This was an action against the defendant for criminal conversa-
tion with the plaintiff's wife. Plea the general 'Niue.
Mr. SCARLETT stated the case. The plaintiff was a clerk in
the Legacy Office, Somerset-house, with a competent salary; and
the defendant, who is now walking the Hospitals as a student in
surgery, was the son of a gentleman, holding a profitable situa-
tion in the Exchequer Office. In the year 1816 the plaintiff mar-
ried his present wife, a Miss Davis, daughter of a former Go-
vernor of one of the provinces in India. Until her seduction
by the defendant they lived together in the most perfect
state of connubial happiness. She had borne hint four
children, one of whom was now actually lying dead, and 'at the
time of her infidelity she was pregnant of her last child. No
cause of disagreement had ever arisen between them, except tin
one occasion, when the plaintiff, being desirous of retrenching
his expencee, proposed to join his household to that of his
mother, who resided at Holloway. To this she assented, but
when the two families came to reside under the same roof, it 'was
found, as was not uncommon in such cases, that mutual bickering,
arose, suit that the plaintiff was ultimately obliged to take a sepa-
rate residence at Highgate, where he and hie' wife lived, as before,
on the most harmonious terms. In the latter part of 19514, the
conduct of Mrs. Ruse was visibly altered, particularly in the treat-
ment of her children. She became indifferent to their dress and
appearance, which was the more remarkable, 'for until then she
was conspicuous for the most tender discharge of her maternal
duties. Her husband's daily avocations in Loudon gave her fre-
quent opportunitiea of indulging her own inclinations, and she
was found to be frequently absent from home, particularly of
an evening. On these occasions she used to tell the servants to
come for her at a certain hour at the house of a' Mr. and Mrs
Newhiggin, whom she was in the practice of visiting on friendly
terms. It was true that she was generally tie be found at their
house at the hour appointed, but it was observed that she came
a very few minutes before the servant arrived to see her home.—
The hour fixed upon was usually that at which her husband re-
turned from London. Not the slightest suspicion, however, of
her virtue was entertained, until one evening in the. month of
November, 1824., ME. Newbiggiu observed her walking with the
defendant in a sequestered Nue, between Highgate and Kentish-
town, the defendant with his arm round her waist. The plaintiff
was informed by Mr. N. of the suspicions to which this circum-
stance gave birth,, but he was so satisfied of his wife's purity, that
he refused all credit to the statement. It was thought expedient,
however, to have her conduct watched ; and in the result, the
plaintiff unhappily became convinced of his own dishonour,. in conse-
, queue of the frequent clandestine meetings between his wife and the
defendant. How the defendant beceme acquainted with Mrs.
Row, did not distinctly appear. - No violation of hospitality or
friendship certainly could be attributed to hint, for he and the plain-
tiff were et this time utterly unknown to each other. As the defend-
r ant resided at his father's, at Yinchley, it was'probable that he had
met with Mrs. Rose, in the course of her walks in the neighbour-
hood, and thus availed himself of the opportunity of. debauching
her mind end destroying the happituss of a worthy family. With
respect to the proof of actual criminality, that had I ieu obtained
wider circumstances rather unusual in such cases. Their criminal
meetings were generally held in the evening, and in the open air.
She could not receive hint into her husband's house, neither could
he make his father's residence the place of interview. The df..
.rect evidence of their guilt was, however, obtained in this manner.
It patented, that some time in the month of January, 1826, a elan-
microns story was afloat at Hornsey that a lady anti gentleinau had
boon seen together in Homey Chureb4ard, under very particular
eireumstancm This report having reached the ears of Mr. New-
biggin, he took steps to find out the autluns of it, and after consider-
able pains bestowed, he traced it to, two young men living at Horn-
sey, who upon being questioned, gave the most satisfactory informa-
tion that Mrs. Rose and the defendant were the perouni who had been
seen in the situation described. These young men would be examin-
ed to-day, and from their evidence the most unequivocal proof of
criminality would be elicited. Probably, it would be urged on
the other side, that the time, place, and manner in which this
act of criminality took place, removed all idea of delicacy or
propriety with respect to the conduct of the parties.- It was more
than likely, however, that this was not the first occasion when
the licentious passion. was gratified. Abandoned as such conduct
'might appear to be, yet it was but too well known that.whin
once- a married woman deviated from the paths of virtue, all
Hose of shame and decency left her at the-same time.; and, . he-
coming the slave of the seducer, she gave loose to the very ex-
tremes of turpitude.• It woad, therefore, ill become the de-
fendant to pressras a topic of mitigation, that state of abandon-
ment to which he had bituaelf be-ought his victim. The plaintiff
had 'now to deplore the loss of a mother to his children, and the
wife of his bosom. To this• state of misery had he been
:brought by the. baseness of the defendant, and to the Jury he
looked for a just expression of their sense of his wrongs. •
Mr. Whoa Aided, that Mrs. Rose was the natural daughter of
Mr. Day, formerly 4 Governor of some province in India, but
now deceased. Witness had married Mrs. Reses. mother, who
is now dead. The plaiotiff and his wife were married at St. An-
drew's church, in October; 1816. The marriage, be believed,
was by. 141111 d ; both partiee were then under age ; Mr. Rose is
now about 29 yeare of age, end Mrs. Rose about 27.
Mr. R. T. Richardson, clerk,in the Law Life Assurance Office,.
. year
proved that he had Immo the plaintiff about 19 a; he visited
the Plaintiff and his wife when they reAidpd at llighgate, about
two years ago ; they appeared to live happily together. He al-
ways behovid:with.great kindness to,her,; , , ,
111114'61``Newhiflflin reoleMbered the plaintiff and his wife lir-
ingltt Highgate about two years ago • :had known them about
bail a yvar before that; ,she had visited them when they ii""d
' 4'4"911""W ; 'they .heel,hied iottr children ; .the coaduot, of the
plaintiff was that of an affectionate husband, PO she.4r3red
very
much attached to' him, and behaved like a tender mother.
Mrs. Ruse constantly visited witness at Highgate ; latterly she

had. obeerved her to be frequently absent from home, and neg-
lectfuLef her children. One evening, when Mrs. Rose was on a
visit, she sat et a window, and witness observed the defendant,
.whom she had known by sight, go past the house ;. upon which
Mrs. Rose abruptly went away. Understood that the defendant
WO a student, walking the hospitals. He is now about twenty-
two years of age ; he seemed a very young man.
Mary Bmnire proved that she had nursed Mrs. Rose with two
of her. children. The last was born in the month of March, 1825'f
she had not then left the plaintiff's house; the plaintiff always ap-
peared a very good young man, an excellent father, and a tender
husband.
Betsey Barker had lived six months with the plaintiff's mother,
at Holloway, and afterwards went to live, in 1824, with the
plaintiff and his wife, at Highgate ; they appeared to live happily
together; in the latter part of 1824, Itlrs. Rose used to go out of
an evening, and leave word to be sent for at Mr. Newbiggin's
house ; Mrs. Rose generally drank tea between five and six
o'clock. A Miss Bowyer was an intimate friend and companion
of Mrs. Rose ; latterly Mrs. Rose became very neglectful of her
children ; they were not washed and dressed as usual.
Mr. Newbiggin had known the plaintiff 11 or 12 years ; had
been in the habit of visiting him and his wife ; he always behaved
like a friend and an indulgent husband, and was particularly at-
tentive to his children ; some time in the year 1823, he came to
Highgate, where witness then resided ; observed then also the same
attentive and kind behaviour on the part of the plaintiff. Mrs.
Newbiggen being in bad health, Mrs. Rose used to visit her con-
stantly. Latterly her visits were not so frequent nor of such long
duration as before; her conduct towards her children also became
altered ; they were neglected ; knew the defendarft by name and
person, but had. no acquaintance with him; he lived with his
father on Finchley Common; he was walking the Hospitals
in 1824; his father was a Chief Clerk in the Exchequer Office.
One evening, in the month of January, 1825, between 6 and
o'clock, witness saw Mrs.. Rose and the defendant walking to-
gether in a lane leading from Highgate to Kentish Town, called
Brooniwich Walk; the defendant had his right arm round her
waist; he had once before seen them walking together in the latter
end of 1824, between nine and ten at night; never till then had
the slightest suspicion of any thing improper in the conduct of
Mrs. Rose; in consequence of certain reports he had heard, he
traced out two persons; named Gooday and Corbett, they after-
wards pointed out the defendant and Mrs. Rose as the persons
they had seen in a particular situation in Hornsey 'Church-yard.
Cross examined—Witness had been also a clerk in the Legacy
Office with Mr. Rose; he had not attended the office for twelve
months ; be did not resign voluntarily, nor was he discharged ;
lie had ceased to attend, in consequence of the conduct of the prin-
cipal iu the office, who had desired him not to attend; lie must
decline answering whether he had offered a reward .at the ale-
houses in Hornsey, to such persons as would bring forward the
young man who had circulated the report about a lady and
gentleman having been seen by them, under suspicious circum-
stances, in Hornsey Church-yard ; the reason he declined an-
sweriug thin question was, that he had been informed that a pro-
secution was threatened against him ; did not say, in the tap-
room of an alehouse, " Now, boys, is your opportunity of mak-
ing money." Had told Mr. Rose, in January, 1828, of his sus-
picions respecting Mrs. Rose, but he would not believe them to
be well-founded. _

James Seals deposed that he had repeatedly seen Mr. Black-
more and Mrs. Rose walking together.
William Dockrell, groom to the defendant's father in 1825,
proved that after the action was brought, the defendant and him-
self were walking, pt the top of Kentish Town Road, when they
saw Mrs. Rose. The defendant sent hint after her to know if
she had any message for him. Mrs. Rose said she wished to see
the defendant personally ; witness told her that was impossible.--
She then inquired particularly after his health. The defendant's
father kept one horse, and no other man-servant but witness.
James Corbett, a shoemaker, residing at Homey, stated, that
he knew Mrs. Rose and the defendant ; he had pointed them out
to Mr. Newbiggin. Remembered one Sunday evening in the
month of January, 1825, having occasion to go to the Compasses
public-housL► at Homey, with a friend named Gooday, their way
led through the church-yard, when they saw a lady and gentle-
man at the stile. The lady was sitting on the stile, and the gen-
tleman facing her. It was a frosty evening, and the moon was
shining very bright. lie and his companion suspecting that there
was something improper going on, crept under the shade of a hedge,
until. they got within five yards of them. The witness said that
the lady then got doWn from the stile, and stood against the gate-
post. What afterwards took place, clearly convinced him of herguilt.
Witness and his. companion remained at the spot until the lady and
gentleinan went into an adjoining field, in which there a was a foot-
path. They followed, and passed them. Gooday then spoke to the
gentleman, and asked for something so drink. The lady and gentle-
man then turned back the same way they came, Witness and
Gooday followed them to thu Compasses public-house, where the
gentleman alikeAl fora place in the stage-coach to London. The
lady remained 'outside, and appeared to be. crying. The gentle-
man Came out, and said that the lady should go to London, and
return to Highgate by the Highgate stage. Upon which witness
said, " lam - if I won't go up to town too ; I shall tiillow
them, go where, they will. Conte along, Gooday, we'll follow them,
go where they will." This was said in the hearing of the gentle-
man, who gave Gooday half a crown, shook hands with them, and
bid them go their ways, and say nothing more about it. Witness
and his companion then went into the public-house ; they after-
wards mentioned what they had seen to several persons, and'also to
a man minted Crouch, a gardener, who came to the Compasses
to inquire after a place in the stage ; witness heard the lady and
gentleman call each ether by their names ; when they were at
the stile, the defendant said to the plaintiff's wife, ". Your name
ought to be Mrs. Oddity, instead of have." She said, " Why
so?" " Because," said he, " yob have so many odd ways."
Mrs. Rose called the defendant " Mr. Blackmore." Did not see
Mr. Newbiggin until a year afterwards, when he told him what
he had seen. Had heard of a hand-bill offering a reward to find
out the young men Who had circulated the report respecting Mrs.
Rose and the defendant. There was a reward of one guinea to
find out the authors of the report, and of three guineas to the
young men themselves. Witness and his companions received
the latter reward. Never saw Mrs. Rose and the- defendant
until a year afterwards, when he pointed them out to Mr. New-
_

David Gooday, also a shoemaker, who accompanied the last
witness, corroborated his evidence.
The last two witnesses were both cross-examined at consider-
able length by Mr. Baouou.tx and itir. TYNDAL.
&Ara Crouch, a gardener; who had passed and repassed through
ffornsey Church-yard at the time in question, saw the lady and
gentleman at the gate, and subsequently at the coach-office. She
was in tears at the time. The two last witnesses wetted him to
join them in au attempt to extort money from the defendant, but
be refused.'

Mr. BROUGHAM, for the defendant, stated, that never in a case
ofeny description had two Witnesses appeared in Court who were
less entitled to. respect than the two witnesses on whose evidence
the whole weight of this cause, the identity of the parties, de-
pended. Was it probable that above all places the defendant should
have chosen the place that it was alleged this discovery had taken
place place witha foot-path through it, and surrounded by a
public road, along which the coaches and other conveyances of every
description were constantly passing ! The identity of the parties
was never ascertained by these witnesses till months after the tran-
saction hell taken place, till they had received a reward for the in-
formation they bad given, and till there was a prospect of an ulterior
reward by their confirming the story. they had then told. In a
question of such importance to S defendant, the Jury would hesi-
tate before they received such evidence; and unless they were sa-
tisfied that the'witneeses had told the trOth, And nothing but the
truth, they would not give a verdict for the plaintiff. The
learned gentleman, after remarking how little the plaintiff had to
complain of in the loss of a wife, i rale was such as his own witnesses
had described her to be, concluded by'stating, he was satisfied it'
the Jury found for the plaintiff, they would give only such da-
mages as his Learned Friend had anticipated in his opening—mere
nominal damages, such as would give the plaintiff an opportunity
of applying in another quarter to obtain. a divorce.
The Loan Cuter JUSTICE recapitulated the evidence at great
length, and at balf-past two the Jury retired from the Court,
and at half-past tiv4 returned 'with a'verdict for the plaintiff—
•DarageS 1501. . •