Star.
London, England, 1822-01-15 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, JANUARY 14.

Mrietiatra, the wife of John Charles Baldwin, was
indicted for unlawfully and wilfully bargaining, with
one John Campion, to sell the office of Storekeeper in
the Island of Guernsey, and taking from the said
Campion £5O upon the said bargain, as part pay-
ment of £l2OO, for which she agreed to sell to him
the said office, contrary to the Statute made and pro-
vided, &c.—The prisoner, who was elegantly dressed,
pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. ALLEY stated the case for the prosecution. He
said, to bargain for, or sell offices under the Crown,
was not an offence at common law,but had been made
penal so long ago as the time of Ecitvard VI. This
Act had been enlarged by subsequent statutes. He
then stated the case as it was afterwards detailed in
evidence, dwelling particularly on the assertion of the
prisoner, that she had influence with the Duke of Wel-
lington, who, " in fact, was scraping together for him-
self the candle-ends.and cheese-parings of office."—
(This phrase excited much laughter in Court, in which
the Illustrious Duke joined heartily.) The Learned
Counsel, after dwelling on the enormity of the offence,
called the following witnesses:
Mr. John Campion, the prosecutor, stated, that
he was formerly in business, as a leather-seller, in
Bridgewater-square, Barbican. In June, 1820, he
put anadvertisement in a Morning Paper, offering
£lOOO for " a permanent mercantile situation." In
answer to that advertisement, he received the letter
produced. The letter alluded to was then proved to
be the hand-writing of the defendant by her Attorney,
Mr. Curzon, and was put in as evidence ; it was as fol-
lows :—" If A. B. will call upon C. B. at N 0.9, Mal-
colm-place, King's-road, Chelsea, on Sunday next, at
three o'clock, she will talk to him on the subject of
his advertisement." The witness then proceeded to
state, that in consequence of this letter he went to
the place described, and at the hour appointed. The
door was opened by a boy, and he was shewn into a
room on the ground-floor, where he saw the defendant.
She asked him the nature of the situation which he
desired, and he said be could net exactly define the
precise description of place he wished, but was only
anxious that it shoilld be permanent.
In cross-examination by Mr. ADOLPHUS, he said,
that he thought, at the time he inserted the adver-
tisement in the Morning Paper, to have settled his
property, and obtained a permanent situation. He
never said he wanted a place under Government, nor
were his views particularly directed to such a situa-
tion. The day he gave the defendant his cheque for
£5O, he had made up his mind to take the Store-
keepership at Guernsey. He gave the defendant the
£5O, because she said, if there was any want of con-
fidence in her, there must be an end of all transac•
tions between them.

In re-examination by Mr. ALL r, the witness said,
that the defendant had taken the £5O as a security
that he should not fly from his engagement.
Mr. Wilkinson, gunmaker, of Ludgate-hill, was
next called,. and corroborated the statement of his
friend, Mr. Campion. In cross-examination, he said
he could not swear that the defendant had men-
tioned the name of his Grace the Duke of Welling-
ton. He might have heard his Grace's name from
the prosecutor.
The Duke of Wellington was then examined. He
depmed, that he is Master-General of the Ordnance.
The office of Storekeeper at Guernsey was vacant in
1820; that office was in his gift. He never had
any communication with the defendant on
,the sub-
ject of glat office. The office was given to a Gen-
tleman who had served as Paymaster under him. in
the Peninsula.

Mr. W. Johnstone, Head Clerk under the Master-
General of the Ordnance, provad that the office in

;.

• . . .
•
s -t
question was vacant in tl* summer of 1320, and bad
since been filled up.
Mr. Anotrntos then addressed the Court for the
defendant. He commenced by observing that all,
the counts in the indictment, with the exception of
op., stated the place of Storekeeper at Guernsey to
be in the gift.of the Crown—whereas the evidence
proved it to be in the gift of the Master-General of
the Ordnance. This being the case, all these counts
necessarily fell to the ground.
Mr. Attar submitted, that his Learned Friend
was in error ; and, on reference to the indictment,
proved that in three several counts the offence 'Cad
been properly described.
Mr. ADOLPHUS admitted his mistake, and said he
was only desirous of meeting the charge precisely as
k had been supported, and stripped of all extraneous
observation. fhe Learned Gentleman then com-
mented, with great ingenuity, on the manner in
which the case had been introduced to the notice of
the Jury. His Learned Friend- had spoken of the
defendant as a woman living in a style of oriental
magnificence, and as if she were little less than sup-
porting the appearance of the Queen of Golconda.—
Clf this, however, he had not given one tittle of proof
—his witness only proving that he had been Intro-
duced to her- by a boy, in a room on the ground-
Iloor. There was oriental magnificence in language
-as well as in mode of life, and certainly his Learned
Friend had assumed a style to which his situation, as
far as regarded-the unhappy woman at the bar, at
least, in no respect entitled him. Mr. Adolphus
then proceeded to,examine the evidence, and to con-
tend that the offence imputed to his client had not
been supported. He also observed on the conduct of
the: prosecutor, who was himself guilty of an offence
under the same Act upon which the present indict-
ment was founded, coming forward to seek vengeance
on an unfortunate woman, to whose guilt he was
himself instrumental by the inducement which he
had held out in his advertisement.

The CltAtaxiAN then summed up the evidence;
and having explained the law on the subject, left the
Jury to form their own conclusion as to the guilt or
innocence of the defendant.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict of—Guilty. The Court sentenced the. de-
fendant to be imprisoned twelve months in the House
of Correction.

The prisoner (Mrs. Baldwin) was again put to the
bar on another indictment, charging her with obtain-
ing £lOO on pretence of procuring a commission in
the army, which would have subjected her to trans-
portation ; but she was acquitted through the in-.'
formality of the indictment, which, in describing the
offence, said, " contrary to the Statute," whereas it.
should have been " contrary to the_Statates," two.
having been passed against it. On this imperfection
in the indictment, namely, the omission of the letter'
the prosecution fell to the ground. .