The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-01-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

THE GALMOY CASE.— In the Dublin Consistory
Court the suit of Lady Galmoy against Lord Galmoy has
been dismissed, on the ground that both parties were dis-
entitled by their own conduct, each having proved the
charge against the otter.
LORD W. PAGET V. THE EARL OF CARDIGAN.—Mr.
Sergeant Channell moved for a rule to show cause why the
defendant should not have judgment as in case of a non-
suit. In support of the present motion, affidavits were
made by the defendant, his attorney, Mr. Powell, and the
clerks, who bad the conduct of the cause, stating, in the
most positive and unqualified terms, that neither he nor
they were, directly or indirectly, concerned in procuring
the absence of Winter, the principal witness. Rule nisi
granted.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.—On Friday
last, at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice Coltman, a case was
tried in which a Mrs. Hone sued a man of some property,
named Winstone, for damages for a breach of promise of
marriage. It appeared, that there was no love between
the parties, who were somewhat advanced in life. The
plaintiff is in humble circumstances, and several witnesses
had heard the defendant promise to make her Mrs. Win-
stone. In the expectation of the marriage she gave up
her school and shop. The defendant, who, it appeared,
was determined to have a wife, though his first helpmate
was but recently deceased, became acquainted with ano-
ther widow who possessed some property, and he married
her. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
£2OO.

THE WILL FORGERS.—On Monday morning, Messrs.
Barber and Fletcher, and Mrs. Dorey, the parties charged
with having committed various frauds on the government,
and whose case has been so often before the public within
the last few weeks, were brought up to the Mansion-
house, London, before the Lord Mayor, for re-examina-
tion. Mr. Clarkson (for the prosecution) said he had a
new and fourth charge to bring against the prisoners. The
learned gentlemen then proceeded to charge them with
having obtained the sum of Li ,300 by fraudulent means
and false affidavits, which had been paid over to the Com-
missioners for the reduction of the National Debt. It
appeared that a Mr. John Stuart, who had been head vr-
dener and steward to a Mr. Stroud, a rich gentleman in
Great Marlow, Buckinghamshire, bad died in 183 i, leav-
ing £5l per year in the Long Annuities, and that having
no relatives to claim the property, it passed into the hands
of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National
Debt. The charge against the prisoners was that by false
affidavits, fraudulent representations, and the personation
by Mrs. Dorey of an alleged sister of the deceased, they
succeeded in getting £7OO belonging to him as back in-
terest, and that they sold what remained of the stock for
upwards of £6OO. Another party, named Griffin, was
charged with being implicated, by a false affidavit, in the
transaction. The parties were to be brought up again on
Friday ; the first three to be finally committed. Mrs.
Dorey is rather a remarkable person. In 1834 she ap-
peared before the public as a plaintiff in an action for
breach of promise of marriage against the " Rev." Ro-
bert Taylor, the notorious lecturer on infidelity, in which
she obtained a verdict of £250; and one of the principal
witnesses was Fletcher. She was then Miss Richards,
and was housekeeper at the Rotunda, in Blackfriar's-
road, where Taylor lectured. She was then considered a
person of extraordinary abilities.