The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-09-29 00:00:00

SPANISH AUXILIARIES-MUTINY.

DUBLIN POLICE-OFFICE, TirunsoAr.—The adjutant of the
sth Highland Light Infantry, in the service of the Queen of
Spain, which regiment is at present on board the Cumberland
steamer, lying in Kingstown harbour, applied to the magistrates
for assistance to retake some of his men who had mutinied and
deserted from that vessel on her arrival here. Lieutenant Mar-
tin stated that he embarked last week at Glasgow, with a divi-
sion of his regiment, amounting to between two and three hun-
dred men, but owing to stress of weather the vessel was obliged
to ptit into Kingstown harbour. On Tuesday night a mutiny
broke out amongst the soldiers, who opened the arms chest, and
having armed themselves, they used violent and threatening
language towards their officers, for the purpose of intimidating
them. Towards morning, about thirty of them seized two boats
belonging to the steamer, in which they proceeded to the shore,
hne they disembarked and deserted, turning the boats adrift.
They carried away their uniforms and bounty. Si. of the men
had been retaken, and one of them, named Edward Regan, was,
he understood, a native of Dublin. He wished to know, under
these circumstances, if he could have the assistance of the police
to retake the remainder of the men.

The magistrates declined acceding to the application, as the
present case did not come within their criminal jurisdiction. It
was a mere breach of contract. The men had engaged to go to
Spain, but on their arrival at Dublin refused to perform that
contract. There was no law to compel British subjects to fo
to a foreign country, and they could not think of granting him
the police to force them to go. The adjutant said that the re-
fusal of the men to . perform, their contract was a breach of
morality, and as all law,was founded on morality, he was sure
that there was a law to provide a remedy in such -a
case as this.
Mr. Hamilton said that the principle might be good in ethics,
but not in law. The present was a contingency that the legis-
lature had not provided for. After endeavouring to impress
upon the magistrates the necessity of complying with his appli
cation,
and finding that they persevered in their determi
nation, the adjutant thanked them for their courtesy, and with-
drew.

SUPREME COURT, CALCUTTA, APRIL 9.

CRIM. CON:---LETII BRIDGE V. BEST.

The damages were laid at 30,000 rupees.
The Attorney-General stated the case for the plaintiff. The
plaintiff is a colonel of infantry, and the defendant a captain of
artillery, both in the company's service. The plaintiff was ;Par-
ried to Mrs. Lethbridge in 18L3. The match was originally
one of affection; they lived together ten or twelve years, and
had five children. The defendant was on intimate terms with
the plaintiff, and received from him every attention and kind-
ness which it was possible for hint to expect at the hands of a
brother officer. Ile was welcomed to the house, and entertained
at :jibe table of thee plainktiLit44 .hatl eYery,ppportunity ofewit-
flossing the harmony and feenng which- prevailed with the
plaintiff and his wife towards each other; yet, in spite of all the•
happiness he had been witness to, he had done the plaintiff the
bitter wrong to take from hint the partner who had lived with
him so many years in uninterrupted harmony and love. When
about to quit Kamptee, Captain Best was invited to -a farewell
dinner; but, though it was specially upon the occasion of his
leaving the place, Captain Best, to the surprise of all, was not
there. The dinner, however, was partaken of, and Colonel
Lethbridge, who was one of the party, returned home between
nine and ten, and found that his wife tad left him. The plain-
tiff's wife at the time of the elopement %yes 'on the eve of her
confinement, and was subsequently delivered of a daughter at a
place called Taukelghaut. The plaintiff, hearing of this, seat
two female servants to take charge of the child. Captain Best,
-,eho was with Mrs. Lethbridge when these servants arrived, left
the tent soon after they came in. Mrs. Lethbridge inquired
after her husband, and wept when she was told that he was in
great misery—that he was in tears. This, if the defendant bad
any feeling about him, and it is impossible to suppose him dead
t.o all the finer feelings of the human breast, must have stung
him more than anything else; and if the learned counsel bad
not mistaken human nature, such a scene as this could not
have taken place unless there were an affectionate bearing on
the part of her husband, and of fond reflection on her own.
The only redress which the law afforded the plaintiff would be
the damages awarded by the court. There was hardly bitter-
ness of spirit, hardly misery of mind, greater than that his client
must suffer to the end of his days from the deep injury he bad
received from the defendant 'the learned counsel would not
expatiate upon the circumstances which he Would prove in evi-
dence with any view to influence the minds of the court, for
those circumstances would speak bettoo forcibly themselves;
and the court would grant such 'damages as would mark its
sense of the unjustifiable, the aunwarrantable, and grievous
wrong which the -defendant hadperpetrated against the peace
and the happiness of his learned counsel having
concluded, put in the delendant's.adeditsion of the fact of the
plaintiff's marriage on the 18th-of December, 182.3.
Evidence of the terms on which theparties lived was given.
Lieutenant Rowlandsot sworn.'-24 atn a lieutenant in the
artillery. I married Colonel Lethbridge's daughter. I became
acquainted with him on his neat) from England, about three
months before my marriage. nem having married Colonel
Lethbridge's daughter 1 became very
intimate with the family,
and was at their house every day. They lived on the most affec-
tionate terms. The daughter I married was by a former wife.
I have had correspondence -01 th Worm! Lethbridge. They
had four children before the birth of the last, three boys and
one girl.
Cross-examined.—l know Capt. Best.• I'don't think he has
more than his bare pay; on contra' y, I think he is involved,
but have no idea to what extent. •
Several native witnesses proved the facts of the elopement,
and that Mrs. Lethbridge and Captain Best subsequently lived
together. We give the testimony of one of them.
Caumatchee sworn.—l -was an ayab iu the service of Mrs.

Lethbridge. About six o'clock i 5 the evening my master
dressed himself and went to a supper. I remember going to
fetch a chiid. My master went to the dinner' about live days
befo're I went to fetch the child; my mistress Was then in the
lay 7., hall drinking tea. I remember she went So her bed-room
alpmt seven o'clock in the evening. Upon my plaster's coming
home, he went and looked in the bed-room, and asked use where
she was. I said, "She is inside." My master said, " No. she
is not." I repeated that she was. My master said, "Come
and see; she is not there." Myself and dressingiboy then went
and looked, and my-mistress was not there. I never saw my
mistress again in that house. The fifth day after .my mistress
left the house I went to -Goongaum front haraptee, My mis-
tress was at Taukclghant. I found her at Taukelgliaut in a
tent, and ;spoke to her in the English language. She said to
me, "How is master, .ayah?" I said, " Master very sorry—
can't eat anything." Mistress cried, and told me to go out, and
I came away. She said, " I was very foolish that I came off."
I saw a child. Immediately upon my going there, mistress
said, " There is the child, avab, look." Then I was desired to
leave the tent; this was about half-past nine. .I did not tell her
that I came to take the child. I brought a letter from my mas-
ter to a gentleman named Lador, and that gentleman gave me
a letter to Mr. Best. Mistress told Me----" Take this little baby,
ayah ; take care of both children ; I can't come any more." I
saw a gentleman (Mr. Best) iu the tent. When I went into it,
he went out. Mr. Best was in the habit of coming to my mas-
ter's to eat his meals.

Mr. C. Teed addressed the court for the defendant. He sub-
mitted that there was no evidence-of any breach of friend-
ship, or that the defendant or plaintiff had ever been on
peculiarly intimate terms. The defendant, it had been proved,
was in the receipt of 400 rupees a month, and one of the wit-
nesses had said that he was involved. He was not, therefore,
in a situation to pay excessive damages, and'the learned coun-
sel submitted that it did not appear Irons the evidence to be a
case which called for heavy damages.
Sir R. Palmer, Chief Justice, remarked That, though there
was no evidence of any intimacy between the plaintiff and de-
fendant, there was vet no ealliative circumstances whatever in
favour of the defendant. Ihe court would not give damages so
excessive as would incarcerate the defendant for life, but the
court ought to give such damages as would mark its sense of the
great wrong committed by the defendant.
Damages, 10,000 rupees.
Sir ICCornyn agreed with the Lord Chief Justice. Poverty
was no excuse, and it were monstrous to hold that, because a
man is poor, he may, therefore, commit adultery with impunity.