Star.
London, England, 1807-11-21 00:00:00

t ,
THE EARL OF STRATHMORE V. BOWES.
Mr Scrjeant Ls us moved, on behalf of the defendant, for a •
ruk to thew caufe why a new trial mould not be granted in this
cafe It was an Brae out of Chancery to determine whether cer-
tali) fines, which had been levied by the Countets of Strathmore,
as well as' conveyances executed by her, had not been done under •
elurfji ? The verditft at Nifi Prins was, that it was tonkr durefs
that thole fines and deeds had been executed. He objeded to this
verdict on the following grounds : eft, That the only perfon in
exiftence. who was prelent at the tranfadion (Dr Scott) bad not
been examined at the trial; and he was now ready (although a
very old and infirm mast) to come forward and Ilan: the matter in
its true light. It alfo appeared by the affidavit of Mr. Bowes, the
defendant, that he himfelf was, at the time of the trial, in fuch a
weak and nervous condition, that he was then incapable of giv-
ing the proper diredions to Ode who had the profeffional ma-
nagement of his defence. He had another objedion to the verdict
in point of law. In Coke's ad inftitute it was laid down " that
there were only four forts of dere. which would void a deed
f &tit& y executed, which were—danger of life, danger of lola of
limit, maiming ur imprifonntent ; but that danger of battery was
not fufficient, as othcrwifc the molt felonious fears might be
pleaded as durefs." At the trial, however. there was not a tittle
of evidence which proved any durefs as applicable to this particu-
lar tranfaCtion. There was indeed evidence of a general fcene of
ill treatment, cruelty, and oepreflion, from which the Jury drew
an inference that Lady Strathmore was never her own tnittrefs,
but always nnder a certain fpe&e of durefs. It appeared, however,
that there was no evidence of actual duress upon this oceafion ;
and he thought the Court would nut permit a fine regularly le-
vied to be let afide in an incidental manner. As the fubjedt was
of great novelty and importance, and Dr. Scott, who had nut yet
been examined, was the only perfon on earth who could throw
any light upon the tranfadiun itfelf, he hoped the Court would,
upon there gt ounds, grant a new trial.
• Sir jANIES MANSFIELD Paid, there was no queftion here of kt-
I tine afide a fine ; but the verdid of thy Jury informed the Chancel-
, kr that the fine had been levied under durefs, and upon that Juror.
nation a Court of equity would ad as it thought proper.—
As to the quettion of durefs, it had been decided before, between
the fame parties, and that verdid bad never been quellioned.—
The verdict in the former cafe was, therefore. (nine authority in
the prefect. The Court of Chancery had already evidence before
it of the wretched fituation in which Lady Strathmore had been
placed, esti of the manner In which the had been tyrannized
ewer ; and yet there had been no motion for a new trial on the
former cafe, nor for re-hearing the decree; and upon the former
cafe, the evidence was much firmer far Mr. Bowes than it could
be now. On the former care, a man of the first eminence in the
medical profeffion. Dr. Hunter, had [worn. that, at the time of
the execution of the decds in Twain:o.44 Strathmore was under
no particular (keels. But what could filch teßimony amount to?
It had be-o pr.wed at the trial, that the molt horrid cruelty had
been pradifed by the Defendant ; that Lady Strathmore, had been
oaten in a Itarving condition, end almett always in a Rate of the
molt abfolute Revery ; that the Defendant talked publicly of his
governing her with a horfewhip; rtat he even preferibed what
garden the should eva!k in, and to wi...t extent her walk was to go;
and. ash. tweet he al owed her to go into company, he preferibed
to her what the was to fay. Thiz left circumftance bore molt ma-
terially on the cafe; fur if Indy Strathmore was in on rel.:net a
tree agent, even when flw went into private cempany, haw could
it be tuppufed that the was a bye when the was aiked two
or three queftions before the rommtfioners As fur the evid- nee
of Dr. Scott, it could amount to nothing, even ft he thauld (wear
that there was no particular dur:fs at the n.oment. Dr. Hunter
had sworn the fame thing in the korner cafe, and yet the Jury
had intim, a eerdid (which was quite unshaken). that was
a durefs, from the conttant ill-treatment of Lady Strathmore by
the 'defendant. As to the nervous condition of Mr. Bowes at his
trial, that was no ground to fa afide the verdict.

Cauvinn To Coactiokm.—On Thurfday a Coach.
man was brought to Bow.ftreet Office, charged.by
the coachman to his Royal Higlinels the Prince of
WALES, with wantonly ctoffing his Royal High
net's', carriage four different times on Friday evening
la.l, in the way to the Theatre, viz. once in Rupett-
nose, twice in Newport Brett, and once in Long
Acre. The okachman hi reply had nothing to offer,
ezetpt to beg pardon for the offence. This not fa:i-
fying the ends of plaice, he was doomed to pay the
penalty of rot. for each offence. The coachman
pleaded his poverty, offered to pay 203. and hoped
his maker would make up the deficiency. This the
mailer peremptorily refuted, laying at the fame time,
that he would rather give zos. to have him lent to
the Houk of Correttion ; in the firft pt ice, for the
offence itklf, and in the neat, for over driving his
hones. The coachman was accordingly fent to the
Houk of Correetion.

MAlt LBOROUGH•STRIET.—Yefterday Thor. Filher,
alias Fowler, was again examined on several charges
of fiaud. The prifoner had laid that he was a [table.
keeper in South Mews, Manchefler.fquare ; it turned
out that he got .poffellion of the above prernifes a
fortnight ago of Sir JOHN BOYD, by mentioning the
name of a reputable man, who he laid had recom-
mended him to Sir JOHN, but who, on inquiry, had
never teen the prifoner.
A per fon who had let the prifoner an unfurnifhed
houfe, newly built, defcribed him as having taken
away the doors, locks, &c. and every fixture that
could he removed from the walls ; after which he
decamped without payitg any rent.
A fervant of Mr. BAKER, a refpedable liveryman,
in Oxford-ftreet, Rated, that the pritOner, who for-
met I); lived with Mr. Baker as fireman of the yard,
had defrauded his mailer, who was abfent in the
country, of property to a confiderable amount, and
afterwards arrefted his matter vesatintifly for 2531.
whiCh fuit was afterwards relinquifned. He then
swore to a burglary againft his matter and the watch-
houfe keeper of Mary la bonne, which alfn proved
vexatious. According to the teftimony adduced,
the prifoner, in order to obtain money, has, within
a fh It time, arrefied various perfims on vexatious
funs, for heavy fums, feveral of which are under
bail. The complainants were direded to prefer bills
againft the prifoner for the frauds, at the Seffions,
he having, as we flared yetterday, been fully commit-
ted For the capital offence.