The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-28 00:00:00

•
7 /
.......'.."(
( -:L---7/1111.9;:7 )
.............-7. - i ---
- - - - 7-Z-- ..-
46.-6 ',
-C-----•--e-'6---/
.-L-‹
- e
.:
..."--
-----
. . •••
t't
-, • - •
... .1 & ; ....-..., . ... - t_:...
, ' ~' o,,*Sh; N -,,;:.-...,..- •4 1 --.
....... . 5
•\:\ittp...--..,6., • , _ .
__ , ~,,,,,,,,„,,i„or.
_.,.., ~. l'''
~,' .
......„ 1, ~r . ;Ai,'
. , ~,,,,,„,s. (WI •
~,..--_-•7 • *
~, - •
1 .
-' . ',',---.7.-:.• .: r ,-,---
.
- Agit^ i
• 4 ~Pti'l ./..f- • ' ''''.7.lloo 'AMC ~,,' . 714-, .....?
, -..-.1"-.., (4 .-tI • ' 1 kr7"111. . ' , ili4Triakr 0 !14' N'' 01( '‘'
AMIN. del.\''
''
''l.,-".. '''''
In '7 i' -71: l' rl‘ . ' ~... '• . ROI • ii' •IF :•,•,,i • '4..--s,- 'kill'ili"
.H.1*..._......
,-,

No. 16,081. LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING S 7
UN. FEBRUARY 2B, 1844.

PRICE sd.

THE SUN is Published EVERY MORNING at FIVE O'CLOCK, in Time for the EARLY TRAINS and TOWN DELIVERY ; a SECOND EDITION (Evening Sun) is Published in Time for the AFTERNOON TRAINS

and a THIRD EDITION at SEVEN O'CLOCK, for POST, containing PARLIAMENTARY and all other NEWS in LONDON up to that Hour.

3 TOWN and COUNTRY CIRCULATION, at ONE CHARGE.

grocer, Morpeth, Northumberland, March 20, at eleven, at the
Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the
contrary, on the day herein-mentioned.
S. H. Aniger, bookseller, Philpot-lane, City, March 19
E. Brain, copper-plate printer, Rodney-street, Pentonville,
March 21—H. and J. Slesinger, toy dealers, Cateaton- street,
City, March 21—R. Evershed, timber merchant, Pulborough,
Sussex, March 19—T. Digby, porn dealer. Lower Clapton,
March 22—G. Barnes, innkeeper, Portsea, Hampshire, March
26—J. Jenkins, cowkeeper, Syrisond'e-street, Chelsea, March
19—W. Hubbuck, pawnbreller,'Sentli Shields, Durham, March
21—J. Donnelly, merchant, Liverpeolp March 19—L. J.: Fer-
nandes, cern miller, Wakefiefdr YoVkshire, March 20—J.
Ashton, manufacturing chemist, Liverpool, March 21—W.
Easthope, whitesmith, Shrewsbury,, March 20—E. T. Gore,
cattle dealer, Tilehurst, Berkshire, 111 arch 19—L. C. Lecesne,
merchant, Fenchurch-buildings, Fenchurch-street, March 19
—E. B. Bayley, stuff printer, Pendleton, Lancashire, March
I9—L. F. Bingham, flour seller, Bakewell, Derbyshire, March
19—B. Crussell, glass dealer, Croydon, March 19-11. Warner,
E. Marsack, T. Manning, and J. Manning, brandy distillers,
Liverpool, March 19—J. Crisp, auctioneer, Liverpool, March 19.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
E. T. and E. H. Jones, Bristol—M. Stanbury, R. Rutley.
and L. C. Rutley, carriers, Dewy, Kent—R. Hudson and J.
Ward, grocers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—J. Cartwright and
J. W. Horsfall, dyers, Rawfolds, Yorkshire—J. Bonallaeh and
J. Briggs—The Plymouth Patent Alkali Company (so far as
regards J. Burnell, J. Bryant, W. Eales, P. E. Lyne, and W.
Bernell)—C. S. Parker, G. Parker, and E. S. Kennedy, Li-
verpool (so far as regards C. S. Parker)—C. S. Parker and W.
R. Sandbach, Liverpool—W. Jacques, W. S. Jacques, J. S.
Jacques, and B. R. S. Jacques, hosiers, Sheepshead, Leices-
tershire—W. Johnston and R. Barrett, jun., printers, Mark-
lane—J. Spratt and C. Brundell, pawnbrokers, Norwich—J.
Croft and S. Ward, farmers, Fownhope, Herefordshire—W.
Clay and. C. N. Wawa, rope manufacturers, South Shields—,
J. B. Lord and M. Coghlan, woollen cloth manufacturers,
Meltham, Yorkshire—T. Dyson, W. Dyson, and B. Dyson,
woollen cloth manufacturers, Netherthong, Yorkshire—J. El-
liott and T. Hughes, coach makers, Richmond, Surrey—J. S.
Williams and J. Snelling, leather dressers, St. Martin's-lane—
W. T. Threlfall and T. Smith, ironmongers, St. Helen's,
Lancashire—B. Overbury and P. Whitaker, cloth factors—J.
Beavan arid J. Williams, mercers, Hereford—J. Yeadon and
W. Seddon, common brewers, Salford, Lancashire—W. Bailey
and J. Ford, chemists, Wolverhampton.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 27.
The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers
present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham,
Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell.

HOARE V. DYNG, M.P.
This case came before their Lordships upon appeal
from the decision of the Master of the Rolls. The
question in the case was whether, according to the con-
struction of the will and codicils of the late Earl of
Strafford, the respondent, Mr. George Byng, the
Member for Middlesex, took an absolute, or only a life
interest in the residuary property of the late Earl of
Strafford, amounting to upwards of 400,0001. On the
case coming on before the Master of the Rolls, after
several proceedings before him, his Lordship de-
cided that the respondent took an absolute interest in
the residue, and from that decision the present appeal
was brought.
Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Turner appeared for the ap-
pellant, and the Solicitor-General and Mr. Romilly
were counsel for the respondent.
Their LORDSHIPS, after hearing Mr. Kindersley and
Mr. Turner, without calling upon the Counsel for the
respondent to address the House, gave Judgment, dis-
missing the appeal with costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 27.
(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL.)
LORD WM. PAGET v. THE EARL OF CARDIGAN.
CRIM. CON.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (in continuation from our After-
noon Edition of yesterday) said—Lord William's son was in
Queen-street, and he takes this boy out with him, and waits
in a cab until Winter should come to him. So, according to
Winter, Lord William makes the appointment, goes out in
his cab, knowing the adultery is to be committed, waits
quietly in his cab until it is committed, and then goes home.
And after all this, on the Monday night he meets his wife at
the Duchess of Richmond's. Ho sends his wife to Ports-
mouth ; he goes to Portsmouth after her, and after that
brings this action. Lord Wm. Pagetwas not on terms of in-
timacy with any of his family, but Lady William had been
on terms of intimacy with the Duchess of Richmond, Lord
William's sister. The Duchess had heard the story on the
Sunday night. She had investigated it, and so convinced
was she of its falsehood, that notwithstanding the plaintiff
was her brother, the intimacy had subsisted up to the present
hour. The first thing to be considered was the character of
the witness Winter. Was he worthy of credit? While in
Mr. Hamer's service he had been acquainted with those per-
sons whose names they had heard. He left Hamer's and went
to Bartlett's, and they had heard him state the reasons for his
leaving Bartlett's. He would not swear that he did not
fraudulently appropriate Mr. Bartlett's money for his own use.
He was dismissed from Bartlett's in February, 1843, and from
that time to August he had not had any regular employment.
He was in a state of the greatest distress. Lord W. Paget
was aware of the cause of his dismissal from Bartlett's, and
being aware of Winter's poverty and of his character, he em-
ploys him to watch in the manner stated? He sent Mr.
Fisk to him, and Winter at once agreed to do that which
has been given in evidence, but on, what terms did
not appear. Now he was in the back drawing7room under
the sofa on the Saturday; the folding doors were closed, and
yet he would make the jury believe he could hear what was
going on in the front drawing-room. He now came to the
second day, on which day the doors were all left open. Now
could they suppose an act of criminal intercourse to have
taken place under such circumstances. It seemed they put
Winter under the sofa in the back drawing-room, and shut
the folding doors, so that he was in precisely the game situa-
tion ss he had been on the Saturday. Lady W. Paget then
went into the room where Lord Cardigan was, opened the
folding door, and left it open during the time the criminal in-
tercourse was taking place ; so that any one coming into the
back drawing-room could see all that was going on. She had
closed the window, it appeared, but had left the door open.
Winter said that lie heard kissing, breathing, and conversa-
tion, and, among other things, he heard Lady William ask
Lord Cardigan to procure a place for a person, which had been
the purpose for which he had been sent for to the house. Now
he did not doubt but that Winter had been placed under
the sofa by Lord William Paget ; but Winter had stated to-
day that which he had. not previously stated. He had told
Lord William Paget, in the presence of Major Close, that he
had not seen more on the Sunday than he had seen on the
Monday. That statement had been taken down in writing,
and was in the possession of Lord W. Paget. Now, after his
visits for the last fortnight to Lord W. Paget, they found
him to-day adding to the statement that he had drawn him-
self out from the sofa, gone to the folding doors and seen
Lord Cardigan and Lady W. Paget. Now, could that be
true? Had he always told that story? He admitted that
he told Mr. Fisk that he was under the sofa in the front
drawing-room, where the act was represented as having
taken Place, and that he was nearly scratched by Lord Car-
diffan's spur. It did not appear that anything of the
kind had been seen by the witness Thomas; the whole
case rested upon the uncorroborated evidence of Win-
ter. There was no single fact to implicate Lord
Cardigan and Lady William Paget, except those deposed
to by Winter, and Winter alone. How came Lord W. Paget
to place Winter under the sofa? Had his suspicions been
excited by any previous information—by any acts of indis-
cretion? There was nothing of the sort given in evidence;
no such thing had ever occurred, for if it had occurred, It
would have been given in evidence. Lady W. Paget had
been in Portsmouth for the last twelve months; Lord Cardi-
gan had never been there; and the only thing given in evi-
dence was, that twelve months before Lord Cardigan had
sometimes called on Lady Paget while Lord W. was from home.
This matter commenced by Lord W. Paget bringing his lady
up from Portsmouth the Bth of August, and then placing;
the man under the sofa. It appeared that on one occa-
sion Lord William Paget had used personal violence
to his wife, and had frequently used abusive language,
and a night or two before Lady W. Paget's arrival in town,
he had passed the night with a prostitute. He alluded to
these facts to show that he was not the affectionate and at-
tentive husband that his Learned Friend had represented him
to be. It was utterly incredible that he could have been
living on terms of affection with his wife. He cared not for
his wife—for her reputation, or her happiness; he cared not
for the infamy he might bring upon her if he could wrest
from a rich nobleman—and he fixed upon one who was in some
degree of unpopularity with the public—he cared for nothing
so that he might wrest from him a sum of money. Could
they believe that the offence had been committed? He was
sure they did not give credit to the testimony of the witness.
This witness had received regular pay from Lord W. Paget
since, on the morning of the last trial, he had
come to give evidence. Ile thought he had not been
well treated, and because he had not been subpce-
need, he did not come. lie went to Mr. Powell's, Lord
Cardigan's solicitor. Did he expect Lord Cardigan would
buy him off ? That witness who would make an affidavit
for two guineas, but not for one—who would not give evi-
dence unless he were well treated—who had promised to pay
his creditors with the money he was to receive after this trial
—would get no money from Lord Cardigan. Lord Cardigan
and Lady Paget defied him, and said, let him say his worst—
let him go into a jury-box, and see if a jury will believe hini.
It was impossible to call any party to contradict his testi-
mony, for the only persons who could contradict it
were Lord Cardigan and Lady William Paget, and
neither of those could be called. It was, therefore, for the
jury to test the truth of the story—to consider his character,
to consider the improbability of his story in the different
versions he had given of the same transaction, and to ask
themselves if they could act upon his evidence, and blast the
character of a lady who had hitherto passed through life
without a stain, and to convict Lord Cardigan of having
seduced the wife of his friend. They had seen the witness ;
• they had heard him give his testimony ; and in their hands
he left the case.
Immediately after the Solicitor-General had concluded his
address, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
The announcement was received with applause, which was
instaetly checked by the officer of the Court.

JAMES M'ARTHUR, blaeksmith, Linlithgow-bridge,
March 1 and 23, at twelve, at the chambers of A. Strathern,
Glasgow.
ANDREW WILSON, grocer, Paisley, March 6 and 22, at
one, at the Saracen's Head Inn, Paisley.
JAMES CAMPBELL, baker, Edinburgh, March 6 and
April 3, at two, at the chambers of Cairns and Moffat,
Edinburgh.
JOHN WLEOD and CO., linen drapers, Edinburh,
March 4 and 23, at one, at the chambers of Dundas and Ja-
mieson, Edinburgh.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(From do Votes ssnd Proceedsngs qf the House of Commons.)
TUESDAY, FEB. 27.
DUBLIN PROTESTANT OPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION.

Motion made, and Question put, " That there be laid before
the House, a Copy of an Address presented to the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland from the Dublin Protestant Operative
Association and Reformation Society, dated the 14th day of
October, 1843, together with the Official Reply of the Lord
Lieutenant, dated Vice-Regal Lodge, October 16th, 1843 :"
The House divided

MINORITY-AYES, 54.
AAglionby, H. A. Ellis, Wynn Scott, Robert
dam, William Evans, William Stanstield, W. It.
Blake, M. J. Ewart, William Stuart, Lord J.
Blewitt, Reginald Forster, Matthew Stock, Sergeant
Bowes, J. • Gibson, T. M. • Strickland, Sir G.
Bright, John Gill, Thos. Strutt, Edward
Brocklehurst, J. Hatton, Capt. Villiers Thornely, Thomas
Brotherton, J. Hawes, B. Towneley, John
Browne, Hon. W. Hay, Sir A. L. Tufnell, Henry
Buller, E. Hindley, Char. s Wakley, Thomas
Busfeild, W. Hutt, W. Wallace, it
CBrrigsitiell.°Wn..Gb.S. Warburton. Henry
MarshalL W. Wawn, John
Colebrookc, Sir T. Morris, .David Worsley, Lord
Collett, John Leveson, Lord
Murray, A. Wyse, 'l.
Duff, James Napier, Sir Charles Yorke, R. H.
Duncan, George Palmerston. Visct. TELL/UM
Duneannon, Lord Pechell, Captain Sternal, Captaia
Easthope, Sir John Plurarldge, Captain Duncombe, T. S.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Feb. 27.
(Before Commissioner Sir C. F. WILLIA.3IB.)
IN RE CHARLES JAMES MATHEW'S.
This day being appointed for the adjourned hearing upon
this insolvent's (the well-known comedian) application for
his interim order, the Court was crowded with theatricals,
who seemed to take an intense interest in the proceedings,
and, not unfrequently, bursts of applause followed some of
the many answers given by Mr. Mathews to interrogations
by Mr, James.
Mr. James, with Mr. Charnock, appeared for several cre-
ditors; and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. C. Jones for Mr. C.
Mathews.
Mr. James said, that on the present occasion he would
mention to the Court that Mr. Anderson still opposed the
insolvent's interim order, on the ground that upon the face
of the schedule Mr. Mathews was not entitled to the relief
he sought for.
Sir C. F. WILLIA.sts observed that the prouess of the case
appeared not only likely to involve the insol?Ent in destruc-
tion, but also to delay the interest of Mr. Anderson. In his
(Sir C. F. Williams's) opinion, the insolvent had made not
only a liberal offer, but an offer which it was to be feared
from the terms of the agreement he would scarcely be able
to carry out.
Mr. James—That is very true, 'your Honour, but Mr.
Anderson feels it his duty to oppose the application. I
contend that the insolvent ought to go to the Court in Por-
tugal-street, and see if, on his second petition, he would be
allowed his discharge with the same facility as he proposed
to obtain it from the present course of proceedings.
Mr. James then subjected Mr. Mathews to a long exami-
nation, and drew from him a long detail of his embarrass-
ments, his earnings, expenditure, the mode in which he
raised money, his journey to France, &c. The object was
to show that the sum of 4001., which had been raised by
pawning various articles, had been extravagantly spent in
that trip instead of having been applied to the liquidation of
his debts.
Mr. Mathews stated that he went to France 'because he
dared not remain in England on account of the pressure of
his creditors. M. Bouffe had promised to facilitate his and
Mrs. Mathews's appearance before 'a Parisian audience, and
he was to have performed for M. Clerc's benefit, but lie
found that as a part of his debts was on bills of exchange,
he was in even more danger in Paris than in England,
therefore he resolved to return and take all consequences,
especially as imputations had been thrown out against him
in his absence, which he was 'desirous of meeting and
wiping out. He went to France by the advice of Mr Davis,
a professional gentleman, to whom he had been . introduced
by Mr. Degville.
Sir C. F. WILLIAMS said the . advice, under the circum-
stances, was not bad, but the difficulty now 'lay in the result,
the expenditure of the money. The Court would not over-
look extravagance under any circumstances.
Mr. Mathews explained that he paid 100/. of the 400/.,
before he left, and brought back 80/. He was subjected to a
heavy expense while, abroad, but spent nothing idly.
Mr. Jones—Had you not parted with those jewels which
belonged to Storr and Mortimer?
Mr. Mathews—l had. Mr. Whistler held them for money
advanced. I much regret that I should have done wrongin
this matter,
esB but I reallyiio e considered
o n th lypatyhmenein-ttowabse
in
dme.y hb qs°s
jewels, as I statedat the last pectins, released me from many