Star.
London, England, 1814-03-10 00:00:00

FROST V. HARVEY, GENT.

This was an action by the plaintiff against Daniel
Whittle Harvey, an attorney, to recover the sum of
£970, received to his use.
Mr. Sevjeant BESr stated, that the present cause
was undefended, and therefore he would not-say all
that otherwise he should feel inclined to say of Mr.
Daniel Whittle Harvey ; but he would say that this
action would shew conduct on the part of Mr. Har-
vey, which was extremely dishonourable, and ren-
dered him unfit to be i member of an honourable pro-
fession. The plaintiff, Mr. Frost, employed Mr.
Harvey as his attorney to sell an estate for him, and,
he accordingly agreed' to sell it to a person of the
name of Skeingley for the sum of 41450, hut he in.
formed his client that he had agreed to sell it for
.nly £950, and this latter sum only he paid over to
his client, or rather he did not pay it over, for of this
he only paid £7OO. He was also the rent gatherer
of Mr. Frost, and in this character he had also Isis-
conductedhimseif, for he had received rents, but be
had forgot to pay them over, and he should shew that
the balance due to the plaintiff an ounte.f to 4970.
The purchaser of the estate proved, that he agreed
with Mr. Harvey to pay him £14,50 for the estate,
and that when they met, the plaintiff, Mr. Harvey,
and himself, he paid to the plaintiff £9Y), and as soon
as Mr. Frost had turned his fmck, Mr. Harvey took
from him the other £5OO. He asked for some me-
morandum to shew that he had paid it. Mr. liar.
vey was very reluctant to give him any, but at last
he gave him an acknowledgment for that amount.
Mr. Baron lticitAnos said. that as this was an un-
defended cause, he should not have been inclined to
have said any thing, but merely to have stated the
amount for which the Jury ought to find their verdict,.
it it were not for the shameful conduct of Mr. Harvey.
His Lordship then severely animadverted on the con-
duct of the defendant : he lamented the Jury could
not give greater; damages than the money he had
actually receives.
Verdict for the Plaintiff—llantages £970.

An instance of most barbarous cruelty has been
discovered near Eton. A poor bay, of the name of
Meats, whose father, on going abroad (his wife being
dead), left the boy in the care of Mrs. Hughes, for
which he was to pay fourteen shillings a week, there
is every reason to believe was starved to death, in
addition to the most cruel and severe beating and
treatment. The place she allotted him to sleep in
was not considered fit for a dog or a rig. He has
been seen by her neighbours, when his hunger was
very extreme, to go to a hog trough where pigs were
feeding, and take out raw potatoes and eat them : on
another .asion he went to take some cheese out of
a mouse-trap with which it was baited, when the trap
went off, and hurt his finger extremely. He died *
few days after this circumstance happened. She was
about to bury the body in a very private manner.
without the knowledge of his friends, but Mr. Trigg,
a neighbour, who had been a witness to her cruelty.
interfered, and applied to the Coroner, who sumnione.t
a Jury. They sat twelve hours in deliberation, wires
the body having been opened by a Surgeon, who
stated that he died of wounds and bruises which he
had received on his head, and other parts of his body,
the Jury brought in a verdict of Manslaughter against
Mrs. Hughes. She was in consequence taken into
custody, and conveyed to Aykstnu y prison on Mon-
day. At the time she was taken there was such Art
immense crowd opposite to her house, waiting for
her, that there was every reason to believe she would
have been put to death in the street, if they could
have got at her ; she was therefore taken through a
field She was afterwards discovered
soot aciti t e
,beck
on her yw
a.
way to prison, and was pelted wit's
t s w
every thing that could be procured by the byys sad
women.