Star.
London, England, 1807-05-26 00:00:00

Mr. Tomlin, fr.rthe Defendant, complained th a
the Plaintiff had made himfelf an aterAsey cf this
Court on purpofe to bring the Orion here by.l.ih pri•
vilege in that charafter. •The confequtnee was, that
if the Plaintiff obtainei a verdia of only one fhillitig.
the Defen lant would have alfo to defray the cuffs,
including the attendance of witneffes, which would
amount to between 3001. and vol. This calumny, ;
which had been magnified into importance by the
powerful eloquence of the Attorney General, was con-
ne&ed with a frivolous dialogue about a little French
; and a ridiculous trick of Mr. Griffith Wil-
liams, in playing at hide and leek behind the curtain.
Was it confiffent with truth and juftice to aggravate
to loch an extetit a difpute between a couple of fiery
Welchmen, who knew nothing of the phlegmatic ha-
bits of their EaCern neighblurs? The learned Counfel
hoped that the Jury would confider the fmallelt da-
mages more than a fufficient reparation under fuch
circumflances.
Lord Et.t.rmanantrosi, after Rating the nature of
the anion, commented at ()me length both on the
conduit of the Plaintiff and of his witneffes. He did
not blame the former for being careful of his reputa-
tion, but he ought rather to have fought redrefs in
damages from Mr. Griffith Williams, if the fcandal
originated with him. His Lordfhip laid, he fhould
not have thought it neceffary, in a confidential or
carelefs communication of this kind from the Defeo-
dint, to have immediately informed tke Plaintiff of
the fubjed of it; as the witneffes had done : he would
rather have cautioned the Defendant, and would have
fufpended imparting the flander to the Plaintiff,
until it was feen that the Defendant perfevered in
propagating the calumny with obffinacy and malevo.
lence.—VerdiEl for the Plaintiff, tot.

MAY 22.—HOGGART V. COOYSR•
This was an aaion for goods fold and delivered.
The plaintiff and hct finer are milliners and drefs
makers in New Bond Rreet, and the defendant is a
Lieutenant in the Eaft Kent Militia. The fum
claimed was 971. the balance of a bill for articles of
drefs furnithed to the defendant's wife.
Mr. PALK, who .fiated the cafe to the Jury, admit-
ted that the queflion for the confide, ation of the Jury
would be, whether the drefs and articles furnifhed to
Mrs. Cooper were Nimble and neceffary to her con-
dition in life ? He faid the lady, at the time the gave
the orders, was living in the houfe of Colonel Durand,
and not the haft fufpicion relied on her character. In
ten months the was furnifhed with different articles of
drefs, to the amount of 1471. out of which Sol. had
been paid. One of the dreffea in particular was ex-
tremely rich ; it was trimmed with broad lace, and
was charged 241. This, he underßood, the defendant
meant to object to, and yet it mutt be confidered that
Mrs. Cooper was a very large woman, and took an
, immenfe deal of lace to her clothes, which, as
they were made to cover her, were large in propor-
tion ; not that he knew it was abfolutely neceffery
that the clothes of a fafhionable woman &mid en•
tirely cover her. He alfo undertlood that it was
meant to be let op, that the Lady was living in a Rate
of adultery with ths Colonel at the time the credit
was given, and that the hatband was not liable to her
debts. If that was the cafe, he would take upon him-
felf to afrert, that it was unknown to the plaintiffs ;
and that, in point of fail, the cafe, as he bad before
obferved, woulfl refolve itfelf into the queßion
Whether the articles furnithed were necetrary to her
condition, as the law was fuppoied to take care of the
hufband's interells in his abfence, and would not al-
low his wife neceffaries above his condition ?
Lord ELLENBOROUGH ge What is the actual rank
and condition of the Defendant ?"
Mr. GARILOW" My Lord, he is a Lieutenant in
the EaR Kent Militia, at 41. 6d. per day."
The Plaintiff's Counfel then called Mifs Hoggart,
who Rated that her fitter fucceeded to Mifs Ireland's
bufinefs in Bondlreet ; and that Mrs. Cooper, Mrs.
Durand, and Mrs. Pope, the fitter of the latter, were
all cußomers. Mrs. Cooper's bill, from the Bth of
January to the 26th of October in the fame year,
was 1471. out of which Sol. had been paid. The
drelfes were fent to Mr. Durand's bottle at Ceram'.
ton-
Lord
ELLIINSOROVGH obferved, that if the De-
fendant's condition had been truly defcribed, he was
I confident the Jury would think that pl. expended
in dreffes, in the Goode of ten months, was amply
fulEcient for the wife of a man in his Ration ; and
if fo, that fum bad been already paid, and it was
unneceffary to go into the dillreffing hitiory of the fa-
mily tranfiraions of the parties.
The Jury expreffed themfelves of that opinion, and
gave a verdict for the Defendant, without proceeding
further in the caufe.
BOUGHTON V. BOUGHTOIS.
This was an iffue directed from the Court of Chan-
cery, to try whether Eliza, the natural daughter of
Sir Edward Boughton, Bart. deceafed, was legally
married, on the loth Auguß, 1798, to her prefent
hufband, Sir Charles George Braithwaite Boughton.
The deceafed, Sir C. Boughton, was the father of
Lady Boughton, by a perfon who cohabited with him
as his wife for many years, and by his lei will he
bequeathed the great bulk of his property to Eliza
Lady Boughton, with refiriaion; upon the perfon
who thould become her hufband, that he thould take
the name of Boughton. Eliza, ~ow Lady Boughton,
being about to be married to her prefent hufband,
Sir George Charles Braithwaite Boughton, then Mr.
George Charles Braithwaite, not being more than
twenty years of age, and having no natural parents
or tenementary guardians, the law requii ed that the
thould have the content of guardians appointed by
1 the Court. Mrs. Ann Rutherford and Mr. Richard
Sandilands were accordingly appointed guardians
by the Court for that purpofe ; they gave their full
approbation, and the parties were married by fpecial
licence, at St. George's, Hanover fquare, on the zoth
Auguß, 1798.
1 here facts were admitted by the ATTONRET•
GINERAL) as Counfel for the Defendants, who, in
his defence obferved, that by the Statute of the 46th
of George 11. it was enaaed, that a minor, under
the age of at years, thould have the confent of his
or her father, if living ; if otherwife, of his or her
guardian or guardians; or in want of thefe, of his
or her mother, or of guardians appointed by the
Court. In this cafe he should prove, that Lady
Boughton was born in wedlock, and that her legal
father was alive at the time the was married.
Mr. James Kirg was then called, and depofed,
that he was preicnt at the marriage of Mr. John Kay,
with the mother of Lady Boughton, Salowie Davis,