Star.
London, England, 1822-12-19 00:00:00

. : .
and were always eonsiderefli, by the tompany is the £lsoo
owners of the table.per annum,. settled- upon die said Amelia
-1 nelopes to. her own private-and separatti us."
The Jury found both the defendants Guilty. , (One cbald doubt that this witi'die4eat till'imen ~
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECRMBER te. I.the case; and this introduced another Obseittlon,
CRIM. CON.—BARKER V.,POTTS. Iwhich was, tat if the character of seducer belonged
Mr. Serjeant LENS stated, that this was an.ection to any one, it belonged to the plaintiff; and-not.
to recover a compensation in daMages, for an injury Ibis client. No one witness hastbeen .eidted,to sheet
of the most serious kind. The charge brought aeainstlthat the plaintiff bad raid his addresses' 14'.tlie 'con-
n
the. defendant in this case was, that bet destroyed i sent of the family, nor that•his, acquaiiiiince sitlfthe
the peace of mind and happiness Of plaintiff, by I Lady had been of any considerable duration. Indeed,
having an adulterous intercourse with his wife. He :as fat as any evidence had beets given ,it 'was very
did not intend to state thia ease to them as one calling, clearly a runaway match, the Lady being about.]
for very large or aggravated damages. The parties! sixteen, and • the Gentleman rather above thirty.—
were marries in 1815, and they lived together in j The fortune of the lady had been equally the cause
content and happiness until the end of 1819, when of the marriage and of the separation. It had been
some differences having arisen between the parties, a proved that they separated on account of a difference
separation was contemplated, which was finally Car- between them as to the management of her-property,
ried into effect in March following. The wife at first for she had been left by her father's will in the full
went to reside with het relations, but subsequently exercise of power over her property, and perhaps she
took a house near Teignmonth, *here her mother had learned by experienee that it would be prudent
resided with her. In this house the adulterous con- to retain that power. The Learned Serjeant con-
duct of the defendant had commenced, and there he eluded by expressing his hope, that the Jury would
had succeeded in making the unhappy victim of his feel that a husband who thus exposed his wife to temp-
criminal intentions fall into that situation, and incur tation by his own conduct, was not entitled to claim
that stain on her character which would for ever re- from honourable men more than nominal damages.
main by her to her irreparable disgrace. The deed of separation, date& March, 1820, was
Mrs. Barker, the mother of the plaintiff, was pre- put in and read, by which an annuity of £3OO was
sent at his marriage, in Yorkshire, in' 1813. The agreed to be paid to the plaintiff.
lady was then not quite 17 years old; her property The certificate of marriage was put in, by which
was considerable. The plaintiff was then about 30; the lady, " Amelia Penelope Burton, alias Amelia.
he had been a captain in the Militia; his property Penelope Barker, was married to Samuel Barker, by'
was in Nottinghamshire. They lived with witness for consent of John Ward." . •
nine months, during which time they seemed very Mr. Serjeant LENS, in reply, Insisted that nothing
happy together. After they quitted witness's house, had been proved which skewed' that the plaintiff was
they went to reside at Clifton. Witness did not see entitled only to nominal damages. The injury had'
them afterwards. . been proved, and it was for the Jury to de:ermine
Cross-examined.—The lady was married without what should be the amount of damages given in
the consent of her friends, first in Scotland and then respect of ir.
in Yorkshire. She had a good fortune. Lord Chief Justice DALLAS, in summing up, oh-
Henry Hayman lived as a gardener, at Teign. served, that he could not refrain from expressing his
mouth; he knew Mrs. Barker; she bad a house there; dislike to the cool calculating conduct of the plaintiff.
had seen Mr. Potts in her company ; the first time as to the cause of separation, nor could he beyond'
was in May, 1820, when she took the house; had that be silent on the marriage itself—a marriage con-
seen her sitting in the parlour with Mr. Potts, who tracted by him with a girl scarcely 17 years of age,
had his arm round her waist; had seen them playing at a time when, whether physically mature or not. it
4 with each other's handkerchiefs: had also seen Potts was clear that she could be scarcely capable, in a
mental point of view, to decide on the nature of so
throwing dirt at her in the road—she, too, returned
the compliment. Remembered Mrs. Barker's leaving solemn an engagement as that of an union for life.
Teignmouth ;it was in February, 1821; he saw Mr. The Jury retired for a short time, and then re-
Potts come from the road by a gate, and go into the turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £2OO.
house; this was about two in the morning. Witness
WAS there so early because he had some doubts
whether Mrs. Barker was going to leave. Potts came
to the house and attempted to go in ; soon afterwards
he saw the flash of a candle in the house, and Mrs.
Barker and Mr. Potts came out of the house and
went towards a carriage. .
Mr. John Barker, a Gentleman at-the Bar, remem-
bered his brother's marriage, in 1815; he did not
know Miss Burton before her marriage with his bro-
ther; he did not see them until nearly a year after
their marriage, as they lived at East Redford, in Not
tinghamshire, and witness resided in London ; they
then appeared to live very happily together; his bro-
ther's conduct •was always most tender. and affec-
tionate; witness saw them in London a short time
before their separation, when they appeared to live
very affectionately ; his brother quitted London to
look at the estates; this was by the wife's desire.
Cross-examined.—They separated on his return
from the country ; this was in December, 1819; she
became of age a short time previously ; the separa-
tion was contemplated a short time after she came
of age ; witness was not in the habit of seeing them
together at that time, as a separation was contem-
plated; after the separation, his brother went to re-
side at Clifton ; had heard his brother say he had re-
ceived either one or two half-yearly payments of an
annuity of 3001.—heard him say that since the separa-
tion he and his wife had slept together in December,
1820, when she brought him these half-yearly pay-
ments; heard his brother say, that his wife desired
to be reconciled to him on certain conditions, which
were, to have the entire controul of the property de-
vised to her by her father, and the poiver of appoint-
ment of trustees for that property, ad that one of
the trustees should be her natural brother, instead of
a most respectable Gentleman, who was one of her
guardians under her father's will. His brother would
not consent to these conditions. This proposal was
a short time after they had slept together at Bathe
when she sent the plaintiff a letter containing these
propt:e.als, and a ring with her hair.
Samuel Hippisley, keeper of the King's Arms,
Hampton Court, remembered a Lady and Gentle-
man coming to that house in a post-chaise, on Sun-
day, the 25th of February, 1821. They stopped till
Thursday following.
Sarah Roslam, the chamber-maid, remembered
the arrival of the Lady and Gentleman at the King's
Arms ; they slept in the same room, which was
single•begded; she carried up warm water, which
was taken by Abe Gentleman; when she made the
bed, it appeared as if two persons had slept in it.
James Wright was waiter at the King's Arms; re-
collected the Lady going out on Thursday, and re--
turning with two Gentlemen ; one of them, a Mr.
Plutntree, was in Court; the Lady went away in a
post-chaise; Mr. Potts went to the room where Mrs.'
Barker was with the two Gentlemen, and putting in
his arm, he said, " Mrs. Barker, here are your keys."
He could not be discovered by those inside the room;
he left the house about two hours after the Lady
and Gentlemen had quitted.
Mr. Plumtree pursued the Lady by her uncle's de-
sire; he followed her to Kingston, where he saw Mr.
Potts in the street. Mrs. B. and witness then came to
town, where she was left in the care of her relations.
This was the case on the part of the plaintiff.
Mr..Serjeant VAUGHAN said, he was sure the Jury
would act with moderation as well as feeling, and not
be hurried, into giving excessive damages by the
statements- which had been made, or the appeals
which they had heard. He should have a patnful
duty to discharge, but he must and would discharge
that duty, being equally bound to do so in justice to
himself and to the parties. He should give his
Learned Brother the opportunity, which he was sure
would be well exercised, of replying, for lie should
, call -witnesses who would spew the real nature of. the
case. As long as he had had the honour of practising
in Westminster Hall, he had never seen a declaration
like the present. The plaintiff was not content with the
usual statement of per quad consortium aarisii; but
must add a statement of, the loss of the " use, benefit,
and enjoyment, of a certain sum of money, to wit,

Robert Hartley was indicted under the 43d Geo.
111. c. 56, s. 1, commonly called Lord Ellenborough's
Act, for assaulting Samuel Owen, at the ville cf
Sheerness, on the 29th of August, with a certain
sharp instrument, and feloniously and maliciously
stabbing, with intent to kill and murder him. Se-
cond count alleging the intent to disable; and third,
to do the prosecutor some grievous bodily harm.—
The case has been already detailed two or three
times in this Paper.
According to the testimony of the ship's surgeon,
the wound was in a most vital part, and during the
first stages of the cure, the Captain's life was in great
jeopardy.
Theprisoner asked no questions of the witnesses
for the prosecution, and being called on for his de-
fence, said that he committed the dreadful act im-
pe.ted to him in a fit of insanity, without any malice
towards the -prosecutor. Goaded by the conscious-
ness of former crimes, and wound up to a state of
frenzy from the apprehension of being transported
for life, he became delirious, and in a moment of fu-
rious passion he did an act which, under other cir-
cumstances, he would have shuddered at with hor-
ror. He had been dismissed the naval service in
consequence of insanity; but, deserted and aban-
doned by all who knew him, he was unable to prove
the fact. He trusted, however, that the Jury would
take his case into consideration.

Mr. Baron GRAHAM summed up the cage; and
The Jury immediately found the prisoner Guittg,
—Death.

When called upon to say why sentence of death
should not pass against him, the prisoner said that
he wished for no mercy. Harassed as he was in
mind by a series of crimes, he had no prospect of
peace in this world. To save his life, would be to
him no mercy. Supposing his sentence should be
commuted to transportation for life, he should look
upon it as a prolongation of his misery. Life had no
charms for him. Rather than be transported for
life, he would prefer instant removal to the place of
death. Deprecating the preservation of his miserable
life, he earnestly prayed that the Learned Judge
would leave him for execution.

The wretched prisoner spoke in a strain of lan-
guage far above what might be expected in a man
of his humble condition.

Mr. Baron GRAHAM proceeded to pass.the awful
.sentence of the law, and conjured the prisoner to
make the best use of the short time allotted him on
this side of the grave; to prepare for an eternal scene,.
and told him he must expect to undergo the merited
punishment which awaited his crimes.