The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-09 00:00:00

',%

....
1 •

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.'

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. Apaats proceeded to examine Wm. Johnson, a car-
penter, residing near the Regent's Park, aged 70 years, and
who had lived at Stone-leigh till he was 21 years old. His
examination, as that of the other witnesses who have been
examined, went to the fact of there having been, and cir-
cumstances connected with, the monument in the church.
After this witneas was disposed of—
The Loan CIL% NCELLOIL said, I shall put it to your
Lordships, in the presence of the counsel for the claimant,
whether it can be worth while to prosecute this case fur-
ther. If they insist upon going on, perhaps your Lord-
ships will think we are bound to hear them. But the
question turns entirely upon a monument, and a particular
inscription which is supposed to have been written upon
it. if there is not sufficient evidence to satisfy your Lord-
ships that there was that monument and the in-
scription upon it, then there is an end of the
claimant's case, because there is no other evidence to supply
any facts that might otherwise be deduced. A number
of witnesses have been called by the claimant's counsel, and
it is quite extraordinary to observe to what extent they have
contradicted each other. They have been called to satisfy
your Lordships that there was such a monument. I have
taken the pains to read over at borne, since your Lordship.
last met upon this case, all the evidence that has been given; I
have abstracted the particular parts of it, and those parts I
am about to state to your Lordships, in the presence of the
counsel for the claimant. The first witness says, the mo-
nument was nearly black ;—the next says it was darker
than the marble chimney-piece (a veined marble) of their
Lordshipe House,--that it was a kind of dove colour; the
third, that the marble was black and the letters
on it white; the fourth, that it was originally white,—
not veined so much as the chimney-piece of the house; the
fifth, that it was of a black colour; the sixth, that it was
a light marble, but had a dark appearance, as if bronze
had been introduced into it; and the last, that it was of
a bluish grey. All these witnesses differ, not merely
as to shades, but almost all of them substantially as to the
colour of the marble. I make no comment, on this ; I asu
merely stating the facts in the presence of the counsel fur
the claimant, for the purpose of suggesting to them whe-
ther it is possible for them to repair the damage that has
already been done to their case. Now as to the form of
the monument, the first witness says it was oblong ; the
next that it was square at the top, and came down
narrower and narrower to the bottom, until it arrived
at a point, and there it rested upon a single truss;
the next, that it was square at the bottom, resting
upon two trusses, and that instead of coming down
narrower and narrower to a point at the bottom, went up
narrower and narrower to a point at the top ; the next,
that it was partly angular at the top; and in order that we
might have these descriptions with the utmost precision, the
witnesses were desired to draw the form of the monument,
we have those drawings on the table, and your Liirdships
shall hare them put into your hands, that you may have
ocular demonstration of the inconeisteacy of the evi-
dence.. The witness to whom I was last alluding, varies
also from the rest, inasmuch as he says it had a sort of
festoon on each side. The next states, it was square at the
top and square at the bottom, and had a large curve at
the top ; the next, that it was straight at the top and
straight at the bottom ; they all, therefore, differ essen-
tially as to colour, they all differ essentially as to form.
Now, as to the inscription, one tells you he saw Christo-
pher and Thomas Leigh upon it, and another that he saw
the Hon. Christopher Leigh. But the witness lam par-
ticularly desirous of 'calling your Lordships' attention
to on this part is John Whitehead, and he tells you
the inscription was in these terms :—" Christopher
Leigh, fourth son of Lord and Lady Mary Leigh, his
wife, daughter of Cotton, died 1t562." Now, if
this evidence be correct, there is an end to the claimant's
case; for the lady who is described here as the mother of
Lady Mary Cotton in the pedigree, is described as the
mother of another individual altogether. Next, as to the
language, one says the name of Christopher Leigh was in
English, and the rest in Latin; another that the whole was
in Latin ; the next, that there was a great deal of
it in English ; another, that the whole was in
a language he could not understand, except the words
Christopher Leigh; another, that it was all in English ex-
cept " anna domini," and the last that it was all in Latin.
Now it would have been impossible to have selected half-a
dozen of witnesses to speak to a particular monument, who
could have differed more materially in their evidence than
these witnesses had done, both as to the language, colour,
and form. I now hand your Lordships a copy of the
drawings as made by the witnesses, to show bow essen-
tially they differ. I make no comments on all this,
hut if the counsel for the claimant are perfectly satisfied,
after having examined seven or eight witnesses, that it is
quite hopeless to prosecute the case further, I ast quite sure
they will think your Lordships' time, which is the time of
the public, ought not to be any farther unnecessarily occu-
pied ; if, however, they are of opinion, in justice to their
client, they ought to proceed, I suppose that year Lord-
ships, at whatever expense of time, must continue the
hearing. I will add, that a Noble and Learned Lord (Re-
desdale) who was prevent at the hearing last day, but is not
to-day, looked at the evidence, as I have stated I have
done, and that he entirely concurred with me in the view I
I have Liken of this case.

Mr. ADAMS was not prepared to say that some of the
circumstances which had appeared to the House so palpably
unfavourable to the claimant's case, might not be removed
or overcome by the evidence yet to he brought forward ;
but as he could not take the responsibility upon
himself of deciding either one way or the other off
hand, he hoped the House would allow kim time to
consider what had fallen from the Lord Chancellor as the
sentiments of the House, and to consult with his client.
He could assure their Lordships that he would not proceed
further to occupy their time with the case, should he on
reflection feel that he could not do so with advantage to his
elient.

The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that he had stated
what he had done,- in consequence of a petition having
been presented to their Lordships last night by the
claimant, praying the blouse to delay the further
hearing of the case till more witnesses could be brought
forward.. Those witnesses ought to have been summoned
earlier, but, however, the House would adjourn the further
hearing till Wednesthy next.

Mr:ADAMS wished the adjournment to be till Friday.
The Loßn CIIANCZLLOR refused to delay it beyond
Wednesday, and ordered the 'Wellesley case to rouse on at
twelve on the same day, Mr. Brougham having been pre-
sent and stated that in his speech he should not occupy
more than three hours.

cAtosAL r. BROCK.
This case was argued in the beginning of the Session,
and stood over for judgment till to-day, when the
LORD CHANCELLOR said he would advise the House to
remit it to the Court of Session.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURT.
DUKE v. DIME.
In this Me sentence of divorce was pronounced azains
:he husband.