Star.
London, England, 1810-04-25 00:00:00

Ills WIFE.

A cause of considerable importance to the parties
and to the public at large, came on to be heard in
Court of Chancery, on Thursday the 22d of Febru-
ary, before his honour the MASTER of the ROLLS.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, on the part of the petitioner,
stated, that « that this case was a very extraordinary
one. In May, 1801, William Spurrier, of Walsal, in
the county of Stafford, Esq. married with the defen-
dant, Mrs. Newton (then Miss Hipkins) a very young
woman, and he considerably advanced in years;
and greatly debilitated both in body and mind. At
the time of his marriage he was possessed of property
exceeding £lOOO per ann. Soon after the marriage
the wife acquired a very extraordirary degree of
influence over her husband, she got possession of
large sums of money (she says as a gift). Ido
not conceive by law a husband can give such presents
to his wife, he may give wearing apparel, jewels, and
paraphernalia ; but he cannot put a sum of money
into his wife's hands and make it her property, so as
not to fall into his estate at his death. It is shown,
1
she endeavoured, by all the arts in her power, to se-
crete the transactions, giving the strictest injunctions
to those with whom she deposited the money, that
nothing should be said about it. I think your Ho-i
nour will see in what way these gifts were ob-
tained, and the extraordinary influence she exercised
over her husband. She has, however, thought pro-
per to state a paper in her answer, which she pre-1
valled on her husband to sign, and which chews so
clearly the undue influence she exercised over him,
that it is not possible to go further to prove it. How
she could have been induced to set forth such a paper
for her own justification, I cannot conceive—the
paper is this I DO* HEREBY SWEAR, that I Jo not
accuse my wife, E. Spurrier, of any of the base
aspersions laid to her charge, irivented by my son,
Joseph Spurrier, and others ; I am convinced of
the contrary, and that it only proceeds from malice,
therefore, I desire my Executors will use their autho-
rity in demanding back my son Joseph's fortune, and
giving it to my wife, either for her own use, or to be
at her disposal, all this I desire if he repeats any thing
to her prejudice, or cause the same to be done ; or if
lie should by any means whatever endeavour to take
from her one shilling of all I have bequeathed her in
the settlement I made for her, and the sum I have left
her in my will ; and if it should be known that my
wife E. Spurrier did, during my life, put out to inte-
rest the sum of £3OO, I do hereby swear that I gave
it her at her disposal, independent of all I have he-
oneathed her in my will ; if it should be known that
I len: her further the sum 0f,C400, I do hereby swear
that I gave her that to be at her disposal, independent
of all I have bequeathed her in my life.—As witness
my
hand, this 20th day of March, 1803.
_

" W\l. SPURRIER."
There is no proof whose hand writing it is ; she
says it is her husband's, but it is not of the least im-
portance whether it be in his hand writing or not,
s•ronger evidence can scarcely be found of the folly
of the man who signed it. The Learned Counsel
proceeded to enumerate several sums of Money pos-
sessed by the wife, and amongst others the sum of
£4OO, placed by her in the hands of William Bag-
ley, under an injunction of secrecy, as sworn by him,
and which he retained in his hands for several years.
After the Testator's death she prevailed on Bagley to
give her an acknowledgement for this sum, purport-
ing that he had then borrowed the money, which was
zitogether false, and this paper was made to give a
false colour to the transaction. The Learned Coun-
sel enumerated several other sums of money, which
it was alledged had come to her hands, amounting
in all to upwards of kBOOO, hut with regard to se-
veral of which he was not at present able to give any
evidence ; and, after stating that he should now pro-
ceed to have the evidence read, he concluded an eh),
4pient and impressive address by urging his Honour
to direct this lady to be examined upon interrogato-
ries, to spew what had become of the property, which
came to her or her husband's hands with her know-
ledge and under her controul, and also to Decree her
to pay the sums already proved to have been posses-
sed by her.
The depositions of a great many witnesses were
}cad, which fully proved the case stated by Sir Samuel
Romilly.
Mr. NEwBoLT, in a very forcible speech, com-
mented on the evidence, and supported the arguments
of Sir Samuel Romilly.
Mr. HART, on the part of the Defendants, com-
bated the arguments of the Plaintiff's Counsel with
consi;erable ingenuity, and in conclusion said, that if
the Decree were made, as contended for, it would lay
iciple in the connection between husband
rich had not yet been acted upon.
.1.1) enforced the arguments of the last
much ability.
a. ROMILLY about to reply, when he was
pis Honour—
if the Rou.s—This case involves a gene-

rat principle ;! that s wife, as well as any body
must deliver to the Executors the husband's property,
cannot be denied—but it is said the husband made
PRESENT of the property to his wife in his hfe time ?
there can be no such presents from a husband to
his wife, except in case of paraphernalia, and that
is not allowed against creditors—yet although in
strictness of law, a gift may not be made, a Court
of Equity would be extremely unwilling to interfere,
from calling back from any wife any gift bend:far
given to her by her husband ; but how dan?erous
it would be to allow any woman to say " this was
given me." She must satisfactorily shew it was given,
and the question is, whether. this Lady has proved the
property she claims, was given to her by her husband ?
—She has adduced in evidence, but as to the £4OO
placed in Bagley's hands, there is the paper whiCh
was produced, and which certainly implies the con-
currence of the husband as to the manner in which
that money was laid out—but this paper is fele de re
as to any fact, but the imbecility of the man, and the
perfect subserviency of his mind to the person in whose
favour it was made—we must have proof that the
gift was Goma fide made, and though this man was not
quite incapable of managing his own affairs, his im-
becility was unquestionably extremely great, and her
influence unbounded, and not gained by any kind-
ness or affection, with which she had treated him.
Now, under these circumstances, I say, the gift is'
not proved, and she must repay this four hundred
pounds. The gift of her father's notes for the other
£ll3O is proved by better evidence,because there is an
indorsement by which he signifies that she should have
the benefit of these notes after his death—but this
is only a testamentary paper, and not immediate gift,
and if any thing was meant by it, it ought to have
been proved as a testamentary paper, they had not
been done, and though I will not charge her with the
amount of these notes they must at all events be de-
livered up.
With regard to the general inquiry concerning any
! proper of the Testator in her possession, at the
time of her husband's death, that .is, an inquiry
I. which would not be of course, but I think there is
sufficient ground here for an inquiry, whether there
was any other property belonging to her husband in her
possession at his death, or in the hands of any other
person, in trust for her, and she must be examined on
interrogatories before the Master to all these points.
Sir S. Rostim.y—" Your Honour will decree her
to pay the costs of this suit ?"
I MASTER of the Rous—" Yes, certainly."

LANCASTER ASSIZES.
TIIR KING S. BARROWCLOUGII.

The defendant was indicted for manslaughter, in !,
killing and slaying Thomas Scott. It was a case
which excited no ordinary degree of general curiosity. '
The defendant was one of the oldest oflicers of the
Sheriff of this county, and a man much esteemed for
the humanity with which he exercised his profession.
The deceased had formerly commanded a regiment
in Ireland, but had retired from the army and become
a merchant in Manchester. His circumstances •hav-
ing become greatly embarrassed, a writ was put into
the hands of Barrowclough, fer Aelo, for the purpose
of being executed against him. Barrowclough, with
his assistant, proceeded at an early hour in the morn-
! ing, to the house of the deceased, and hiving obtained
admittance, inquired for him. The maid-servant de-
,
• nied his being at home; but the answer not being ;
satisfactory, the assistant or follower went up stairs I
to search the house, and Barrowclough remained be-1
low. The maid ran up stairs first, and called out to
her mistress that strange men had got into the house/
were searching it. The assistant knocked at the ,
chamber-dome, end Mrs. Scott said she would admit;
him as soon as she had dressed herself. In the mean
time, Mr. Scott, who was up. and dressed, formed
the desperate resolution of escaping out of the window
of a room adjoining the bed-chamber, which looked
into the yard. Mrs. Scott assisted him in his descent.
In his fall his knees broke several of the kitchen win-
; dows, which alarmed Barrowelnugh, who exclaimed
Ito his man above, " He is here! he is here !" Upon
irunnine• into the back-yard, Mr. Scott was discovered
lying on his left side, upon the pave-stones, senseless,
land apparently dead ; he had received two violent emi-
t tusions or fractures in the back part of his head which
in a few hours terminated his eListence ; he \v:l, lying
I with his feet towards the kitchen window, and his head‘
towards an opposite wall, which divided the yat d from
ithe adjoining one. A model of the house and premises
was exhibited to the Jury, and it evidently appeared
that the deceased had struck his feet against the sill
of the kitchen window, by which 1w had been thrown
backwards in the position he lay. Clear as this fact ap-
peared to be, Mrs. Scott and two of her daughters swore
that they saw the deceased safe on his legs; that he had
his hands on the wall, and was endeavouring to es-
cape, but that Barrttwclough came behind him, and
struck him with a stick, which occasioned his fall and
consequent death. The surgeon who examined the de-
ceased being called, he expressed his conviction, that
the fractures that the unfortunate man had received
must have been from the effect of a concussion, by the
head being violently propelled against a hard flat
substance, and could neither have been produced by
a blow from a stick, nor by a fall backwards from a
wall low enough for a man to reach his hands over ;
and he was also'confident, that had he fallen from
the wall, his position must have been the reverse of
what it was. It appeared that Barrowclough, when
he heard the deceased fall, expressed his astonishment
and concern that a man should have committed so
desperate an act to avoid being arrested for such a
trifling debt as £lO. The innocence of the officer
was so manifest, not only from the ceoss-examination
of Mrs. Scott and her daughter, but the evidence of
the Surgeon, that his Lordship would not put him
• upon his defence. He was of opinion that there was
not the slightest foundation for the prosecution, and
consequently, under his Lordship's direction, the
' I Jury pronounced a verdict of acquittal.
The Assizes finished on Wednesday.
Sentences of the Crown Prisoners who took their
• trials before Sir SIMON LE BLANC, Knight :

Adam Brooks, for an unnatural crime; William Williams, fur
stabbing his wife ; Henry Young, for having wilfully shot at and
wounded Edmund Partington; Ralph I.angshaw and Henry
Page, for house-breaking ; Joseph Jackson and Thomas Hallpike,
fur uttering forged Bank of England notes; William Sandbach,
for forgin • and uttering a bill of exchange for £lO ; Thomas
Coates, for' forging a bill of exchange, value £l9B 12% with an
intent to defraud; JamcsTong, for horse stealing; Henry Cooper,
for highway robbery ; and Jaws Greaves, for fitment a cow and
a heifer—received sentence of death.

TiJohns Cdok, for stealing *Ors) Bank of England notes, &c.
iiidgalent respired.
Le*is Williams and William Mahon'', for rioting at Liver-
pool.—To receive Judgment in the Court of King's Bench.
William Clarkson, Millecent Riley, anti Elisabeth Hodgson,
for stealiug.—Transported for 7 years each.
Francis Owens, Isaac Pearson, and Pete'. Degravesq for steal-
r ing ; Rose Dunn, Margaret M.Ginnis, Bridget Coffee, Catherine
MeCoy, and Ann Murphy, for paying counterfeit coin; Ann
Haworth, acquitted of the murder of herscliild, but guilty of con-
cealing.—lmprisoned 12 months each.
Joseph Greenwood, for manslaughter; John Coghian and
Richard Occleshaw, guilty of stealing; and Jena;han Cawood, for
tendering a counterfeit shiWng.—lmprisoned 6 ntheiths each:
Isaa•Picton, guilty of manstiughterimprboned 3 months.
Richard Mvlagart, for bigamy.—lmprisoned two months.
Peter Forrest and Joint Caldwell, for mindeughter ; and John
I,.aw and Thomas Ryan, &Why of stealing—lmprisoned, one
month each.
1012 i Cotefax, admitted evidence against Henry Cooper ; Jane
Hughes, Alice Murphy, James Griihsbaw, David Mercer, Gideon
Yates, Richard Wahnsley, Margaret Waterwortb, and George
Smith—were acquitted.
Sarah Parker, Elizabeth Herring, Thomas Roberts, Thomas
Pearson, heinas Mitres, James Marlene, and Mary Sharpies
—were discharged by 'Proclamation:

LIIC ••
, de«•n a princ
and wife, whi
Mr. Hit
speaker with
Sir SANIum
stopped by hi
kilArTszt of