Star.
London, England, 1825-03-15 00:00:00

I

( •
i.
i

~
c'

k''

-t
•

,
'

was aSsent I lodged at Mr. Richards's. He joined me
io a few days after at Birmingham, and we went to
S...lmoutli, whet e we took a house for four months. This
s, as in the latter end of 1821. He introduced me there
as his wife. His health was bad, and lie did not go
much int., society. With the exception of oi.e or two
short inter vats of absence, 'A e remained these until his
last jrcitirey to Wimslotv. While at Sidmouth, I had a
svcrind daughter, who died also.. I had after wards
a roarer child, a bay, win is the present plaintiff. He
is ten months old. During the time I was at Sidmouth,
I%lr. Finney went twice to see his mother. He was with
me on both occasions when I lay in. After my son
was born, Mr. Finney said, " What a pity it was that
e had not been married again in England." Ile had
relieaiedly propo:erl that to me. I asked him, " Was I
married then ?" Ile said, " Yes, by the laws of Scot-
land." I said, .4 Then I consider myself mairied."
1 thought that ill wa• married again publicly, it would
be thouelit in Sidmouth that nothing had occurred be-
fore. He made the observation a day or two after my
son was born. He said that he feared his son would
not inherit his e:tate. Hari it been in Scotland, he ob.
served, the case would have been different. I did not
remain yrite a month in Sidmouth after my son was
born. Mr. Finney was then very much declining in
htalth.. Ile made a IA ill, which he brought in to me
while I was in bed ; he desired me to look at it, and I
declined doing so. The child was baptised by the name
of Peter Davetvoit Finney. Mr. Finney set out for
Winslow very soon atter this, in a bad state of health,
and he died at Staff .rd on the . way. I went direct to
where 1 was received by his mother, and
have lived with her ever since. Mr. Finney was always
very attentive to rte ; Ife was quite attached to me.
Cross-exainined by Mr. BROUG.IIAM-1 am now 24.
years of age; when first I consented to marry Mr.
Finney, I was only 19; I do not recollect the day of
the month we were it:allied. I m ide a memorandum
of the day, but I have not brcught it here. Mr. Finney
made no memorandum of the day that I know of.
Mary Wilmot examined—l have been in the service
of Mr. and Mrs. Finney ; I went with them to
Greenock ; we arrive] there on the Saturday ; on the
following Sunday morning, I was sent by Mr. Finney
for a prayer-book, which was in a carpet-bag in the
bed-rtioni ; I brought it, and gave it to Mr. Finney ; I
was going to leave the room ; he told me I must not
leave the room, that I was to stop. Mr. and Mrs. Fin-
ney both stood up, and Mr. Finney began to read the,
marriage ceremony; I cannot remember exactly what'
he said, but if the book were shewn to me I could.
Witness then read that part of the marriage ceremony
to which the preceding witness releired, and said that
s!le heard Mr. Finney read that part, and both of them
male the responses. In my presence, the same day,
Mr. Finney addressed her as Mrs. Finney. They slept
together on the night of the ceremony.
Thomas M'Lellan, waiter at the White Hart, in
Greenock, in the month of September, 1821, recollected
Mrs. Finney and the last witness coming to the house
with a Gentleman who was in bad health. The Gen-
tleman called her Mrs. Finney in his presence. Had
seen the Lady in Court that day, and is quite sure she
is the same. The Lady and Gentleman occupied one
bed-room. Oa the Monday he pat ticularly recollected
hearing Mr. Finney address her ak Mrs. Finney. They
apixared to treat each other as man and wife.
James Walker, formerly the landlord of the White Hart, at
Greenock, gave evidence to the same effect as the last witness.
Mrs. Deakin lived at Birmingham with Mr. Richards,
as housekeeper. Knew that Mr Finneylad left Bir-
Minghain to marry the present Mrs. Finney. Some
time after that the Lady returned to Mr. Richards's.
Mr. Finney was not with her, but he came a day or two
atter. Witness let him in. Witness was born in Dum-
fries. When she lee in Mr. Finney, he asked her whether
she had not some property of his in the house? Witness
did not at first understand him. He then asked whether
his wile was not in the house? Witness said she was.—
pMr. Finney observed he bad been to witness's country to
get married. and that tke ceremony was performed
there. Mr. Finney then went to Mrs. Finney, and after
that they passed in the house as man and wife. Witness
has known people married in Scotland in their own
on n houses. She knows the names of several families
moiled in Scotland in that way. The way was, the
Gentleman asked the Lady whether she would become
his wile, and if she answered in the affirmative, they af-
terwards passed as man and wile,and were so considered.
Thomas StokeS Hodge, who had been a surgeon at
Sidmouth twenty years, attended Mr. and Mrs. Finney
professionally, Mr. Finney always in witness's presence
called her Mrs. Finney, or his wife, and was extremely-
kind to her. Witness attended Mrs. Finney on her
several confinements at S.dinouth. She then had a
son. Upon the birth of the child, witness went down
to Mr. Finney, and wished him joy of his having a son
and heir. Mr. Finney seemed very much rejoiced that
it was a boy. "I am glad," said Ire, 66 it is a boy, for
it is of some consequence;" and he asked witness to
dine with him.
Copies were then put in of the register of the births and baptism
of the two 'children, at Sidmouth, as the children of Peter Mem-
port limey and Mary Anne Finney, and also a copy of the entry
ut the funer.ll of the daughter.
The-will of old Mt. Finney was then proved and put in. It was
tinder the settlement of the estate in this will that both the parties
claimed the estate, which was said to be worth about X 1,200 a.year.
Mr. Campbell, a Writer to the Signet in Scotland, was examined
as to the received law of Scotland, upon the subject of marriage.
Nlr. BROUGHAM objected to the evidence of this witness ou such
csubject. •
Mr. Justice ilotativn was of opinion, that the witness was com-
petent to give evidence as to the law of Scotland, though he was
aware that similar cases had occurreu in which tills objection was
made. lie would, therefore, take his evidence, and would also
make a note of the objection.
Mr. Campbell's examination then proceeded. He was
in the habit of answering cases on marriages according
to the Scotch laws,. There was no particular form ne-
cessary to constitute a valid marriage in Scotland. The
presence of a Priest was not necessary to render a mar-
riage valid: Persons might be mauled in Scotland by
the mere expression of the cement of the, parties given
before witness. He conceived that an engagement to
iti•tr.ry, where a subsequent copula had taken place, and
an acknowledgment was male by the parties that they
were titan and wife, would constitute a good marriage
in Scotland. A copy of Mr. Erskine's Institutes was
handed to_the witness, and he said that that book was
invariably received as a book of authority by the Judges

of Scotland.
A passage was then read from the book, importing, " that t,
of parties was essential to niatriage in Scotland; that such
-Ither express or tacit ; that the ceremony might
clergyman, but neither was it essential that it
WI a Clergyman, or repeated at all; that the eon-
given before a Civil Magistrate 4.r witnesses. was
might be expressed in a wri.ten document ; that
ttowlestgment of the parties themselrs was loin.
ly made; and that marriage was to he pee-caned
,herFtlep'artitsw,:te teputt.d to be matt midwife. •

111 r. Campbell stated. that the passage just cited was
undoubtedly the law of. Scotland at thisday. An ab.
sttact of reported cases taken from the reports of the
faculty, was then shewn to witness, and his attention,
was directed to the case of M'Adam,which fie stated to
be correct as far as he knew. The substance of that case
was, that Mr. s.liAdam tonic Miss Walker by the hand,
and acknowledged hefore.his servants that she was his
wife,and that his children were lawful children. The day
that acknowledgment was made M'Adam put an end to
himself. Witness stated that he was acquainted with the
family, and that the children were now enjoying a fine
estate. Witness had his attention particularly directed to,
the subject of mat riages inScotland,as,three or four years
ago, he had been agent to the Crown when questions
arose as to whether parties could be divot ced in Scot-
land who had married in England ?
Mr. BROUGHAM rose at four o'clock to address the
Jut y for the defendants, and in a most eloquent speech
commented for two hours on the evidence. He con-
tended that all the pi incipal witnesses were deeply
interested in the issue of this trial, and that they were
assisted by conspit ators; that not one of the whole, par-
ticularly the Lady calling herself Mrs. Finney. deserved
to be ci edited ; and that the snairiage was altogether
trumped up, for the purpose of tricking the heir-at-
law out of his rights. That heir was a relative of the
late Mr. Finney, a poor boy, whoshad no other prospect
to look to; whereas, whatever way the verdict went,
it would not deprive the lessor of the plaintiff from the
enjoyment of a considerable portion of the late Mr.
Finnev's personalty, amounting tr, about 20,0001. which
that Gentleman left him by his will. He then called
the attention of the Jury to the singular circumstance,
that the late Mr. Finney made his will.after the sup.
posed marriage in Scotland, and yet thAt in bequeath-
ing a provision for his son, the lessor of the plaintiff,
he described him as the illegitimate son of Mary Anne!
Williams, of Chester, and treated him in every respect
in his will in the same way that he treated another
illegitimate .son, for whom lie made an exactly similar
provision, with reciprocal cross-remainders in case of
the death of either.

Mr. Arroanev-Gzszara. replied, and contended that the evi•
dence was perfectly consistent, and that it was too much to ask the
Jury to believe it'd they were all perjured. With respect to the
will, it Was an unfinished instrument, and at hest it only spoke the
opinion of the testator, that his marriage in Scotland was not a good
one; but that opinion was not to set aside the law of Scotland, or
the legal consequences flowing front it in England.
Mr. Justice lim.sovn summed up the evidence at considerable
length, and the Jury, without any hesitation, found for the plaintiff.
The trial lasted from nine in the nromingtill half-past nine at night.
Another trial took place, wherein a spirit-merchant,
named M4Minnes, brought an action against a person
named Wilson, for an assault and false imprisonment.
It appeared that the plaintiff and the defendant quar-
relled about a wager which was made at the Westmor-
land Races, when the defendant stripped his coat off,
and challenged plaintiff to fight; plaintiff went across
the street, some one said, Dog him out, dog him
out." Wilson, and a man named Taylor, followed kim
out. A witness, named Robinson, said he saw a bit of
a hubbub, the plaintiff was lying on his back, and a
man standing over him with his hand on his breast;
he was holding him fast down ; they (the lookers on)
called him Wilson. Plaintiff said to witness, 44 Dick,
thou wilt not see me used so, wilt .thou?" and I staid
"No, that I won't; I won't have such works as that"—
( A laugh), and called to bins to let him go ; so he let
go—(A laugh)—he abused Mm about some wager
at the Races. On his cross-examination by Mr.
Braugham, he said—He had a sup himself. They are
jolly folks in 'Westmoiland—(Losighter).—A little will
not do for our county ; they loves a good drop. Mr.
Brougham knows that—(Repeated laughter).—At the
point of the finger they would take a glass, and so
would some folks who hold up their fingers (alluding
to Mr. Brougham, who was pointing his fingers as he
was cross-examining the witness)—(ll9eatecl laughter
that shook the Court).—Sometimes a single glass is not
enow ; often takes it by the gross-4 Laughter).
Mr. Baounnasi addressed the Jury, observing; that
the plaintiff had made out a very pretty case, and that
if an assault had been committed, it was just deserving
of a farthing damages, and which damages the Jury
returned as a verdict for the plaintiff.
A case was tried, wherein an attorney, named War-
dle, had brought an action against a Mr. Parkinson, to
recover the amount of his bill of costs. A witness
having proved that the defendant, at the Quarter Ses-
.ions, acknowledged the plaintiff as his attorney, Isa-
bella Wilson was examined—She said she was on a visit
to the plaintiff at his house; he asked her to assist him
with his brief; this was in 1823; can't say if the plain-
- tiff was without a desk; she assisted him to copy the
brief; it was three sheets long; she copied two or three
sheets—(Brief put in and handed to the young Lady).
She helped the plaintiff ; he examined it, and made two
or three corrections—(A laugh).—The Jury found for
the plaintiff—Damages 61.105. and costs 40s.

STAFFORD, MARCH 12.
ROWLEY O.IIOIRNIL
This was an action by Mr. Rowley, a farmer residing
near Woore, in Staffordshire, against the proprietors
of the Chester mail, to recover the value of a parcel
containing Bank notes to the amount of 511.- sent by
that coach to London, and k,st during the journey.—
The delivery and loss of the parcel were not cr.,puted;
but the defendants retied on a notice inserted in the
Chester Chronicle, that they would not be answerable
.4 for any parcel of any value," unless entered and paid
for at a rate beyond the ordinary price of carriage.—
This notice was at the foot of an advertisement occu-
pying a whole column, which enumerated the coaches
starting from the Feathers Inn, Chester, and applied
generally to them all. In order to shew that this ad-
vertisement was brought within the knowledge of Mr.
Rowley, it was proved that the Chester Chronicle had
been regularly sent to his house from February, 1821,
to March, 1824.; but the delivery ceased at the latter
date, nine months before the transmission of this parti-
cular parcel, which tonk place on the 28th of December
last. No evidence was given to shew that he hinbelf
ever read the Paper; but his daughter had been at
sc!rool near Chester, and afterwards remained to finish
her education in a seminary near London, so that it
was probable he knew something of the Chester mail,
by which he bad sent parcels.
Upon this evidence, Mr. TA UNTON, for the defendant,
contended that the plaintiff could not recover.
The Jury, after a kw minutes' consideration, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Da"mages 511.

PRUSSIAN LOAN, NF.OuCIATED BY MR. N. M. ROTITS•
CHILD, re Lo?lx'x, Di 1818.—The Ilalf-yeatly Dividend on the
above Loan, which becomes due on Friday, the Ist April next, will
be paid by Mr. N. Al. Ittmactitto, on that and every succeeding
day (Sundays exeepted) between the hours of Ten and Two, at his
Countitie.house, No. 2, New Court, St. Swithiu's-lane. The Di.
'Heed Watrant4, with a List thereof, in numerical order, must be
left one day ptevious, for examination.

o
. ill cebornntiritt
iofirnticpdartt be irs
bT atwi:aiel:
' 1
I.r '
sufficient; that it Oils
the subwquent atkno
41i ;tintsicialsal4ll
f Imibt-°44uhniv. tlll,
1 A
4 . :