Star.
London, England, 1829-11-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 3.
IN TIM MATTES Of EDWARD DAVIS, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, on taking his seat, delivered judgment
in this matter to the following effect
In this case of Edward Davis, which was heard before me the
other day at my house, I expressed, at that time, my wish, and
from the moment I heard the case up to the present moment I have
been desirous, if possible, to avoid the necessity of issuing a Com-
mission, on account of the great inconvenience that will result from
it in the particular business in which Mr. Edward Davis is em-
ployed, and also the great expense that must attend the inquiry,
consequent on the issuing of suck a commission. I was desirous
that the business, if possible, should be carried on under the super-
intendence of Mrs. Byewater, mother of Mr. Edward Davis,
and that some arrangement should be made for the comfort
of Mr. Davis, in order that the suggestions of the medical
men, at least some of the medical men, should be carried
into effect. It is with great regret I find those suggestions
have not been acceded to by the parties. It is necessary, there-
fore. for me, upon the affidavits before me, to decide whether or
not a commission ought to issue. I have read the affidavits with
attention, and upon the facts they disclose, and upon the medical
evidence in those affidavits, I think I have no alternative but to
direct a commission to issue ? I don't at all pretend to say what
will be the result of the viva we evidence upon the facts on which
my judgment is formed; but 1 think I should incur a very heavy
responsibility, and expose Mr. Edwd. Davis to very great danger
(on the evidence before use,) if I were not to grant a commission.
I beg leave at the same time to suggest, though I don't mean for
a moment to say that what Mr. F. Davis feels is well founded, yet
I think, from the circumstances that have occurred, it will tend
very much to keep up his irritation and excitement if he should be
continued in the place where lie now is, which should be avoided,
and therefore I think it will be proper to prepare another place for
his accommodation.

The SOLICI'ML-GRNKIAL submitted, that as the inquiry could
nut be entered upon without his client having the means of de-
fending himself, and as there was a cash balance of £BOO in his
banker's hands, those who represented him should be at liberty to
resort to that fund.

His LORDSHIr considered this reasonable, but hoped it would
not be drawn up.,n to an extent beyond what should be found to
beabeolutely necessary.
The commission was then ordered to issue.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Nov. 3.
Loeti, BRANDON •. LORD MELBOURNE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, to recover from the
defendant compensation in damages for criminal conversation with
the wife of the said plaintiff.
Alr. C. Pamirs opened the pleadings.
Mr. GUMMY stated the case. It would, be said, be a waste of
time to descant upon the injury which the plaintiff must have sus-
tained from such a crime as that with which the present defendant
stood accused. The plaintiff, Lord Brandon, had married Lady
Brandon in 1815, and in a year after she presented him with a
daughter, and in three years afterwards a second daughter. His
duties occasionally called him away from Dublin, and soon after
Lord Melbourne went to Ireland in his official capacity • ill health
compeUed Lord Brandon to come to England, leaving Lady Bran-
don in Dublin. Lord Melbourne bad been introduced to Lady
Brandon while Lord Brandon was in Dublin ; and after the ar- •
rival In England of Lord Brandon, he heard of certain circum-
stances which induced him to imagine that an improper intimacy
had taken place between Lord Melbourne and Lady Brandon.
The Learned Counsel then stated the circumstances of the case
in support of which he subsequently called the following evi-
dence :

•
blr. blagrath produced the extract from the parish register of
Ratbfarnham of the marriage of Lord Brandon, then the Rev. Mr.
Crosby, to Elizabeth Latouche—l have since known them—l
have visited at the house, and Lord Brandon was friendly and af-
fectionate towards Lady Brandon, but Lady Brandon was not quite
so affectionate towards him.
Cross-examined—l do not know how old Lord Brandon is—he
may be about 36 years older than me—l have heard that he is 58
years of age—l do not know how old Lady Brandon is—Lord
Brandon was not very much in Dublin—l have known him to stay
a week there—l visited there only when he was in Dublin—l did
not visit her Ladyship—l have known him to be absent from Lady
Brandon for two or three months at a time.
The Rev. Edward Moore—l am a nephew of Lord Brandon's,
and was present at his marriage—l have seen them constantly since
then, down to 1828—they appeared to live in great harmony, and
he kept up an establishment for her in Fitswilliam square, far
greater than his limited income could well afford.
The Arroascay Gassaam. postponed cross-examining this witness
for the present.
George Latouche—l am brother to Lady Brandon—l have
seen a great deal of Lord and Lady Brandon subsequent to their
marriage--they lived together on good terms, as far as I could
judge—l recollect Lady Brandon's leaving Dublin in June or July
1828—Lord Brandon was not in Dublin at the time.
Cross-examined—l am the brother of Lady Brandon. but did
not leave Dublin with her—my brother did so—she left Dublin
because she understood that Lord Brandon intended taking her
daughter from her. She came to her sister's house, the wife of
Capt. Hatton—•l followed her, and my brother returned to Ire-
land—this was by previous arrangement—Mrs. Hatton is living—
Mrs. Hatton then lived at 1 unbridge Wells, and Lady Brandon
remained with her for two or three months—she was afraid her
daughter would be taken from her, and she took a feigned name—
the reason she left Mrs. Hatton's was because Captain Hatton
was apprehensive she would be discovered there by Lord
Brandon.
Edward M'Cue—l was in the servive of Lord Brandon in 1827,
in Dublin. In the summer of din year I knew Mr. Lamb (now Lord
Melbourne)—l first saw him dining with Lord Brandon, who bad
at that time a paralytic attack, which soon after caused him to
come to England. He returned to Dublin, after having been to
Harrnwgate, Buxton, and Bath. This was in May 1828 He after-
wards went to France, from whence he returned in March last.
I went with bins to France, and I was afterwards employed to go
with a police officer to take the daughter of Lady Brandon away
from her—Lady Brandon was ties in lodgings near St. Joint s
wood—The child was taken from her, this was on the 9th April.
Cross-examined-a-When Lord Brandon returned to Dublin, be-
fore be went to France, she remained there about See weeks—
when I went into his service I remained only a few days in Dublin,
benne I went to his cottage at Killarney, where be then was—this
was in March, and Lady Brandon was in Dablitt—he remained at
Killanivy until June, when he went back to Dublin, and stayed
there until August—Mr., Lamb was then in the habit of visiting
Lola and Lady Brandon-they then received a good deal of com-
pany, hut not more than might be expected in a gentleman's

house—l was present at taking the young lady away—l had no
pistol—the peace officer bad a pistol—the glebe house of Lord
Brandon was on Castle Island, about two or three hours ride from
the cottage at Killarney.
John Andrew Wilkinson—l am the husband of Mrs. Cardinal,
the dress-maker in King-street, Soho. I recollect Mrs- St. John
being a customer of Mrs. Cardinal last November—she was re-
commended by Mrs. Mars, who keeps a lodging-house in Northum-
berland-street—l saw the maid servant at Mrs. Mars's,where Mrs.
St. John lived—she was a foreigner, and her name was Rosetta—
inquiry was afterwards made about her, but after she left Mrs.
Mars, we lost sight of her—in the latter end of December, we
again found that she was living in Parliament street, No. 21—when
she left there we entirely lost sight of her, and afterwards, in April,
found her in St. John's Wood-road—l did not then know her
real Name, but I have beard since that she is Lady Brandon-1
once saw her in Northumberland-street, but I have seen the
French maid twenty or thirty times.
Lord TOITERDIN—CaII somebody who will prove something.
Mrs. Struthers—l reside in Parliament-street, where I let lodg-
ings—l remember Mrs. St. John coming to lodge there In Nov.
1828—her maid came with her and her daughter—she resided
there ten weeks and a few days—very few visited there—l know
none of the persons who visited her, nor do I know where she went
afterwards—l have since been told she is Lady Brandon—
there were two or three gentlemen who visited her, but her own
maid attended her—l do not know Lord Melbourne.
Cross-examined—l saw no ladles call on her—l do not know
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald, the Knight of Kerry.
Mrs. Mars—l live in Northumberland-street, and let lodgings—
Mrs. St. John, and a young lady with her maid, came to lodge
with me in the autumn of 1828—she was visited there by two gen•
tiemen, one was a Mr. Dickinson, but I do not know who the
other was-1 do not know who he is, but he was a middle sized
man—l remember a present of pine apples coming, and it came
front Lord Maryborough, or Madeborough, or something of that
kind—the servant who brought them was in livery, but Ido not
know what kind the livery was—he came at eight o'clock, and
stopped until eleven—this happened twice only, and when he came
he said the lady expects me.
Henry Hall—l am a hackney coachman—l recollect taking
up two gentlemen at Grosvenor-square, in April last—one of the
Gentlemen had a cloak on—one got out in Albemarle-street,
and the other drove up to St. John's Wood, and alighted there—
he told me to wait, and be returned about one o'clock, when
drove him to the house of Lord Melbourne, where he told me to
knock—l did so, and be went in, telling the servant to pay me,
which was done accordingly.
Joseph Healy—l was the driver of Mr. Akehurst's coach—l re-
member taking a gentleman up in St. James's-street, and taking
hint to Lisson-grove—he desired me to wait, and he returned about
half past one o'clock, when I took him to Melbourne House—he
was a short gentleman.
Lord TIN/ZROZN said, that there was no proof that the gentle-
man was taken even to the lady's house.
The Arrounav-Gasiseas—lf there be any suspicion, it affixes
only to the short gentleman. (A laugh.)
Another hackney coachman deposed, that he was taken from the
stand in Charing Cross by a gentleman, whom he took to Lisson
Grove—he waited there for two hours, and afterwards took the
gentleman to Melbourne House—l did not see what house he
went into at Lisson Grove.
Lord TIIITERDIN then directed the plaintiff to be nonsuited.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, Nov. 3.

OLD COURT.
Before Mr. Justice Pau and Mr. Baron GARILOW.

Gorge Carman' aged 45 years. stood capitally Indicted for bay-
ing uttered on the 29th September last, a forged bill of exchange
for 4147, with intent to defraud Mr. J. D. Child, wine-merchant,
residing in Bishopsgate-street Without.
Mr. Child stated that he was a wine and spirit merchant in
Bishopsgate-street Without. The prisoner was formerly a publican,
living in Old-street-road. On Tuesday the 29th of Sept. last the
prisoner came to prosecutor and asked him to discount a bill of
exchange,which was drawn on Mr. James Ellis, of Barkbatn, Kent,
for the sun' of 471. Prosecutor asked the prisoner if it was Mr.
Ellis, the great hop planter? Prisoner said, Yes, and that be
had told Mr. Ellis he intended to take a public-house, and
Mr. Ellis, in kindness to him, had given permission to draw
on him (Mr. E.) for any sum under a hundred pounds. Prosecutor
then took the bill in his hand and noticed that " Excepted" instead
of" Accepted" was written across the bill. Prisoner said that was
no matter, as the bill was as good as the Bank of England. Pro-
secutor then gave the prisoner two pounds on account, and sent his
brother to Mr. George Heath, in the Borough, where the bill was
made payable, to ascertain if it was a genuine acceptance.
Westaway Sholey, the landlord of the George Inn, Borough,
proved that the acceptance on the instrument produced was not in
the hand-writing of Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Ellis gave similar testimony, adding the fact of his never
having permitted any person to accept bills in his name.
The forged instrument was put in and read.
Mr. Baur, for the prisoner, put In a long written defence, in
which he alleged that the bill was given to him by one Smith, an
itinerant hawker of Init.
Nine wit were called to speak to the prisoner's character ;
none of them had known him for the last eighteen months.

The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty—Death, but recom-
mended the prisoner to mercy.
STEALING IN ♦ DWILLING-MOUSK.--HEIG, 1110111116 CT, aged 19,
stood capitally indicted (or stealing two sllvei watches, a ring,
chain, and other goods, the property of Mr. Drake, a watchmaker,
living in Crispin-street, Spitalfields.
The prisoner was a single man, lodged in the prosecutor's house,
and had access to a drawer in which the stolen goods were
deposited. On the 30th of September the prisoner asked
for a sheet of paper, stating that be was about to write to his
father. He shortly after left the house and did not return. The
watches were then missed, and on enquiry it was discovered that
the prisoner bad pledged them at a pawnbroker's shop in the
neighbourhood.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty—Death.
Ira. am, aged 16, was indicted for stealing a gold watch, value
se2o, and other articles, from the dwelling-house of Mr. A. C.
Mann, a fishmonger, at Paddington. Guilty—Death.