Star.
London, England, 1820-04-18 00:00:00

• •
the satisfaction of a etOwded Court.—Mr.Susite
PARK said, these sewer was more unfortunate pits
Ito produce evidence, and never with less success; its
he never knewa weaker case on the part of the plain
tiff. He said, the evidence given by the female sex.
vast, Ellen Lewis, was most incredible.

At Carnarvon Sessions, an action was brought for
a breach of promise of marriage. Huhes v. Row-
lands. The plaintiff is the daughter of a respecta_
ble farmer, and the defendant also a farmer residing
in Llyn, in the same county. The damages were
laid at £5OO. The charge was clearly proved; but
it also appeared that the plaintiff had indulged the
defendant with that odious privilege, common arnor.F:
the lower class in some parts of Wales, we allude tc.,
bundling, or courting in bed! On remarking upon
this practice, the Learned Counsel, Mr. PA LAI Ell:
observed, that he had frequently regretted Ile . .;;E
not born a Welshman, and he never felt that rcgrfa
more stronly excited than at the present mcmenL
The Jury, Yter a short consultation, found a verdict
for plaintiff—Damages £5.
Among the numerous characters that hove lately
presented themselves before the Hil.ll Priest of Gretna
Green, were a couple from Carlisle, who had more
legs than stockings, and who expended their last five
shillings upon the altar of Hymen! As a set-off,
however, the couple were agreeably surprised by the
arriyal of a carriage and four, the inmates of which,
after the nuptial knot was tied, presented the offs-
ciator with £4O.
In the Court of King's Bench, on SaterdAy. an
action was brought by Dr. NCTTA LL against Mr.
CLEMENT, the Proprietor of the Sunday and Monday
Observer Newspapers, for publishing three alleged
libels in the former, of and concerning the plailard's
conduct, as a member of the Committee for ereczit-3
a Cenotaph or Monument to the memory of beri.. e
Royal Highness the Princess Criaanorra of WALES
and Saxii-Coawao, by public subscription, imputing
fraud and dishonesty to him in the disposition of trie
money collected in his character of a Comluittee-
man. After the case had been stated for the plain-
tiff by SCARLET? (who remarked that the
server was a Newspaper of the most extensive ce cL:-
lation in London), Mr. A DOLPHUS interposed on be-
half of the defendant, and proposed to save the t:ine
of the Court, by admitting all that had been st.t:ed
by his Learned- Friend to be perfectly true. Ile was
instructed by his client to express his unaffected 'e-
gret for the publications complained of, u.:ith found
the* way into his Paper under an error and miscora
cept:on of the circumstances to which they referred..
The defendant had taken every means in his pm% cr
to repair the mischief which the plaintiff had suf-
fered, and it so happened that the apology which had
been alluded to, was published on a day when the
Observer had an unparalleled sale, nansely, when as
account was published of the Cato-street Conspiracy.
Sincerely lamenting the publie4tions, and admitting
that they contained matter not founded in truth, he
was instructed by Mr. Clement to,osake the most
ample apology-to the plaintiff, and so to the other
Gentlemen named, whose characters he was cc:winced
'deserved the high eulogiurns passed by his Learned
Friend ; and as an additional proof of his sincerity, he
offered to give the plaintiff a verdict for £5O, the
defendant paying the costs of the cause as between
attorney and client.—Mr. SCA RLETT, after confer-
ring with the plaintiff's solicitor, accepted the terms
proposed, and repeated, that as it was not Dr. Nut-
tall's object to recover pecuniary satisfaction, the
damages offered would be appropriated, if not to
some charitable use, certainly towards the comple-
tion of that national design to which the libels re-
lated.—Mr. Justice HOLROYD, in addressing the Jury,
said he thOught the plaintiff was entitled to very
great praise, for the forbearance he had shewn in
accepting the terms proposed by the defendant.—
The Jury, under his Lordship's direction, found a
verdict fpr the plaintiff--Damages £5O.

41