The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-18 00:00:00

THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. BARKER.

This was an action of debt, brought to recover the sum
of 2001. for money lent, and on account, to which
the defendant had pleaded—first, that he was never in-
debted; and, secondly, that the plaintiff was indebted to
him 500/. for work and labour done. The plaintiff re-
plied joining issue upon the first plea, and den) ing that
he ever was indebted to the defendant as he alleged.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Paine appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Martin for the defendant.

Mr. JERVIs stated the plaintiff's case. He had the
honour on that occasion to appear as counsel for his
Serene Highness Charles Frederick Augustus, Duke of
Brunswick, who had been reluctantly compelled to bring
the present action, to recover the sum of 2001., with
interest, which was advanced to the defendant in
the month of July, 1842. His Serene Highness, as no
doubt the jury were aware, was the possessor of
a large income, and was a liberal patron of various
arts and professions, Amongst others, his Serene
Highness had been a distinguished patron of that to
which Mr. Barker belonged. Mr. Barker was a singer
of some celebrity, and was formerly employed at Drury-
lane, and likewise the Princess' Theatres. In the
month of July, 1842, Mr. Barker had occasion to ex-
pend a considerable sum of money about cer-
tain matters in which he was engaged, but
in no account or shape connected with the
Duke. Indeed, he believed the matter had relation
to the management of the affairs of the late Earl of Co-
ventry, and to enable him to continue his proceedings
in the matter, Mr. Barker applied to the Duke fur the
loan of a sum of money. His serene Highness con-
sented to advance him 2001., and the money was handed
over to him by one of his Highness's suite, and Mr.
Barker gave a written acknowledgement for the money.
Repeated applications had since been made to Mr. Barker
to refund the money, but Mr. Barker, not being in a
position to do so, and setting up the preposterous claim
mentioned in his pleas, the Duke was compelled to have
recourse to law to recover the money he had advanced.
Baron Andlau was the first witness called. He stated
that he was formerly equerry to the Duke, and remem-
bered perfectly well his Highness lending Mr. Barker
the 200/. It was in the month of July, 1842. He had
since seen Mr. Barker on the subject of its repayment,
when Mr. Barker offered to refund it, by paying out of
his salary weekly. instalments of 1/. or 21.
On cross-examination, he said he under; tood the money
was advanced to Mr. Barker for a certain purpose. It
was to enable him to prosecute certain proceedings he
had instituted for the purpose of getting the late lord
Coventry out of confinement. It was distinctly under-
stood, however, that the money was to be repaid, and
the proceedings were certainly not prosecuted fur, or on
behalf of, the Duke.
Mr. MARTIN said, after this conclusive evidence of the
debt, he would not waste the time of the Court by pro-
ceeding with the defence, but allow the plaintiff to take
a verdict.—A verdict was, therefore, entered for the
noble plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

COORT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 17.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE POULT')N.
The bankrupt in this ease was described as a straw
plait manufacturer at Luton, and to .day was appointed
for the choice of assignees.
The preliminary arguments were as to whether the
bankrupt was a trader, and the facts were peculiar. It
appeared that he had partially built some houses, and
let one to his father, who, it was alleged, carried on busi-
ness as a beershop-keeper, &c. Defendant, however,
had signed the requisition to the Excise for the license,
and the name, " John Poulton," was over the door. The
bankrupt, however, positively swore that the business
was his father's, who enjoyed the whole of the profits,
bankrupt himself being a commercial traveller. He,
however, admitted that he had written letters for goods,
and never made any distinction, by saying senior or
junior. His wife assisted in the shop, and also bought
plait, and made bonnets, which she sent to bankrupt's
employers.
The Excise officers said that they held the bankrupt
liable under the requisition.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said, the profits of the
wife in the plait manufacturing might, perhaps, be
sufficient alone.
A Solicitor was called, who proved that when he went
to serve the bankrupt with a writ, he saw him serving in
the shop, and also entering in a book.
Mr. LAWRENCE, for the defendrnt, said he could no
longer contend against the fiat, although there was no
doubt he had very unintentionally made himself liable—
he really intended only to assist his father.
The choice-of assignees took place.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Dec. 17.
(Before Mr. Secondary Porrzu
JURYMEN RE-FINED.—Four gentlemen, who were
fined on the last court day 51. each for non-attendance,
were again called on their recognisances. One answered ;
another had his fine remitted, as his name ought to have
been on the Grand Jury list. The others not answering,
were fined a second time, the Secondary observing that
it had become absolutely necessary to enforce the attend.
ance of jurymen.
The only case possessing the slightest interest was—

GRAFTON V. BOND.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered. The
plaintiff is a watchmaker and jeweller, in Eastcheap.
The defendant is a gentleman residing at Stockwell.
The defendant had put in a special plea, and Counsel
held a brief, but the instructions were insufficient, and
neither attorney or witnesses were in attendance.
Counsel therefore said he would consent to a verdict for
an amount to be settled with the attorney.
The SECONDARY said that he could not take the con-
sent, except from the defendant in person or his attorney.
Plaintiff must prove his ease.
Witnesses were called—the first a "schoolmaster,"
who said he was always with defendant, and a gold
watch chain, seal, ring, snuff-box, and pencil ease, had
been sold to defendant either at his (witness's) house, or
in plaintiff's shop. The watch had been sent back to be
repaired, and plaintiff for some reason detained it.
The SECONDARY said the verdict must be for the value
of the whole, and defendant's remedy was by action of
trover.—Verdict for the full amount.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
Before Mr. Justice Pm ESON and Mr. Baron A LDERION.)

UMartha Brown
MURDER
THE --- --- --
waesaiutidiictecl for the wilful murder of
AT WESTMINSTER.
Mr. Clarkson defended
the of of December last.
Elizabeth Mundell,
prisoner ; and Mr. Bodkin
(with whom was Mr. Clarke) ssttaatteed the case for the pro-
ent was only a sum-
mary that she conclusion
was the wife of Ed ward
secution at some lengtb.Aßtlists r
he called—
Marymarir of
Gthazeee:widheonsetea.
Gaze, and the daughter of the deceased.
Si resides in
Little Rochester•street, Rochester-road, iWestminster.i
She knew the prisoner at the bar, and has k
for about six months. She had lately lodged with her
mother. She had lodged with her for three weeks, and :i

they lived in the same room, and slept in the same bed.
Her mother lived at No. 1, Providence-place, Brewer-
green,Westmiaster. On Monday, the Ist of December,
) the prisoner called at witness's house at about a quarter
to eight o'clock in the morning, and said that Mrs.
r Mundell was very ill and had had a fit about
r seven o'clock. She also said that witness was required
to go there directly. She also said that Mrs. Mundell
had called out, "Murder, murder, what are you doing to
me ?" On the way to the deceased's lodgings witness
asked her why she did not admit the person who had
knocked at the door, and the prisoner said that she was
holding the deceased's hands at the time. On arriving
at the room witness looked towards the bed. There
were three chairs on the bed. Witness was turning to
go out of the room when she saw her mother lying on her
back on a box. She was in her night clothes. There
was a cord round her neck ; it was about as
thick as her little finger. (The rope was
produced.) It was twisted twice round the
neck and knotted at the side. The knot was the
same as it is now. Witness called out, and some other
persons came into the room. A. baker's boy cut the
string. Witness went for a surgeon, but he could not
come himself, and sent his assistant. There was an in-
quest held on the body of the deceased the same night.
The prisoner was the first witness called. After the
inquest was over, the prisoner went with witness to the
house of the deceased. The inquest was held at the
Coach and Horses, in Dean's-yard. After they got
home from the inquest, witness's husband said that
he did not like the appearance of the bed, as it
was wet. The prisoner remained constantly with witness
from Monday night to Wednesday morning. When
witness sat up she sat up, and when she lay down the
prisoner lay down beside her. In consequence of
something that she said on the Tuesday afternoon, wit-
ness went with her to Bedford-street. The prisoner said
that 151. which she had saved in service was there, and
she offered to lend witness a sovereign. Witness did
not go farther than the corner of the street, as the pri-
soner requested her to wait there. She was about ten
minutes gone. When she came back she said that she
had a 5/. note, and that if witness had enough money for
the present, she would not change it until the next
day. She said that her master had recommended
her to place the money with the person in Bedford-street.
They then to witness's house. On the morning of
Wednesday, the prisoner kissed the body of the deceosed,
and turning round to witness, said, " Oh, do you think
she is happy 2" They then came out of the room. Her
husband asked her if she had any money, and she replied
that she had not. That was in the presence of the
prisoner. Witness then told the prisoner to get the
note changed. Mr. Gaze offered to go, but she would
not allow him to do so. She went into the Blue Coat
Boy public-house. On her coming out, she said, Oh,
they have played a trick cn me—they have given
me a Bank of Elegance instead of a Bank of
England note. She said that it was the person in Bed-
ford-street who had cheated her. Mr. Gaze asked her
to let him look at it. but the:prisoner hesitated. Wit-
ness then asked her also, and the prisonner then gave
the note to Mr. Gaze. When Mr. Gaze got the note
he called witness aside, and showed her the note, and
then returned it to the prisoner. He subsevently asked
to be allowed to look at it again ; and witness's husband
said, " I must know where you got the note from, for
my mother had two." The prisoner said, “Oh I Mr.
Gaze, she had." She repeated the expression in
a tone of inquiry. Witness observed the
note at that time, and saw that it had
belonged to her mother, as there were two grease
spots on it near the corner. When they got in doors
witness again asked for the note, and the prisoner hesi
tated very much, and then gave it to her. When she
saw that witness looked attentively at it, the prisoner
made a snatch at it, but witness avoided the movement
and folded up the note. She afterwards gave it to her
husband, when the prisoner attempted to snatch it.
Witnes said, "Martha, I shall not let you have this note
until I know where it has come from." The prisoner
then went down into the water closet, and afterwards
went along the passage towards the door, but was
stopped by the landlady. Her mother kept one of these
in her pocket in a housewife. That housewife had since
been found in the bed. The note produced is the one
that belonged to her mother.
Mr. Justice PATTESON was of opinion that the person
who received the note had better stand up.
Inspector Partridge was then sworn.—He said that he
had received the note from Mr. Gaze on the Wednesday
after the death. [The witnesss identified the note as the
one she had given to her husband, and the one that be-
longed to her mother.]
By AV. CLARKSON—Had seen her mother about a
week previous to her death. Had not seen the note for
three months before the death of her mother. It was in
the possession of her father before her mother had it.
Her mother sometimes drank a little. Had not seen her
mother intoxicated for some time before her death. Had
known her mother to have taken poison, but she said it
was by a mistake. That was about three years ago.
She was then living in Douglas-street. Her family had
seen better days ; but her mother was not low-spirited.
Don't know what poison her mother took. Her father told
her that her mother had taken poison, but the deceased
insisted that it was a mistake. When the prisoner came
to witness on the day of the murder, witness
went instantly with her. Witness did not say, when
on the road, that if her mother did not alter
she would have her pnt into the workhouse. Witness
did say "If my mother dies to-day, before
to-morrow, I shall have nothing to answer for."
When witness got up stairs and saw her mother dead,
she called out. The prisoner asked a Mr. Nightingale
to come up and cut the rope, but he declined touching it
as the woman was dead. The prisoner was not in the
room when the baker's boy cut the rope. Does not
know whether Mr. Graham told the prisoner to
rub her mother, but she did rub her. Dues
not know whether any person said, " She is not
dead ; she moves her eyes and her mouth." The pri-
soner paid Is. 6d. per week for her share of her mother's
bed. The prisoner offered to lend witness some money
of her own accord. The fact that they were not well
off was very well known. Witness saw the prisoner go
into the water-closet, but did not see her come out. Her
mother was not subject to fits, and witness never
knew her to have one. The jury returned a verdict
that the deceased destroyed herself while insane. Iler
mother never' made any attempt on her own life. Wit-
ness said on the inquest that her mother had taken
poison. Witness saw the prisoner at Queen-square.
She was in convulsions during the taking of the depo-
sitions

Mary Gaze, re-examined by Mr. BODKlN—Attended
the pclice-court twice. She was in convulsions on the
first examination, and the case was postponed to the
following Monday in consequence. Her mother's age
was sixty-one. She was in very good health and spirits
when witness saw her a week before her death. Her
mother had 7s. per week, and also kept lodgers. She
was not at all distressed.
By Mr, Justice PATTESON—When she saw her mo-
ther dead she had her night-clothes on. Could not say
if they were wet.
Mary Cheshire stated that she resided in the house
that deceased occupied. She lived in the room adjoining
that of the deceased. Had seen the deceased the day
previous to her death. She was then in very good
health and spirits. About seven o'clock on the morning
of Monday, the Ist, she was awoke by a cry of murder.
It was Mrs. Mundell's voice. There was a second cry
of murder, and witness then got out of bed, and went to
deceased's door. She heard her cry out loudly " What
are you doing ? what are you doing ?" The door was
fastened on the inside. She hammered at the door, and
received no answer, On knocking again the prisoner said
that there was nothing the matter. Witness had previously
asked what was the matter. On receiving that answer
she returned to bed, and then all was silent. In about
a quarter of au hour witness heard the prisoner come
out of the room, and go to a closet. She afterwards
came into witness's room with some firewood in her hand.
She said that the old lady had been very poorly. Wit-
ness told her to go fur Mrs. Gaze, and she said, " I
think I will." She then went out of the room and shut
the door. She entered the room of the deceased, and
shut the door of that also. She afterwards came out
with her bonnet and cloak, and went out. Before going,
she asked witness to go into the room if she heard the
old lady make any, noise. Witness remained in her
room until the prisoner returned. There was no noise
in the deceased's room while she was gone. The pri-
soner came back with Mrs. Gaze in about twenty mi-
nutes. Mrs. Gaze went into tho room first, and disco-
vered that the deceased was dead.

By Mr. CLARKSON—Had known Mrs. Mundell three
months. She used somtimes to get tipsy. When Mrs.
Gaze entered the room the girl was close behind her.
Witness was examined before the Coroner. Had never
known the deceased to Pall out in the night before.
There was a lodger in the house whose name was
Nightingale. Had never heard of the deceased having
attempted her own life.
Edward Gaze stated that he is the husband of the
first witness. Had seen his mother-in-law about nine
days before her death; she was then in her usual
state of health. Rememembers the holding of the
inquest. After the inquest he went into the room to
have the body laid out. On going to remove the bedding
to make room for the corpse, it was very wet. On the
Wednesday following witness was at the deceased's
lodging with the prisoner and his wife. The prisoner
kissed the body and said, "God knows all." She said
that with her hands clasped. When she went down'
stairs she said " Most likely you are short of money.
Gaze, and I will lend you a sovereign." Witness thanked
her, and she then went across the road to get change for
a 51. note. Witness offered to go and get the change,
but she would not allow hi n. In about a minute she
returned, and said that a trick had been
played on her. (The witness here corroborated
his wife's statement in every particular respecting the
fact of looking at the note and detaining it.) He pro-
ceeded to say that, on his insisting that the prisoner
should accompany him to Bedford-street, she seemed
very reluctant to go. When they got opposite the
Horse Guards the prisoner fell back into his arms, say-
ing that she was very ill. He said that he should call a
policeman, and she then revived and walked a little
farther. She again fell into his arms, and said, '° I mur-
dered the poor old lady, and deprived your wife of her
mother," She asked him "to forgive her, and pray for
her guilty soul." He then gave her into custody.
By Mr. CLARKSON—Those were the words used. On
the Wednesday, when the prisoner kissed the dead body
and said, "God knows all," his wife was present. Wit-
ness noticed everything that she said, as he had very
strong suspicion of her. The deceased was a very hale
old woman, and in very good health.
By the CoURT—She was not particularly strong,
nor very weak. Her arms were not very strong.
By Mr. CLARKSON—The girl at the bar is very much
stronger than his mother-inrlaw was. She is a stronger
woman. lied heard that his mother-in-law had taken

poison two or three years since. Could not say for cer-
tain whether it was his wife who told him. _

Elizabeth Stevens stated that sbe lives in Prince's-
court, Lambeth. On the afternoon of the 3d of Decem-
ber she was near the Horse Guards. She saw the pri-