Star.
London, England, 1809-11-10 00:00:00

T--":

tbree months, lie would apply to Colonel Wardle tt,
:rive her tfiit far. She..then stated to Mr. Glennie,
eat in l...•;sAan three months she would have a book
to irahlis'i, wh:ch would enable her to pay the slam to
the extent of which site now wished to be accommo-
dated. In consequence of this convetsAtion, Mr.
Glennie afterwards went to the plaintiff, who neither
then. nor at any other time, said to him (Mr. Glen-
pie) :hat Colonel Wardle had become bound fir Mrs.
Claike's furniture; on the contrary, he said that lie
hid given her credit tor k, with the expectation that
lie might get payment of a former debt which she
Awed him. Mr. Glennie, in his affidavit, also swore
to an observation of Mrs. Clarke's, on himself, Colo-
nel Wardle, and Others, having remarked, that they
wished Mrs. Clarke would live in a smaller house,
and one less extravagantly furnished What is it
to Colonel Wardle wh It house or furniture I have ?
He is not to pay la them!" The affidavit also bore,
that Mr. Glennie was present at the trial of this cause,
having been sobNen ted by the plaintiff, but that he
was not examined ; that he well remembered the de-
fendant was anxious to have him examined for him
defendant) and sent into Court for that purpose,
but could not procure access to his Counsel. The
Le.nned Judge begged it to be observed, that he and
those who acted with Lim on this occasion, could not
have inst: uctions to meet a case which no person could
have contemplated.
Lord ELLENPAROUGH-.-,4 You heard what the wit-
ness said."

Mr. Sentient Berr-41 I could not have supposed
that any person would have believed them after what
I did hear."

Mr. Justice LE UMW. •••44 You took your chance
of that."

Mi. Serjeant 8riT....." I stated this for the pnrpose
of shewing the materiality of the other evidence, ari-
sing from the plaintiff's answer in Chancery, and the
affidavits now submittAl to the Clurt. If such a body
of evidence were now before the Jury, could any man
believe it possible that they should come to a conclu-
sion similar to that which they had formerly done in
this c ise ?"

The Learned Serjeant then referred to another affi-
davit, by Mr. Ilingworth, who stated, that on the
apps cation of Major Dodd, he accepted of a bill for
£3OO, payable in three months from the 27th of De.
cember. At the time of giving the note he knew
nothing of any dealings between the plaintiff and de-
fendant, nor of the inquiry before the House of Corn.
rnons He .tlso read an affidavit by Joseph Bennett,
cabtaet-maker, Tottenham-court•road, relative to a
conversation between him and Daniel Wright since
the verdict had been given in this cause, in which
Daniel Wright had confessed that solteral articles,
particularly of furniture for the seivantsti ronens,
stpoli,•d while Mrs. Clarke lived with the Dole, of
York, had afterwards been transferred to the new al/4e:
count, and charged Against Colonel Wardle as they
thmt he was likely to be a better paymaster.
Lord ELLusrsclaoccir said there was nothing of this
at tl.e zri.ti.

Mr. Serkant Bovs-r contended, that either one or
-.!her of the I.laintiff's witnesses had sworn that ll-
lin;worth knew the whole of the buibiness. He held
liis hand anozher affidavit, which went still further
to prove the intimacy and connection between the
plaiwitT and Mrs. Clarke. This was an affidavit by
Mr. A'neckett, the attorney, stating that he had been
empl,,yed to Vic Mrs. Clarke, and that he had brought
an ac ion against her on the 25th June, 1808, in which
en the 30th of the same month Francis Wright, of
Rathhone-place, upholsterer, and Daniel Wright of
the same place, upholsterer, although this Gentleman
had cn the trial denied that he had any connection
r!th the business, were put in as special bail.. She
aticrwrrds p! met! her coverture, and the plaintiff was
nonsuit ed. Mr. Ellis, the attorney for the defendant,
had examined and found that there were a great many
actions against Mrs. Clarke, upwards of 30 in all, in
every one of which she had been bailed by the plain-
tiff, had pleaded her coverture, and had thus imposed
on her cresii..ors.

Mr.J u st ice BAIL From the very circumstances
you have mentioned, the plain,i:t• knew Mrs. Clarke
to be in distress, and therefore it was not likely he
should give her a edit."
Mr. Serjeant Besr contended that it was quite as
etnlikely that he should trust her with t'.:e loan of furni-
ture which was subject to be distrained on for the rent.
Lord ELLENhOItUUGII..--66 You see he prevented
that, by paying the rent."
Mr. Serjeant BEST proceeded.—Their Lordships
now saw, that, at the time the plaintiff's two witnesses
swore the plaintiff would give Mrs. Choke no credit,
he was paying various sums of money for her out of
his own pocket. He was also giving her a character,
recommending her as a person of good credit and re-
, putation, and w .►s even introducing her under false
characters and false names; to every person ',thorn she
.referred to him for a reference as to her respectability
• and credit. Could the Court, then, allow such a ver-
dict to staid, without giving the difendant an oppor-
tunity of bringing every fact necessary to a fair judg-
ment: on the merits of the case fully under the consi-
aeration of the Jury ?—Better that the statute of frauds
.should at once be repealed, than that it should conti-
nue, subject to the artifices of such a woman as Mrs.
Clarke. As he had now also sliewn so great an inti-
macy, and such improper conduct on the part of the
plaintiff in his transactions with Mrs. Clarke, he was
sure the Con:•t would not refuse him the opportunity
of going once more before a Jury; part'cularly when
it was seen from the plaintiff's answer is Chancery,
:h!tt the furniture was charged in the plaintiff's own
books, not to Colonel Wardle, not to Mrs. Clarke,
but to MI s.Farquahar. The insurance of the furniture
too, furnished a very strong feature in this case. It
was extremely unnatural that Mr. Wright, it be bad
. sold the farniture, and had sold it. too on the.credit
•t Mr. Wardle, should have thought of insuring it at .
all. l'au what most the Court think, what must the ,
Jury have thought, when informed that the insurance
had been made in the name of Mrs. Farquahar ? Of
this there was so evidence on the former trial, apt
could the defendant ever have dreamt of the circum-
stance at the time.

Lord ELLE:isottouoit—" I recollecLjt struck me
at the time, that the circumstance of the Plaintiff's in-
sui ing the furniture savoured more of the character of
a than a seller. That observation I stated to
•tb: Jury, and left them to consider what weight they
siiinild.attach to it. The fact of the insurance, there-
t4.re, oat* beau :amidy before them."