The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-07 00:00:00

LAW INTZLLIGENCF,

COURT OF KING'S BENCTI,

DELANE V. nILLCOATE.

This was an aetion tried at the last Berkshire As..
shire Arses, to recover a penalty alleged to have
been forfeited by the defendant, in cones-pence of
his taking an office of profit, he being a trustee under
a Turnpike Act. The ogee of profit was the trea-
surership of the trust. At the trial the plaintiff was
nonsnited, as he had shown that he had derived no
advantage from the office.
Mr. TAUNTON now moved to set the nonsuit aside,
on the ground that, although Mr. Hilicoate did not
himself derive any benefit from the office, but that
he paid over the balances to a Mr. Roberts ; still
that, as the office was one of profit at all, he came
within the prohibition.

At the -suggestion of Lord, TENrER.DP..v, Mr.
TAUNTON consented to make a special case of this.

HARDY V. KYLE.

This was an action tried before Mr. Justice Jervis,
at the last Chester Assizes. It was brought by a
silk-weaver against the defendant] who is a INlagi•
striate, for trespass and false imprisonment,- When
the plaintiff was nonsuited. The ground of the
nonsuit was, that the eetion had not been brought
within the time limited by law for proceeding against
.Magistrates. The 24th Geo. 11. requires that no
action shall be brought against a Justice, for acts
done by him in his capacity of Magistrate, unless
commenced within six calendar months after the
alleged act has been committed. The dates in the
present cast were as follow. The Magistrate im-
prisoned the plaintiff, as he said illegally for three
months, which terminated on the 14th of December.
The plaintiff was enlarged about mid-day on that
day. The writ was issued on the 14th of June fol-
lowing, so that the question was whether the 14th
was
.a day which should be included or excluded
from the reckoning.
Mr. W11,11.431* now moved that tia-e nonsuit should
be set aside, on the ground that the action was
brought within the six months prescribed be law.
At the suggestion of Lord TENTERDEN, this case,
which-111*o involved a question as to the ierisdietion
of the Magistrate, Mr. Williams contending that the
provisions of the 4th of George IV., under which
the Magistrate acted, were suspended as to the case
of silk weavers, by ether enactments relating to
their trade, is to be made a special one.

VISMEE V. CLEMENT.
This was an action against the proprietor of Bell's
Life in London, which has been tried twice—the
first time in the Court of Common Pleas, when the
plaintiff' obtained a verdict; and the second time, in
the Court of King's Bench, when a verdict w-as
given for the defendant.
Mr. CAMTBRI.L moved for a role to stow cause
why the letter verdict should not be set aside, and a
new trial had; first—on the ground that as, in the
former action, the plaintiff had obtained a verdict on
two counts:of the declaration, the course should have
been to issue a writ of inquiry, instead of which was
issned:a " venire de noVo,"&c. The second ground
was—that Lord Tenterden, in his churge to the Jury,
laid too much stress. on the circumstance of their
being satisfied that the defendant intended d priori
to injure the plaintiff, whereas they should have been
instructed to look to the libel itself as the grounds of
their inferring malice.
Lord TENTEJDEN said that with regard to the
first point, namely, a " venire de novo," the Court
would make no rule ; but so far as related to the
two other grounds—the misdirection of the Judg
and the verdict having beer. given against evidence,
it was the opinion of the Coart.that a rifle might
be taken. He had, himself, no distinct recollection
of the weitds he had used on the occasion, but means
might be obtained to find them out.—Rnle granted.

SECONDARIES' OFFICE, Nov. 6.
CILIII. CON.--CASALST V. VAZALET.

In this case a highly respectable special jury was
summoned to assess the damages due to the plain-
tiff„ Mr. Peter Reade Cazalet, from the Rev. James
Casalet, a clergyman of the Church of England,
who had allowed judgment to go by default in a suit
instituted against him, for hating had criminal con-
versation with th© plaintiff'a wife. The damages
were laid at 5,000/. The case excited great in-
terest.

Mr. C. F. POLLOCK opened the ease, as Counsel
for the plaintiff. The plaintiff was an officer of
eminence in the envies of the East India Company.
He had been in India nearly thirty years, and now
lived retired, upon a pension awarded to him for his
services. The defendant, the Jury would hear with
surprise and concern, was a beneficed clergyman of
! the Church of England, a married man, and a near
relation of the plaintiff. In 1809 the latter married
his present wife in India, and in 1813 he came to
England accompanied by his wife and four children,
the fruits of their union. After a stay of about two
yews they went abroad:again, and in 1819 Mrs. C.
returned to England for the purpose of superintending
the education of their children. The defendant, who
was the cousin, and had been the schoolfellow of the
plaintiff, had, of course, not only from his rela-
tionship but from his sacerdotal character, the most
free access to the family, and all his intentions were
ascribed to the most honourable motives. It would
be seen that he availed himself of there advantages
and the absence of the plaintiff, to seduce the affec-
tions of his wife, and inflict those injuries for which
the Jury were now to award compensation to the
themust witnesses unavoidablyhby wbheo m given,theyWere
would best
plaintiff. The details of the circurnetances, or such
pocorfomtvheeed;r.
nomasThe Jury would find that in 122 the de-
fendant procured accommodation for the delivery of
a child. Various circumstances would be given in
evidence which could leave very little doubt in the
minds of the Jury that the defendant was the father.
It died in the following year. In 1827 the plaintiff
returned from India to the bosom of his family,
nothing having occurred up to that period to give
him the most remote suspicion of the injury he had
sustained. He was surprised, however, on his re-
turn home, at the request of Mrs. Ca' resist that they
should creep in different beds. The Learned Coun-
sel ascribed this refused to a feeling of remorse on
the part of the lady, which at last operated ea
strongly upon her as to compel her to quit her horse
for ever, as no longer worthy of the affections of her
husband and children. This took place in April
last, and the unhappy woman was soon after deli-
vered of twins, of which the defendant was
asun-
doubtedly the father. I3y the law, it at present
stood, since there was evidence of the possibility of
access by the plaintiff, hews bound to main-
tain and educate these children, and they could,
at all times, enforce from him the legal du.
ties of a parent.
This was a circumstance
which the Jury would doubtless take into their
consideration rn estimating the coropensetion
which was due to the plaintiff for the in-
jury he had already sustained in the loss of domestic
e°mfart'and also in tide painful feelings with which
the remainder of his life must be embittered. The
Jury would judge of the plaintiff's affection for his
wife by the, provision he had made for her, by his
ready discharge of every expense she incurred, and
by the ardent affection which she manifested towards
him in her letters. He should call h 0 relation to
prove the terms on which they lived. God forbid
that he should; for none could he sell but near
enete—females, who were already plunged in the
deepest affliction, and to whom a public examine.
rion on this subject would be a drealifnl torture to

which tha ptafittiff wtnid mot theissi?it, e.4-Al if the
advoceta, in the peifiwara.neo of hia fluty, tryeld ecp-
poie it to he necessary. Tilers had been weiettori-
mption to the plaintiff's happiness while: be
England. }le left his vie prepiant, and not a p-,e,.-
ticle of evidonee could be produced to impe-s, 441 r
part of the plaintiff's conduct. The Learned (
concluded by making a forcibla appeal to the Jar!,
that they had a high moral duty to perform, not ler.s
towards the public than towards the unfuctun,r...
Plaintiff, whose happirams had bees destroyed
area who was a near relation, a married man,
dergyroaa.
Toe first w;treKs called was G. S. Blown,
in the Secretary's office of the Eust IntEa Cotnpito-,
The plaintiff was on the commercial establip-hmtu,-•
of th© Company-. •He w about the eighth in ,•4-
niority. lie was in the civil (write of the illaklr‘44-
ei•ktablisliment. After haring b.,,er, out 28 yaws,
had returned, and now enjoyed hit pension of hoc:
3,0001. to 4,000/. per annum from the CompoDy.—
There was no other pe.Non of the eame name en t 4-4(.,
&stabl ishmen t.

Magda Edwards lives with the plaintiff's fatni'.-r,
and had lived with them upwards of IS years, 'Wit-
ness knew the defendant, who is a Clergyman, rr-
siding at Chepstead,. in Kent. lie liad n wifo tap'
five children. I remember the plaintiff and his writi
coming to England in 1811 They brought son-
children with them. I came next day, and rema,int4-
until 1815. Mrs. Ca2atlet was ut the time in the
'vu. My master and mistress went not of 0,
country main. My master went first, because
mistress was in the family way. She went iH 18 [
and cam© back in 1819 with an infant, withott
accompanied by Mr. Catale-t. There eLre now
children at school. The eldest dsugliter is Oven.
20 years old, When Mrs. ClAzalet returned in 1810,
she lived at Wadden. She afterwards vrent
Chandos-street, where she lived with Mrs.
the mother of the Reverend defendant. Sid
neterwards went to Phillimore-place, Kensington,
Then she took a Louie in Earl's-terrace, whert,
the mother of the Rev. Gentleman lived, acrd ti
ehildrsis name home„ The willies* then proved tise
hand-writing of Mrs. Gizalet in four letters, writs n
by her to her husband, during the months of Mai,.
July, November, and December, 1h!O. Witirau-s
quitted the plaintiff's ervice in May, 1890, a•nal
turned to it in January, 1825.

Ann Godeby was a widow, and had sauce'ri tlr=
family of the Cazalets upwards of SO years,
knew the plaietiff'e father, and oleo the de,
fendant's father. .They we're brothers.. tihe ;mike'
plaintiff' and defendant; they were at serhooi
gather; the defendant's father was first a martitere.:,
and then is barker; the deftrident is a clergies-els;
he held a curacy at Kitsfield, and he afterwards fry
hided at Chepetc,ail, and now htt.d six children.—
Witness never sow hire come in a carriage to till
house; ate lived formerly in the service of the plein.
tiff's father; the plaintiff is 47 or 48 years of egg::'
the defendant is 43; witness recollected the thipar,
lure of Peter ("violet to India in 1797, and I).vt,r;:,
of his marriage and family in November, ISIS, t?!
which time he had four children, lie went ab•re.l4
in Mae, 181.5; shortly afterwards Mrs. Cs of kV:..
brought
connu to bad
;; is 1555 t returned
eiswas t.o
applied
br Mr. James Caulk; he brought a letter Rays
the plaintiff's wife; witness destroyed that lette;
she went to Hell Moon-etrect, where she eats,
plaintiff's wife ; her family were then at Eastbeer,le.
Witness found her then in a very distressed ewe c.
mind, and very far advanced in the family-tray; th:r
was in July, 1822 ; Cazalet west home t,Jith
witness in a hackney coach. The defendant ea44.e.1
to see her, and she eras delivered of a child isa
witness's house; the defendant paid the exp-et.-iee.„
of the lying-in, &c. Nebody but the dcferielat.t
visited bey. Two days after the delivery he eatge
to see her, and diced with her; the child masa g;ri.
it was baptised " dtalitt Corrillis, daughter of ian-e,e,
end Ceroline." Witness mated the child, WteNi
she &poke to hint about the baptism, be &aid it tft-:
not signify. Witness does not know who es at:
father of the child. The defendant guys all the di,
rections. Mrs. Cagslet suggested that it shotrid to
called the child of James and Caroline. Noe.eixe;
the defendant and witness interfered is the matter.
The child lived twelve months and live *Lay&
fondant paid paid the expenses. of the funeral. ibi.re. Cs,
inlet wua tire weeks at witness's house., after Irlair*,
she returned to Eastbourne. Witness received rata
particular instructions, only to take care of the chill:,
En Nov. and Dee. of the tarns year witsiiii-; haw
Mrg.Cazalet living with her children at Ettstbourn-.:.,
The plaintiff returned to this country inJune, 1837',
Defendant came to witness last April, to entreat. "I..ai
to write to the plaintiff to tell him of the affair
1-i22, (the period of her seduction,) and stated t.r
her that Mrs. Cazalet's mind war in e had stale,
and she trust leave her husband's house, He showed
witness a letter from Mrs. Cazilet, begging of him
go to the witness, and request that she would
tion the whole occurrence. In consequence of that
letter witness did write to the plaiutiff. Mre. Ce-
ralet, iu four or five days afterwards, came to w-if-
ness's house with Maria Atwood : she was thee
the family wins, witness sew the defendant tWiev
before she wrote; this was in June. She helve:::
him why he did not tell her the whole of the ow:.
He replied, that ho could not make np his iii4l tr
it, and said that it was unfortnuate that he resit, tq
Brighton. lie then asked at what time SIN. Gr..
aelet expected to be confined, to which she replied,
nt the end of July. That ea.llbOt he, said ha, foe i;
it is the case, it is Peter's. On tlse 21st of Jule
she was brought to bed, She had two boys, se t+.-
are very small. Witness could not say whether ieb,.
bad gone her full time er not. The children Teem
now under the carp of Mrs. Cazalet. since ()etc
her last, she had been at Hampstead along
these children.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mot:imam—Mrs. Cady.-
let is younger than the plaintiff by seven or eie,
years. She was married at 13 year. old in Ind,
where the was been. Witness knew nothing- to
apecting the circumstances of the marriage. Prot
1818 to 1815, witness eaw the plaintiff and Mt-,
Cazalet. They were travelling much, Witness t-:
membered the birth of the plaintiff. Ho Ives boy
in Austin-friars.

18165' was there when 1-yt
iv ast d mistress's *toy, th e-i
"I"Thebyywere at Brighton in ISTir
Maria Atwood was re-emitmciaisturo,dd.—the
meS:hdieneedacairenrt6ithyr
arttilutrei
vphelfilds,..inrteiptffu'urnsrinsegifrihvlierese2ma
jit7in.
ttoc(x)9.:PuiptrihaaetltlYtit.he house ?o. 4.0, BloomsburY-Plaec-
did not occupy the saws room. The 7 never wept
together after his return from India. Witness se-
id
endee ri 1,8
The plaintiff stopped at Brighton for some time, but
occasionally Went to Loudon. He was in .L0n,10..1
from the 15th to the xlet of November. Betwee-i:
those times the defendant teams to the house, and
was ushered into the drawing-rocs, where the young
ladies were,, 'Witness never saw him there whet'
the plaintiff was at lioane. Defendant and Mrs.
Cazalet Went out frequently togather in a tly, en-ti
were- out for about an hour or an hour and e hall
each time. Witness accompanied Mrs. Cazidei ~,
11-Irs. God,by's. The plaintiff and his wire had nt:";7r
seen each other sines the dieeoreey.
Cazglet in July last. The children born in JI4I,
Dr. R.amshottoin attended the delivar! a! 11i..,
last might be from a ponnevon in the Novenf,;„
previous.itigi
i Hughes, a clerk in the bankinig.hat,„e t,:.
Willis and Co., stated that a payment a I 000,,,
per annum was made to Xlra. Caralet in the nbsenrc
,f her husband. She had an atscount at the ban'aini,-
ilouse. In 1820 she overdrew 1,4100/. In 181k.J
she nrercirew 1,90 W. Both turns were paid by her
husband.

„flManicl3iirßl:L:
eNnAmi
it: trusted
intgie;:tir:
observations which it e had to tzake, for the purposr-.
would hear the Ceti-
rizbt decision with.
the same. calm attention which they had yielded tr
",ke opening sperch of his LcarotO 1-licoL, ::::
the e‘idence by which it was followed. For Lt
purpoce of public justice it, tyis necessary tp u,li.k., t
row remarks on the catraiimna topik-i. by wkiFti t*.,,