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

I

I,i
N

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Masca 7.
CLAY Y. I...eassow as 01111111.
This was an action brought by Mr. Clay, who is a
prin-er, against the defendants, Mr. Lanaslow, Mr.
Peter Moore, and Mr: Frederick Verbeke, three of the
Directors& the prrjected a.£EgisFire and Dilapidation,
Insurance Company," to recover a sum of 2871.186.6 d.,
the amount of his bill For printing prospectuses, kc.
The defendants pleaded in abatement, that eighteen
other persons were jointly:liable with them.
Evidence was then adduced to shew that the work
was done, and that the claim was acknowledged by the
defendants, at a meeting of the proj-eted Company.
Witnesses were called who attempted to prove that
eighteen other persons were directors, proprietors, and
subscribers, end therefore jointly liable. They failed
in proving this; and it appeared that, in fact, no com-
pany was ever formed, no shares were in existence, no
scrip was ever issued, and ail the money that was paid
was paid into the hands of tslr. John Wilks, jun.
The CHM JUSTICA told the Jury that the defendants
had not made out their pleas. They had pleaded that
eighteen other persons by name were liable; but they
had failed in proving three; and if they had failed with
respect to one only, that would be sufficient to entitle
the plaintiff to his verdict.
The Jury then found for the plaintiff, for the full
amount of his bill.
THE CHIRP' Jusricr..—l hope this will be a warning,
• if any be n y, to persons who have been deluded
•: by these fraudulent schemes, never to attempt suing all
the parties who pretend to be interested. It will be
sufficient if they can only catch one of them to sue him,,
and then if he pleads in abatement, unless he clearly
makes out all and every of the persons who, he says,
are jointly liable, the plaintiff must recover.
MAL COIL••-11PAIIIIICAT IL COL. SCIMILIY.
This vas an action to recover damages for criminal
conversation with the plaintiff's wife.
Mr. Scan .m and Mr. Gnaw az conducted the plain-
tiff's case ; and Mr. Socterron Guiana:. and Mr. DEN.
W A re the defence.
Mr. Scasu.arr stated that the plaintiff was a respect-
able cloth-factor, residing in Gloucestershire. The de-
fendant a Gentleman of property, with whose name the
public were already familiar. The Learned Counsel
then detailed the facts of the case, as they were after-
wards proved by the following witnesses.
Mrs. Eliza Dauncey, the plaintiff's wife's sister, stated
that she married the plaintiff's brother. The plaintiff
married her sister in the year 1815, and they had since
had four children. In the month of May last her sister
and herself were on a visit at Bath. Oa the second of
May they were walking through one of the streets
there, when they met the defendant. Her sister smiled,
and said that is Colonel Berkeley. On the following
day the accompanied her sister in a walk through
some fields in the neiethouthood of Berkeley' Castle.—
Her sister was getting over a stile, when the Co.
lonel came up to them and offered to open a gate,
which he did, and they passed through it. He then
enquired It they had seen the castle, to which her
sister replied in the affirmative. The Colonel then in-
vited them both to take a walk is the castle gardens,
and an appointment was made for the following even-
ing. She went there with her sister at eight o'clock
the following evening, and met the Colonel and a Cap-
tain Hammond there. The party walked together in
the gardens about an hour and a half. Witness walked
with Captain Hammond, and ber sister with the Colo-
nel. Her sister and the Colonel were out of her sight
several times while they were in the gardens. Before
they patted, another appointment was made to meet
again on the following Thursday evening. Captain
Hammond joined them on that occasion. They walked
on the terrace. In a few minutes she missed her sister
and the Colonel. She wished to go in search of them,
but Captain Hammond would not permit her. She
afterwards discovered them sitting on the steps of the
terrace. She retutned again, and found they were gone.
She afterwards heard a stifled voice, apparently of a
female in distress, which she recognised to be that of
her sister; she went to the spot from whence the
wend proceeded, and saw the Colonel and her sister
sitting on the parapet wall; her sister appeared con-
fused, and her dress was disordered. The Colonel
then invited them into the castle, and they went into
the music room. The Colonel asked the witness to
play a tune on the piano ; while she was doing so her
sister and the Colonel went into an adjoining room ;
witness attempted to follow them, but Capt. Hammond
prevented her from doing so. The Colonel and her
sister remained in the room together about half an
hour; when they returned her sister's dress was much
di ordered. Her sister and the Colonel did not meet
again until the July following, when witness met the
Colonel, who inquired after her sister. Her sister and
herself met the Colonel the following evening by
appointment ; her sister went with the Colonel to a
house in Bath-street, Cheltenham; they entered by the
back door. Her sister did not return home until eleven
o clock that night ; her dress was then disordered, and
she bad lost her comb from her hair.

Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR Getarsm..—Her
sister and herself had gone out to meet the Colonel
(limed as servant girls. She took a parcel from her
sister to the Colonel, containing some verses and a
bun. Did not know whether the verses contained and
allusion to Mrs. /lynx, who was then residing at the
Castle.—(Laughter.)—Had not read the verses. The
first time her sister met the Colonel she made an ap-
pointment with him for the following evening.
Thomas D. Adamson examined.—Said he kept a
shop in Bath-stseet, Chelttnham. Colonel Berkeley
occupied the fist floor, which he used as a library.
He never slept there. These is a back entrance to the
house from Wellington-place, by which the Colonel
sometimes entered.
Cr ovs- examined.—The other houses in the street have
a similar entrance.

Some other witnesses were then examined, who con-
firmed the above evidence.

The SOLICITOR GIINERAL then addressed the Jury for
the defendant, and contended, that no case had been
proved against his client. There had been no legal•
evidence of any criminality on his part, or any testi.
mony to shew that he had been guilty of adultery. The
parties had been seen walking in a garden and other
public places, and on one occasion were seen to enter
a house together, in which the defendant had a lodging,
but then there was no bed there. The conduct of his
client was n t perhaps strictly proper, but there was no
proof of criminality. If, however, the Jury thought the
plaintiff entitled to a verdict, in deter mining the amount
of damages, they would not forget the conduct of the
site as well as that of the defendant, and be would
ask them of what value was such a woman to her I.w.

band? Then had been no proof of any systematic se-
duction; on the contrary, the plaintiffs wife had put
herself in the defendant's way. In conclusion, the
Learned Counsel said, that nominal damages was the
most the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
The Loin CHIEF Aram': summed up the evidence,
and the Jury, after retiring for about half an hour, re-
turned * verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 10001.
The Court was crowded to excess during the whole
of the day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
&ILL V. saresairs.
This was an action brought by Mr. 13.11, who holds
a situation in the Excise, against Captain Robert Sin-
clair, of the East India Company's Service, for a vio-
lent auatilt. The defendant had pleaded a justification,
alleging that he was first assaulted by the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Caoss stated the case, and called wit-
nesses, who proved, that on the 10th of November
last the defendant had a litiabble with a coster-
monger on Tower-hill, because he had knocked at the
door of his house. The costermonger replied pertly,
when the defendant beat him, knocked him dove,
kicked him, and dragged him along the ground. A
crowd was collected, and they cried " shame," when
the defendant, seeing the plaintiff near, ran at him,
and struck him violently, and kicked him. He ran
away, and the defendant pursued him, beating and
kicking him ; and when he arrived by the iron rail-
ings of the Trinity House, he seized him by the
coat collar, and dashed his head against the spikes,
and cut a dangerous wound in his forehead. He fell
on the ground in a state of insensibility, and was
carried to a surgeon's. The defendant was given into
custody, and the Lord Mayor refused to admit him to
bail till the plaintiff was, pronounced out of danger.
He kept his bed nearly a month, and it was seven
weeks before he could attend to his business.
The Jury gave a Verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages,
One Hundred Guineas.