Star.
London, England, 1830-07-16 00:00:00

A SOMERSET HOAX.

A fruitless hoax was played off on Mr. Hunt, who received a
letter from a body of frftholders of the county of Somerset, invi-
ting him to become a candidate for the representation of that county
at the ensuing election, one of the party promised to take 178 vo-
ters to the poll free of expense, to which-request and offer Mr. Hunt
returned the following striking answer:
London, July 14, 1830.
Sir—The fteeholders of the county of Somerset had an opportu.
nity offered them in the year 1828, of rescuing themselves out of the
hands of a corrupt Whig and Tory faction, the members of which
had united for many years in order the better to commit their de-
predations upon, and plunder the people. The freeholders of So-
menet basely neglected that opportunity.
It appears the tory, Sir Thomas, has abandoned his disgraceful
occupation, dreading a repetition of the castigation he received at the
last election. 'the freeholders are now to be turned over to two hun.
gry Whip, who will, in all human probability, plunder them even
more than the united factions did, the latter having acted as a check
upon each other's rapacity.
Mr. Hunt will not walk ten yards, or do any other act to prevent
this; but, on the contrary, he will look on with great compla-
cency, while the process of plunder is making its way into every
man's pocket in the county, by means of parochial, county, and
parliamentary taxation, while he reflects upon the wane than cow.
ardiy conduct of a great majority of the freeholder, who stood
looking on with their arms folded, during the last contested election
for the county of Somerset. •
To Joseph Anderson, Esq.
Post-Office, South Petherton, Somerset.

HOUSE 01 LORDS, July 14.
STEVENSON V. ROWAN.
The Loin CnancELLoa stated that in this case Stephenson had
been employed by Rowan to prepare a heritable security on the
lands of Mr. Campbell, of Lochend, near Glasgow, for 1,0001. lent
by Rowan to Campbell. A landed property in Scotland was held
of a superior. and the conveyance was taken ame : that was, to be
held of a superior lord, in the same manner that Campbell himself
held it; and the seisure which followed on the infeftment was in
general terms, without specifying the particular manner of holding,
and the Instrument was in the usual way registered. But in a con-
veyance a me, a charter of confirmation from the superior was neces-
sary to complete it, and this Mr. Stephenson. who was what in
Scotland is called a writer, or law agent, neglected to pro-
cure. Sir Colin Campbell and a Mr. Patrick afterwards lent
money on the same estate to Mr. Campbell, of Lochend, and
took valid securities upon it. Mr. Campbell fell into dfficul-
ties, and his estate and effects falling short of his debts, the cre-
ditors began to look into their priorities, and the flaw in the convey-
ance to Rowan being discovered, Sir Colin and Mr. D. Campbell
instituted a process in the Court of Session to postpone his debt to
theirs, and succeeded, and thus Rowan was cut out of his priority,
and lost a great part of his money. He then brought his action
for compensation against Stephenson, and had judgment below in
his favour, and that was the judgment appealed from. It was cer-
tainly a question of nicety and difficulty, and for a mistake in such
a question a Solicitor was not answerable, for any lawyer might min.
take in such a matter. But then, the usual form of conveyance in
these cases was, a me eel de me, in which case the grantee might
be considered as holding from his immediate grantor, and then the
security, without a charter of confirmation, was good against third
parties, whatever it might be against the bed. Mr. Stephenson,
then, having departed from the usual mode, he was bound to have
rendered the mode which he did adopt effectual by a charter of con-
firmation; and not having done so, he became responsible for the
consequences. The Court below, therefore, had come to a right
cancl_ ,uelon and he proposed that the judgment be affirmed.;
Affirmed accordingly, but without coats.

LAW REPORTS.
COURT OF COMILEAS, JULY 14.
Before Mr. Justice Gazir.sx and a London Common Jury.
LODEN. AND Wiyt v. ROWBOTRAN.-41r. Sergeant WILDE
(with whom was Mr. KELLY) said, that this was an action brought
to recover 361.165. being the amount of wages which the plaintiff's
wife was entitled to from the defendant. Site had lived with the de.
fendant for three years and a quarter,at a salary of 201. a year, before
her marriage. The present sum (381. 155.) was the balance that
was unpaid, and the defendant now refused to pay it. Why be did
so, he could hardly inform the Jury. There could be no doubt of
the hire, and he supposed that the defendant would only pay his
debts according to law, as be had been involved in seven or eight
actions. The wisdom of that maxim would, he had no doubt,
be impressed on their minds by his Learned Friend, and he hoped
that the Jury would make the defendant pay the present demand
according to law. Mr. Rowbotham was a man of taste,
and kept a house at the West Rod of the town, which was called
the " Finish," and was a very useful house to the market-
wieners at Covent-garden. It was a house for their accommo-
dation in the early part of the morning ; but he believed that other
parties, who did not like the day-light, took refreshments also at
that house, and thus terminated their pleasures of the day.
It was, therefore, called the " Finish," he supposed from
its being a place for the termination or finish of the evening's
amusement. The plaintiff's wife was an experienced housemaid,
and she had taken the place in consequence of her sister, who had
been engaged at 201. a year, getting married, he might add fortu-
nately. She was well acquainted with the line of business, and had
conducted herself in a very proper manner. She had discharged her
duties for three yeas*, and only went away in consequence of marry-
ing Mr. Loder. He should prove what wages such panne in vs.
neral had, and be apprehended that he should be then entitled to
their verdict.

The following witnesses were then called :--
Sarah Neal, the sister of Mrs. Loder, stated that she' was formerly
bar-maid in the service of Rowbotham's brother ; she was applied
to by Rowbotham to fill the situation of bar-maid in his house,
which she agreed to do at a salary of 201. per annum ; she, how.
ever, married soon after, and gave up the engagement • her sister
then took it; the duties of her situation were very arduous ; she
staid three years and a quarter.
Cross.examined by Mr. Serjeant SPANIUZ—I do not speak
from experience in the defendant's house, nor do I wish to do so.
Thos. Burges, a Chelsealpensioner, said he had lived in the
" Finish" five years • he knew Jane Loder there ; she was bar-
maid, and did some of house-work ; he usn'to call her every
morning at two o'clock; she then got up and attended to the ens-
tomers ; 201. a-year was little enough as wages for that place.
Cross-examined-1 am a Chelsea pensioner; that is an excellent
" finish" for me, I assure you (a laugh;) Jane Loder was a tidy
young woman when she " pracdsed behind the bar; I have seen
the customers give her a shilling now and then ; the house was well
frequented; it was very bury at two o'clock; at this time of the
day it is pretty quiet; I do not know if Loder was in love with Jane,
and Jane in love with him (laughter;) I do not know if she had
any " rails" or perquisites ; I think she bad not.
Re-examined: The waiters generally got the shillings up stairs.
Mr. Thorpe deposed to applying for some money, on the part
the plaintiff, to Mr. Rowbotham ; he said no such money was due
to her ; he afterwards desired him to bring the account in. Witness
asked what he would give her ? he said, the same as he gave his
present bar-maid. Witness inquired what that was ? he replied be
did not know • 201. was not too high wages for such a place; he
(witness) had a waiter.
Cron-examined Bar-maids never expect to get anything from
the customers.
Mr. Berjeant SPANZIE addlINIMPli the Jury for the defendant,
and said, that It had been remented that Mr. Rowbotham
was a very litigious man, and he had been involved in
seven or eight actions. This, however, they had no evidence of,
and It appeared that the defendant had never been concerned with
the law, except in the present unfortunate instance. This, how-
ever, he could not help, for there would be always persons
found to bring actions. He would state how the actions had
been brought. When a man married he always expected (and he
had a right to do so,) that his wife would endow him with all
her goods and chattels. He takes them, live stock, and all, in
fact, belonging to her. When Mr. Lodes took his present wife,
he said, no duubt, that he had a right to this, and to bring any ac-
tion which she had been entitled to before her marriage, in right o
his wife. Mr. Lodes said he must have all belonging to her, and
he bad employed en attorney to get the present demand, as part
her goods, chattels, and live stock. It had been said, that " The
Finish" denoted by Its name that it was the termination of the
evening's pleasures. It was, however, the very contrary, for it an-
nounced the commencement of the morning. This had proved the
case with many whose names were of great celebrity, which he need
not mention. Dr. Johnson, however, was one of them; he had gone
to this Finish one morning, and got so delighted with the coffee and
other good things that he partook ot; that he turned out into the
market like a great " lubber fiend." He there tossed about on
the market baskets in such a manner that the people's attention
, was attracted. Doctor Johnson, the great man of the times, was
recognized, and all stared at him, wondering how such a man
could have been brought there In such a situation. This
showed that it was a very good "finish." Rut, indeed, the
house was a very useful one, especially to the market gardeners.
The plaintiff's wife certainly attended to them, but if she got up
in the morning she could have gone to bed betimes and rested her.
self on a very excellent bed, no doubt, as it was in Mr.ltowbotham's
house —(a laugh,) But this was not the question—the point was,
whether the plaintiff was entitled to her claim. There had been
no contract made, and If she really were engaged at • salary, why
, did she leave Mr. Rowbotham's when such -a large sum wax in
arrear ? The fact was, however, that wages were seldom or ever
paid to a young woman who " practised" behind such • " bar" as
Ws. Rewbothatar's. She generally receivel some fee from those
who wanted their glass ot gin procured with expedition. It was

a common thing for such people and chambermaids to buy
their places, as they generally received landseine gratuities
from the visitors. He was instructed to prove that this was the
case with the plaintiff's wife, and he should then ask a verdict for
the defendant.
A waiter in the employment of Rowbotham said, that the plain.
MN wife had frequently got several shillings from customers
in the morning ; scarcely a morning passed during the time she was
with the defendant that she did not receive some little present ; at
the latter aid of her stay she was not very attentive ; she went out
frequently with her sweetheart in the day, and did not return till
12 o'clock at night.
Mr. &lomat Seartizz—Oh yes, of comm.—they young
people, and must be excused.—(Lsughter.)
Mr. Sajeant WILDE replied, and said, that this evidence did not
affect the plaintiff'. case.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Dam!len 361. 166-
Comex* v. CURRY..—Mr. Seljelitt WILDE (with WhOlD was
Mr. Coserw) stated that the plaintiff in this case was a lady keep-
ing a respectable seminary in the Clapham-raid, and she brought
this action to recover 22L and odd, being the amount of schooling
and boarding, ice» a little child, of whom be presumed the defend-
ant (Mr. Curry) was the father. The circumstances under which
the action was brought were very peculiar, and were as follow s—
in the Midsummer of last year a lady, named Mrs. Curry, applied
to the plaintiff to take the little girl into her academy, and edu.
cats her liberally. The plaintiff made inquiries as to the respec-
tability, itc. of the party of the landlord of the house which Mrs.
Curry tenanted, and she was given to understand that she was mar-
ried, and they were very respectable people. The little child was
then received by the plaintiff, and taken care of in the usual way.
The bill at the end of the quarter was seat in, and he should prove
that Mr. Curry made no objection to it, excepting one charge, for
music. It, however, was not paid ; and the next quarters bill,
at Christmas, was also unpaid. The plaintiff then refused
to take back the child unless the bills were discharged. The child,
he should prove, was sent to school at the desire of the defendant,
and the action was brought to recover payment of the account. He
understood that the defendant meant to set up the following defence:
He says that Mrs. Curry is not his wife, and, therefore, he is not
liable to a payment of an account incurred by her. It appeared that
unfortunate female married, about twenty years since, a sea-faring
man, who went on a long voyage. She was told by apparently good
authority that he had been drowned, and afters ar or two she
married another man, who, in a short time, died. She then married
the defendant. After some time she was informed that her first hus-
band had been seen at the Royal Exchange in good health. The
defendant had had some difference with her an&in order to get rid
of his responsibility for her debts, no doubt, indicted her for bigamy.
She was tried and convicted, and he was told the presiding Judge
sentenced her to ten days' confinement. He now used these circum-
stances to avoid the payment of the present demand. If, however,
he (the Learned &leant) proved that Mr. Curry had accredited
Mrs. Curry as his wife, and had held her out as such to tradespeople
and others, he apprehended that he should then be entitled to their
verdict. When they receive a good character of the parties, and un-
derstand, or are led to believe, from their own conduct that they are
married, they are not obliged to ask for the certificate of the mar-
riage. He hoped, then, that the Jury would relieve the defendant
from the pain which his conscience must experience hereafter on re-
fusing such a just demand, by finding their verdict for the plaintiff.
The following witnesses were then examined :
Miss Jane Beason, a teacher at the plaintiff's school, recollected
a child of Mrs. Curry's coming in 1829, after Midsummer, to Mrs.
Corner's school. She was educated, boarded, and treated in every
way like the other young ladles. The charges in the bill were mo-
derate and usual. She bad seen Mrs. Curry at the school She had
seen her in Court that day.
Mr. William Bowstead said he was the landlord of a house in the

neighbourhood of Vauxhall. He let it to lady named Mrs. Curry.
He understood she was a married woman, but he had never seen
Mr. Curry. He told the plaintiff, on her application, that they
were respectable people, as far as he knew.
Mary Wood, a servant to Mrs. Curry, recollected having ?seen
Mr. Curry several times ; they passed as man and wife ; she tecol-
laird their little child Augusta; Mr. Curry came once to town,
and told Mrs. Curry to send her to school; he called again in a
week, and asked if she had gone; Mrs Curry said so, as her clothes
were not ready; the child afterwards went to Mrs. Corner; she
recollected the bill being sent ; Mr. Curry said he had no objection
to pay it, but be would not pay for the teaching of music.
o.an-examined—The bill came in after Midsummer ; Augusta
had then been at school a quarter of a year ; Mrs. Curry kept the
house in a very respectable way ; she did not go by the name of
Mrs. Moore; she had lived as servant with her for three years; she
could not say if gentlemen came to the house at night.
Re-examined—Had seen Mr. Curry frequently at the house.
Mr. Richard Spedding said he had seen Mrs. Curry in company
with Mr. Curry at their house, in Buckingham-street ; they ad-
dressed each other as man and wife ; Mr. Curry was purser to a ship.
Crow examined—l never went by any other name than Sped.
ding; I do not call myself Dr. Barker; I have been called so ; I
do not know how I happened to be called so; I am &clerk at a coal
wharf; I was called Dr. Barker in places where I did not wish to
be known; I answered to that name; I have been called Dr. Barker
In mixed society (a laugh); I have been called so In Mr. Curry's
society (a laugh).
A letter from the defendant to Mrs. Curry was put in and read.
It intimated that he had sent moneys for the discharge of several ac-
counts which had been sent to him.
The reaTitn:frs bill was also put in and read.
Mr. 'cant TADDY appeared for the defendant, and said that
they had t beard of the misfottunes of Mr. Curry. One of the
principal was, that he had married the lady who was at present
called by his name. After his marriage he discovered that she had
previously been living with another man, and he then went abroad,
being a purser. During his absence he should prove that Mrs.
Curry lived in an adulterous knercobrse with a man of the name of
Moore, and the child, whose edication was the subject of the
present action, was the offspring of that connection. That, how.
ever, he would admit, was not the question. The real question
was, whether Mr. Curry had rendered himself liable for the payment
of this account 1, This chiefly depended on Mary Wood's testi-
mony, and the credit that the Jury would give to it. She was, it
would appear, the only person who, with the exception of the gen-
tleman with two names, had seen Mr. Curry in Buckingham-street,
Vauxhall.toad. The landlord, who was the most likely person,
had not seen him, and he had treated concerning the rent with Mrs.
• Curry. Mts. Corner had done the same, and she bad taken the
child under her care, well knowing that it was the offspring of an
adulterous intercourse while Mr. Curry was at sea. He should put
witnesses in the box who would fully make out these facts.
Mrs. Mary Brownant examined— About seven years ago I knew
a Mr. and Mrs. Moore, who were living in Canterbury-place, Lam-
beth ; they bad a female child with them, named Sarah Caroline
Moore; she passed afterwards by the name of Mrs. Curvy; the child
afterwards went by the same name ; I have seen Mr. Curry ; be
came Prom sea about two years and a half since. When I saw the
child it was about two years old.
Mr. N. Ingram—Knew Mrs. Curry when she passed by another
name; she lived with a Mr. Moore, in Gray's Inn-lane; a female
child was born ; he believed she has since passed by the name
Curry; 1 have heard her called so; I was present at the christening
when the child was named Sarah Caroline Moon; this was, 1 be-
lieve, in 1821; Mr. Moore was a working jeweller.
Croes-examined—l heard her called Mrs. Curry about three years
since in Buckingham-street, Vauxhall-road, Lambeth.
The clerk to the defendant's attorney said he had seen Mrs. Curry
at the 014 Bailey, when she was convicted of Bigamy at the May
Sessions in the present year.
The certificate of the marriage in 1810, and register of the child's
christening, were put in.
Mr. Serjeant WILDZ replied, and said, that notwithstanding the
insinuations that had been mat upon the plaintiff's witnesses, be
was certain that the Jury would be of opinion that the case which
had been first made out for the plaintiff had not been altered in the
slightest manner.
Mr. Justice GAILSZLZI summed up, and said that the whole case
depended upon the evidence of Mary Wood. If the Jury believed
that, they would find for the plaintiff. The Learned Judge was
proceeding to make other remarks, when
The Jury said they bad made up their minds.
A verdict was then returned for the plaintiff--damages 221.125.