Star.
London, England, 1807-06-05 00:00:00

WILLIAMS V. HERIOTT.

The plaintiff, in this attion, was defcrihed by
the ATTORNEY GENERAL as a Carpenter, and the
action was brought to recover the fum of 1771. due
to him by the defendant on a note of hand ; the de-
fendant was a young widow ; had been left by her
hufband mitlrefs of a public houfe in Oxford Road,
where the had a brills trade ; and the note of hand

had been given on account of certain repairs per
formed by the plaintiff on the houfe above-mention
ed. In order to eflablifh the plaintiff's demand, a
witnefs proved, that the repairs were feven months
in being completed. Afterwards, when it was at
tempted to meafure the wot'. done, the lady refuted
to fuffer fuch a proceeding to take place, threatening
to throw fcalding water over any individual who
!night have the temerity to attempt it. It turned
out likewife, on the examination of feveral witneffes,
that the Plaintiff loon infinuated himfelf fo much
into the good graces of the widow, that he took up
his abode in her hotel, conducted her bufinefs, drew
and fold her beer and liquors, and took the money of
her cußomers for her ufe. It was alfo made manifefl,
that the Plaintiff was, for a certain length of time,
regarded with a degree of complacency by the De-
fendant, and that he had deferted his wife and family,
denying to the widow that he had either, in order
to live with her. Art Attorney proved that he had
fued both the Plaintiff and Defendant for a deb; and
coils, in confequence of a Bill of Exchange drawn
by the Plaintiff on the Defendant, which was not
paid when due. The Plaintiff was arrefled, and
underwent a confinement of two months in Newgate,
(tom which he was eitreated by figtting a cognovit.—
The fame Attorney fpoke pofitively to the favourable
afpeet of the widow • trade as a publican, and de-
clared that her property was worth more than 1200).
Mr. GARROW contended on behalf of the widow,

that the note of hand was an impudent (linking fraud.
It was Paid to have been fubfci ibed by an atteiling
witnefs, but that witnefs had not been called. The
fails were moll grofsly tnifreprefented, and the truth
was, that infiead of the widow being indebted In the
Plaintiff in one tingle (hiding, he was indebted for
a firm amounting to much more than he had the
impudence to demand from her. The Learned
Gentleman then enlarged on the infamy of the de-
ceit, the Plaintiff, a married man, had praelifed on
the widow, and proceeded to call witneffes to fuppott
theft.. allegations. One of the witnelfes, a Mr. Rout-
ledge, was clofely pretfed by Mr. Peake, cn the fame
dP..e with Mr. Garrow, to declare whether or not he
did not fee the Plaintiff exerciting all the privileges
and authority as mailer of the widow's houfe. His
anfwers were rude and vehement, and Lord Ellenbo-
rough told him, that if he did not conduit himfelf more
temperately, he would certainly commit him to prifon.
The witnefs, thus admonitbed, proved that there were
frequent difpntes between the Plaintiff and Defen-
dant, refpe6ling a settlement between them, the
widow often demanding fuch an arrangement, and
the Plaintiff refitting any accommodation of their dif-
ferences, by alking the widow where her vouchers
were against him?
Several other witneffes confirmed there faits, and
others of a fimilar tenency.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL' for the Plaintiff, con-
tended, that the fad cf the cohabitation of the Plain-
tiff and Defendant was not made out ;hkalfo argued
tliat the claim the Plaintiff had was fair fad onorous
fora ode and labour done, on her account. After a
recapitulation of the evidence by Lord ELLENno•
antic tr, the Jury found a vcrdiCt for the Defendant,
after about a minute's deliberation.