Star.
London, England, 1831-05-14 00:00:00

WESTMORELAND.

APPLEBY MAT 11.—The election for the county ofl
Westmoreland commenced and terminated this morning;
and though the triumph is not quite so complete as the best
friends of the cause could have wished, it is still a great
triumph over the most deadly of the opponents of the domi-
neering house of Lowther. In this county, which has so
long returned two of that family, and which has always
been looked upon by them as their pocket-borough, one
reformer has been returned, and that, so far as the bill is
concerned, is a great point gained. The town was much
thronged, and the independent party in particular mustered
in great strength. At 11 o'clock the court opened in the
Shire-hall ; but this being found inadequate to contain all
who sought admission, the business was adjourned to the
front of the Court-house. About 2,000 persons were pre-
sent. Mr. John Hill, of Bankfoot (a barrsiter), proposed
Colonel Lowther, and was seconded by Mr. Atkinson, of
Temple-Sowerby.
1 Mr. John Wakefield, of Kendal, then proposed Alexander
Nowell, Esq. of Underley-park, who, he said, was prevented
by unavoidable circumstances from heing present. Mr. N.
through him, was ready to pledge himself to the bill—he
meant the entire spirit of the bill, for it was possible some
minor alterations might yet be necessary. Mr. Wakefield
'thought it was a proud day for the county; for it was the
first time for three quarters of a century that an independent
member had been proposed with the almost certain prospect
of success. Mr. R. Tinkler, of Eden-grove, seconded the
nomination.

Colonel Lowther then addressed the freeholders, and was
rewived with a mixture of applause and hisses, the latter far
predominating. He said he was not against all reform,
but he was opposed to the bill. He did not object to dis-
franchise boroughs which should be convicted of bribery and
corruption, and giving the franchise to large manufacturing
towns.

Mr. Crackenthorpe then came forward, and congratulated
the freeholders on the victory they had achieved, in forcing
the house of Lowther to come to terms with the independent
party. He thanked the freeholders for the support offered to
him, when it was understood he was to be put in nomination;
but believing that Mr. Nowell would perform the service as
well as himself, and being more able to bear the expense, it
gave him much pleasure to see that gent. brought forward.—
The Sheriff then declared Henry Cecil Lowther and Alex.
Nowell, Esq. duty elected. Col. Lowther, and J. Wake-
field, Esq. (as the locust tennis of Mr. Nowell,) were then
chaired ; and thus terminated the Westmoreland election.—
It is upwards of 60 years since a blue chair was seen in Ap-
pleby. The friends of the respective parties are now dining
together—and so far all has passed off in great quietness.

COURT OF RXCHRQUICK.-(THIS DAY.)

THE lINO V. CARPENTER.
PITILIrEINO THE POLITICAL LETTERS.
At ninc o'clock, this day, Dlr. Carpenter entered the Court, accom-
panied by a numerous body of gentlemen, and a very large pile of
books, acts of Parliament, and papers. At ten o'clock, the case was
called on, when—

The ittoiney.General, Mr. Amos, and Mr. Sheppard, appeared for
the prosecution. Mr. Carpenter defendh himself in person. Mr. Amos
stated that this was an information against the defendant for publishing
a variety of Political Letters. Mr. Isaac H. Searle, clerk to the Com-
missioners of the Stamp-office. proved that there was no affidavit of the
entry of the publications se the Stamp Oise. Mr. Carpenter contended
that the publications did not come within the meaning of tbeActs of Par.'
Hamad ; that they were merely single letters; nor did any ons of them
form an integral part of a whole ; and that they did not come within the
meaning of a newspaper. He was proceeding in his define* when our
Riporter

L W REPORT&
COURT OF RING'S BENCH, MAY 13.
Linzt..—Lawnsata v. nauseam.
Mr. HOTCHINSON opined the pleedlogs, and said that th's decla.
ration complained that tbe defendant had been guilty of writing and
publishing certain anonymous letters, dinging the wife of the plaintiff
with being guilty of adultery.
The defendant pleaded a justification.
Sir J. SCARLET? addressed the Jury, and, commenced by stating
that, in the whole course of bis experience, it had never been his
lot to have been engaged in, or even to have heard of, such a case
as the present. A case of greater iniquity it bad never been his lot
to relate. The plaintiff was the son of Mr. T. londseer, the cele-
brated artist, and himself was celebrated in the arts. In the year
1828, he married the daughter of a Captain Pocock, a gentle.
man who had acquired some fortune in the Rost. Miss Pocock was
a young lady of beauty, considerable accomplishments, and engaging
instinens. The defendant, it would appear, was a man of tome fortune.
He was unfortunately introduced to the plaintiff, and paid considerable
attention to the plaintiff's wife, and frequently drove her out in a cabriolet.
‘l'llether these attentions had succeeded to the extent of a criminal in-
tercourse it would be for the Jury to my, as the defendant bad pleaded
justification on that ground. The Jury would how‘ver ra collect that the
plaintiff was not seeking a recompense for any inju.y which the plaintiff
might have sustained by the conduct of the defendant in this nstect.
They wete to say whether the defendant was the author of the letters
charged as libellous.
Mr. Landseer, father to the plaintiff, deposed that he was in pos-
session of certain anonymous letters, which he received in June and
July 1829.
Re-examined by the Attorney.tleneral.—Never applied on the part
of the plaintiff to the defendant to support his (the defendant's) child.
Was present at a conversation between the plaintiff sad his wife, when
a pariicular scrutiny took place.
Re-examined by Sir J. SCARLET t.—This scrutiny took place on
the 25th of July, 1829.
Mr. Robert Noble deposed that he was slightly acquainted with
Mr. T. Landsec% who is an artist. Mu Robinson, who is a married
man, resided in witness's house. This was in December, 1828.
Knows defendant's handwriting. (A letter shown to him.) Cannot
form a belief as to this letter being in the handwriting of the defendant.
Sir J. Se•aterr desired the witness to look at partienlar parts of
, the letter.

The witness, In answer to Sir J. Searlett, said that the letter was
evidently in a disguised hand, but he positively denied that he could
form any belief that it wu the hand-writing of the defendant.—( Ano-
ther letter shown to the witness.)—He believed this letter to be in the
hand-writing of the defendant.
Sir J. SCARLETT : Now, I uk you to look at the first letter ; say,
if you believe it to be in the hand-writing of the defendant ?
Witness: I cannot swear to any belief on the subject.
Sir J. SCARLETT: You can't ? go down. But before you do, !oak
at those (handing up several letters.) He believed those letters to be in
the hand-writing of the defendant.
Caroline Pocock, being examined by Sir J. Sc tacrry, deposed that
she was sister to Mrs. Landseer, who has been married about five years.
Knew Mr. Robinson. Met him at Mrs. Lucas's, in the New Road.—
Did not meet hint very often. He was known to her father. Mr. Ro-
binson was a money-lender or broker; he is a married man, and has
a son and daughter. Saw hint at the house of the plaintiff. Knows
the defendant's handwriting. (Several letters shewn to her.) These
letters ate in his handwriting. Another letter shown to her, the same
that Mr. Noble deposed to not being able to recognise as being in the
handwriting of the defends:".) She believed this letter to be in the
defendant's handwriting. Recollects her sister coming to her father's
on a visit in July, 1829. She was there about six weeks or two months.
Recollects that during that time her sister leaving her father's early in
the day, and returning late at night. She returned on foot.
Cross-examined—lt was owing !particularly' to the word "Ccircum-
stance," and the letter " L." that enabled her to believe that the letter
in question was the defendant's hand-welting. She also believed it from
the general character of the band-writing. (Other letters were shown
to her by the Attorney-General.) The outside wu like her sister's
handwriting, but she did not think the wilting on the inside to be her
sister's. She said this upon her oath. (Another letter shown.) Be-
lieves the writing on the inside to be in her sister's handwriting, but
part of the direction is not. Knew of the marriage of her sister with
the plaintiff. They had a son which was born in March, a year and a
half ago.
Sir J. SCARLitiT now proposed to put in the anonymous letter re-
cognised to be in the handwriting of the defendant by the last witness.
The ATTOZNEY.GZMZILAL said, he thought that from the manner
In which the last witness had given her evidence it wu a matter for his
lordship's consideration, to say shethir he could believe what she stated
respecting the letter in question.
Lord TEIITZADIN thought that she had given sufficient evidence to
justify his allowing the letter to be read.
The officer then read the ktter, which was addreucd to Mr. C. Land-
seer or Miss lAndseer.

This letter went on to say that the world were laughing at Mr. T.
Landseer, at his blindness respecting the indecent, disgusting, and bare.
faced conduct of Mrs. T. Landseer, with Mr. ; that the young
son of Mr. Lindner was wall understood to be the effspiing of the illi-
cit intercourse of Mrs. Landseer and the individual whose name did nut
appear ; that Mrs. Landseer and her r were frequently seen
riding alone, and going into unoccupied houses in the neighbourhood of
the Regent's park, evidently for the most improper purposes,—a boy
bolding the horse during the time they were absent, dm.
111 r. Edwin Landseer deposed that, during the absence of his sista.
in.law from home, In July, 1829, a letter was received. addressed to
Mrs. T. Landseer. In consequence of the suspicions created against
her character, owing so the receipt of the anonymous letter Just
read, he opened this letter, and after reading a few lines of it, he
brought it to his father. The letter was addressed to Mn. Lane,
No. 11, Southampton.street, Fitzroy-square. This was witness's fa-
ther's house, and in which Mr. and Mrs. T. Landseer and Mr. C.
Landseer and witness's sister, also resided.
Cross-examined by the ATTO&IWKIr GZWZIAL : Neva heard an
remarks made tweeting Mr. Robinson's attentions towards Mrs. T.
Landseer ; has seen Mrs. Landseer in a cab with Mr. Robinson. In
consequence of what the letter just alluded to stated, a meeting of friends
took place at witness's house, in St. John's Wood. There were pre.
sent, witness, his brother Charles, Miss Landseer, Mr. Landseer, attn.
and Mr. Thomas Landseer, who had been sent for on the occasion.
The result of this conference was, that Mrs. T. Landseer was, to use
the witness's phrase, " dismissed." She went to her father's. She was
now, however, living with her husband. Visited Mrs. Landseer when
she was in her confinement ; was never refused admission when Mr.
Robinson was there; never saw Mr. Robinson there upon the occasion
of Mrs. Landsat's confinement.

The letter in question, which was one of the two identified by Mies
Pocock, was then put in and read. It adverted to the intimacy that
existed between Mrs. Landseer and the writer, and to the fact of the
child of which she had then become the mother, being the produce of
their criminal intercouno. The writer alluded to the lolly and madness
of her disclosing the nature of that intercourse :which would bring ruin
on them both. The writer went on, one time affectionately calling upon
her by all those ties of mutual love by which they had been bound to
one another, not to bring disgrace upon them by the disclosure of any
facts connected with this case; at another time,he triumphantly laughed
to scorn any efforts which she might make to charge him with having
seduced her. Sbo it was who entangled him: lie lisd letters to trove
this. S..e. &c.

There were two other letters put in, one addressed to the father of
Mrs. Lindner, and the other to the attorney employed to conduct a
case against the plaintiff, in both of which the defendant did rot deny
his intercourse with Mrs. Landseer ; but he did deny being the author
of the anonymous letter, charging Mrs. Landseer with improper and
criminal conduct.
These letters were read by the °Maw of the Court, from a printed
paunphlet,
The case for the plaintiff having concluded,
The ATTOIINZY-GENESAL rose to address the Court, and said that
this was the most extratdinary case that bad ever a me to his knowledge
as occurring in the nil history of private life. It was one which It was
hardly possible for the imagination to conceive. His Learned Fikrd
had said that it was a case that exhibited French rather than English
morals. He (the Attorney-General) meet heard of any thing like
it, except in a German novel. where the intsgination of the novelist
suggests the idea of a titan having net meetly obtained possession of
the wife of soother roan, but paints hint as being in a are of gnat ex.
eitement ; nay, repo sents the lover as complaining that be is an
injured man, because the wife submits to the lawful embraces
of her own husband. He recollected something of the same kind in the
'satiny of an ancient poet, who piteously exclaims, upon leading his
love to the door of her husband's howe, "Alas! I sin obliged t o hue
you •o submit to embraces which can give you no plea are." This lover
ainsiders the husband an interloper, and represents the wife as being a
ht puerile, putting on an appearance of affection which she really wanted.
The question before the Jury was rot an action fur damages for crimi-
nol conduct on the pan of the defendaut towards the 1 Lintiff's wife,
it was whether he had published certain writings, tending to in.
jure her in the eyes of the world. He begged to say_ that he un-
dertook the advocacy of this quesiion with no Helsinki of heart,
but because he was obliged to do so in his ptolessional copeck,.
Although the defendant had placed upon record a plea of justifies.
Lion, on the ground of adultery with Mrs. Lindner, yet be (the
Attorney.Gencral) would disclaim bringing forward any evidence on
this subject. Indeed, there was not only an estopel io law to such
a course, but in honour and morality. With respect to the letters
said to be the defendant's, they were all addressed to one person
they were not published by the detrodant ; it was the plaintiff him.
*eh who published them, although he did nut mean to say that the
plaintiff was the whew oo the pamphlet In which they appreree~
a pamphlet with which the defer dant had nothing to do. (Sir J.
bearlett nodded assent.) Thee locos, lion& of being preserved,
'itleglit. to have been destroyed, and then the world would have known
DO kiln whatever of this malt, r. The Jury would bear this in mired, •
that if even the later addressed to Mrs. Laiwiseer were peeved to be in
the haad.writimr of the defendant, still he was not pilty of publishing
it, (which was the offenm,) unless he wrote is with the intention