Star.
London, England, 1827-08-03 00:00:00

•
r exchange, and the remainder in country notes,
and that a day or two afterwards, whilst the de-
fendant was an the parlour of her house. she went
upstairs to her room, and took out the 1001. bill, and
carried it into the parlour. As the defendant and she
were then alone, there was no evidence •to prove that
she gave him the bill, but it would be shewn that he,
the following morning, took it to the bank and received
money for it. If the parties had even had commercial
dealings with each other, it might be presumed that the
bill was given in payment of a debt or for value, but
that supposition was excluded by the situation of the
parties, and also by the conduct of the defendant, when
he was afterwards called upon for the money ; for upon
the application of the defendant's attorney, the de-
fendant, supposing GOD was the only witness that the
bill had been put into his hands, denied not only all
knowledge of it, but also all knowledge of the concerns
of Miss Staveley. It would, however, appear from his
letters, two of which would be produced, that the de.
Pendant had been ft eq uently consulted by Miss Staveley
upon her affairs, and had given her advice upon them.
The letters were peculiar—the first was dated the Bth
of December, 1826, in which the defendant, after stating
that he had been ill, and was afraid it would be a week
before he could venture out to see her, writes, "I have
received a letter from my brother Isaac at Wakefield,
who advises you to end your dispute with your brothers.
He thinks you had better take 1,8001. and the furniture,
and that, with the 1501. you have got, will make alto•
gether nearly 2,1001. which he thinks better for you than
going to law. I should like to see you to have some
personal conversation about it, but I dare not venture
out. You must not make an offer in writing, because
it will do away with the written agreement altogether.
When you make the proposal, it must be to your brother
Richard personally, when you and he are alone, and no
witness is by." The Jury would observe, that ;the de-
fendant now acted upon the same plan in which he
had cautioned Miss Staveley to act towards ber brothers.
The second letter, although not quite so material, was
still important. It was written a few days afterwards,
on the 13th of December, and in it the defendant ad.
wised Miss Staveley to go to Mr. Leeson, at Beverley,
and get him to write to her two brothers, threatening to
file a bill against them, if they did not come to an ar-
rangement ; and concluded with recommending her
not to tell any one, not even Mr. lesson, that she would
take £l,BOO. The man who wrote these letters had
the face to deny, after the intended match was broken
offs all knowledge of the Lady's affairs. The 1001. bill
got into Miss Staveley's hands on the 23d of November,
as part of the 1501. mentioned in the first letter, and
two mornings afterwards the defendant paid it into the
bank. Forty pounds in notes were also advanced with
the bill to the defendant, but they unfortunately could
not be traced, and it was to be feared that they could
not be recovered.
Robert Dandy, agent to the East Riding Bank, prow.
ed that the defendant dealt with the bank, and •on the
26th of November last paid in a bill for 1001. dated the
7th of October, at two months. The defendant al-
-1 doped the bill ; be had credit for it; it was paid in
due course.

was not a needy man. The plaintiff's witness, Dandy.
had proved his respectability, and that he could havel
got accommodated for twiny hundred pounds at the
bank, without being put tothe necessity of cheating the
Lady of one hundred pounds, for the charge made
against him was worse than pocket-picking. The bill
was its own title-deed, the fact of its being in his pos•
session proved the defen "ant's right to it until it was
shewn such possession was tortuous. and that nn con-
sideration was given for it. The plaintiffs had not
attempted to sheer this, as it was their duty to halt j
done; for the presumption of the law was, that gooM
consideration had been given for the bill, and thin,
presumption had nut been disproved. Two letters,
had indeed been produced, the one was said to bit
very material, the other not quite so much so; bat
notwithstanding this, the second letter was quite as
important as the first t it was a very ill-used letter, and
had certainly great teason to complain of the plaintiffs
Counsel. Bosh the letters, in fact, contained much pru-
dent advice, but they neither of them had any thing'
to do with the cause. When lovers quarrel, they oat
unfrequently became haters ' • the Lady is apt to rj
a
enraged, and what a furious Lady can do is well knowei
and has been powerfully described. This Lady, how.
ever, knew better—she did not break her heart—she
knew it was safer far to wed than burn, and she very
prudently made a second choice. With this there was
no reason to find fault, but the defendant had great
cause to complain of the present attempt; and if, after
the strong presumption in his favour, the Jury were to
give credit to the plaintiff's case, no man would here-
after be safe in accommodating a Lady or any body
else, by cashing a bill, without having a Notary present
to witness the transaction.
Mr. Justice Bat:Lee—This is either on the one hag/
a very dishonest action, or on the other hand a very
dishonest defence : on one side there must be gross
dishonesty. The parties who know what passes in their
own minds can tell on whom the imputation ought to
fall : we, without that assistance, must look to the
facts that have been proved—we must weifb the prep
babilities, and form our 'conclusion. There is no doubt
that the bill passed from Miss Staveley to the delend.
ant, and that be has had the benefit of it. In general,
where a bill is passed from one person to another, the
presumption is, that value was given for it, unless
the contrary is shewn ; and, therefore, if this were sal
ordinary transaction, the presumption would be that
the defendant bad given value; but when the intimacy
of the parties, and the connexion that was likely to
take place between them, together with the evidence
of Mr. Jennings, were taken into consideration, the
Jury had to decide whether the presumption were mot
rebutted. What would have been the answer to Jets-,
nings's inquiries of a man who bad given value for the'
bill? Would he not have said-84 What does she mean
by sending such a message, when she must know I
gave her money for the bill?' Although it would be
dangerous in ordinary cases not to act upon the pre-
sumption that the bolder bad given 'value, yet the Jury
were to consider whether this was not so extraordinary
a case as to justify them in judging that presumption
to be rebutted by the situation of the parties, and the
evidence of Jennings ?
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, lea

Cross-examined—The defendant was in a respectable
line of business, and kept a good account; he was in the
habit of drawing out 4004 and 5001. a week; he some-
times overdrew his account ; we would let him do so
to-the amount of 6001. or 7001.
Re-examined—The defendant did not draw oat any GUILDHALL.
money when he paid in the bill. He is about thirty- ireseirda.lbran souk 1$ yeses old, was 4617110 bike. Me'
Alderman Ong a highwa robbery preview sight.
`three or thirty-four. Mr. V. Jones at th Arms, Henerbae
The two letters were then put in and tead. Market, stated, that he was rat from Winton ahem eleven
Richard Jennings, the plaintiff's attorney—l received o'clock, and bad jut turned into the Market from Milkureet,
horn Moses Walker 1501. in November last for Miss when he was knocked down by a blow in the face. He felt Me
'Btaveley ; 1001. was in a bill, and 501. in country notes. whatch bieill dca:ne ewuae,cy;,enddas bald hold of tb:ingribi" , which end seal; but
i
1 gave it to Miss Staveley on the afternoon of the 2sd by the ribbon with the watch, and whirl gave way. Mesas& was
of November. In the beginning of March I went to so unexpected, and the blow so stunning, that be made no awn-
the defendant to demand payment of 1401. he owed to Lion of the Palma who robbed him.
Miss Staveley. The defendant said he had nothing of
whit:nit= watchman,an
and saw standing t,,.. 14 his hex in
running,the Mark
wham et,
hers. I stated to him that she had informed me that mised• Ile perceived him throsawwwirthth.T;wa y 0,,, drag
she Isad given him the 1001. bill, and a week or ten days him to the spot where the snide fell, found the eomplekissn's
afterwards bad lent him 401. out of the 501. He. said watch. Mr. James nose and upper *bore proofs of the severity
he knew nothing at all of the matter. I said it was Grlitseeattprisoack;er, in his defame, add. that when the ats liter
singular she should have invented such a story; and I daier w. raised, two men were running before himic",thel, gamed
asked him if be had cashed the bill for her? He said, the watchman; but when he (the ptisonet) came up, he seined
no; he knew nothing about it. I said, 6' You must him, and picking up a watch, charged him with having thrown fe
have known of her receiving 150/." He said, no ;he away.--The
LI watchman,c in reply toquestioinnsufrom the Magistrate,
away,
the
watch.
and trhaapaasoparer three
had posed
teshimbehforsie bethtetuiez.
did not—how should he know any thing of her concerns?
Cross-examined—Miss Staveley's marriage with Mr. saner for at least 15 mutes.
Dolby took place about three weeks afterwards. The Mr. Alderman TNOMPIDOW warned the prisoner, that his life was
defendant was very civil to me when I called npon him, in„ljelatthdengentr; ofileßleirckbeen, wittackaan gatsdni,l7,fcveund:rimp °I2
lutorndacil,
and wanted to employ me about business of his own. elan:stances, and be then dismissed him with a caution which he
Moses Walker identified the bill of exchange, which was sorry to find had produced no effect upon his mind.
he, on the 15th of November, paid over to Mr. Jennings TM prisoner was Ikea committed.
for Miss Staveley. BOW-STREET.
wthlithArratya we:at broughta from St. Cie-
Sophia Pearcey, niece to Mrs. Dalby, saw her aunt met watch-house, crank in
frao
receive the bill and notes from Mr. Jennings. The next coach. It appeared that the coach had been hind by defendant
day, at about seven or eight in the evening, witness and three other Officers from a coffee-house in the Haymarket, and
lighted her aunt up stair s, where her aunt got the bill, when it stopped at the corner of Catherine-street the driver missed
Wad took it down into the room where the defendant tvhoen platoePahandase applying
t atiowdthhe firiltedwhhra alighted, he hheiareeeeived a
and
was, and witness never saw the bill any more. The wotheyed off, fell Owed by the third, leaving defendant to slut she
defendant and her aunt were then on very good terms; difference. A man who bad picked up one of the plates, which
he used to come often to the house, and witness under- be had seen thrown from the coed:, then brae& it forward.
—The defendant treated the matter cavalierly, and mewed any
stood they were to be shortly married. compensation. He was therefore taken to the madhouse. In
Cross-examined—They ceased to be on good terms defence, he denied all knowledge of the transaction, and said that
about Chi istmat. he had that morning waited on his friends, who were men of amulet
Mr. POLLOCK proposed to prove what Miss Staveley honour, and they denied all knowledge of the circumstance. Ai*
said to her niece about the bill she had given to the much altercation, however, be agreed to make poor Jarvis a caw
defendant ; but, as the defendant was not then present, Pena wit and was HAdischIVTIN.OARDEN:
Mr. Justice BAYLRY advised hint not to press the evi- A man named Tattler, and a woman named Dooms, with whop
dente. he cohabited, were brought to Hatton Garden /Wise elm ep
The bill was then put in and read. There was no Wednesday night, ia the custody of Hatt, the revalki watch..
endorsement between Moses Walker and the defendant's house ke:rurt;dficallawerad. :ry Agleaseloots.°W Pai=gost,lllll by
Mn
endorsement. eras, with starving and cruelly treating a yessegaidlikkimed James
Mr. BROUGHAM remarked that his friend had to en- Tayier, between three and four years of sir, the offspring of the
male prieoner.
counter gt eat labour in stating his case, from which the The child was carried to the oMce by Mr. Wolfe, and won
Jury might easily divine it was a very difficult one to .hewn to Mr. Sergeant Smon, the presiding Magistrate. Its ap.
.
state. Indeed, a stranger hearing the statement would Profane' was most frightful In figure It was not as large as a baby
of men months. On different parts of its body were marks of
have judged it to have been any thing else than an action
harrnaent
fled
riot,:
alidttle wasts
them Itwereldidso cut, u i from a
for money had and received ; for his friend had charged Meier.
UM orrope aadvisicnogrdant sounds to announce its wants. met speak,
t
made
the defendant with having very little honour, very little
hos e,ty. and still less gallantry. What gallantry bad Mr. Wolffe stated, that some months since the prisoners, who
lived as man and wife, came to ledge at No. 1„ urfehters-striret,
to do in an action for money bad and received he (Mr.
oppo eas the un, which was easels, opposite
; to hone of a man named !eve
Brougham) did not know but his friend did not merely in
house. The apartment they occupied was the hoot kitchen.
impute to the defendant want of gallantry, but also They were in the habit of going out In morning, and not re-
want of honesty ; he did not merely impute to him that turning until very late at night. Upon many occasions some of the
he was not a knight•ertant who would run all hazards, children and women in the neighbourhood heard erks and screams
and sacrifice ease, safety, and life itself on behalf of a bwtnilvfeduunint,hhe kitchen,, as if from an infest in db.". A wee".
Csidwell,rf tthinkinga that t the
t
Lady, but he imputed to him that he only sought after cries must have e pgaratoceeedoeduir4ossmmhedue
her cash, put his hand into her strong box, and pulled bread under the door, which, for somege hunger, frequently
iropuld tave the
out one hundred pounds in monies numbered. The fact
effect of stopping the can. The infant was, however, never seen, at
was, however, otherwise ; the Lady was disappointed,
it was never brought out to take the air, and every thing r'espectin
ht was
was mere cont
conjecture.
because the Gentleman would not marry her, and so ragotae. One of hisglimpseofi (Mtanr;iwta.s)daughters,
account she gave hint
she sent to him a very skilful attorney, to pump him foe of it was so frightful, that he determined upon taking nent
evidence to maintain this action. It is said that it is means to see ft, and adopting the course he that day did, if the re-
more easy to make an empty bag stand upright, than presentation made to hint was correct. He accordingly had the
thwoammanaatawkhaenainhtroa custodyaalrt byi t awl,:
sretet-keeperl,c and di
srned tla:thethalikehlydr
to make a poor man withstand temptation and ben be
honest; but the defendant was not an empty bag,—be was not the offtprit,g of both the parties, but of the man's by a kr.