Star.
London, England, 1815-12-07 00:00:00

L4W lIVTRIZIGENCP.

We andirstaid that Brows*, and not Ciao" was the name el
the person who, in the pial of the King against Wheeler, [or'
Iterjwy. reported In l'aeiSoy's STAR, stated it as bis opinion, in
answer to a question to that deer, pot to him by the Awns-
war Oan tam., that Mr. brace was at.t a man to be safely
trusted on his oath.

COURT OF CHANCERY. DECEMBER r.
STEALING A WAkD IN CHANCERY.
BROUGHTON V. gICAZLET•
Mr. LEACH this day addressed the Lord Chancellor
in the above cause, Mr. Beasley and his wife, the
late Miss Wade, being in Court, to abide by the de-
cree of his Lordship.. The facts of this cue have
been frequently before the public, but in order to
recall the circanutancei to the recollection of anr
readers, we shall give the substance of a recent affi-
davit made by Mr. Broughton, from whose keeping
the young Lady eloped with the Defendant. Mr.
Leach adverted to the situation of the defendant,

who had been guilty of a contempt of the Court, in
disobeying the order of the Lord Chancellor, and
stated from the affidavit before mentioned, that the
Lady having last her.parents, who died at, an early
age, was made a ward of the Chancery of burham,
under the protection of Mr. and Mrs. Broughton.—
Being of weak and delicate habit, she was removed,
for the benefit of her health, to Weymouth, where
Mr. Charles Henry Beazley introduced himself to
her notice ; he represented himself to be the son of a
Clergyman, possessing an independent fortune; said
he was entitled to a Baronetcy, and occasionally
mentioned the name of a Nobleman as his particular
friend. By the assistance of a maid servant and a
coachman he was enabled to elope with this Lady ;
he went down with his sister to Weymouth in a car-
riage and splendid livery for the purpose of carrying
her off : the carriage was hired. and the man in rich
livery was no other than a helper at stables, hired
also for the purpose. It further appeared that his
father was a clergyman, in poor circumstances, who
occasionally followed the profession of a picture
dealer. The yditng Lady, carried off on the 12th of
October, was removed to different parts of the coun-
try, and on the 15th of the same month was taken to
a house in Union-street, Southwark, kept by a person
named Gray; during their residence there they
caused the banns of matliniony to be published at
the church of St. Saviour, Southwark. An adver-
tisement which appeared, stating the elopement of
the Lady, reached the eyes of Mr: Gray, who had
the discretion to request Mr. 'Maley to leave the
house. The Lady was then removed to Kensington,
to one of Mr. Beazley's relations. *here she was dis.
covered. Oa the 24th of October she was restored
to her friends, and made a Ward of this Court ;
application was then made to the Lord Chancellor,
and the circumstances of the case having been
brought before the Court, his Lordship, on the 16th
of November, made an order restraining Mr. Beasley
and his sister from having any communication, by
letter or otherwise, with the young Lady. Mr.
Beasley was served with the order on the 19th, by
Broughton and he thought fit, on that occasion
(said Mr. Leach), to defy the authority of the Court,
expressing his resolution to possess this young Lady.
Mr. Beazley had corrupted a female in the family of
Mr. Broughton, to deliver a letter, urging lax to
elope. About the same time he called on Vickery,
the police officer, and offered him £lOOO if he would
lend assistance in gaining the young Lady. In con-
sequence of the vigilance of Mrs. Broughton, she
was removed to a house near Reigate. and lett with
a Mrs. Marley, a person who had the confidence of
the family. However, Mr. Beazley found means to
carry the young Lady off, and to marry her. Mr.
LZACH having detailed all the material parts of the
several affidavits, which implicated others, and par.
ticularly the family of Mr. Beazley, in the plan to
take away Miss Wade in defiance oC die Lord Chan-
cellor's injunction, said, his Lordship would, doubt-
less, secure the property of this young Lady against
the husband and his family. Yet, there was another
duty which the Court had to perform, namely, to
direct that mode of proceeding which should thew
every female Ward in Chancery, that they are pro-
tected Against needy adventurers.
Mr. Bet.t. intimated that there were several persons
connected with this transaction, who ought to be be-
fore the Coon, but who were not.

Sir S. ROMILLY, in behalf of Mr. Broughton, said, ,
that Gentleman had clearly acted with prudence,
and that no blame could attach to him in come- 1
quence of the elopement.
Sir A. Ploorr said, Mr. Beasley admitted that he ,
had been guilty of au offence, and as a proof of his '
contrition be was then in Court with the young lady,
to submit to any order the Lord Chancellor might ,
make. Sir Arthur called the attention of the Chan-
-1 cellar to the situation of *the parties, and expressed a
hope that his Lordship would consider Mr. Beasley
an object, on whom the full severity of the justice of
the Court ought not to fall. The young man feeling
that the young lady had been in his company several
slays after the first elopement, had formed an idea
that he was bdund by honour to marry her, and that
feeling alone had induced him to disobey the order
of the Court. The Lady was united to him, and it
would naturally occur to his Lordship, that any se-
verity dealt out to Mr. Beasley would be shared by
Mrs. Beasley ; her situation was peculiar, and the
Court would not willingly occasion her any portion
of punishment. He reviewed the conduct of the
lady, and drew a conclusion that she never had con-
sidered Mr. Beasley an unworthy object, as she wil-
lingly threw herself on his protection a second time.
Much of the matter contained in the affidavits was
coloured beyond the plain truth, but it was not Mr.
Beasley's intention to find fault with others, he being
in error himself: He complained that a great part of
the misconduct imputed to Mr. Beasley had occurred
before the Lady became a ward of that Court, and
therefore should nut be urged against him. ,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said this was not only a
contempt, but the conduct of others, not then before
the Co►u t, might prove a conspiracy to rob the poor
young lady of her fortune. In that view of it, his
duty would be to follow the example of his prede-
cessors, namely, to direct the parties to be prose. I
cuted by the Attorney-General. In this case there
appeared to have been a conspiracy to obtain the for-
tune of this Lady, and if it should be his duty to
direct a prosecution, he should most certainly per-
, form that duty. He recollected a case before Lord
Loughborough, of a similar conspiracy, where the
parties were found guilty, and sentenced to the pil-

Ivry._ He hoped that would not follow the nr•sf.n.
case. Ms Lordship concluded by ord,r;i wr
ties to attend the Court agaiti on Monday.
A greet number of auditors. particularly km ties
-rowded the Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 6.
GIBSON V. HAWKE.
•
This vitas an action nt assault bkoniTht lo► a Se•tm•an
:manta the Captain 64 f the 1.44 Carrington, I.::,st
Indiaman, to recover d,mAges tor certain initir;rs
received b► him, by or:i.•r of the defendant, in N.
vember, 181'2, on a voyage from this country to itir
East Indies.

The facts of the case were these r—The plain if
was a Captain's conk, 'and on the mitht isf the c1:1
stated in the deelarati,n, had a large lire lighted in the
Captain's galley at the hour o( half.p Ist nine. coa-
ti- try to the express re:tnlatintts of the East In ser-
vice. By these regulations it is °Here.', with a view
to the preservation not alone of the shi•) and et
cargo, but of the lives of the crew and passen.!ers on
board, that all fires shall be extinguished by the holm
of eight o'clock ; that all candles between decks shel
he put nut by nine o'clock ; and that even in thte
Captain's cabin, however high the rank of the pas-
sengers may be, a similar order shall be übserved
ten o'clock. In this instance the plaintitt v n h t.l
the care of the Captain's galley. and vriln,e duty it
was to have taken care that no fire should b-
at the time specified, S detected by the Cap aim
with a rousing fire at the hour of half-past nine --
Under such circumstances, the defendant naturally
alive to the important interests consigned to his
charge, became irritated with his servant, and or-

dered the boatswain to chastise him well. In pur-
suance of this order the boatswain accordingly gave
him what is termed on hoard a ship a :tarring, with a
rope's end; this constituted the ground of the Action.
Lnrd ELLENinottnucts, in summing up the evidence,
left it to the Jury to say whether, under All the cir-
cumstances, and the breach of positive orders cats•
mitred by the plaintiff, the defendant was not itisti
fled in administering some chastisement. It they
thought he was, they would find s verdict in his ft.
your ; but if, on the contrary, they thmi.;lit tit pu-
nishment had not been merited, they would give suet
reasonable damages as, in their judgment, seemed
proper.—The Jury found for the defendant.

SUKCIES4 rr ux v. ALLAWAY.

This was an action of assault to recover damages
for the injury done to the wife of the plaintiff, who is
an attorney of this Court, and Clerk to Messrs. Seton
and Plummer, of George-street, Adelphi. 'nerd
was a second action against the same defendmit for
an assault upon Mr. Burgess. The parties' iii the
month of June last, lodged together in one house in
Linde Chelsea, and on a Sunday evening the defen-
dant burst into the plaintiff's parlour, and after making
use of language, which will not admit of repetition,
committed die violence complained of in this action.
The facts having been proved by the evidence of the
brother of the plaintiff's, a verdict was found in their
favour in both actions.— Damages 45. costs 40,.