Star.
London, England, 1821-05-26 00:00:00

DISTRESSING CASE.

Toww HALL, Sournwanit.—Yesterday Mrs. Eliza
Harmer was charged with the wilful murder of S.
Harmer, her husband, by shooting him through the
head with a pistol, at their residence, N 0.6, Weston-
street, Southwark, as briefly mentioned in the STAR
of yesterday.
The first witness, Hannah Studd, stated, that she
had lived servant with the prisoner and deceased for
the-last fortnight. On Thursday her mistress went
out, and did not return till between seven and eight
in the evening. Just before her return, the deceased
ordered witness to make tea, and they (witness and
deceased) were drinking it at the moment the priso-
ner rang the bell. Witness let her in, and when she
came into the room, the deceased said, in a jocular
manner—" I thought it was some impudent faggot
like you!" Witness waited in the passage. In a few
minutes, her mistress told her to finish her tea, and
the deceased again jeered her, saying—"" I wish you
had not come home, as we (witness and himself) were
having our tea very comfortably." Mrs. Harmer re-
plied, " So you can now ;" and then he asked where
she had been? She replied, "To Clifford's Inn."—
The deceased then said, in the same tone—" I wish
you had not come home;" and Mrs. Harmer replied,
" Well, I can go again," and called for the shoe-horn,
to pull up her shoes. Witness gave her the horn, and
took the tea things into the kitchen. The prisoner
then came down stairs, opened the street-door, and
closed it after her with great violence, and witness
thought she was.gone out; but in a short time after-
wards, when she went into the parlour with some
glasses, she found her standing behind the parlour-
door, as if endeavouring to conceal herself. At this
time her master was sitting at the table. She went
down directly, and soon afterwards heard the prisoner
speak in a loud tone, but could not distinguish what
she said. In a few minutes, the deceased exclaimed,
" G—D b—t you, I'll shoot you!" She ran imme-
diately to the stair-head, and heard a pistol go off;
it did not make a loud report, but " a click," and she
did not believe there was any powder in it. De-
ceased and his wife frequently played with a pistol,
pretending to shoot each other, and the noise on this
occasion appeared the same as she had often before
heard it. Mr. Harmer had frequently done this, and
the prisoner usually ran away, pretending to be
frightened. She always thought they were in joke,
and never remembered the pistols to have been loaded
before. On Thursday she saw the deceased with bul-
lets lying before him on the table; he had cast some'
on Tuesday night, so the circumstance did not sur-
prise her. She did not see him put either powder or
ball into the pistol ; though at one time he put a ball
into the mouth of a pistol, but she is not certain
whether he left it, because she did not remain one 'I
minute in the room. He generally kept the pistols
in the parlour cupboard; but she could not say what
he did with them after he loaded them. After she
had heard the pistol " click," she sat down at the
front kitchen window, thinking no harm had hap-
pened, and in a few minutes heard a loud report of
fire-arms. She ran up stairs, and her mistress
screamed out—" Oh! 1. have murdered my husband!
—he is dead!—fetch some one directly !"—and she
appeared in the greatest agony. Witness ran down
stairs, and told the first man she met to run for a
Doctor. She then returned to the house, and when
she got back she found the prisoner at -the house of
Mr. Chrichard, next door but one. Witness then ran
to her master's house, and was followed by her mis-
tress. When they arrived, they found a Doctor in the
parlour with the body of her master, in the chair,
apparently as when he had been shot. She did not
go farther than the mom-door, and her mistress kept
In the back-parlour. She would have gone into the
room, but the Doctor would not let her.

Mr. Brindley, pupil at Guy's Hospital, deposed,
that he was passing along Weston-street, on Thurs-
day evening, when a female accosted him respecting
a Surgeon ; and on his saying he was a Surgeon, she
desired him to step in, as there was an accident.
Witness went, and found Dr. Jamieson before him.
On his going into the parlour, he found the body of
;'.lr. Harmer in a chair, and at Dr. Jamieson's request
he went to fetch Dr. Grainger, but he was not at
home; however, he met Mr. Price, one of his pupils,
and they returned together. The handkerchief was
taken off deceased's head, and there appeared an
oblique wound over the orbit of the eye, which pene-
trated the brain; and he has no doubt but the wound
was the occasion of his death.

J. Kinsey, the Officer, stated., that he was sent for
on Thursday night to the deceased's house. Dr. Ja-
mieson admitted him, and he found the prisoner in
the back-parlour, crying and stamping like a maniac.
He enquired what was the matter? and she replied,
in the greatest distraction—" I have murdered my
husband!" In the nest room he saw the body of the
deceased. Several Gentlemen were in the room, and
three pistols were placed on the table, with the cocks
all down, and one of them had the appearance of
having been recently discharged; the others did not
appear to have any priming; at all events there had
been no flash in the pan—the pistols are both
loaded with ball—[Here the pistols were pro-
duced]—and the charges are still in them. After the
Surgeons had retired, witness, with assistance, took
the body up stairs, and laid it on a mattress, and
searched his pockets. They found on his person a
watch, which ring, also nineteen shillings in
silver, and one shilhng and ten-pence in copper, and
amongst the latter five pistol-balls and a piece of
lead; the bullets .fitted the pistols. In his great-coat
pockets' they found two-pair of pistol-bags, contain-
ing twq.billet-moulds, and two powder-flasks fiill
of-powder, 'fie then sent for a coach, .and took the
prisoner to the 13orougb Compter.
No further evidence being forthcoming, the priso-
ner was.called on for her defence; but by the advice
of her Solicitor, she declined saying anything.--She
was then remanded till Monday, and was conveyed
in a coach to the Compter.
Mr. Alderman Slllll.l had. given particular orders
for rendering her situation as comfortable as the case
would admit of. In the afternoon the HIGH Sin-
ai,' came to the Office, and tendered the use of the
County Prison, if it should be more convenient; but
the offer was declined.

The prisoner is twenty-three years of age, and ex-
tremely beautiful. She was married to the deceased,
who was more than double her age, last New Year's
Day.—The Inquest will sit this evening.

LAW INTET.LIGENCE.

COSSISTORT COURT, MAY 25.
LORD ERSKINE V. LADY ERSKINE.

Some time since proceedings were instituted in the
Spiritual Court by Lord Erskine against his Lady,
he praying for a divorce by reason of her adultery,
—The Counsel for her Ladyship stated that an ap-
pearance to the suit wasgiven for her on the first Ses-
sion of Michaelmas Term, 1820; a libel or plea, on
the part of his Lordship, charging various criminal
acts, was afterwards given in, and admitted to proof
without opposition ; and several witnesses were pro-
duced and examined upon it. -In the course of the
following Term two separate pleas had been given
in by Lady Erskine; the first being what is techni-,
Bally called an allegation of faculties, stating the
amount of his Lordship's income, in order to obtain
therefrom a suitable allotment for support during the
pendency of the cause ; the other was au allegation,
with some documentary pro, is annexed, charging
his Lordship with criminalities similar to those Which
'he imputed to his wife. Both those allegations were
also admitted to proof without opposition. His Lord-
ship had not yet given his personal answers to either;
but on the latter plea, charging him with infidelity,
various witnesses had been produced, and had under-
gone examination. Among these latter was one Mary
Anne Buck, a young person, niece to her Ladyship.
Against this witness it had been found necessary to
obtain a compulsory decree to oblige her to attend.
A decree of confrontation to compel his Lordship to
appear and be confronted with the witnesses, had
also been taken out ; and both decrees were served
on the respective individuals, and returned into Court
by the proper officer, with a certificate of service.
The evidence of the witnesses taken by secret exa-
mination, 'as is customary in these Courts, had not
yet been made public ; but on the fir-t Session of this
Term Lord Erskine's Proctor declared that his Lot d-
ship did not mean to proceed any farther, and prayed
that the Court would allow him to be dismissed from
the suit. On the part of her Ladyship this declara-
tion and prayer were opposed, and both parties were
accordingly assigned to set forth the grounds of their
Application in an act on petition.
After this introductory statement, the act on peti-
tion was read, and an affidavit by her Ladyship's
Proctor and his clerk was tendered; but the Coun-
sel for the Noble Lord opposed its being read. They
stated that it related principally to the supposed
causes which had induced the witness, Mary Anne
[luck, to delay appearing; but she having afterwards
appeared, it became quite irrelevant. It was indeed
irregular at first. The proper mandatory to execute
the Courts decrees is the Court's officer, and he is to
explain their service, and not the Proctor of either
party, or the Proctor's clerk. Here the witness being
of tender age, and standing in the peculiar situation
in which she did, was naturally averse to appearing.
A compulsory decree was therekre served on her,
and if she had still. kept back a decree viii and modis
might have issued. The affidavit was made on the
Bth of May, but she appeared and was produced for
examination on the 10th, and this affidavit was not
made till the 11th.

The COURT then intimated a desire to know why
it was krought in at all, after the compulsory decree
had had its effect ?

' Lady Erskine's Counsel said; the affidavit was, in
fact, delivered to the opposite party before the 10th
of May. -The officer having made a return to the
compulsory decree, certifying that the witness still
kept back ; it became perfectly regular in the Proc-
tor to make an affidavit stating, on the best informa-
tion he could obtain, the beliet which he entertained
that she was kept back by his Lordship's means. Nor
was it only regular at the time of making it, but it
was relevant to the present act on petition; for in
that act, the Proctor for Lord Erskine referred to a
notice sent to him by the adverse Proctor, on the 4th
of April, that if his Lordship did not proceed in the
cause, Lady Erskine would apply to the Court to be
dismissed. This was, in fact, only the usual notice
to urge a dilatory complainant to expedite the cause;
but it had been attempted to raise an inference from
either, that Lady Erskine was thereby bound to agree
to the dismissal of the suit; or, at least, that Lord
Erskine was led to suppose that from that period she
would proceed no farther. Now, on the contrary, it
appears that from the Bth of May, he was not only
aware that she was proceeding to compel Mary Anne
Buck to appear; but that he was charged at least on
suspicion with an attempt to tamper with the witness,
and keep her back from justice. The Learned Coun-
sel said, it gave them great pain to allude to such
matters, but their duty to their client deManded it.
They would have been justified in making them the
I ground of a more formal plea, and demanding his
Lordship's answers to them upon oath, but they were
satisfied to state them on affidavit, leaving it to his
Lordship to repel the imputation in any way he
thought best; but he had not attempted to repel it
in any way whatever.
To this it was replied by the opposite Counsel, that
' his Lordship had been advised by them to take no
notice of a mere surmise taken up at third or fourth
hand, and therefore deserving no notice by the Court.
That the affidavit was really made with no other view
than to ground a further application for compelling
the witness to appear, which end had been fully an-
swered by her appearance.
The Cower said it-should not admit the affidavit.
Only two purposes were alleged for its introduction;
one to compel a witness to appear, who had since ap-
pealed, the other to throw imputations of a serious
nature on one of the parties in this painful cause. If
such imputations were well founded, they certainly
ought not to be brought forward on a mere loose
affidavit, which the Noble Lord cannot be compelled
to answer; but they should have been put into a
more formal shape.
The main question of his Lordship's right to be'
dismissed, in the present stage of the cause, was then
' proceeded op ; and the adverse Counsel contended
that it was absurd to suppose that a party having
brought an accusation against another, and that other
having put in a formal plea of recrimination, and
examined witnesses upon it, the first accuser could
be at liberty to put an end to the business at his plea-
sure. Lady Erskine here may prove her allegation
against his Lordship ; and if she does, and his Lord-
ship fails in his proof, she will be entitled to demand
a separation from him with a proper alimony suited
to the circum.tances.

Lord Erkine's Counsel contended, that where the

second allegation wag merely defensive. and did not
formally deny the guilt charged in the first instance,
these principles would not hold. Here Lady Er- ,
skine not only does not deny the guilt, but she is
charged with confessing it, and she does not even
deny tkat. Moreover she pleads that since the al- I
leged acts of infidelity on her part, Lord Er skine has
voluntarily continued his intercourse; now this can
only be pleaded as a condonation, and as such is
equivalent to an admission of guilt. The case is dif-
ferent, where a party from the beginning stands on
the ground of innocence. Again, if the Lady has
connived at her own dishonour, she cannot claim a
separation. Now it is alleged in her plea, that Lord
Erskine frequented houses of ill-farce from October,
1818, to the time of the plea in February, 1821, and
' also kept up an illicit intercourse during that time
sith one Elizabeth Fenning.
The cases referred to on both sides were those of
Chettle v. Chettle, in the Court of Arches, 7th June,
1820, did Best v. Best, Consistory of Rochester, `24th
May, 1821. The former was a suit by the husband
for adultery, which was replied to by a. charge of
adultery and cruelty ; but the Court rejected the ar-
ticles pleading cruelty, as no bar to the original suite
The hitter was a charge of cruelty; but the husband
alleged adultery, on which it was allowed that he
might, if it were proved, obtain a divorce.
The COURT took time to deliberate on the qoes-
tion whether his Lordship might be allowed to retire
from the suit.

THE MARQUIS OF DONEGAL AGAINST MAY, FALSELY