Star.
London, England, 1823-07-28 00:00:00

DEVONSHIRE ASSIZES.

EXETER, JULY 24.
#LRIRR V. BARTLETT AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Set jeant Paw, for the plaintiff, stated that this
was an action of ejectment to recover possession of an
estate called Shute, in this county, at present held by
the defendants, 'who were the sisters of the plaintiff's
father—a man at whose name the country had once
trembled. The Jury would recollect, that in the year
1797 the inhabitants of London experienced a visita-
tion which no other great metropolis had ever suffered,
by the blockade of her proud port, not by hostile na-
vies, not by a foreign foe, but by their own ships
manned by. British seamen. The leader of that me-
morable mutiny at the Nore was no other than Richard
Parker, the father of the present plaintiff, John Charles
Parker. That unhappy man had at last paid the for-
feit of his crimes, for many undoubtedly he had, com-
mitted, but his death was memorable for the heroism
which he displayed. He lived like a mutineer, but
he died like a man ; and, in speaking of that event,
he might with great propriety use the language of
the greatest poet that ever put his thoughts on paper :
4. 1 spoke wits one who saw him die, who did report
That very frankly he confessed his treasons,
And implored his Highness' pardon; and made
A very deep repentance. Nothing in •
His life became him like the leaving it."
—Such was the man under whom the claim to the
estates in question was now derived. The only ques-
tion which it was his duty to satisfy the Jury upon,
was the legitimacy of the plaintiff; because, if he
could establish that he was the heir at law of the last
Parker who was in possession of the estate, there
could exist no doubt of his title. The Learned Coun-
sel then stated the evidence which he intended to call
to substantiate the plaintiff's case.
Witnesses were called, who proved that the estate
had been in the possession of Richard Parker's elder
brother, and that no issue of his were now alive.
Ann Parker (the widow of Richard Parker) was
then swore, and examined by Mr. Set jeapt PELL.—
Her appearance in the -witness-box created a consi-
derable sensation of cutiosity in the Court, to vieW
the woman who had been related so neatly to one
who had himself been an Object of great public inte-
rest. She was neatly dressed, and exhibited the re-
mains of a countenance which must have been in
youth uncommonly beautiful. She stated that she
was the mother of the plaintiff, by her late husband,
Richard Parker, to whom she was married in the
year 1793. He as at that time a master's mate
of a man of war. She lived with her father, who
was a Gentleman-farmer. Her acquaintance with
Parker first commenced at the ferry at Leith, from
the boat of which he handed ker, and at the time
he said he would never lose sight of her. They
were shortly after married at the Cowgate, Edinburgh,
in the presence of her brother, who is now dead, and
two of his servants. The clergyman's name who mar-
ried them is Gordon, and is at pi esent alive, but insane.
The plaintiff was horn in Edinburgh, ten months
after the marriage. They visited Exeter in 1795. In
the month of May, 1797, het husband quitted-her to
join a ship at the Nore (she was then at Eiinburgh),
and she never saw him afterwards. Ile was buried at
Sheerness, hut she had the body taken up and buried
like a gentleman at Whitechapel-church. The child
(the plaintiff) was 'sent to the HiAblands, and has
ben there ever since wi'.h her sis:er, whom she had
visited horn time to tia.e.

On her ctoss-exaniination, she admitted that she
knew a man named Hetwkitr., but had never told
him that she had no children, and she thanked .God
for it. She was married to Richard Parker a second
time, at the desire of his father, at St. Sitwell's, I.!: ieter.
The two servants who vi itnessed the Marriage at
Edinburgh were then examined, and proved she was
!partied according to the forms of the Scotch church.
Mr. GAsELEE addressed the Jury on behalf of the
defendants. Ilk object was to throw discredit on the
story of the plaintiff' being the son of Richaid Parker.
He called the following witnesses.
Mr. Turner, solicitor, stated that he had convey-
-sation with Mr. John Parker, who died in 1815, and
heard him frequently lament that there were no heirs
niale of the name of Parker.

Benjamin llawkins knew Mrs. Parker three years
and a lralf. Has been employed by Mt s. l'a:ker to
go into the country. Has heard her say that her two'
children were dead, and she thanked LiOD for it. This',
was two years ago.
Cross-examined.—Witness is a surgeon and apo-
thecary. He sleeps in the room he keeps his shop in;
he does not perform operations in the same room.,
He has gone of messages for Mrs. Parker, and writ-
ten letters for her, but it was not either as an attor-
ney, a surgeon, or clerk, or surveyor.
Mr. Serjeant PELL rose to reply.—lt would-be an'
insult to the under standings of the Jury if he were
to offer one word upon the case; for a more scandal-
ous attempt to defeat justice he never witnessed. By
whom was the defence supported? ‘Vhy by a spectre
who had just left the box (alluding to the pale and
meagre surgeon who had just given his evidence).—
Did they ever see such a being He seemed to he
rai,ed from the dead. lie (Serjeant Pell) was reminded
of the description of the poet—" I do remember an
apothecary, Scc."—( A laugh).
Mr. GASELEE...—I hope my Learned Friend is sa-
tisfied now he his made his quotation.
Mr. Serjeant Pent..—l have made my quotation,
Gentlemen, and have your verdict, if you please.
Mr. Justice Bwritouoif went over the evidence, and
Mid there was not room for a doubt on the subject.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.