The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-04-21 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BEllCll.—Aram 19.

11ARRINT WILSON e. 5111 B. W. WILSON'
This was an action brought by Miss Wilson, against
Sir fl. %V. Wil on, to recover the arrears of an annuity of
2CO/..which he had engaged to pay her, by quarterly
sums of LOi. Thedeclaraion stated as the consideration
of the promise, that the plaintiff was a governess in the
family of Lord Sandwich, and that the defendant en-
gaged to 17 ake this provision for her in ease she should
leave it. It appeared that Sir Henry Wilson had disco-
vered that the lady was his sister, and thinking it im-
proper' that she should continue a governess, prevailed on
her to leave a situation in. which she was the object of
much affectionate solicitude and esteem. The case restbd
el% his letters; and on these the Lord Chief Justice
thought no legal annuity was matte out, and nonsuitcd
the plaintiff, giving Mr:Gurney leave to move to enter a
verdict for the amount of the arrears.
Mr. Grassy now moved to set aside the nonsult, and
o enter so eh verdict.
The Coea'r expressed no opinion on the point, but
granted a rule to show rause.

CONSISTORY COURT.—SATUIDAT.
ALLEGED CLERICAL IRREGULARITIES.
THE PARISH OF GREAT WALTHAM V. TUE REV. DOCTOR
CLARKE.
Doctor S*ART addressed the Court in support of ar-
ticles promoted by the Churchwardens of the parish of
;rest Waltham, • Esecx, on behalf of themselves and
parishioners, against the Rev. Dr. Ueorge Somers
Parke, Vicar of reaid parish, for divers neglects and irre-
giolviries in the discharge of his clerical functions ; for
refusal and neglect to perform the office of burial; for
refusal and neglect to perform the office of baptism;
for refusal and neglect to perform the ceremony of mar-
riage; for refusal and neglect to perform public wor-
'hip ; and for divers other neglects and irregularities.—
The charges were exhibited in 20 articles; and deposi-
tions were made in their support by 21 witnesses. The
deposition., which were very long, were read by Dr.
Luebineton and Dr. Dodson. It was stated that on oc-
casion of one of the deponents having applied to him to'
know when he could conveniently perform the burial ser-
vice at the funeral of the deponent's son, who was thee
dead, Doctor Clarke inquird of him whetherhe hail oot
been at the Six Bells public-house; and the deponent
having answered that lie bad been there to order soma
beer to be given to the b f his son's body when
,be shonliUning it for interment. Dr. Clarke told him,
t'et I
"as be (the deponent), chose to deil with people
that hadinsnlted him (Doctor Clarke), he would not
bray his child at, all.". And the deponent was, in conse-
quenee of Doctor Clarke's. refine!, obliged to have his
child buried in another parish. I n another case, it was I
deposed, that Dr. Clarke refused to bury a corpse in the'
part of the church-yard where the family of the deceased
were buried, st”ing, that as his parishioners had indicted
the path-way lie had made through the church-yen', be
would bury it in no other part of the church-yard titan
that path-war. The deposit;ons stated two instances of
Doctor t.larke having refused to baptise children, be-
cause their parents, when they brought them to church
for that purpose, had gone into the Six Bells public-
house, before they went to the church : the parents and
several witnesses deposed, that they had not drank any
thing at the public-house, but merely mot in to rest
after a long walk. Several witnesses deposed to the Rev.
Dr. Clarke having kept the church *bed on Sundays,
and refused to perform divine service, though not pft-
vented by sickness, nor any other justifiable cause ; and,
also, that he refused to allow vestries to be held in the
church, saying, they might he held in the Six Bells;
and, on one occasion, when the churchwarden gave no-
tice in rbe church, immediately after divine service, that
a ve,try would he held on a day lie named in the next
week, the Iter. Doctor Clarke said, in a loud voice, "and',
1 glee notice that 1 will not do duty in this church again
until the windows are mended." And on another occa-
sion, too persons having come into the church while Dr.
Clarke was preaching, be broke off his sermon, and said,
" Yoo that are come in to make observation*, may count
the broken panes in the wisdom." •
The Judge (Sir Cruttsvorees ROBtPISOH) addressed
Doctor Clarke, who was in Court during the whole
of the proceedings, and said, that as lie defended him-
self. the Court was desirous of giving him every pos-
. aible indulgence; and. he might either enter on his
defence then, or on the next court day. as be thought fit.
Dr. Clarke sail, he would take till the next court day.
Sir C. Roar:teen directed the officer of the Court to
admonish Dr. Clarke to attend on the next court day
afterwhich the Court adjourned.
. .

. • • • ----:-
CIOURN OF COMMON PLEAS.—SATCROAT.
1.100•11ATT OF 71145 BARGAINS IN FOREIGN STOCR.,
• VAN ROSSUI4 V. TAYLOR.
• Mr.-Sergeant Pett moved for a rule to chew cause why
• a sett trial should not be granted in this case. This was
an *ellen-to recover the loss occasioned by the difference
• in *bat is called " time bargains" on the purchase of
Colombia* librids. There were several objections, the
' first seeped of Which were, that the contract of
• " Wright-notes" of the snack required a ramp, as being
agreements for the purchase of certa in stock, such stock
• .uot being wares, merchandise," /sc. whin the mean-
• ing of iheStamp Act. The third objection was, that if
' these i•oarriet no!es could not be received as evidence
vid, of
the purVhase unstamped, then the contract
there being no memorandum such as was required by the
statute of (rands. The fourth objection arose from the
went of authority under which the plaintiff had made
good the loss. If he itad‘peld the money, he had paid
•rt In hi: own wrong, and could not now recover it. The
plaintiff had. represented himself, in the first instance, as
' the broker, and afterwards demanded the loss as the
principal; and on this fact the fifth objection was found-
ed, Ma person being by law (as the Learned Sergeant con-
teatiiii) allowed to act as principal and agent in the same
traniaction in the sale or purchase of stock. The last
of etiow was one of the greatest public importance.
llothergain- was clearly and indisputably a tune bar-
gain; era to.te questh.n.with, whether such bargains in fo-
-reign stta vete not illegal, as coming within the pro-
. eriroui`Olf• Sir J. Barnard's &cock Jobbing Act, which it
'waft eotitended oh the ether side applied to British funds
stock Was not alluded to in the Act.
Chief Justice Oaitatt.--This is clearly a stock -jobbing
tranaaition, and Sir John li*rnard's Act, which was
made to *vent that " infamous practice" of stock-
sh a
nd
biwg.' seem** eqnally to apply to Jobbing in Briti
• Foreign securities. Take your rule as •tt is prayed for.
Rule grille&

. OLD BAILEY.—SreuRDAY.
--0.---
or.: H. eq. a rnds; assa96 rears of age, of genteel I
asst.' fashi..pe,We appeal-sure:stood indicted for woarryins '
Julia Hraliyi his wife Elisabeth Thomson Capon, being
themalise,
Dori.' Absalom, sworn—Has known the pyisoner at
the bar from his clwiaborKi; he lived in tirrat Yar-
month; in Xorfolk, awl is a tailor by trade: Witness is
. parikb clerk ft•Oreut Yarmouth Church; remembers the
Rimer being inarried at Yarmouth Church, on the 25.11
• lilo-Elixabeth Thomson Capon; was present
till
it ecekeotypf, "and cannot be mistaken in the person
'of die prisoner.. Witross"liis seen Elisabeth Thomson
Cars4olsilitent to the prisoner's marriage with Julia
Healer •
el
the prisoner; who conducted his own defence, pro-
ieeeded treteartauther the witnestin tile MAtlat pert and
flippant style,,alid elarfregeelitly reninied by the Re-
corder that be was askit'g improper questions.