Star.
London, England, 1825-05-06 00:00:00

powerful secret-wmeive for this Wild &Asko. nil
answer was, that Mr. Money was bound for loss as well
as profit, and that probably he advanced the tipitaL
But the agreement said otherwise: it pernsitted buts to
advance what he pleased, and stipulated Ow 71 per
cent. should be paid to any party advaaelnean excess
of capital. Then Mr. Money and his family were to be
taken to India free of charge. Thus he had two-thirds
of the concern, and free passage. Finally, the parties
pledged themselves to keep this engagemeet secret. No
man could doubt that some one party felt that it would
not be for his character and credit that it should be
known to the world. His Honour could come to no
conclusion but that some grave consideration impelled
Captain M'Leod to act thus towards Mr. Money; and
no other motive was suggested than the influence of the
latter for his appointment to the ship. On the other
hand, Sir Robert Wigram, an extensive ship-owner, had
been examined and he stated that his reason for nomi•
sating Captain M'Leod was his belief as to his qualifi
cation. He admitted that Mr. Money recommended
.him; but denied all knowledge of any corrupt considers,
!ion. What answer was this evidence to the case? No
person would suppose that Mr. Money would tell Sir Ro•
bert the real motive of his recommendation. His Ho.
nour being of opinion that a Jury of merchants would
decide this question better than himself, would direct'
an issue to try whether the agreement was entered into,
either wholly or partly, in consideration of the plaintiff's
assistance to procure the command of the ship; and if
they found in the affirmative, it would then be a question
whether,in the unsettled gate of the authorities, be should
not direct the case to be submitted to a Court of Law ?

COURT OF-RING'S BENCH, MAT 1
WALDO P. MASTEN.
This was an action'on a bond, dated in 1820,whereby
the defendant stipulated with the plaintiff, that in
consideration that the plaintiff would resign to the de-
fendant the office of Bag-bearer in the Pipe Office in
the Exchequer, the defendant would account to the
plaintiff regularly for half the profitiduring his life.
The breach assigned was, that the defendant bad not
so accounted for the last year. The defendant pleaded,
first, that it was not his deed, and then several other
pleas, the substance of which was, that the office was
one affecting the administration of public justice, and
therefore not saleable; also- that the office was one of-1
fecting his Majesty's Revenue, and consequently not
sile.b:e. To these pleas the plaintiff replied, that the-
office was a saleable office within the appointment of J.
Farrar, Esq. the First Secondary, and that it was sold
in this instance .with his privity and consent.
Mr. COMMON SIBUSANT stated the case. The plain-
tiff, Mr. Waldo, was one of the Board-end Clerks in
the Pipe Office, and in conjunction with that office, he
had held some years since, the offi,e of berbearer,
which he bought from the previous possessor, Mr. Har-
ris:, with the consent of Mr. Ferrer. Some objections,
however, were made by his fellow clerks to his holding
the two offices together, and in consequence .he dis.
posed of i: in 1820 to Mr. Martin, his brother-in-law,
upon the condition already stated. Those conditions
Mr. Martin complied with regularly till last year, when
he ceased to perform them, and set up as an excuse for
his conduct, that the bargain was. a corrupt one, beg
cause, as he said, the office was one affecting the admix
nistrat:on of public justice, and of his Majesty's Revenee.
The evidence would shew that it was neither one nor the
other, and that it had be-n already sold, with the con-
sent of the Gentleman who had the appointment to
That Gentleman, Mr. Ferrer, was first appointed a
clerk in the Pipe Office, so long ago as 1745. He was
flow about ninety-six years of age, and his memory
might, perhaps, not serve him as to all the particulars
of this transaction. But the appointment of Mr. Martin
ar Waldo's recommendation would be placed bed and
all doubt.

The Amend= of the deed was proved.
Mr. Conder, one of the anomie% of the Pipe. Office,
described the nature of the office of bapbearer. his
duties were to make up the records of the returns made
by the. Sheriffs with a large roll, which, from its shape
land size, is called a pipe; and also to t ace to the Ex-
chequer all monies paid in by the Siteriffs, on warrants
issued to them by the Clerk of the Pipe.
Mr. Fatter (who appeared in vigorous health for his
age) stated, that he had known the office in question
for about eighty years. He was appointed Clerk in
the Pipe Office, in 1745, and became First Secondary in
1810, by seniority. He believed he had given his
sanction to a sale of the office of big-bearer, by Mr.
Haniss, to Mr. Waldo, because Mr. Harriss was an old
man, nor well able to perform his duties, and if he had
not some profit out of the office, he would have starved.
He admitted that he bad appointed Mr. Martin to the
office, at the instance of Mr. Waldo, but be denied that
he bad ever allowed Mr. Waldo to, sell the office to Mr.
Martin, and that he would not allow it if he had known
it. Upon this evidence, Mr. Scarlett, for the defendant,
submitted that the plaintiff ought to be tonsuited.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that the issue respecting
Mr. Farrer's consent to the bargain, must be found for
the defendant, but the other issues should be. found for
the plaintiff. subject to the opinion of the Court whe-
ther the office was a saleable one or not? and giving
leave to the defendant to move for judgtne.i. Rd* o&
otonte veredicto if the opinion of the Court Would be
that the office was not saleable.
The Jury found accordingly, under his Lordship's direction.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DUBLIN, MAY B.
CRIM. C0N...-111CKBY O. BOLAND.
This was an action brought to recover damages for
Crim. Con. committed with the plaintiff's wife. The
plaintiff was a tailor; on the 14th of Decensber, 1828,
he married Miss Elisabeth Bushe, a yopng Lady of great
personal charms and respectable character, then 25
years of age; the-plaintiff was a widower, 31 years of
age. Miss Bushe was entitled to 1401. per, annum,demised to her by her uncle. After the marriage, the
plaintiff and his wife lived happily together, until the
plaintiff had an accidental fall from his horse. During
the time of his confinement, unfortunately, Mrs. Hickey
became acquainted with the defendant, who prevailed
.n her to marry him, and by the same Clergyman who
ad married her to the plaintiff, and even now defen.
dant claimed to be her lawful husband—(Latighter).
The Rev. J. Wood said, he married the defendant
and Elizabeth Bushe on the 10th of February, NM,
and received Bs. I id. for his fee. Re did not know it
was the • same Elizabeth Bushe he had married to
Hickey, or he would not have married them.
W. Stapleton, a tailor, bad heard Mrs. Hickey called
Mrs. Boland, hitt never until after she was married to
Boland; it was in witness's presence that the fiat was
marked against Boland ; Boland told witness that be
did not cars for the plaintiff; because be never cora
shuniated the marriage; all the neighbours used to be
laughing at the idea of the defendant and Mrs. Boland