Star.
London, England, 1822-08-05 00:00:00

YORKSHIRE EXCISEMAN.

7w715P.

T..,,.,

~-~...

The remains of Mr. BROOFSHOOPT, Deputy Marshal
and Clerk of the Rules of the King's Bench Prison,
whose humanity to the unfortunate was so well known
in the important situation which he filled that the pen
of the panegyrist is not needed, were interred yester-
day, in a vault in St. George's Church in the Borough.
The funeral took place at nine o'clock in the morn-
ing, and was followed by the son of the deceased,
Messrs. GIBRONS, HewITT, PARISH, &C. intimate
friends who valued private worth, and a multitude
of mourners. A more general sympathy has rarely
occurred.
Fter..--Saturday evening, about nine o'clock, a fire broke out
at Mr. JOIINSON'S, corn-dealer, in the London-road, Newington.
The enigma' wtre prompt in their attendance, but the house was
consumed. The Alfreirs Head public-house was in great dan-
ger, but strong patty-walls prevented the dames spreading. .

..fit ,~,`~

-T -s.
t

SUMMER 44SIXE&

CRISLCON.--.IXICTIS, AUGUST 1.
SIALSY u. MOORS.
I_i
Mr. MICRYWIATIIIR opened the pleadings, which
in substance stated that this was an action brought
by the plaintiff to recover damages from the defen-
dant, for the infamous seduction of the plaintiff's wife.
The damages were laid at £5OOO.
Mr. ADAM, in stating ,the case for the plaintiff,
said, that Captain Seeley was in the Bombay Artil-
lery, in the East India Company's service, in which
he had entered before the year 1812; and it was a
department of the military service of India, which
had, as all who were acquainted with the events of I
that 'province kne*, achieved the most brilliant ex-
ploits. The defendant, Captair. Moore, was upon the
same service, and acquainted with the plaintiff;
perhaps there was no degree of friendship between
them—but at all events he was the plaintiffs brother
Officer. In 1812 the plaintiff married the unfortu-
nate subject of the present action—Miss Mary Anne
Price, a young lady of considerable personal beauty,
and of mind and accomplishments sufficient to win I
and retain the affections. The plaintiff lived with
her for. a considerable time in the utmost conjugal
happiness, and had by her, before she left India, three
daughters. He should not be able to shew the whole
of their lives in India, but he would call a respectable
Vlergyman, who would prove, that for the time
which he resided with them they lived together in the
mod perfect harmony and affection. For another
period, whilst the plaintiff was necessarily absent on'
service in the Persian Gulf, he should produce letters
to shew that she' maintained for him all the affection
and regard that could be wished for. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to read a number of passages
from various letters to the plaintiff, chiefly upon the
affairs of the family, all of thessebreathing a tender
and affectionate tone towards the 'plaintiff, and speak-
ing in warm terms of her three children. The letters,
as the Jury would see, were doubtless upon little sub-
jects, but it was from little subjects that they could best
gather the state of life in which the parties lived. In
1819 the health of Mrs. Sealey and of her three chil-
dren became so much impaired, as to render a change
of climate necessary, and as her husband was bound
upon his service, she embarkedalone for England with
her children, and the passage was one of unusual
length. They touched at the Mauritius and at the
Cape of Good Hope; and during the voyage Mrs.
Sealey was delivered of her fourth child, a daughter.
—The defendant, Captain Moore, came home in the
same ship ; and, unfortunately, the Learned Counsel
said, he should not be able to shew the Jury what
took place during the voyage, or by what course of
artifice the defendant succeeded in estranging the
affections of Mrs. Sealey'; but it was evident that he
had availed himself of every advantage of his situa-
ition, and that the presence of her infant and- her
children, which would, to an ordinary person, have
rendered her sacred, formed no obstacle to the base
defendant, in his purpose of seducing the wife, if not
of his friend, at least of his brother Officer. The
Jury would find that from the day of her arrival in
England, is August, 1819, she was constantly with
the defendant. They would find that they lodged
and lived together, in the same house, without having
recourse to the society or visiting any of their rela-
tions. In November they were at Exeter, where Mrs.
Sealey took lodgings at the lodging-house of a Mrs.
Frost, where the defendant immediately after intro-
duced himself as a cousin, and took contiguous apart-
ments. From thence they both removed to the house
of a lodging-house-keeper named Jacobson; and
after making various removals, always together, the
defendant took a house near South Molton, at a
place called Cockrun, where Mrs. Seeley went, and
they lived together with less restraint—in short, as
man and wife. It would be proved that Mrs. Sealey
began to assume appearances of the most decisive
nature in December, 1820, when she suddenly lett
South Molton, in company with. the defendant, and
went to France, from whence she returned in about
a fortnight so much altered in her person, as to leave
but little doubt that in her absence she had been
brought to bed. In this state they continued to live,
and were up to that instant of time living together.
Lieutenant-Colonel Adam Hawke, of the Bombay Infantry,
was the first witness called. He knew the plaintiff, Captain
Seeley ; he was at Bombay in 1812, and was present at his
marriage with Mary Ann Price, who was born at Bengal. She
had lived at Bengal under the care of Mr. Jones, her guardian,
and was by him educated; and the witness believed they re-
turned to Mr. Jones's. Witness had seen film Seeley write,
and he believed some letters which were produced to be in her
head-writing.
Cross-examined.--Mrs. Seeley was about eighteen years old
when she was married. The plaintiff was now about forty-eight,
and must therefore have been about thirty-eight when he was
married to Miss Price, then eighteen. Witness married the
sister of Mrs. Seeley. Mrs. Seeley had a brother in India at the
time of the marriage, but he knew nothing of it ai the dine.—
Mr. Hungerford gave her away.
The Rev. James Biers stated, that he knew the plaintiff and
his wife in India, in 1816. They had three daughters. They
were living at Surat, at the time witness knew them, in tents,.
I was about a month there, on a visit to Captain Seeley, and
they appeared to me to live on terms of perfect hammy and
comfort. Captain Moore was Commissary of Stores, an ap-
pointment connected with the Artillery.
Captain, It. Veal stated, that he was in India from 1791 to
1814, and knew Captain Seeley well, as he went out with him.
In 1813 be was Introduced to Mrs. /kaki,
who
Hying at
her guardian's. Witness was living in this eity was(il vintelir) at the
present time, and in November,lBl9, when he saw Mrs, Seeley
at the house of Mrs. Cross, a lodging-house,
where
Mrs. 8
introduced Captain Moore to him as a felloW-passengerofl:aleY
er'&
He saw Mrs. Seeley afterwards in January, 1820, at Mrs. Jack-
son's, in Parry-street, when Captain Moore was with her
Mrs. Mary Chene, the wife of the Rev. Mr. Chair *stated,
thatynrsaheagoal, wat Mrs.
a Hotel,St:aleY IwahEaereeterfo; aanwherueewkathsi:easgal:nwealtrlyteEcthryr
day. She knew Captain Moore, and
her. Mrs. Seaky, in mentioning him, spoke much of his kind-
ness and attention to her during her passage.
tliern
erkEdexae Rev.
teryea ab
leer
theeinM passage.lltilte‘ 9b, andaandaH aid,
he
21 iwiereteapn
themcrblet afterwards
MoorehiSalda l
ei
htahitatcehthctihehue
Ir
It
es
ell::: ~f
ilnigrtouse. rs.TanneCnors'aina'staanztild,ovltyheEtteirl7.thlNieonrv.pemlacsealeybeearraleetbl9er'she kept lod
took' lodgings a hir-
house, and Captain Moore took lodgings at her house theat day
r
after. They
bodiThekyftatine
jacanthuear ate ttles,amanedtinwele_sre areaAtotgether.
the same moment, as they went away arm-learn. might
yinat
their residence the witness never heard Mrs. Seeley mention herir
husband. They remained at her house for two months.
Cross-ex:tnined.--A servant sometimes slept ri with Mrs. Sea-
ley.
and she sometimes nursed her child, and took it to.slee
with her.
Mrs. Jane Jacobson, who keeps a lodging-house in Then I
street, stated, that Mrs. Sealey and Captain Moore, In January,-
I 1820, took lodgings for herself, her children, and her servant.
Captain Moore wad to her, " I think these lodgings 1.
very(comfortable, and you cannotdo better Will iiikU.lll."l7y
le

r

witnew did fell dies mainsead dud a Gentleman was to be,
there • and on she day after it was that Captain Moore and Mill'
lode; came again, when the witness overheard Mrs. Seeley oaf '
se Cards, Moon, " You 'an have this ran, and I can have
that, train of two opposite rooms. Mrs. fkaky's family
came there the neat day, and Captain Moore slept them for
about • &Might,. when he went on a journey to &nth Mel-
, ton, and returned and lived to the end of de weeks, when
went away. In the April following, Captain Moore came again,
sad said Mrs. Seeley would be there in • few days. The lodg,
lags wets retaken, and Captain Moore said he should weepy
the lodgings of Mrs. Sealey for a day or two, until be hid ended
some business. He did stay, and left a letter for Mrs. Seeley,
whom he had expected from London. Mrs. Seeley did arrive
soon after, and Captain Moore followed her, and both set off en
a journey together, as it appeared, to South Molton.
Tanner,Crcs" accompanied Captain
nesri thooree daanudghNteirrs.of
Seel
ler
w. Mher.
n
the latter took the lodgings, and it was in the presence of Miss
Tanner that she said, " You can have this room, and I can have
that," to the defendant.
• Mrs. Catherine Mack stated, that she arrived in England on
the 10th of December, when Captain Moore was a passenger.
Jane Paul stated that, in 1820, she was hired by-Capt. Moore.
at Coekrunrnear South Moulton, as a servant. Captain Moore
resided at Cockrun, and Mrs. Seeley came to reside there three
weeks after. Captain Moore had before told the witness that
a lady was coming from Exeter on a visit, and to put his house
in order. Captain Moore escorted Mrs. Sealey there, together
with the child and nurse-maid. Mrs. Seeley dept opposite to
Captain Moore's room. There were two or three feet between
the opposite doors of the rooms. There were two approaches
(she described) to these rooms, and if these two doors were
locked no one could get to the rooms. These doors were not
locked whilst Captain Moore slept there alone, but after Mrs.
eSealey came they were invariably locked. The witness tried
them. Mrs. Sealey took the charge ever afterwards. Witness
remembered the aunt and uncle of the defendant-came to visit
hint at Cockrun. Mrs. Sealey left Cock run a day before the
uncle and aunt visited it. The uncle and aunt staid a week
there, and slept in Mrs. Seaky's room. The doors of the ap-•
preaches were not locked at night during the stay of the uncle
and aunt, but they were locked again at night when Mrs. Sealey
returned after the uncle and aunt were gone. Captain Moore
ordered the servants not to mention Mrs. Sealey having been
there. The witness observed a continuing alteration in the ap-
pearance of Mrs. Seeley, and on the 15th of November she left
In company with Captain Moore. She returned in about a
fortnight, quite changed in her appearance. Witness left them
in May, 1821.
Cross-examined by Serjeant Pea c—She was single, and had
been out of place ever since she had left Capt. Moore's service.
She never sought for one. She got her living by her needle.—
She feu turned away fur staying late on an errand. The.nurse-
maid slept sometimes with Mrs. Seaky. Witness tried the doors
leading to the room every night during the whole time, and
found them locked. She tried them by herself.
Thomas bike stated that, on Lady-day, he went to live as
servant with Captain Moore. He told the witness soon after
his arrival at Cockrun that be was going to have a lady down
from Exeter, named Seeley, who had kept a-school there. The
witness, who bad been in the East Indies, in a conversation
shortly afterwards, mentioned that he knew Captain Seeley,
when the defendant mentioned that it was Captain Seaky's wife
who was coming. The evidence of the witness was in corro-
boration of the statement of the last witness as to the rooms,
and the defendant and Mrs. Seeley locking up the approaches.
Captain Moore kept three maid-servants, and the witness, and a
hind. He kept four horses besides, and a hind.
Mary Paul lived at South Molton. She said she saw Captain
Moore and Mrs. Seaky a month ago together in a gig.
Serjeant PELL submitted that the letters could not
be received in evidence against the defendant, with-
out proof that they were written at the time the plain-
tiff was living with his wife, or at a time when there
was no suspicion of her misconduct.
A icing legal argument took place upon this point,
which was contended far upon the principle that what
a wife says or does can never be received as evidence
for or against her husband. It was contended by
Mr. ADAM, that this was an exception to the general
rule of the law.

Tne Learned JUDGE was about to give his opinion
upon the point, when Mr. ADAM withdrew the letters. I
Serjeant PELL, in addressing the Jury for the de-
fendant, proceeded to comment on the evidence of
the witnesses, and particularly on that of line Paul, .I
the maid-servant, upon whom the case depended ;
and he contended that she, as a discarded serv.int,
was not to be believed. Where had the Jury seen
anything of the broken-hearted husband upon his
return—the husband who sent forth his wife, a young
solitary being, a native of India, and a stranger to
England, without a guide or servant, and without a
friend to protect her? He asked whether this was
the way in which affection shewed itself towards a
young female, sent to endure the hard hips of a long
sea voyage, without attendance or assistance?
Mr. Justice BURROUGH read over the evidence,
and submitted to the Jury, whether they could pos-
sibly conceive that any innocent man could have
acted so imprudently as to have placed himself in
such situations as the defendant had? or whether,
from the whole circumstances, they could have the
slightest doubt? For himself, he considered the fact
of the parties continuing together to the present time
as conclusive in itself.

The Jury deliberated for about a quarter of an
hour, when they returned a •erdict for the plaintiff—
damages One :thousand Pounds.
Sir Thomas Ackland was the Foreman of the Jury,
which consisted partly of Special Jurors, and among
them was Sir John Chichester.

GUILDFORD, AUGUST 1.
DODINGTON V. HUDSON.

This was an action for a breach of covenant, the
defendant having held a house of tke plaintiff upon
lease, next door to another, of which he had become
the purchaser. The breach complained of was, that
he had removed the old partition which was between
the two premises, whereby an encroachment was
made of some 22 inches, on the plaintiff's premises.
Evidence being given as to the fact of the removal,
and as to what it would cost the plaintiff to place the
premises in their original state, a verdict was found
for the plaintiff for £lOO.

SHEARS AND ANOTHER V. WOOD.
This cause WAS tried by Special Jury. The plain-
tiff, having a copper-mill upon the river Wan(lle, com-
plained that the defendant, the occupier of a silk-
mill, situated higher up the stream, had constructed a
dam, by reason of which the water was kept back,
and made to flow irregularly to the plaintiffs' mill,
whereby they sustained great injury. Much conflict-
ing testimony was offered. A verdict was found for
the plaintiff—Damages I s. costs 40s.

TIIR KING V. EDWARD Mk:RATH.
This was an indictment against the defendant for
conspiring with one John Maberly to cheat and
fraud Sir Thomas Sviymmer Champneys, Bart. of!
certain bills of exchange to the amount of D 2500. The
defendant, Maberly, had not pleaded; Mr. M'Grath
pleaded Not Guilty.
On the case being opened against the defendant,
the proceedings were stopped in limine, in conse-
quence of a variance between the allegations in the
indictment, and the evidence we forbear, in justice to
the defendant, to state the facts opened by Counsel.
The indictment alleged, that, on a certain day in De-
cember, 1 no, thestefendmits conspired to cheat Anal

!

'r
defraud Sir T. S. Chantlisien Swt, anj in pursuance
of such conspiracy did obtain divers acceptances of
Sir 1'; S. Champbeys, Bart. When thel3aropeitcame
to be eiamined, he stated, that his father dij pot die
until July, 1821, so that he was not, in point:of fact,
Sir Thomas Swymmer Champneys, Bart. at the time
of the alleged conspiracy.
The ddindant's Counsel objected that thii.ivas a
Imisdescription of the prosecutor, and consequently
that the indictment must fail. • •
The LoabOatav BARON was clearly of opinion,
that the objection was fatal, but sent to ascertain the
opinion of Mr. Justice Park upon the point, who cos.
curring with his Lordship, the Learned Judge di-
rected an acquittal. Verdict—Not
John Forbes Reynolds, a young Gentleman of re-
ipectable appearance, was indicted for feloniously
killing and slaying 'Richard Simmons, at Carshalton,
on the 29th of June last, by striking him with his
fist. It appeared in evidence that the prisoner had
been provoked by the abusivelanguageol the decea,ed.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he ,aas
sentenced to three months imprisonmew.

UNIVERSITY L\iI'ELLIUP.NCE.

OXFORD,-AUGUST 3.

At an Ordination held by the Bishop of Worcester, in the
Chapel of liartlebury Castle, on Thursday se'nnight, fkfiig st.
James's day, the following Gentlemen of this University were
ordained ;

PRISM
Henry Jonas Barton, M.A. Queen's Coffer—,
kVilliam Brown, M.A. ditto.
Henry Edward Steward, M.A. Christ Church.
John Fisher, B.A. Magdalen Hall.
William Cloudesley Faulkner, 13. A. ditto.
John Holden Harrison, B.A. St. John's College.
John Edmund Carr, B. A. ditto.
James Troughton, ILA. Christ Church.

DEACONS.

George St. John, A.A. IVadkam College.
Duneumbe Steele Perkins, MA. Trinity College.
Charlex Tookey, It A. Magdalen 14411.
ECCLESIASTICAL PRO NIOTIONS.

The Marquis of liertford has appointed the Rev. Christopher
Jeaffreson. Rector of Iken, one of his Lord-ship's
The -Rev. William C. 11111, to the Rectory of Tc;ntishoe,
Devonshire.

The Rev. John Miller, 11. A. Fellow of Worcester College,
Oxford, to the Rectory f Benefield, Northamptonshire, vacut
by the death of the Rev. FAward I lunt.
The Rev. William Riland Bedford, A. dl. of Univer-ty rot.
lege, Oxford, has been lately inducted' to the Rector: of ',Litton
Coldfiekl, Warwickshire, on the presentation of Bed_
ford, Esq. of Elmhurst, near Bath, void by the death of the late
Rector, the Rev. Johnland.

The Rev. James Henry Monk has been presented to :II?.
Deanery of-the Cathedral Church of Peterborough, and Cu the
Living of Fiskerton, Lincolnshire.
The Rev. Samuel Lambert Noble, B. A. late of Queen's Col-
lege, Cambridge, has been instituted to the Rectory cf Frowle.-
worth, Leicestershire.

The— Rev. Bowen Thick ins to the perpetual Curacy of Temple
Grafton, in the county of Warwick, and Diocese of Worcester.
Wednesday terminated, after a severe contest, the election fur
Afternoon Lecturer of St. Luke'a 01.1-,treet. On casting up the
numbers there appeared to he a majority in favour of the lies.
Mr. Evanson, of no fewer than :Ail vote .

BIRTHS.
Wednesday se'nnight, in Hanover-square, the Lady of Sir
Hudson Lowe, of a daughter.

Wednesday se'nnight, at Heavitree Vicarage, the Lady of the
Rev. Arthur Athetly, of a son.
_ _

July 19, the wife of Jeffery Horn, of Dumpton Thule:, of
tw• boys, both alive; and on the 20th, of a third, 5:..1 burn;
since which the former have died.

July 51, at Evington, the Lady of Sir John Courtenay
Haey-
w Bart. of a daughter.

At Tynan House, county of Armagh, the Lady of Sir James
Strange, Bart. of a son.

:al47*A e.}lt)*
Murnme • • 0 atensite4 titer 6.
AI te nimn • StO litigates after 6.
•

. .
LONDON i Printed And published by • Lost Kum, Pities►
pLice, Temple-14r..