Star.
London, England, 1809-07-04 00:00:00

. „
• •
Q. You sew you have not beta. bribed P--4. I
.14a, been
worn already.. - ' • .; •
Mr. Daniel Wright (the Plaintiff's brOthei) colt=.
firmed Mrs. Clarke in every. particular as to the credit
given to Colonel Wardle, and said, that he called in
a gig, when he was told that Wright Wanted money,
and asked whether a bill would not do as well ? Being
told he wanted 5001. or 6001. be said he woulclattend
to it immediately. He also stated, that the defendant
looked out the sideboard.M that Major Dodd and he
chose the carpet ; and Mrs. Clarke yielded, because
she said they were to pay fur it. The amount of the
bill was originally 19141. and 5001, being paid off,
there were 14191. lets due. No goods were sent in
on credit till after Colonel Wardle had called. His
name was not mentioned, but he knew.him by si.4llu.
The goods sent in to fit up the house, at first, to the
amount of 2001. were afterwards chirged to Colonel
Wardle. They began furnishing about the last day
of November, or the Ist of December. Mrs. Clarke
was not in the house till after the furniture was in.

- Oh his cross.examination by Mr. PARKE, he said,
the bill contained a charge of 261. for earpenter's
work done, which was not ordered by Colonel War-
dle ; this carpenter had done repairs to the kitchen
There was a charge also for 91. 15s. for coals, phis-
terees work, 211. ; painter's work, 181. One item
was a tasteful figure of Mirth and Wine for a pith-,
that is, a lamp supported by a figure, 141. ; a Grecian
sofa, 501.; another Grecian sofa, 431. ; chimney-•
glasses, 200 guineas ; French window-curtains, two
sets for the front drawing room (there was a third
set enumerated in this charge), 931. 16s. ed. these
we:e without the cornices; and a charge also of
91. 4s. for ireiurance from fire.
Mr. Serjeant ties:, for the Defendant,. denied that
he was liable to pay. He said that Mrs. Clarke and
Mr. D. Wright contradicted each other materially as
to the 2001. worth of furniture on hire, and also as to
the time when the furniture leas sent in on sale. Mrs.
Clarke at first wished to make it believed that the
transaction took plied at the and of Autumn, in order
to include many things which Colonel Wardle could
not possibly be required to pay. They differed as to the
2001. worth of furniture on hire. One said that was
• taken back, the other said it was passed to the De-
findanes credit. This was clearly within the statute
of frauds, and the promise should have been in writ-
ing. With these contradittions he called upon the
• Jury to reject all the testimony of Mrs. Clarke, and
of Wright also. There was good reason why the
Plaintiff should trust Mr:. Clarke, b:canse she was
6001. in his de t, and ht knew her intriguing spirit,
and thought it better to trust her with goods to enable
her to keep up appearances. than to let her sink into
insignificance, by which means he would lose his
money. The insurance of the goods sheaved that he
looked to Mrs.,Clarke as his security. As for Mrs.
Ch rke, she was a• woman whom nobody ought to
believe. She was the most artful inventor of a ficti-
twos tale that ever appeared. As to Major Dodd,
he could not call him, because he did not believe he
was present.—(One of the Jury asked here, why the •.
bill was given for .5001, and in whose name ? To
this the Learned Serjeant answered, that it' was all a
fahri;ation.) - In this case Colonel Wardle's honour
was at stake; for Mrs. C. wished it to be understood
that all this furniture was given as a bribe for her to
appear in the House of Commons. • The Jtiry would
surely not invade both his property and his honour,
upon the testimony of a woman who could 1.. c be-
lieved in no Court of Justice: If he could judge of
ColonetWardle by his own feelings, he said he was
sure after the exhibition she had made to-day, it was
impossible that had that happened before the motion
against the Duke of York, he could have attached any
credit to her testimony.

There were no dates to any particular items through-
out the whole bill.

Lord ELLENBOUOUGH summed up the case, and
complained both of the plaintiff and the defendant.
The one he said, had introduced charges which were
evidently unfair in his bill, such as the insurance, the
plaisterer's bill, Lcc. [These were given up by the
Attorney-General.] There was also a cliarge fOr
kitchen furniture; but that was sometimes supplied
by pervms who furnished the house, and the Jury
w0u..1 inquire whether that was within the scope of
the defendant's order ?--On the other hand : the de- I
Pendant had denied the circumstance of the bill, but
ha would do that at his peril ; for if he denied it, then
the charge would be so much increased. His Lordshilo
likewise thought, that if credit was ever given to
Mrs. Clarke for the 2001. worth of furnitu7e, tlut
slik.nld have been provided for by a promise in wri-
ting. His Lordlip then detailed the evidence, be-
cause there were some mistakes, or some inconsisten-
cies in the dates, some of which were hastily applied
to things which were not accurately settled. There
was some little confusion in this respect, which could
onlv be -leased up by reading the whole evidence.
The .fury retired, and about nine o'cl.)ck brought
in A verdict for ;lie plaintiff, deducting the ‘2ool. the
50:11. paid, and. also all the items for phistering,
painting, insurance, &c. which are to be taken out of
the bill by the officer of the Court.

CREW. CON.

LOVEDEN, Er.Q. V. THOMAS RAYMOND BARKER, rso.

This was an action brought by the Plaintiff, who
is a Member of Par-liar/rent for Abingdon, against
the Defendant, who is the sen of a Gentleman of for-
tune, and is a Lay-Felldw of. Merton• College, Oxford,
for criminal conversation with the Plaintiff's wife.—
The Plaintiff had had three wives, the last of whom,
his present wife, is about '25 years of age, while the
Plaintiff himself is upwards of 60. The Defendant
was an intimate acquaintance of the family, and evi•
dente was adduced to prove a criminal connection
between, the Plaintiff's wife and the Defendant, at no
less than eight different times, although only two of
these times were relied upon, the rest going to prove
only an improper familiarity between the parties.
Two grooms of the Plaintiff deposed, as to the Plain-
tiff's wife and the Defendant frequently riding out
together, when at one time they. ent into the nursery-
ground belonging to Mr. Henderson on the Edge.'
ware-roadeand were observed to get into the summer
house in close conversation together, the Defendant
laying his hand upon the lady's shoulder.
The Plaintiff's Coachman and footman also stated,
that' in May IEO6, the lady took the Defendant up
in her landaulet, the blinds being closed,in Bond-
street, and set him down at Temple.har. It was hot
weather, and she had, been accustomed to have the
carriage open; but this day she had it closed, and