The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-04-02 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Lonbon Crrracttr.

FRIDAY, MARCH 29th, 1833.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

M. Grogan and J. Cazneau, carters, Liverpool.—W.Duryer and Co.,
tea-dealers, Cannon-street.—W. Peete and R. Tippetts, surgeons,
Dartford, Kent.—W. S. and F. D. Osborne, cheesemongers, Great
Surrey-street, Blackfriars-road.—H. Meredith and J. Capner, button-
manufacturers, Birmingham.—ll. Newman and Co., curriers, Russell-
street, Bermondsey • so far as regards H. Newman.—B. and B. Webb,
jun., wheelwrights, 'Addle-hill, Doctors' Commons.—Z. Hulthen and
H. J. Lindgren, ship-agents. London.—F. Phillips and J. Smith,
warehousemen, Goldsmith-street, Cheapside.—P. J. Anthill and G.
Peters, spirit-dealers, Newcastle-on-Tyne.—J. and S. W. Cottam,
weavers, Donnington, Lincolnshire.—B. and R. R. Oakley, stock-
brokers, Bartholomew-lane.—T. Brookes and H. J. W. C. 12. Hays,
attorneys, Tewksbury.—S. Taylor and I. Smith, organ-builders, Ha-
lifax.— S. and W. Smallpage, mercers, Skipton, Yorkshire.—W.
Hawks and J. Marvin, butchers, Carnaby-street.—J. C. Williams and
J. N. Thompson, sur4eons, Nottingham—H. F. Witherby and J. B.
Dubose, merchants, Token-house-yard.—J.Williamson and W. Wass,
brewers, Oxford-street.

INSOLVENTS.

Thonias Woodhouse, jun. hosier, Milk-street, Cheapside.
William Abraham, china-dealer, Farnham, Hampshire.
BANKRUPTS.

Jacob Robson, ship.ontner. Newcastle-upon-Tvne.
Meyer Nathan, stationer, Skinner-place, Size lane.
Francis Preston, confectioner, St. George's-place, Hanover-square.
Alexander Mount Greig, wine-merchant, Great St. H elens, Bishops-
gate-street.
Edward May Bourchier, and Samuel Bonsor, tallow-chandlers, Ox-
ford-street.
Boykett Breeds, lime-burner, Hastings, Sussex.
Daniel Fraser, ship-owner, Pulteney-terrace, Pentonville.
John Mardon, saddler, Euston-place, Euston-square.
William Smith, Surgeon, Lymington, Hampshire.
James Dawes Stainbank, grocer, Honiton, Devonshire.
William Tipler, currier, Banbury.
William Yorke, ironmonger, Cirencester.
John Fairburn, grocer, Castloford, Yorkshire.
John Astburyand Samuel Davison, brewers, Stone, Stqffordshire.
John White, victualler, Newark-upon-Trent.
Richard Nell, bookseller, Grantham.
James Morris, baker, Cheltenham.
DIVIDENDS.

W. Roscoe, J. Clarke, and W. Roscoe, bankers, Liverpool, April
23, at one, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool.—G. Stowell and R.
H. Maddox, upholsterers, Lower Grosvenor-street, April 22.—K.
Poole, bill-broker, Ahchurch-lane, April 20.—R. Gascoyne, tailor,
Richmond, April 19.—8. Winch, sen., farmer, Hawkshurst, Kent,
April 19.—S. Lee, victualler, High-street, Poplar, April 19.—J. Mac-
donald, draper, Knareshorough, Yorkshire, April 22.—G. Birkin-
shaw, currier, Howden, Yorkshire, April 23.—W. W. Lyon, brewer,
Barton Turn, Staffordshire, April 22.—R. Gilson, victualler, York,
April 21.—S. Adamson and G. Eamshaw, corn-millers, Thurlston.
Yorkshire, April 19.—W. Lane and S. Lane, ironmongers, Manches-
ter, April 23.—J. Johns, printer, Devonport, May 14.—G. Bayley,
silk-mercer, Bristol, April 25.—T. Jackson, miller, Laverick
Cumberland, April 30.—T. Fuller, sen., T. Fuller, jun., and W.
Fuller, curriers, Lawis, Snssex, April 20.—J. Love, ironmonger,
Havant, Southampton, April 23.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shewn to the con-
trary on or before the 19th day of April.
G. Wyatt, common-brewer, Portpool-lane. 11. Wyatt, general
dealer, Northumberland-street, Marylebone.—A. Barnard, money-
scrivener, Norwich.—J. Stockhall, coal-merchant, Kidderminster,
Worcestershire.—D. Naylor, carpet-manufacturer, Manebester„—G.
Friend, wine-merchant, Great Charlotte-street, Lambeth.—J. Boo-
chant, merchant, Albany-road, Camberwell.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
(BEFORE BARON PENNEFATHER.)

CORK COUNTY RECORD COURT, FRIDAY.—ELIZABETH
DUNLEVIE v. ST. GEORGE RYDER BARRY.—Mr. Cop-
pinger opened the pleadings. This was an action of
assumpsit for a breach of promise of marriage. The
declaration contained four counts, varying the time of
the promise. The damages were laid at £3,000 and the
defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. Woulfe, K. C., stated the case at considerable
length, nearly as it appeared afterwards in proof. His
client was the daughter of a respectable clergyman of the
Established Church, who had died and left a widow with
three daughters and one son, with very little means of
support, barely enough to make respectable appearances.
The defendant was son of a Clergyman, a Lieutenant on
half-pay of the 12th Lancers. The intimacy between
plaintitnand defendant commenced in 1826. He con-
cluded his statement by saying that the defendant im-
peached the plaintiff in an anonymous letter with carrying
on a correspondence with a person of the name of O'Keefe,
and by means 'of this most consummate treachery sought
to terrify her from proceeding in the present action.
The letter, and he would read it for the jury, ran thus :
DEAR MISS DUNLEVIE.-It has come to Mr. Barry's
ears that you have had a habit of writing notes to a man
named O'Keeffe, in Patrick-street, or as we call him,
Budgy O'Keefe' (laughter in Court.) Mr_ Barry was
so grieved at hearing it, that he took to his bed for a couple
of days.

• • " Your sincere friend,—."
.That letter was put in the Cork Post-office last Novem-
ber, and it was written for the vile purpose of attempting
to def.& this young woman from bringing her action.
He (Mr. NV.) would not longer detain the jury ; they
would deal with the case as men of feelink, and as men
of conscience—as. fathers, husbands, and brothers ; he
committed it, to them with confidence, and with confidence
he lookecito the result of their judgment.
George Dunlevie, brother to the plaintiff, was the son
of the Rev. Mr. Dunlevie, Rector of Kilmore, who died
in 1821. He knew the defendant, who was a Lieutenant
on half-pay of the 12th Lancers. In 1826, two of his
sisters, Elizabeth, (the plaintiff;) and Diana, went on a
visit to the glebe of the defendant's father, the Rev. Mr.
Barry, Rathclaren, where they remained for near five
months. When his sisters returned from this visit,
Elizabeth made a communication to him which induced
him to write to Mr. Barry, and subsequently to seek an
interview with him. At this interview Barry admitted
that Miss E. Dunlevie-and he were engaged to each
other, and that he had proposed marriage to her. He
then asked him ( witness) what :fortune his sister would
have, which he, (witness) declined answering until he
had communicated with his mother, in whose hands solely
it was. He saw his mother accordingly, and commu-
nicated the result of his interview to Mr. Barry by letter.
Subsequently to this, he saw Mr. Barry with his sister
Elizabeth sometimes ; and Mr. :Barry's father having
died in 1830, he saw him on the parade, and asked him
respecting his intentions to his sister, and whether he
had received his letter. This was after the illness of his
sister. On that occasion the defendant entered into a
long explanation—saying that his mother was old and
infirm, and that he could not marry until she was settled.
This would not satisfy the witness, as, he observed Mr.
Barry had an opportunity of declaring off after the ill-
ness of Miss Donlevie, in consequence of the letter she
had.then written hiM, and that he required some more
definite answer. Defendant then said he wanted to see
his sister, which interview he had subsequently. The
illness which his sister had had in 1829, was a brain fever.
It occurred immediately after her leaving Kinsale.
Cross-examined.--He could not tell the exact number
of his family without considerable hesitation. He had
a sister in London, a Mrs. Miller ; London was a wicked
place, yet still his sister, Mrs. Miller, lived there. He
would not "cut" her if he saw her—on-the contrary, he
would speak to her and say, " how'dye do, Mrs. Miller,"
but'that was all. He had, he believed, four or five sisters.
Mrs. Miller was first; Elizabeth next—(she was then
about thirty-three years of age); Diana was next; Anne
was next; Mrs. Ponsonby next, and so on.. Anne had
been in a very bad state of health ; had:been out of her
mind ; and once walked out of a window. He (witness)
was married; but his family never visited his wife. He
was a member of the Trades' Political Union in Dublin,
and also a Volunteer—(laughter) and he it was who took
the chair very often, and whose name was in the news-
paper. He was also, besides all these, a law student,
(laughter). He thought the Arena a good training
place for a young orator and an Irish politician, though
he was free to admit it was not the best for the bar
(laughter.)
Diana Dunlevie, a pretty, little, clever looking young
lady. Was sister to the plaintiff, and had been with her
on a visit to Rathclaren, the glebe oc Mr. Barry's father.
in 1826, for five or six months; on that occasion Mr,
Barry, the defendant, had paid her sister more attention
than he did any other lady ; subsequently to their leav-
ing Rathclaren they went to Kinsale, and thence to Cork,
where her sister was taken ill ; during her illness, the
defendant came inquiring after her every day; after her
sister's recovery she went on a visit to the county of
Waterford, and when she returned, in about a mortth,
she and witness met Mr. Barry on the Parade one after-
noon • • Mr. Barry came up to them and asked her sister
should they be friends ? and her sister said, "Are you
going to be married to. Maria S—." He answered,
" No—what the devil business would I have of her ?"
(loud laughter.) She then consented to be in friends
with him, and he made her a present of a very handsome
work-box. He proposed to meet her next day, and she
consented. Subsequently to this, in 1832, witness met
Mr: Barry- again in Patrick-street; this was after his
father's death, On that occasion he said to her that he
had got a letter from his sister respecting the amount of
her fortune. ThiS letter he shewed her ; but it was not
her sister's hand-writing, but his own. He then said he
wished to see her sister; and he saw her accordingly,
and shewed her the letter, but she could not read it, he
kept her so muchnccupied in answering him. On that
occasion, also, he said that he was ready and willing to
• fulfil his engagement if what was said in that letter res-
pecting fortune was fulfilled. In it the fortune was sta-
ted to be eight hundred pounds. He also observed that
he could not have the least animosity to her, if she got
41,000 damages against him ; and her sister said, " You
should not, because you know I deserve it." It was on
that occasion likewise he said "how d'ye do, Bessy ?"
(langhter)—and asked " what sort of a name is that your
attorney has got?"—" Collins" (laughter.) "`Timothy
:Collins !—how shocked and suprised I was to see Timo-
thy Collins at the bottom of a letter about you." (Re-
newed laughter.) " Why have not you as grand an at-
torney as I have ? Mr. Exham. that lives on the South-
mall, and keeps his own carriage, is my man." (Shouts
of laughter.) He then said something about the fortune,
and her sister said she would inquire of her mamma.
She did so, and mamma told her £5OO with an insurance
on her life. "Oh," said he, " that won't do. have
nothing to do with insurances—mamma might bury. my-
self." (Roars of laughter.) He then went off, shaking
hands with her at the door.

Cross-examined.—She did not know Budgy O'Keeffe,
(laughter.)
George Ponsonby.—Was brother-in-law to the plain-
tiff: It was always known and understood that she was
engaged to the defendant. He (Mr. P.) had observed
him to be particularly marked in his attention to her.
During the period of Miss Dunlevie's illness in 1829, the

defendant, Mr. 8., had met him (witness) and asked him
in the most anxious manner, about. his Bessy. When
he learned from him that she was very ill, he appeared
very uneasy, and requested him (witness) to ascertain
at that moment the actual state of her health. This be
did. Subsequently, while she continued ill, he called
every day at the door, or sent a messenger to inquire
after her health. In 1831, witness, finding that Mr. B.
by the death of his father was left at perfect liberty,
waited on him in Cove at his house, and stated the object
of his visit to be a desire to have a definite answer respect-
ing his intentions towards the plaintiff, his sister-in-law.
Defendant said he,never would marry her. He (witness)
said that was a most extraordinary proceeding and a most
extraordinary answer. Defendant again repeated that
Pe would not marry her; and witness then asked him
what had induced him to come to that conclusion ? "Sir"
said he, "my family have advised me not to marry her
in consequence of the illness she had in 1829, for they
'don't conceive she is a person I ought to marry, or any
man ought to marry. "I," continued the witness, then
said, " Sir, you must be prepared to take the conse-
quences ; and he answered at once, "what consequences ?
If you come here with any hostile views I will meet you
•at mice." Witness declined that mode of settling the
.matter; and having come to Cork, placed the affair in
.the hands of his attorney for the plaintiff'. The witness
ibelieved the anonymous letter about "Budgy O'Keetfe"
'to be in the hand writing, though disguised, of the de-
fendant ; he had no doubt whatever on the subject.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that he never
saw Mr. Barry write; but that his judgment was formed
,from the letters which he had occasionally received from
him for Miss Dunlevie.

Sir Emanuel Moore, Bart., first stipulating for his ex-
penses, was then examined.—He knew the families of
both parties to have been most intimate ; he knew also
the hand-writing of Mr. Barry, and he thought the letter
of Budgy o:Keeffe bore a great resemblance to it; in-
deed if he had received it in the ordinary course of busi-
ness, he would have considered it as his hand-writing.
Cross-examined.—He had had a confidential conver-
sation with Mr. Barry a short time before concerning the
plaintiff's family. The worthy baronet detailed it as
follows have a sister who is a very religious woman,.
and who lives on the Glanmire road, I often borrowed
money from her (laughter, arising from the naivete with
which the worthy gentleman related the latter circum-
stance)—and she often lent it to me. The Dunlevies—
Mrs. D. and her daughters—lived near her. My sister,
whenever I was• in her house, used often to press me to
prayers after dinner (great laughter). One day I asked
her for the loan of a lttle money—(laughter)—and she
said to me, "Manny, I'll give it to you if you stay away
from the Dunlevies, and come to prayers with me" (roars
of laughter..) The learned Counsel 'put a number of
other questions to the witness, until at last he brought to
his recollection a communication he had made to the
defendant about something that had occurred six or seven
years ago. It was about a scene in a bed-room. I was,
continued the embarrassed Baronet, with a friend in a
house on the Dvke at supper—(here he twisted his hat
with great rapidity)—at supper—at supper—(laughter)
—and my friend got tipsey—and he made me get tipsey
—(repeated bursts of laughter)—and here is all I have
to say on the subject. When we were going into bed,
some lady came into the room to assist my friend in—in
—in—(repeated peals of laughter, in which the court
most heartily joined.) The worthy Baronet forgot to
finish, if lie ever designed to do so, his sentence. He
was very tipsy, he said, at the time, and—(when the
uproarious merriment had ceased)—he was very tipsey ;
and the lady came in from the kindest motive in the
world at the time (renewed laughter.) That lady was
Mrs. Dunlevie ; she walked into the bed-room ; my
friend had not the use of his legs—(roars of laughter)—.
there was another female with her at the time, and she
took away the lights. All that was at Mrs. Nash's.
Henry Uvedale was called to prove that the billet
about Kudgy O'Keefe was put into the Post-office in
November, 1832.

The Rev. Thomas Forrest.—Was a friend of the de-
fendant, and' had gone in 1832 to Mrs. Dunlevie at his
request, and empowered by him to treat about the for-
tune of the plaintiff. He was authorised by him to say,
that he was ready and willing to fulfil his engagement to
her if the fortune was forthcoming. Mrs. Dunlevie
agreed, and wished to explain the nature of the fortune.
But he referred her to his friend, the defendant's solicitor,
Mr. Exham, as he (witness) was neither a lawyer, or an
attorney. He went only as a.peacemaker.
Messrs. Collins and Coppinger, attorneys-at-law, were
next examined. The letters (seventeen in number)
which passed between defendant and plaintiff were • then
put in—they contained nothing save an occasional "Dear
Bessy and Dear Ducky ;" and now and again a signa-
ture of " Ducky St. George Barry." One said, he (the
defendant) retained the same affection for her (the plain-
tiff) still. Another, that he'd ever remember the happy
days he had spent with her; a third, that he would re-
turn her letters if she chose, and a fourth, that he never
thought she would cause him so much uneasiness. They
were all as frigid as possible; and certainly greatly dis-
appointed the crowd of scandal-mongers and scandal-
lovers, of all ranks and ages, who crowded the court in
every quarter.
The case here closed for the plaintiff, and .
Mr. G. Bennett, before he proceeded to address the
jury, called on his Lordship for a non-suit, on the ground
that there was no general promise proved against his
client, the defendant. All the proof which appeared went
to show that the promises made,were conditional, and
none of them general.
Mr. Bennett addressed the jury for the defendant at
some length, contending that there was no proof of a
general promise to marry—that if there were a promise,
it was only on condition that the defendant should get a
fortune of £BOO at his father's death with the plaintiff,
which, though offered, was not secured, and With Out
which defendant would not be able to . support a wife in
the rank in which he was desirous-she should move. He
disclaimed and denied, in the most public manner, that
the letter which had been ascribed to his client was writ-
ten by him. If they did not take this view of the case,
and if they thought the plaintiff entitled to a verdict they
would have to consider what damages the defendant could
afford to pay out of his half-pay and the interest of £4OO
which had been left him.
Baron Pennefather charged the jury at great length.
The jury should be satisfied, should be satisfied in order
to brim:, in a verdict for the plaintiff, that the defendant
not onq made her a promise of marriage, in particular,
but that. he made her a general promise. He (Baron
Pennefather) bad been called on by defendant's Counsel
to grant a non-suit, on the ground that no such general
promise existed or was proved—but he then thought the
case warranted him in sending it before a jury, and he
had heard nothing since to-induee him to alter that opi-
nion. If the promise, as was alleged by the defendant,
was conditional, that a fortune should be given with the
plaintiff, then, in case you find that proven, you must
give a verdict against her; but it was for the jury to ex-
amine whether this contract existed prior to the wrilten
release made by plaintiff to the defendant in 1826, sase-
quent to her illness ; and whether, if it did, it was
.the
same which was understood on the renewal of their ac-
quaintance and at an after period. The Learned Baron
then recapitulated the evidence minutely, and-dii@oted,
• when he had done, the jury to retire.
1 The jury, after 15 minutes' deliberation, returned with
a verdict for the plaintiff-1'