Star.
London, England, 1809-06-30 00:00:00

OPOR2IIVG DITELLIGENCB.

STAMFORD RACES, TUESDAY, JUNE 27.
The Town Plate of £5O.
Hubbard's ch. f. Julietta, by yourg Drone, 4 yrs old 1
ior Morris' b. h. Wilda's., 5 yrs old - . . 2,2
Thomas's b. f. by Sir Solomon, 3 yrs old - - 3
The Noblemen and Gentlemen's Sweepstakes of 20gs. each.
•
Mr. C. Wilson's b. f. Spindle - -
Lord Foley's b. c. Spaniard - - - .
Mr. W. N. W. Hewett's ch. c. by Stamford . .
Lord Fitzwilliam's b. c. by Benlngbrough - . ..
Five to 2 apt Spaniard; 6 to 4 ags: Spindle.

Mr.
Maji
Mr.

114 ff INTELLIGENCE:

~. , . , . •., .. . . .
COCO OP COMMON PLIAS, JUNS tin'
met LEH ESTER Vaitist THE PROPIHETOtts 01 THE
HORNING HERALD. .
'the action was brought for inserting the following
paragraphs in the Herald at various periods in the
Course of last year:—" Articles have been exhibited
against a Noble Lord by his Lady, similar to the ar-
ticles which were exhibited by Lady Audley against
ha. Lord, upon which he was convicted and deservedly
executed ; but in the present instance, there were cir-
cumstances of far greater atrocity."-41 The wretched
son of an English Marquis has absconded, on charges
which Lady C. (Chartley being his title, when the
old Marquis of Townshend was Aim) has exhibited
against him. A special warrant.has been issued-for '
apprehending this Lord, whose infamies have long
rendered him a disgrace to human nature."
Mr. Serjeant BEST stated the nature of the libel,
in a most able speech, in which he commented upon
the tendency of so infamous
sa charge, he proceeded
to call witnesses to prove the crime and conviction of
Lord Audley, the publication of the libels in ques-
tion, and how they were construed to attach to the
Noble plaintiff.
Mr. Mills, the solicitor for the plaintiff, proved That
the separation had not taken place between the plain-
tiff and his wife in March 1808, when the two first
paragraphs were published. He himself had dined
at Lord Leicester's house in the April following,
where he saw Lady Leicester, with some relations of
the family. When he observed the paragraphs in
question he had no doubt of their allusion to Lord
Leicester.—On his cross examination by Mr. Serjeant
Omar., he stated as his reason, among other things,
that he had heard certain flying rumours respecting
the conduct of the plaintiff. I-le admitted. that a person
of the name of Neri dined with him az Lord Leices-
ter's table, and that this man had settled his Lord-
ship's accounts with him relative to some conveyan-
cing matters. -
The case of the Plaintiff was then closed.
Mr. Serjeant COCKLE then rose on the part of the
Defendants. He said he rose with considerable con-
cern upon a subject, odious in its own nature, and
which must give pain and disgust to every man. His
Learned Friend would have wished theni to believe,
that the aspersions against the character cf Lord
Leicester originated in the newspaper which was con-
ducted by the defendants. The fact, however, was,
that they did not; but, as the plaintiff's own attor-
ney had admitted, there had been fyirg rumours
against the character of that Noble Lord, bAor..
such paragraphs ever found their wiry into the news-
paper. The paragraphs had found their way into
the public papers in the usual manner, and the
Proprietors had offered to take their oaths that they
were not the authors, and did not know who were.
—Certainly he was not an advocate for slander or
licentiousness in the prt;ss ; but it was. evident
that public papers could nol be printed if the Con-
ductors were put to a strict justificaton of the
truth of every paragraph contained in them. If
they maliciously invented falsehoods, or lent them-
selves wilfully to be the instruments of malice
in others, they should be responsible as authc•rs
of those calumnies ; but if, without any malice, these
paragraphs found their way into their papers in the.
regular course of their trade, they certainly were still
responsible, but not in the same degree, nor would a
Jury visit them with so serious damages. It was al-
lowed, that notwithstanding all the evils which pro,.
ceeded from the licentiousness of the press, the pub-
lication of daily newspapers, and the letting the pub-
lic know what was going on, was of infinite advan-
tage to the liberties and happiness of the country.—
His Learned Friend had spoken- of the Earl of Lei-
cester and his wife having lived happily together.—
How did he attempt to prove it ?—did he call a single
relation, servant, or friend ? No :--1-All the evidence
on this point was, that his Attorney had seen Lady
Leicester at her Lord's table near a year atter the
marriage. The fact was, that so far from having
HARVEY V. PLESTOW. lived happily together, there was nothing perhaps in
Sir S. Ramie's, for the plaintiff, stated this to he a the whole history of married life more wretched.—
case
of commercial interest. It was a bill filed bin , Three sleepless nights were all the miserable bride
the Representatives of a Mr. Carter, deceased, against lay in her husband's bed ; and, after that time, they
the Representatives of his Attorney, praying, an ac- were never in bed, or seldom at board together !
count of the monies received by the Attorney for the The Lady, in the agony of an almost brokm heart, and
use of his client, and also for the suns expended by, in spite of female delicacy, wits obliged to reveal the
his Attorney for him. . wrongs she had suffered. She had been obliged to sit
The defencllmt pleaded, that bcbk debts of above dOwn at the table ocher Lord with wretches who are a
six y,23rs standing were b irred by the Statute ..if Li- disgrace to human nature, and vvlio ought nOt to be per-
nrt.l•ccii. mined to live. There was Neri, the Italian Secretary,
•
Tle2 Learned Counsel contended, that whatever Hayling, Plafair, and other wretches of that descrip-
might be the strict letter of the common law in such • tion. She was soon banished from his house by such
cutes., the Court of Equity would not be bound by conduct. When he WAS at Glo.iCeaer-place, she used
1116 I•t).,.•!; but, on the contrary, would only inquire, to be at We abourn Green, and when he was at Pad-
tuttler a Bill here filed, whether there were mutual dington, she came to Gloucester-place. The Noble
Li• -li,ors b oveen the parties, which were deemed Lord had brought forward but one witness, who
:,.,.s o,rotind for a Bill for an account in Equity ? knew nothing of the matter. How came it that he
•t ix 1.,w ,iiiil 'justice, as also the equity of England, brought fory..ard no relative, no friend of rank and
it„-i:e,, in nrineill!, unfavourable to such bars as the fashion equal to Isis own, none of his juvenile friends,
State e of Limitation, or any other strict, but un- none of the elders of the College in which he was
c:%14.ie,-,1,1e plea in bar of fait accounts, or demands; educated, to support his character ? On this subject
1.. e crslelideo, th a his Honour would, cf course, de- there was a gaping chasm, and it was thought pro-
en--c t'.e account now prayed for by the plaintiff's per to preserve a profound silence. He, like other
',ill, site the attempt of the defendants vent to the Gentlemen of tbrtune, travelled in his youth, but was
zji.so-action of the great distinction between the strict accompanied by this Italian, Neti,• who had been
,:,:mrnon law, and the more broad principle of equity; called his Secretary. This man he had kept in a
a claiu•;crotis precedent to be established in this Court. i most expensive manner. When Neri married, al-
The defendants, by their answers, had admitted I though he had not a shilling of his own, and did not
1. il:; 'he person they represented had received monies I get a sliming with his wife, yet they took a house, at
7•'• r tl.e use of the person represented by the plaintiff,' a rent of 1.501. per annum, and Neri lived more.with
bat in general terms deposed that he had paid it over his Lordship than under his own roof.
..7 the use of his client, as they believed. This was r4r. BEtT appealed to his Lordship whether this
..;.,t seMeient swearing.. He moved the relief prayed line of defence was to be endured. If it was, it would
i-r, on ti.c i rinciples of public policy and justice of , be in the power of any defendant to destroy the cha-
C-iis country. racier of any plaintiff, by a story that he could not be
Mr. HART and Mr. HOLLISH opposed the plain- prepared to anslker.
tiii's ease, on the ~_;roonds of the general inconveni- 1 Sir Jam ns MANSFIELD thought the Learned Serjeant
once Of allowing accounts of so 'ling standing to be , should be permitted to proceed in his statement.
opened, as all dealings between the original parties 1 Mr. Serjeant CocELE said, it was absolutely neces-
had ceased since the year 1789, and it was now too i sary for him to make this statement, to prove that
1,1t,-! to hicstigate them. what had been stated by his Learned Friend (Mr.
cis Honour observed, that it Was sufficient for the ii Serjeant Best) as an aggravation of the malice, was
Bids of justice, according to the pure principles of this ; not true.. It was also his duty to 'Wove that those flying
Cart, that mutual demands were admitted to have , rumours a,tr,ainst the character of Lord Leicester were
t.'.!:en place betweca the original parties. That was .so generally heard of, that his Lordship's character
ailtaitted by t'•-.e answers of the defendants; •and that : had not suffered by the paragraphs to the extent that
the Ati:intey had 7 cceivcd the money for his client's - had been stated, as he might perhaps shew that his
:! .t• ; but whether he had paid it over was a question 1 Lordship's character was previously as bad in this re-
.:r., fc•-.- the -aster to find out when an inquiry should ; spect as any man's could be, who was not actually
be directed. L., thzrefore, decreed, that a Master' convicted of the crime. If this were the case, it must
should irvestigate the accounts and report the re. i most materially alter the damages. As to tbe obser-
,a.l.l-, nomiihstancrug the Statute of Limitation, and 'ration which had been made of the difficulty of te-
e lapse of 90 ye.:rs.—Decree for the plaintiff. I

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE SS:
BEFORE HIS HONOUR THE MASTER OF THE ROLLi.
NEWMAN V. ROGERS.

Sir S. ROMItLY stated, that about the year 1778,1
the plaintiff, while a Student at Oxford, had !formed
an irresistible affection for Miss Frances Newman, I
daughter of his father's brother, which ended in their
union in wedlock, with the privity or connivance et
the uncle, without, however, his express consent, or
his being present at the marriage. The husband
came el' age in 1760, and was heit in tail male to
several estates, and a manor, of which his uncle was
• then the lord, subject to an estate for life to his uncle;
then 65 years old, and to a life estate in his uncle's
Wife, then about 52 years of age. The uncle wished I
to stirrer- a recovery of some of these estates, which
became of great value in process of time, but this
coeld not he effected until the nephew came of age,
to join in the deeds, which his necessities and the
erdue influence exercised over him by his uncle, •
compelled him to yield to ; having.only £4OO a year
allowed to him at the will of his uncle, although one
of the estates descendable to him in reversion, was
then worth about 4600 a year. In the deed a power
was reserved by the father of the wife, to' make a fur-
ther settlement on her, when the recovery should be
suffered, and also a fortune for her sister, the defen-
deer, Mrs. Rogers, and another sister, out of the
estates which were the birth-right of the nephew. It
was charged that the uncle had procured his own at-
torney to act in the business for all parties, and like-
wise his own Counsel, both since deceased, and that a
marginal-note on the draft of the deed, in red ink, in
the hand-writing of the Counsel, shewed that a leasing
clanse, or power for demising for 99 years, on three
lives, and receiving fines for the fresh leases, had re-
duced the interestof theplaintiff considerably; and that
such a cle use was fraudulently or surreptitiously intro-
duced in the deeds
without the plaintiff's knowledge.
It was therefore payed, that such part of the deed
should be decreed null and void, although the great
lapse of time since the deed of 1780, and a subse-
quent deed of release by the same parties, executed in
1753, had been pleaded against this release, in a for-
mer bill, filed by the plaintiff in 1801, and the plea or- ;
dered to stand ihr an answer, and of course disallowed
by the then Lord Chancellor. The plea had been
grounded on the statute of frauds and perjuries, as
t;:e promise grounding the deeds was only verbal ;
but tOr the plaintiff it was now and then contended,
that the verbal agreement was acted upon and in part I
performed, which took it out of the statute. His
Honour was prayed to decree in favour of the plain.
tiE, who had not been able to file or bring to a final
he sooner this supplemental bill, in support of his
iind the more especially as the deceased's uncle
had been clearly forsworn in his first answer to the
plaintiff's bill, as appeared from his own letters, now
read as evidence, and as the estates came into the pos-
session of bonajTele purchasers, who could not be now
disturbed in their titles, a compensation was prayed
t, a- the losses sustained by the'plaintiff's estates, out',
of the of the deceased, which are in the hands
of tae defeidants, who are his representatives.
The Counsel for the defendants argued, that it was •
a case new and untenable on its whole merits, but
waved the statute of frauds, and contended that it was
a tamily accommodation, which might be called op-
pression ag iinst the plaintiff, but not fraud. •
It was denied by his Honour that the evidence went
to prove any part of the transaction to be a family ac-
commoda;ion ; and it WaS stated that the plaintiff \vat
extravagant ; for that after raising 56,0001. on the
estates, he was not able to stay in his country, but had
been a Lieuienant in some militia regiment lately, and
is now out of the kingdom.—Judgment is is be given

to-morrow.
JULY 29.--,rudgment was postponed in the above
cause, till his Honour shall have considered the evi-
dence privately.

•
liorlng a mai to society who had iseei charged with.
such an offence, he believed that his Lordship might:
whatever were the damages, .codtinue to mix, with
the same respect, in that sort of company with which
he had long associated ; and that whatever the &-
images might be, they. would' not restore him tb any
sort of society which lii3 birth and'rank in life ap-
peared tb entitle him to. He felt no inanner of doubt
but that in the consideration of damages, the Jury
.Would pay considerablb attention to those circum-
stances which it was his duty to prone.
A female was then called, who stated that she
lived with Lady Leicester at the time of her Mat:.
riage. Lord Leicester and her Ladyship slept to-
gether only three nights. Three men were the con-
stant visitors to his Lordship ; Lady L. used to dine
with them when she was at the same house with his
Lordship ; on the last day of August Lady L. went
to Chatris, Lord L. went with her, but continued
there only two days ; Lady L. stopped till Novem-
ber, but his Lordship did not come down any mere.
William Newton, the landlord of the Cocoa NUt
Coffee-house, was called to prove that Neri was a
person unfit for the society of Lord or Lady Leices-
ter. It appeared from his testimony, that Neri had
been a waiter at his house, but he knew nothing
against his character.
Ridgway, the bookseller, proved that Neri lodged
at his house for some time, and rented the fitst floor,
for which he. paid a guinea a week. Lord Leicester
sometimes visited him there.
George Smith,. an upholsterer, said, that he partly
furnished Lord Leicester's houses, atWestbourn-green
and Gloucester-place. He also furnished some goods
to Neri, who then lodged in Baker-street, North—but
he was not yet paid for them.
James I)enew, an auctioneer, sold the furniture 'of
the two houses when Lord Leicester's embarrassments
commenced ; and he also sold some gffects belonging
to Neri, at the same time—but he considered that as
.a distinct transaction.

~~

• •
dangly's.. of t&‘_.
fornotini
li postage Of that nose. T. le
te two
irsiw‘ Ito the elk A, in Whitli Oneattbsiteiiiiiiiti
4s! 6d.
LC" Eilenb"our d summed up the evidence,
udant prated tlis ~. and after
the Avkt &mid a veva> for the defendant. .

, . JUG 29; • -
, •
day, the list of the Lames of* jurors, retailed by the
In the first Special Jurytause that stood for the
Sheriff, was called over, and of one juryman ap-
peared, so that if the parties ha wished to try their
cause by a common jury, it cothi not be done ; for
as not one of the jury returned
t the Sheriff apf
pcared, there was nothing to which t&v could pray a
Tales. •
in another cause, in which g Special Juiv was sum:
moned, the parties were not ready, and it went off of
Course.

THE KING V. TILE DUKE OF GORDON.
The names of the Jury were called over, and wch
of them that appeared had the usual fee, and wtre
told that the Trial stands over until the next Term.