Star.
London, England, 1824-08-30 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDFORD, AUGUST 28.

THE ANGEI. ESTATE.-DOE AND BAYLEY V. ANGEL.
TDIS was an action of ejectment, to recover the pos-
session of certain buildings and lands, at St. Mary,
Lambeth, Tooting, and other places in this county.
fhe object of this ejectment was to determine the
right between the contending parties. to the great Angel
Estate, which has been the subject of so much litigation,
both at law and equity.
The lessor of the plaintiff, Mrs. Mary Bayley, claimed,
as heir at law of the common ancestor of both parties,
namely, William Angel, who was a citizen and fish-
monger of London in 1623, and third son to a Mr. An-
gel, who held the office of Serjeant of the Acatery
(pastrycook or confectioner) to James the First and
Charles the First, and who had married Joan Povey,
the daughter of John Povey Geat. and sister to Justi-
nian Povey, wha was Auditor• General to Queen Anne:
The defendant claimed as devi,ee, under the will of the
person last seised of the immense estates in question.
It was expected that the trial would last at least two
days, but after two or three witnesses were examined,
the plaintiff's cause completely broke down. As all eady
mentioned, Mrs. Bayley claimed, as—surviving heir at
law of the common ancestor, but it appeared that she
had still a brother living, -who had issue, and whose!
title, if he had any, would take precedence of her s. In
consequence of this unexpected discovery, the plaintiff
was nonsuited.

Great expense had been incurred in getting up the
Cause, and unt 1 ete fact was proved in eviJence, the So-
licitors for the plaintiff were kept in the dark as to the
fact of there being any male branches of the family in
existence, who had a better title than Mrs. Bayley to
the estates.

In consequence of the sudden breaking up of this cause,
the parties were not ready in the remaining causes, and,
therefore, it became necessary to withdraw the records.

CARLISLE, AUGUST ee.
SEDUCTION.

Mr. PATTESON opened the pleadings. This was an
action against the defendant, for the seduction of the
plaintiff s daughter per quod servitium The de-
fendant pleaded the general issue, whereupon issue was
joined.—Mr. BRoUGHAM told the Jury that they had
heard from his Learned Friend the nature of the issue
Which they had to try. The plaintiff was a butcher,
and the defendant was a farmer living in his neighbour-
hood. The action was brought to recover a compensa-
tion in damages for one of the most serious injuries that
a father could sustain—namely, the seduction and ruin
of his child. The law of England allowed such a com-
pensation in a very singular way : it said, that a father
might recover damages for such an injury, not merely
in proportion to the loss of his child's services, but also
in proportion to the loss he sustained in being deprived
of her society And character, and to the dishonour and
misery which he received thereby. At the same time,
unless a loss of service could be shewn, the law said that
the father should not recover for the loss of his daugh-
ter's char acter and society. On account of the singu-
larity of the present case, he thought it requisite to
mention this point in the first instance, in order that he
'might have the benefit of his Lordship's opinion upon it.
What he considered to be the greatest aggravation of
the defendant's guilt might in this case be set up as an'
answer to the action. The plaintiff's daughter was the
hired servant of the defendant at the time when he com-
pleted her seduction. That circumstance was, he main-
tained, the greatest possible aggravation of the defen-
dant's offence; for, to use the authority of the master
to effect the ruin of the servant, involved a breach of
trust reposed in him, and evinced a want of proper
respect, not only to his servant, but also to himself.
Yet, under such circumstances, the law of England said
that the action of seduction did not lie. Without ques-
tioning the propriety of that rule at present, he would
simply observe, that the circumstances which he was
about to mention were, in his opinion, sufficient to take
this case out of it. The hiring, as well by the custom of
the county as by express stipulation, was for the half-
year, a week being allowed her during that time to go
where she liked. During that week she was accus-
tomed to go home to her father, and whilst there per-
formed such services—
'o
Mr. Baron HuLt.ocx—l am afraid that will not do. I remember
a very aggravated case in which a Clergyman was the defendant, in
-which it was decided that that was not sufficient proof of less
of service.

Mr. &mum said the case was tilat of Deane and Peel, sth East.
Mr. BROUGHAM submitted that that was not a case in point.
There the daughter went into the service of defendant's brother-in-
law, where she remained without any animus revertersdi ; whereas
here, the daughter returned periodically and worked for her father.
Mr. Baron Hot.t.occ said he was very sorry, but he feared, if the
case stood as he described it, the plaintiff must be nonsuited.
Mr. BROUGHAM said he could carry the case no further.
The plaintiff was nonsuited.
Samuel Cube, alias Charles Samuel Cave, stood charged
with having, on the 25th day of March last, feloniously
married and taken to wife one Mary Cape, at the pat ish
of St. Cuthbert, Carlisle, in this County, his former
wife (Catherine Bingham) being then alive.
The case of the prisoner excited great interest at this
place, and the Ladies of Carlisle were kept till a late
hour in the day, in breathless expectation of its being
called. The Court was crowded to excess.

Mr. COURTNEY stated the case on the part of the pro-
secution. The prisoner, he said, had come into this
city, and put up at the sign of the King's Arms Inn, in
English-street, where he fell desperately in love with
Mary Cape, the sister-in-law of Mrs. Donald, under-
standing she had a fortune to receive on her coming of
age ; and to skew that he was a man of pretensions, he
assumed the Gentleman by stating that he was shortly
to be in the receipt of vast property, and laid claim to
an estate at Thornly Hall, besides which he l.alfunded
property, and was in other respects a man of consequence;
but unluckily for our hero, he wanted filthy lucre ; and
what does he do but set about " raising the wind," and
was so fortunate as to obtain a certain loan from a
respectable Solicitor of this place (a Mr. G. Saul) whom
he sent for afterwards to make his will, being taken very
ill at church soon after his arrival, to whom he made
known his great wealth and title, informing him of his
pedigree, and said that he had been advised to come to
Carlisle by a surgeon, for the benefit of his health, which
was very precarious when he left his paternal seat. The
result was, that he obtained from Mr. Saul 301. which
he forgot to pay, and which he was charged with ob-
taining under false pretences, but which was subse•
quently given up, and the prisoner now stood to take
his trial for the bigamy only. The Learned Counsel
having stated the preliminary facts, called several wit-
nesses, who proved that the prisoner was a journeyman
cooper, of 110 estate whatever ; they also proved his
marriage with Charlotte Bingham, and his subsequent
marriage with Mary Cape.
The prisoner made no defence, and the Jury, aftti
consulting a few minutes, found him Guilty.

The prisoror WA again indicted for, and found Guilty
of a third marriage w►th a person of the name of Sarah
Kent.—He was transported for seven years.
John Moor, aged 39, and James Brown, aged 50,
stood charged with stealing from the person of John
Carruthers, at Stannup, a pocket-book, containing
val ions cash notes to a considerable amount.—After the
evidence had been gone through,
The Learned JUDGE charged the Jury, who brought
in a verdict of Guilty as to J. Moor, and acquitted
James Brown from the want of evidence.
The JuDGE said, that but for the circumstance of his
having been in the service of his King and country, he
should have felt it his duty to have visited him with a
severe punishment ; as it was, the sentence of the Court
was that he he imprisoned two years in the House of
Correction, and kept to hard labour.— The prisoner
wore a W,iterloo medal.

James Davidson, aged 27, was found guilty of felo•
niousiy taking from the person of John Matthews, of
Warnell Fell, the sum of 275. at the end of Caldew
Bridge, near the city of Carlisle.—Guilty, Death.
GLOUCESTER, AUGUST 28.
Alta Perry, an extremely respectable looking mar-
ried man, was indicted for abusing the person of Eliza-
beth, the daughter of Thomas Taylor, a child of the
age of four }ears and six months.
The child was a remarkably handsome 6ae•looking
child, but as front her tender years she was ignorant of
the religious obligation of an oath, she could not be ex-
antitiel, and the pt Loner was therefore acquitted of the
capital charge, but was tried for the misdemeanour.
.111 t prisoner was found " Guilty" on the clearest but most di,-
gusting evidence.