Star.
London, England, 1816-12-25 00:00:00

LAW INTOLLICENCE.

COURT 1:1 CiffAWDER4t, DECEMBER f 4.
.WILIAIUGHBY.O. JIWDwINE4
Id this Ea* Mr. WETRERALL moved hit Lordship
to continue an injdnctioa, granted under the foliow.
ing circumstances. The plaintiff in August, IBM
took a Parr in
.EpsomoSurrey, from the defendant,
at the rent of €lB5 per annum, and engaged to pay
a stipulated sum for the sheer, farming utensils; crops, ,
Etc. on the premises, which were described as con-
sisting of twenty acres of meadow land, and 110
of arable land.' The ground on being measured,
was found very far short of this description. No
doubt, the acres were said to be computed acres, and
the immense quantity they fell short of what they
were said to be, was, in itself; sufficient to nullify the
agreement. The defendant was well known to be
a litigious character, scarcely a Surrey Sessions occur-
ring in 1N hick he was not a party in some cause.—
The plaintiff further objected to the validity of his
agreement, on the ground of the defendant's not
being able to give him a proper title to the premises,
as in fact, two persons had two parcels of the ground
distinct from him, one of which parcels surrounded
the dwelling; house, and by building on which, ac-
cess to the house would be totally impossible, in ad-
dition to the house being completely darkened by
such buildings.
LORD CDANCELLOR-+-And yet, I dare say, though
darkened, it was described as a farm hcuse with a
delightful prospect.
Mr. WETtleitatt. said a balance etisted between his
client and defendant of sES(X), though it was al-
itged by the opposite -side to amount to £6OO i and:
for the reasons above-mentioned, his Lordship had
formerly graiited the injunction to prevent the defen-
dant raising an action for the debt due. It was also
notorious, that the defendant, assured of the defi-
ciency in the quantity of land, had agreed to an
abatement, which the plaintiff declined, considering
himself nct bound by the agreement, which had not
been adhered to on the part of the defendant.
Mr. BLAKE followed on the same side.
Mr. LEACH said, his Lot dship had been told the
defendant WAS a litigious character, but how this had
any bearing on the question now before the Court he
was at a loss to determine. With respect to the first
objection, viz. the deficiency in point of the quantity
of land—he had no objection to admit there was a
deficiency in measuring, but it was nut to such an
extent as to .soil the object of the plaintiff in taking
the farm. Had it been so, then indeed the lease
might have been given up for the best of all reasons.
But the fact was, the lease was contracted on tt.c
ground of there being so many computed acres, not
statute acres, and in fact there was the full quan-
tity of such computed acres. With respect to the
second objection, viz. the want of a proper thic—
k was true two individuals were owners of part of
the land, but vie one had agreed and declared him-
self periectly willing to second the lease. Morris,
the owner of that part which surrounded the house,
had acceded to the proposal of the defendant, so Lac
on this head there could be no objection, tor Morris
had agreed to take other land for it. With respect'
to the other parcel of ground, it was impossible for
the plaintiff to say that the possession of that was
material to his enjoyment of the whole. He was re-
peatedly informed by the defendant, that two indivi-
duals had a share in the ground, and could not there-
fore pretend ignorance of it There was no doubt of
the other proprietor (a Mr. Forth) having agreed
to do as Mr. Morris had done, had not the plaintiff
gone to him for the purpose of dissuading hiln from
acceding to any such agreement, oliviously to get rid
of the lease. Taking the case as a whole ne thought
impossible his Lordship could continue the in-

junction.
Mr. DOWDESDALE followed on the same side.
Mr. WETHERALL, in reply, seid the defendant had
stated very strung facts, but how had he supported
these facts ? Wi►y, by stating them as matters of
bs-
lief. Was it consonant to his Lordship's usual prac-
tice, was it at all consonant to the practiceot any Court
to place credit in any statement when that statement
rested merely on belie! ? The fact was; there was
nothing tangible in what the defendant had said, and
it was imposs►ble to make his assertions or his belief
the foundation of any order or any judicial proceeding.
The date was particularly worthy of his Lordship s
attention, the agreement being formed in August,
1815, the plaint►ff waiting on the defendant in De-
cember following, and filing the bill in January,
which certainly were no indications of his desire to
get rid of the lease on the ground of the times being
so bad.
The LORD CHANCELLOR considered this case of
some importance, and thought the best way he could
possibly act would be to dissolve the injunction, with
liberty for the parties to go to trial. 'they might,
after the trial, move for the revtval of the injunction,
but in that case his Lordship expected they would
inform him particularly in what circumstances of
their case both parties had respectively tailed or suc-
ceeded, specifying most minutely these circumstances.
In another case, where his Lordship was moved to
restore a bill to the Court which bad been dismissed
for want of prosecution, he observed that when a
defendant allowed a bill to lie so long as the one
before him had done (two years and tour months)
it shewed some evidence of his wish that it should
always lie in that state. Substantial grounds might
no doubt be shewn, where be might restore such a
bill, but he confessed he was not aware of a single
precedent where a bill had been restored, merely for
the purpose of discussing what the amount of.costs
would have been had ,the action proceeded. He could
not therefore accede to the bill being restored, and
refused the motion.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 44.
TUX KING u. JOHN CRESWELL.
This was an indictment against the defendant for
perjury, in falsely swearing that a young woman
named Susannah Quills was of the age of 2t, in order
to obtain a licence for his marriage with her, from
the Surrogate of the Vicar-General of the Arcl
shop of Canterbur y.
Mr. CuawooD stated the case to the Jury. The
defendant was a young man of distinguished family
and-connections, and bad been bred up for the navy,
but his education having been neglected, he was
placed under the care of a gentleman residing in
Sloane-street. During his continuance in this linte-
-1 don ha became acquainted with the proaccutrix, a
young woman of bunt*, but envious pannier.

He paid his addresiet to het; and at rust titnpoSed
that ate Shotild.rield to his embraces) and live with
hint in a state of controbinage; this the rejected with
disdain, He then ofered het marriage, to which she
consented s dud in • ordet to effect his purpose, he ap-
plied at Doctors' Commons for a licence whit!) he
olrtaltiA upon an affidavit, stating that his intended
wife was df the age of 21, and that he knew of nn,aw-
ful impediment to their union; whilst at the • same
time be was well aware that she was only 17, and that
she had not the consent of her parents for the min-,
riage.. The licence having been obtained upon this
Olciavit, the marriage was solemnized; but at the-
end of three days he abandoned his wife, anclthe mar.'
riage was afterwards dissolved in the Consistory,
Court, upon the very ground that the wife was not of
full age to enter into a contract of matrimony. This
being an outline of the case the following witnesses•
were called s
Mr. Charles Charlton, Record Keeper of the Vicar-
General, produced an affidavit, purporting to be sworn
by the defendant before Dr. Adam.
Dr. Adam deposed that he was Surrogate of Sir,
Scot, the Vicar-General, and acted as such.
The Arronnsv.Ggriattal. asked Dr: Adam, if his
appointment was in writing, to which he replied, ti:at
he really did not know in what manner he had been
appoiated ; be had received his subparaa only last
night, end he was not prepared to answer the ques-
tion satisfactorily. , •

The ATTORNEY-0014%AL Sdbrifittea, that the sp.;
pointment being nototibu'lly in writing, it ought to be
profluced, tb Ott* the, competency of the witness, Lut
ritqlord'ELLssannouoo held that it was enough to
that tits witness had acted in the office, of Stir-
rogate. An Act of Parliament had passed tei 'make]
such evidence sufficient in some cases to prove that
she officer was lawiully.appointed.
The ATTORNIY-GIDIsmAL contended that the case
of Mrs. Verelst was an authority upon this point, for
there it appeared that the appointment of the Surro-
gate had been defective ; but
Lord Et.i.matostotrou said, that case was distin-
guishable froni this, as the appointment here was not
offered in evidence. _

Dr. Adam's examination then proceeded. He said
that he acted as Surrogate to Sir William Scot, the
Vicar• General of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
he recognized his signature to the affidavit, signed by
the defendant. . _

Cross-ezamined•—The proceeding was merely for-
mal. The blanks of the affidavit were filled up be-

fore it was signed by the deponent. Witness never
had any communication with the person making •the
affidavit. No particular attention was paid to cases
of this description in general, unless there was some-
thing suspicious in the appearance of the party apply-
ing for the licence, as being under age, or the atten-
daft of the Surrogate was specially drawn to the per-
son applying.
Mr. Anthony Mann, who bad known the defen-
dant for nine years, proved his signature to the
affidavit, which being put in ,and read, appeared to be
dated 11th June, 1814, and stated that the deponent,
John Creswell, was about to intermarry with Susannah
Cosins, spinster, of the age of '2l and upwards; and
that the deponent knew of no lawful impediment to
their union. Upon his crosssxamination, svtness
said that the defendant had been in the Navy, and
his education•having been neglected, he had been sent
to witness fur improvement. At the time of the mar-
riage defendant was residing in witness's house, but
he could not state whether the defendant was or was
not more than 21 years of age.
• Mr. Chariton again examined, said that the licence
was delivered to the party asking for it.
The Rev. John Rush, Curate of St. Loke's, Chel-
sea, prOduced the Registry of marriage lu.tween the
defendant and Sossnnah Cosins, which appeared to
be to this effect John Creswell, of this parish,
batchelor, and Susannah Colitis, of St. Mary-le.bonne,
spinster, were married in this church by licence on
the ISth day of Jude, in the year 1814, by me, J.
Rush, Curate." To this were added the signature
of the parties and the names of the witnesses. Mr.
Rush did not recollect the parties at all. The wit-
fusses present at the marriage were the deputy clerk
and his daughter. He did not recollect any thing
'suspicious in the appearance of the parties as to their
age. If there bad he must have noticed it and acted
accordingly.
Miss Anne Cosins, sister of the prosecutrix, knew
the defendant. He married her sister. She was pre-
sent at the marriage and remembered the Clergyman.
Defendant only lived with her sister three days when
she returned home, to her mother. Susannah was
only 17 years of age at the time of her marriage.
Crost-examined.—Witness was christened by the
name of Anne, and always went by that name.
Lived with her mother at No. 20, Croydon-street,
Edgware-road ; they werelodgers and had one room.
Witness bad never gone by the name of Smith—
never answered to it, nor had represented herself to
have married a man of that name. Mad been in
service for two years, but now worked at dress-niak-
, cog. Defendant never came to the house where wit-
ness's mother lived. Had never seen the defendant
in any house ; always met him by accident in the
street. She never asked him only how he did, or so.
Saw defendant about two days before the marriage,
between six and seven in the evening. . Had not
signed the registry. Did not know any body of the
name of Smith; had not seen him for ten years; he
lived in a gentleman's family, and she lived at that
time a few doors off. Never
.went by the name of
Smith ; and being asked if she 9r her pptheOrd
ever represented that she had passed by the name of
Smith, she hesitated for some time, hut finally an-
swered in the negative. The third day after the mar-
riage, Mr. Simkins came to inquire about the family ;
he saw her sister, and mother, and herself.
Mrs. Ann Cusins, mother of the prowcutrix, stated
that her daughter,, Susannah, attained the age of
twenty on the 26th of November last.
Cross-ezatnined.—Had never known of the court-
ship between herlaughter and the defendant. Her
daughter lived at home, and when witness was not
charing or nursing, they all slept in one room. She
never allowed an male visitors to hei daughter ; de-
fendant was never in her apartments: Witness heard
of the marriage on the del following, and three or
four days afterwards the clergyman, came to make
inquiries. Had another daughter in the' country.
Did aot.know any body, of the name of Smith, and
her daughter Anne never Went by that name : if any
one called kyr by that name; witness did not know of

. . - ...

1 This was the grit tithe witness knew of it. If a
young man named Smith kept company with bet
daughter, witness could not tell. She did once say
that her daughter went by the name of Smith she
called her so hetself once in joke. Witness had not
seen the young man for above two years. and did
not know what he was; never said that her daughter
Anne lived with a young man, named Sznith, for •
twelve months, and passed by his name; she had
said that her daughter had kept his company for some
tittle; no man ever kept her daughter's company;
probably she might have met with Smith in the
streets; had heard of young Creswell before the
marriage, and she had seen him ride up and down
the streets, and had been informed that be was Su-
san's intended ; did not know ttf the correspondence
between them, and had never made any inquiry about
him ; witness was seldom at home, but had beesd
them joking about it.
Mr. Henry Williams produced the registry of the
birth of Susannah Cosine, f the 26th Nov. 1796.
•Mrs. Bridget Vaughan !weed, that the defendant .
lodged at her house, and paid SOs. per week. He
said that he was go'ng to be married to a poor girl
with no' fortis e, who was under irgC. I-11 added,
that he was with his tutor in Sloane-street, and wit. .
ness.advised him to consider well of it. Defendant
and his wife came on the Monday morning after *the
Marriage, and remained until the Wedi.esday fhb
lowing. •
Mr. John Thompson, Cerk of the Registrar of the
Consistorial Court, produced the senteuce.of divorce
bet weenthe defendant and the prosecutrix, .the ground
of which appeared to be that the latter was underage.
The, ATTORKEY-GENEtIAL. addressed the Jory 03
the part of the defendant, and contended, that it did •
not appear from the Affidavit in question,, that he had
sworn affirmatively that the prosecutrii was of the age
of 21, but only spoke of her as being Of .tge, and that ;.
he knew of no lawful impediment to their marriage— •
and consequently, that the evidence did not sustain • •
the assignment relied upon in the indictment. The
defendant was certainly the son of respectable pa.
rents t and this prosecution was the result of an un-
successful attempt to extort money from the friends
of the defendant. There were several ways of ex-
torting money. One was by putting a pistol to a
man's head, and another was by holding out the ter-
rors of a criminal prosecution. The present proceed.
ing WAS of the latter description of extortion.
Lord ELLIENBOROUIiII charged the Jury, that this
was the worst description of perjury which could
come under the consideration of the Court. His
Lordship animadverted in strong terms upon the im-
proper conduct of the defendant, who had entailed
upon the prosecutrix the most cruel of injuries. He
had debauched her person under the colour cf lawful
matrimony, effected by the crime nf perjury, and
afterwards abandoned her to her credulity. If the
Jury believed the evidence, they must find the defen-
dant Guilty. •
The Jury immediately found the defendant guilty.
COUR r OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 23.
DRCISION 11APECTIN6 REV MINCE TOR CIIMIACTER, AND GUA•
RANTZI[TO Rt VALID] Tu 6E IN WRIIING.

ASHLEY p. WHIM

This was an action to recover froM she defendant
a comperitatitei for having given a false chArac:er to
a person of the name of Blisset. By means ef the de-
fendant's represent aim% that he " Blisset WAS a good
man, and had paid three hundred guineas for the
Tithe-rniil at Deptford ;" ahe plaintiff was induced
to credit him to the amount of XIES, v.sticli he *as
defrauded of by Blisset having shortly abscond:it and
never since been heard of. It appeared in evidence,
that Blisset, the defaulter, had Soff.e years before ts 'tea
the bens:.it of an Insolvent Act, and that so far from
being a responsible person, or a purcheser ~1 the
Tutee-mill, he had never completed 11;s plirchase, hat
had there likewise become a defaulter. Mr. Ashlie,
junior, proved the recommendation of the defernta-a:
in Favour of Blisset, by means of which his father had
given that person credit as above ststed.
Mr. Serjeant BEST, for the defendant, contended
that here was no fraud ra which the evidence went to
prove the privity of the defendant, or that he had lent
himself in any way .to the fraudulent intentions 'of
Blisset.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that here Was
evidently a fraudulent representation, by which 'the
defendant had made himself liable for the loss the
plaintiff had thereby incurred.
Chief-Justice Gians here remarked : " No man lay
a statement of such facts as these, can, in point of
law, be rendered liable for the debt, or default, of
another, unless he undertakes by a guarantee, and.
which guarantee must be in writing, to be answerable.
This case was different from that where an action'
might be maintained Mr fraud, wherein ? person had
rendered himself liable, without any guarantee is, .
writing, by means of a wilfully false and Trauduleitt
representation of fact, and not merely because he
has given a better character to a man than what. he;
deserved. It would have been better; perhaps, that
the law had remained as it formerly was, than that
, the late alteration should have been introduced, snak-
ing the party liable, where the credit had been 0a..:
rained under a reference ; because upon that alteta-
don there followed a flood of actions, until the law
was restored to its ancient limits. In ." Ilaycroft v.
Creasy,", the Court of King's Benet held that an ac-
tion-cannot be maintained unless the character of the
party was falsely, fraudulen.ly, and deceitfully repro-
sewed, in order to obtain credit, and this withia the
perfect knowledge of the person recommending hiin
to such credit."
The Jury, under his Lordalip's direction, found a
Verdict for the Defendant.

A young man, of the name of idward Marshall, a corfi.ler-
tial servant in the employ of Messrs. Crowther and l•s!a)ne7,
watch manor:film-cm Ironmonger-street, 'Old-street, was yester-
day hrouglil to Hatton-Garden Office, charged by his emp!oyers
with Laving robbed them of a quantity of watches, eases, it.^-
,•tauts, gold hands...andother articles, to a grea: amount, Ivhich he
Was tha better enabled to do front the great trust repro.4 in hint,.
he having free accuus to the goods in thc.factory ; and in rotas-
quence of the number of articles missing from time so time,
several men who worked in the factory were discharged, ro sus-
picion faking on the prisoner, who represented t s Lis eittyloye••
that some of the men were dishonor. In o.le irirrairre, a poor
man, who had a wife and four eh ldren, was discharge,:, on ?v.
picion of baying stdlen alsair of pistols, entrusted so the prisoner,
t 01; the purpose of protecting the factory at night, as be dept there; •
the poor man has been ouesif employ ever since. Several of tie •
atolun articles Were traced to the prisoner.—TEcw were Ave
charges made tit, and the prisoner was committed to Migrate
for trial: •

.

.

. COROMBR'S InVEST.
FLOOOINO a PAVPRIL—An Inquisition int, bald on
Saturday, at the Workhouse, Bethnal.greerr. cit the
body of ItonaaT POPS, of width the following ate the
particulars :
Airier-el 4leef deposed, that on Wednesday fort:-
night the deceased and he were together in the ward;
a number of persons belonging to the house rushed
violently into the ward; they laid hold of Pope, and
dragged him into the oakum cellar, and fastened the
door Inside : the Rev. Mr. Platt and Mr. Smith were
teen Visiting the house. 1 informed them what bad
taken place; they went to the cellar instantly, where
they found the deceased tied by a roie-yarfi round
both wrists to the tangs of a hammock. Mr. Platt
Waded the rope ; about twenty blows had been iofl c-
ted on his loins. He afterwards complained to the
Police Magistrates, who held the p irties to bail for
the assault. He died on Friday. 'Deceased had in-
formed the Committee that these parties had sot
over the wall of the ',aid at night and committed der
predations. --.
Henry Crenall...." I belong to the workhouse; I
was in the ward with the deceased, and saw him
taken by force into the oakum-cellar. He was tied
by a rope-yarn-round his wrists to a hammock. A
man named Kendall, and another, struck him Several
blows on his loins with one of the staves of an Irish,
butter-tub, about half anion* thick, and three inches
broad. He cried " Murder several times, and,
turning round, said, " Fray, don'tiw Mr. Platt
came down and pntied him. Neat day be complainesil
he was black and blue. very sole, and scarcely able
to lie in bed.. He was in a declining state before he
-received the. heating:"
loteitla Siering7 sworn.—.1 I was in the oakum.
room, :red saw two men (named Vint and Kendall).
bring the deceasfil down by force;' Joseph Saint and
Joseph Bass tied hichants with rape-yarns to a ham-
mock; Kendall and Saint struck the deceased twenty
times with a butter stave on. the liwer parts of him;
either Bass or Saint said, e‘ Give him another do.
zen !" the door was fastened inside; Mr. Platt came_
and released the deceased; Kendall said, in the
oakum.room, before he brought Pope in, that he had
been making a complaint to the gentlemen• of him
and others getting over the wall and taking things
out of the house with them. This is what I consider
they punished him for."
Robert Ford.—" I am door-keeper a I saw the de-
' ceased before and atter the punishment; I observed a
' change in him fur the worse ' • I perceived that he
walked limping, with his hand upon his loins. On
the day of his death, I visited him, by orders of the'
Mistress of the Workhouse, and found him vomiting
blood I he died soon after."
Two Medical Gentlemen opened his body, by the
Coroner's order—found a blood-vessel ruptured inter-
nally, and saw bruises and inflammation on his back
and loins. They considered it a matter of doubt,
whether the external violence might or might not
' have accelerated his death, though it was not.the int-
mediate cause of it.
The CORONER observed, that the punishment which
I had been inflicted on the deceased was grossly im.
proper and unjustifiable ; and if in eaneequeace of i'
hs was brought one moment nearer to his end, a cri-
minal charge, amounting, in his opinion, t r man-
Slaughter, would arise. But the Jury would tonsidrr
the doubts suggested by the Medical Gentlemen as
CO the cause of death in the verdict they were to re-
turn, Verdict—Ores/argil/et against Saint and Kendall.
Among tie vagrants brought up to GIs:Idles!! yes-,
tetalay, were several sailors, m the most wretched I
condition—among them were three of the heroes of
Algiers ! one of them had been blown up in the Im-
pregnable, and escaped with some severe cor tutions :
they were ail passed to their respective parigies.
A few days since, a healthy young man, named
Thomas Owens, of the parish of Combhay, met with
bib death in the following singular manner :—He re-
turned to his home late at night, and finding the door
locked, threw, himself down to sleep on a new-made
dung heap, the heat of which affected him so much,
that mortification ensued, and he died in a few hours.
A fire broke out on Monday night, at the cottage
of Mr. Coma's, in Kilburn-fields, which consumed
the same, consisting of four rooms. It was occa-
sioned by one of the children, who was entrusted with
a candle, setting fire to the window curtains. There
were two other children in bed, one of whom was so-
verely burnt, and it was with great difficulty they
were Dived.
Saturday se'luight, a pack of grouse, prrched on
the Methodist Meeting-house in the town of &tenor--
lir, in Ireland: -they were observed by a person who
shot one of them: It is supposed that the severity of
the storm forced them from their native mountains.
A few days prior to this,' single grouse was shot ow'
a tree, in the garden of Captain Cochrane, of Eden,
more, near the above place.
Night robberies are very frequent in bye-places be-
fore the setting of the watch. A Lady, named
Thorne, was attacked by three mimosa in passing
' to Bartholomew Close on Monday evening, just
after dark, one of whom snatched bet Mill abli :lisp
cule, containing eel and some silver, with which they
got off undiscovered.
Mr. THOMAS Larunatoes, of Kaweetby, near Ta-
tistock, a few days ago, out of 46 shots, bagged 44.
vie. 17 partridges, Sb oodcocks, a rabbit, and two
Nooks.
. A FICROCOUR DEPREDATOR! —Between three and
four o'clock, on Saturday last, a ferocious depreda-
tor made his appearance in the shape of a large hawk,
hovering in the air, on the northern aids of Westanin-
ster Abbey, from whence be painted down open a
flock of pigeons who were winging their way round
the Abbey, on their retVs home. .A beautiful milk-
white pigeon had the setsforestase* be seleNt4 from
his companions f
an his Eck d MIS drive. _slams
from the rest, apptlyby his wing. Then
seizing it in his talons he carried it of to the ppint of
one of the highest spires of *a Abbey, where ihe tore
it to pieces and devoured k..
_ln this work of de.
struction he was oceopiod needy ail host, dieing
which time a crowd of net fewer thanlivi Waned
persons were assembled, ur)snibrew stogies, and Wide
the welkin ring with. dais ' shoats and noises to
frighten him from his. ups:4 bet 411 to as pi
sate beyond their reach, and hum up r
s his she
did nut deign to mate them. ' There was r a
scramble among the crowd below for the. Ilastasie Of
the poor pigeon, each Cagar.sa 'Win Oise hip 1 app ho
fig of this famous ststarres.

"
I