Star.
London, England, 1829-07-24 00:00:00

DUKE OF BEAUFORT.

The Lord Chancellor, seeing Mr. Wellesley was in at-
tendance, repeated what he had intimated yesterday.—
He said, that having seen Mr. Ebden, and from the con-
versation he had had with him, and the representations
he had made of what had occurred at Seagry the last va-
cation, he was of opinion that it would not be proper for
the young gentlemen to spend the ensuing holidays there.
He should therefore order it to be referred to the master

to select a proper place for them to go to. The other
matters in the petition of Mr. Wellesley would be heard
when the petition came on, which it would do in regular
course in a few days.
Mr. Wellesley—Will your Lordship allow me to make
one observation, and, from ill health, I feel almost inca-
pable of that. I will not detain your Lordship for a
moment ; but I must beg leave respectfully to oppose the
project of sending the matter to the master. The Court
could settle it in five minutes, and from the experience I
have had of the master's office during these proceedings,
if it goes there, I am fearful there is little chance of its
getting out in six months.
The Lord Chancellor—l have most attentively con-
sidered the matter in all its bearings, and I am of opinion
that it must go. before the master.
The Solicitor-General, on the part of his clients, had
no wish for it to do so. They would be quite satisfied if
his Lorship would name some place.
The Lord Chancellor said he was influenced only by a
wish to promote the benefit of the children.
Mr. Wellesley and the Solicitor-General were both
about to say something, but Mr. Wellesley begged to be
heard ; his object was not to oppose, but to facilitate any
arrangement that might be made. If the boys were not
sent into the neighbourhood of their own estates, it was
a matter to him of perfect indifference where they went
to. The Solicitor-General might name any town or vil-
lage in Europe.
The Solicitor-General said, that Europe was too large
a scope for choice ; England was quite enough, and he

could. only again say, that they should be satisfied with
any place the Lord Chancellor might select. He must,
however, repeat his application to be permitted to see
what Mr. Ebden had written. He felt it impossible to
do his duty to his clients if he was not honoured with
that confidence.

The Lord Chancellor was still of opinion that it would
be far better for no one to see it. If he handed it to one
party, the other of course must see it, and it would, to a
certainty, soon find its way into the newspapers, and
that publicity could not but be injurious to the young
gentlemen.
The Solicitor General—Not on our part, my Lord;
and, as to the other side, as they are in the habit of com-
municating with Mr. Ebden, it cannot be a matter of con-
sequence to them. _ _ _

Mr. Wellesley said that the Solicitor General assumed
what was not the fact; he held no communication with
Mr. Ebden.

The Lord Chancellor was strongly against showing it
to any body.
The Solicitor General said he had an arduous and im-
portant duty to perform, and although he of course was
satisfied with the judgment the Court had given, and as-
sured that the high station as well as the known love of
justice for which his Lordship was distinguished would
induce him, and it would himself, to give this matter his
most serious consideration, he yet felt the absolute neces-
sity of knowing the grounds upon which the Court was
acting.
The Lord Chancellor—Well, if both parties will insist
upon it, I suppose I must.
The Solicitor General did not see how he could advise
his clients without being made acquainted with all the
circumstances of the case.

The Lord Chancellor—l am convinced it will be greatly
against the interest of the young gentlemen, but, if you
will insist, I have no option.
Mr. Wellesley assured his Lordship, on his word of
honour, that as far as he was concerned it should not be
made public.
The Solicitor-General made no further remark ; and
Mr. Wellesley then inquired if the Court would name
the place.
The Lord Chancellor—l must see Mr. Ebden again,
and after I have conversed with him about it I will let the
parties know my determination.
Mr. Wellesley expressed himself perfectly satisfied ;
but said he had yet a trifling favour to ask ; would his
Lordship allow his case to stand at the head of the paper
for the 31st, the day appointed for it to be heard ?
The Registrar said it already stood second.
This arrangement appeared satisfactory, and the parties
wkhdrew.
The Lord Chancellor has issued the following notice,
which is now posted up in Lincoln's Inn Hall:—
" The Lord Chancellor will bear motions on Saturday nest,
the 25th instant, and proceed with his general list of bankrupt pe-
titions on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the 27th, 28th, and
29th, and will bear motions on Thursday, the 30th, and proceed
with cause, lunatic, and remaining bankrupt petitions, on Friday
the 31st, sad foUowing days, to the 13th of August, on which and
the two succeedir.g days his Lordship will hear motions according
to their date, to be entered in a list for that purpose."

VICR•CHANCELLOR'S , COURT JULY 23.
-- -- - - _

Mr. Tinney, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. knight, and the
Hon. Charles Law, who have been appointed King's
Counsel, took their seats within the bar with the usual
formalities.

The Court was occupied the entire morning hearing
arguments in a tithe cause, of not the least public interest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. JULY 23.
Middlesex Sitting at Nisi Prins—Special Juries.
NOAKES V. WIGRAM AND CO.

Pliis was an action to recover damages for defamation.
The plaintiff, a publican, who carried on business some
time ago at the Marsh-gate, Westminster-road, having
become a bankrupt, the defendant opposed him, and sub-
sequently described him to be an uncertificated bankrupt.

A witness was celled to prove the defamatory words,
but did not appear.—The plaintiff was consequently non-
suited.

CRIDI. CON.-DEAN V. TIIODIAS._

This action was brought by the plaintiff, a corn-
chandler in High-street, Shoreditch, against the defend-
ant, an apothecary in the same neighbourhood, to recover
compensation in damages for criminal conversation with
the plaintiff's wife.
The Attorney-General stated the case. The plaintiff,
his wife, and the defendant, belonged to the religious per-
suasion called Quakers. Mr. Dean married 25th Jan.
1820. They had several children, and he should prove
they lived happily up to the time of the cause of this ac-
tion. The defendant, in his character of apothecary, at-
tended Mrs. Dean two years prior to the adultery, and he
should prove that he had made his professional visits con-
ducive to his designs upon her person. Mrs. Dean, be-
fore the defendant's seduction, was much attached to her
husband, and during the time she was in the country for
the benefit of her health, wrote to him in very affectionate
terms. Towards the close of 1828, the plaintiff's suspi-
cions were excited, but he had no proof of criminal con-
duct on the part of the defendant and his wife before the
24th of January last, when his shopman made a commu-
nication respecting the visits of Mr. Thomas, and letters
which had been sent to his wife. The plaintiff ordered
him the next day to detain all letters for Mrs. Dean
and deliver them to him. Several letters from the de-
fendant to Mrs. Dean, consequently fell into his hands,
and upon opening her desk scraps of paper in the hand-
writing of the defendant were found, which left no doubt
upon the subject of the criminal intimacy of the parties.
The Attorney-General said he should also prove, by the
evidence of a witness, that the defendant was seen in bed
with the plaintiff's wife. There were other disgusting
circumstances which he could not then state to the jury,
but which would be proved in evidence. It would appear
that the defendant fell on his knees before his wife, and
confessed that he had been criminally connected with
Mrs. D. The jury would hear the letters, and decide,
no doubt, upon all the facts, that it was a case of uncom-
mon atrocity. It would be found that a medical man
professing to belong to a sect considered honest, had
abused the confidence which his profession naturally in-
spired, and that he had taken a base advantage of the
husband of a patient, as well as the patient herself. Their
verdict would, no doubt, teach such men that they were
not to violate decency with impunity.
The hand-writing of the defendant, in several letters,
was then proved.
The plaintiff's father proved that his son and daughter
lived happily after their marriage.
J. Stokes, shopman to the plaintiff, stated that the de-
fendant was in the habit of coining to his master's house
in November or December, when his master was from
home. He was aware that the conduct of the defendant
with respect to Mrs. Dean was improper.
A letter from Mr. Thomas to Mr. Dean was then put
in and read. The defendant lamented that any difference
should have occurred betwen him and his oldest friend.
He was sure the plaintiff's wife would rather part with
life than honour. He had frequently lifted her on the
bed, and if it was asserted he had done more it was false
and malicious. He would not for the world, and the pu-
nishment to be inflicted here and hereafter, be the cause
of unhappiness to the plaintiff.
The witness Stokes then spoke to other letters which
he delivered to the plaintiff, and which were produced to
prove a criminal intercourse. They were written by the
defendant to Mrs. Dean. The earliest letter from him
was in these words :- -

" My dear and respected Friend—What have I done that I am
not to have a look from you whom Ido love to distraction? If I
have offended, let me know how I have so done. I called at the
Post-office, and was disappointed. I pray thee let me hope that it
will not happen again."
Another letter contained the words--

" Ob, no, I did not disclaim against thee. How cruel! I would
protect thee. How shall I bear from thee? I have not ackoow.
kdged any thing."
In the next letter to her he said he had been wrong,
but not criminal, and proposed to protect her as long as
he could.

" Whatever letter or letters I may be forced to write, believe
me they will not come from the heart. Mrs. Runtbolt saw my
wife yesterday, but she had nothing further to say than that we
were in a room where a bed was."

These were the letters on which the jury were to pre-
sume a criminal intimacy.
Sarah Plumley proved that she was present when Mrs.
Thomas made the defendant go down on his knees and
acknowledge that he had acted criminally with Mrs. Dean.
Ann Rumbolt said Mrs. Dean and Mr. Thomas came to
her house in Thames-street three times, and on every
occasion they went into a room and remained together
half an hour.

Mary Sturdy proved that the defendant came to her
master's house one night when her master was in the
country. It was ten o'clock, and the witness had been
ordered by her mistress to go to bed. She did not go to
bed, but saw Mr. Thomas go into the room where her mis-
tress was in bed, and he remained there twenty minutes.
Mr. Chapel said he was at the house of the defendant,
and Mrs. Thomas said she was not surprised at what had
happened between her husband and Mrs. Dean. On one
occasion she said she had actually caught Mr. Thomas in
the act of adultery with one of his patients in the sur-
gery. The witness saw several letters which had been
written by the defendant to Mrs. Dean, and two scraps
of paper found in Mrs. Dean's writing desk. On one
of the scraps was written in pencil, by the defendant—
" My dearest Friend—lt is my sore separation that
causes all my deep distress."
The evidence for the plaintiff having been examined,
Mr. Brougham addressed the jury for the defendant,
and contended that the case made out by the Attorney
General was not such as his learned friend had under-
taken to prove. The ridiculous story of confession on the
defendant's knees was the only strong part of the evi-
dence, and that confession could not be relied on, because
it was made under duresse. That great domestic poten-
tate, the defendant's wife, had compelled him to confess,
and on that account it must be looked upon with caution
—(A laugh). The case, if the jury should consider it
proved, was not one for heavy damages, because the de-
' fendunt was not in a condition to pay heavy damages.
Lord Tenterden summed up, leaving the jury to decide
whether adultery had been committed, and to consider the
damages.

The jury retired, and on their return found for the
plaintiff— Damages, 4001.
Many Quakers were in Court.
CONSISTORY COURT, JUT 23.
Before Dr. LUSHINGTOX.
JONES V. JONES.

This was a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights,
brought by Hugh Jones against his wife, who had sepa-
rated herself from cohabitation by reason of alleged
cruelty. The allegations offered on the part of the wife
was very lengthy and minute, and pleaded that. at the
time of her former Irasband's death she was possessed of
an income to the amount of 400!. per annum, and other
considerable property. That before contracting a second
marriage with the said Hugh Jones, he represented
himself untruly as having an independence, and a I

___g_

connection as a Surveyor' which produced five hun-
dred pounds per annum. That shortly after their mar-
riage, he was arrested, and thrown into the King's
Bench Prison, and that he had succeeded in obtaining
considerable sums of money from his wife under various
threats and pretensions—that repeated acts of cruelty had
taken place during cohabitation, and that the object of the
suit was to endeavour to obtain he residue of the property'
which she possessed, for the support of her children.
A Counsel said the allegation was inadmissible, by rea-
son of its general nature.
Dr. Addams, on behalf of the wife, said that the object
of the husband was clearly not to obtain the comfort of
his wife's society ; but that he might subsist upon her
Property.
The Judge reviewed the articles of the allegation, and
said the Court had no cognizance of monied matters be-
twixt man and wife, as it could not consider the fact of the
husband having an eye to his wife's property when he
contracted marriage, as sufficient to render an allegation
admissible ; therefore that part must be reformed, which,
when expunged, I shall admit the allegation.