Star.
London, England, 1828-11-07 00:00:00

ARLYR V. DRY.

This was an action against die defendant, a Magi:.
trate, for false imprisonment. It ss as tried before Mr.
Justice .I:leis at Chester. A wot,uit was entered, on
the groom.' that six months' notice of the action had not
been given to the Magi,tia.e, according to tie Novi-
.sions of the 24th of George 111. The action was brought
:►y the plaintiff, a silk w. aver, against the defendant
tor committing him under the statute of the 4th of
George IV. for one month, for bleach of cot:to act its not
returning goods which I:e was employed to manufacture.
Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS now moved for a tule to slims
cause why the nonsuit should not be set a ide, and a
trydict entered for the plain 4, on t:,e ground that
proper notice had been given to the defendant. The
imprisonment of the plaintiff termina•ed on the 14th 01
Dec, miser, and the 'sit was sued out on the 14th of
June, and the question was whether the day on which
the plaittiff was discharged *as to be considered as
excluded from the calcula ion t f the six months ? 11

excluded. the notice was regular-41 incloclod, it was
correct. He (Mr. J. William•) contended that the im
pti•onment terminated on the 14th, and that the notice
was good.
The Couar granted a rule to show cause.
IISHICE V. CLEMENT.

This was an action t ied at Guildhall, before Lord
TENTERDEN, for a libel published in Bell's Life in
London, a Sunday Paper,. of which the defendant is
Proprietor. It appeared that the plaintiff, who is an
attorney in the country, brought an action against
Stockdale, the bookseller. for some defamatory expres-
sions concerning the plaintiff's character, published in
the scandalous work entitled Memoirs of Harriette
Wilson. Some verses were subsequently published in
the defendant's Paper, in allusion to that action, and in
those verses the plaintiff's name was intro. uced in a
manner, as he considered, calculated not only to bring
ridicule on him), but to injure his character. The Jury,
however. on the trial, returned a weir diet for defendant.
Mr. CAUPBILL now moved to set aside the verdict,
on the grounds of misdirection on the part of the Learned
Judge, and the verdict being against the weight of eve.
dente. He complained that the Lord Chief Ju.tice had
left it In the Jul tehithct t is iglu:aim of the writer r'

he Verses published in Belts Weis London was to turn
t: e p inn iff into ridicule, and that his Lordship had not
called the attention of the Jury to the injurious effects
o . Or publication on the plaintiff's character.
The Court grant d a ou'e to show cause.
SECON dant FV.OFFICR, Coeenssaiamv,
'mkt Cris. —CALALar n CAZALST.
l'n 'this case a highly respectable Special Jury wai
summoned to assess the damages due to the plaintiff.
Mr. Peter Heide Ca zalet, from the. Rev. James Om n-
et, a Clergyman of the Chinch of Enkland, who had
allowed judgment to go by default in a suit instituted
against him. for having had criminal conversation with
t' e plairilirs wife. The damages *ere laid at 5,0001.
T .e case recited great interest.
Mr. C. F. You.ocz. in opening the case as Counsel
'or the plintiff, expres ed his concern atthe peculiarly
painful nature of the case which it became his duty to
submit to them, and his confidence that they would per.
iorm with temperance and firmness that which should
appear to them their duty with respect to the facts which
le li.d to submit to them. The plaintiff. in this case. was
an Office of eminence in the service ti the East India
Company. He had been in India nearly chitty yeast,
And now lived retired upon a pension, which had been
awarded to him for his services. The defendant. the
Jos y world hear with surprise and concern, was a be.
neficed Clergy man of the Church of England, a mar-
led n a', and a near relation of the plaintiff. In the
year 1809, the tatter married his present wife in India,
and its tl.e year IPI3, he came to England accompanied
by hi. wife and f :ur children, the fruits of their union.
After a stay of about too years they went abroad
attain, and in the year 1819 Mrs. Cazalet returned to
England, for the purpose of superintending the edu•
cart in tif their children. The defendant, who was the
cousin, and hid been the school fellow of the plaintifL
t ad, of course, not only from his relationship but from
his sacerdotal character, the most tree access to the
lam ly, and all his intentions were ascribed to the most
honourable m tives. It would 1):: seen that he availed
himself of these advantages and the absence of the
plat tiff, to seduce the affections of his wife, and inflict
those injuries for which the Jury were now to award
compensation to tie plaintiff. Toe details of the circum-
stances, or such of them as must unavoidably be given,
would best come from the witnesses by whom they were
to be proved. The Jury would find that in the year 1822
the defendant procured accommodation fur the delivery
of a child. Various circumstances would be given in
evidence which could leave very little doubt in the
minds of the Jury that the defendant was the father. It
died in the following year. In 1827, the plaintiff re-
turned from India to the bosom of his family, nothing
baying occurred opt.) that period to give him the most
remote suspicion of the injury he had sustained. He
was *urpti,ed, however, on his return home, at the re.
quest of Mrs. Casale', that they should sleep in diffe-
rent beds. The Learned Counsel ascribed rh s refusal
to a feeling of remorse on the part of the Lady, which
at List operated so strongly upon her as to compel her
to quit her home for ever, as no longer worthy of the
affections of her husband and children. This took place
in the month of April last, and the anhippy woman
was soon after delivered of twins, 1 f which the defen•
dant was undoubtedly the father. By the law, as it at
present stood, since there was evidence of the possibi•
lity of access by the plaintiff. he was bound to maintain
And educate these children, and they could at all times
enforce from him the legal duties of a parent. This
was a circumstance which the Jury would doubtless
take into their consideration in estimating the com-
pensation which was due to the plaintiff for the Zs-
jury be had already sustained in the loss of domes.
tic ci mfort, and also in the painful feelings with
which the remainder of his life must be embittered...-
The Jury would judge of the plaintiff's affection for his
wife by the provision he had made for her. by his ready
dischaige of every expense she incurred, and by the
ardent affection which she manifested towards him in
her letters. He V.ould call no relation to prove the
terms on which they lived. GOD forbid that he should,
for none could he call but tear ones—femaler, who
were already plunged in the eeepest *fil ction, and to
whom a public examination on this subject would be a
dreadful torture to which the plaintiff would not con.
tent. even if the advocate, in the performance of his
duty, could suppose it to be necessary. These had
been no interruption to the plaintiff's happiness while
he was in England. He left his wife pregnant, and
not a pa:Cele of evidence could be produced to ion.
peach any pert of the plaintiff's conduct. The Learned
Counsel concluded by making a forcible appeal to tt•e
Jury, that they had a Ifgli moral duct to perform, not
Less towards the public than towards the unfortunate.
plaintiff, whose happiness had been destroyed by one'
who was a near :elation, a married man, and a Clet's
gy men. .
The first witness called was G. S. Brown, a Clerk in
the Secretary's afire of the East India Company. The
plaintiff was on the commercial establishment of the
Company. Ile was about tl.e 8.11 in seniority. He was
in ti.e civil service of the Madras estat.lishment. After
having been out twenty eight years, he had returned;
and now enjoyed his pension of from three thousand
pounds to four thousand pounds per annum from the
Compahy. There was no other person of the same name
on the establishment.
Maria Edwards deposed. that she lives with the
p'aintiff's family, .11141 had lived with them upwards of
18 years. Witness knew ti.e defendant, who es a Cler-
gyman. residing at Chi pstead, iii Kent. Ile had a wife
and five children. 1 remember the plaintiff and his wile
coming to England in 1813 ; they brought four children
w.th them; I came nest chit, and remained until 1815.
Mrs. Cazalet was at the time in the family way; my
master aid mistress v ant out of the country again; my
master *chi first, because nay mistress was in the family
way ; she went i i 1817, and ea ne back in 1819 with an
infant, without being accompanied by Mr. Cazalet;
there are now five children at school; the eldest daughter
' is about '2O years old; when Mrs. Cazalet returned in
1819, she lived at WadJin ; she afterwards went to
Chandos.street, where she lived with Mrs. Arnold, the
mother of the Rev. Mr. James Casale', the defendant ;
the afterwards went to Pisillimore-place, Kensington ;
then she took a house in Earl's-terrace, where the mother
of the Reverend Gentleman lived, and the children came
home. The witness then proved the handwriting of
M 1 s. Cazalet in four letters, written by her to her hus.
band during the months of May, July, November, and
December, 1820; witness quitted the plaintiff's service
in May, 1820. and returned to it in January, 1825.
Ann Gods!), deposed that she was a widows and had
known the family of the Cazalets upwards of fifty years.
She knew the plaintiff's father, and also the defendant's
father ; they were brothels. She knew plaintiff and
defendant ; they were at school together. The defend-
ant's father was first a merchant. and then a banker..
The defendant is a clergyman ; be held a curacy at
Kitsfield, and he afterwards resided at Chepstea4 and
now had six children. Witness never saw b. • ia
a carriage tO the house; she lived formerly la., awe
vice of the plaintiff's father; the plaintiff ' ' .1
yeas of age ; the delemigne is 48; se
ant
e • -.1" ~,
I. ,- '
S. „

N.,. S.