The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-01-28 00:00:00

THE S:rATEism4N.

"----
- " delft OF iiiiNdittlf.-- Virus- iAt.
• —........
LINCOLN'S INN HALL.
IN THE MATTER OP MR GREGORY PAGE TLRNER.
The SouctTon-Gewaaat bad an application to make to
the Court, that this unfortunate gentleman's mother, and
Mr. Baron, who married his sister, might be at liberty to
propose themselves as the Committees.
Mr. Pmenawrosr appeared to oppose the application.—
He did not understand that these petitioners were the next
of kin of Sir 0. P. Turner.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he was not aware that
the petition was to have been opposed.
His LORDSHIP expressed some dissatisfaction at this
Interruption. together with others apparently ready
to be made, by which the case of " Orimstead" was
stopped.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL then proposed that his peti-
tion should stand over till Thursday morning, which
twine consented to, the Court went on with " exparte
Grimstead, in the matter of Howard and Gibbs."

COURT OF KING'S BENC/L—.-YESTERDAY.
XING V. BARROW.
The point in this case arose from a deed of separation
between the defendant and his wife, in which the plain-
tiff was trustee. The difficnlty was, whether the adultery
of the wife subiequently to the separation invalidated her
title to the annuity covenanted for her in the deed of
separation.
Mr. CHITTY argued for the validity of her claim, not-
withstanding subsequent adultery, and cited a great num-
ber of cases in support of his argument. It was not likely
that the husband would bare executed sncli a deed, or the
wife agreed to it, especially as none of the children were
allowed to live with her, unless there had been previous
infidelity, or at least a suspicion of it.
The Loan Cuter JUITICR.—Looking at this record, we
eannot say whether the adultery in the Ecclesiastical
Court was before or after the separation.
Mr. CHITTY assented, but put it, that the separation was
most likely to have been oressioned by such violation of
duty on the part of the wife. A separation might have
been agreed upon, and this provision allowed to the wife,
with consent of a Clergyman, the plaintiff in this case, in
order to avoid the exposure and expense of ecclesiastical
proceedings. Her acceptance of so small an annuity as
f(OL was also evidence of her consciousness of having
violated her duty.
The LORD COIFS JUSTICE.—We cannot know whether
a small or large sum.
Mr. PATTISON argued on the other side, that the adul-
tery entirely did away with the indentnre for annuity. If
there had been a reconciliation, that would have annulled
the annuity, as decided by several cases, ultich he cited.
Now what prevented this reconciliation here, but the adul-
tery of the wife? She brought her suit for restitution of
conjugal rights, and the husband resisted it by pleading
her adultery.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—ire cannot say whether that adul-
tery was before or a'ter that separation.
Mr. PATTISIN.—There has been a decree of divorce.
7.1 r. Justice liAvt,ev.—Yes, but upon a species of evi-
dence on which this Court can :levet act.
Mr. Pal-1u50:4.-1 here adultery had been held not to
be sufficient, because the husband might have connived.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.--YOll might have pleaded
adultery, and you have not done so. You have only
pleaded that the husband had pleaded her adultery, in au-
saver to claim of restitution.
Mr. P. submitted that that was stronger ground than the
plea of adultery, because it showed that the husband was
free from all suspicion of connivance. But if the Court
thought o.:-.::wire, lie contended that the deed was in itself
void, because it was I:0! a deed of separation but of agree-
ment of separation. The deed was with the trustee, who
agreed to indemnify the husband againstdebts which might
lie contracted by the wife.
The Loup Cciiis, .11:slur:E.—Will not the question result
to this—that there lias prevailed an uniform course of
decisions in Courts of Equity and Law for more then a
century upon this subject, though every Judge may have
fur himself said that if the matter were res integra, he
would decide otbernise. The highest tribunal has never
decided against such an allowance. Would it not then he
an excess of jurisdiction in this Court to decide against
this uniform practice at the present day?
11r. PArrisoN again pointed out the distinction between
an at regiment to separate and a separation.
The COURT Geld II at there had been the determination
to separate. It was an iinoteiliate inanition.
The Lotto fluter Jeweler said he would only add, that
the husband might have made the annuity conditional, on
their living separate, and her living chaste. tie had not
(lune so here.
Mr. Justice Itavi.er thanglit there might be cues in
which it would lie desirable to remove the bad example of
the mother from the observation of her ehildreo, but
it was not tow rca lateens. The adultery was not,
in fact, brought before this Court ; but a plea which
Mr. PAttison himself conceded to be opposed to uniform
decisions.
Mr. Justice lioutovn was of opinion that this was a
valid deed, as it was nride with a trustee, who indemnified
the husband, not only from future debts, hut from claims
of jointure. His Lordship commented at length on the
cases cited.
Mr. Justice Bear distinguished this case from one of
reconciliation, upon the ground that reconciliation would
have superseded the necessity of further provision for the
wile. The Lord Chancellor was known to entertain a
strong opinion against articles of separation, yet he had
not felt himself strong enough to invalidate them.—
Nothing could be more dangerous than to deride upon
supposed public policy. Notwithstanding his respect
tor the Lord Chancellor, he did nut feel so strongly on

the policy.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
The Loan CHUM JeSTIcE said that it tumid he more
convenient to proceed no further in the Special Paper, as
there were some motions fur new trials.
GAMING-HOUSE.
wiLLIAMS v. TAYLOR.
The ATTORET-01NitnAL moved to set aside the verdict
in thine's', and to have a new trial. The case had been
tried in this Court a few days ago. It was an action
brought by the plaintiff, under the Statute of Anne, to re-
cover quadruple the mils Info. IT his brother at the gaming
ttble. The slim sued for *vas upwards of 2,000/. The
Jury lad found only for a liwc of 4701., and for the penal
amount of 6901. He founded his motion upon the ques-
tion put by the Jury when they returned, and asked his
Lordship whether they could find a verdict for part of the
sum. This was clear proof that the only witness for the
plaintiff was not believed. They gave their verdict contra-
ry to the weight of the evidence, possibly from cotnpas-
slut), possibly from prejudice. The paper, pretended to be
the acconut of losses from day to day, he now held in his
hind, and was manifestly written at one time.
The LORD enter JUSTICIL—HoW has it come into your
possession ?
The Arronnev-GeNtRAL.—It was found in the defend-
ant's book when they were returned. The Learned Gent.
then proceeded to comment upon the contradictions to the
plaintiff's evidence.
The Loan Cuter 3T/slim—The credit of the witnesses
and of this paper was purely far the consideration of the
Jury. If they had believed both, and given the whole
amount proved, ought the Court to disturb the verdict ?
He certainly thought not. Ought the verdict to be disturb-
ed then because they gave lees P He thought not. The
'defendant's books were very suspicloas.
•

ThiefasiiatisTfil edrieurtad.
Mr. Justice. Barr thought the Jury gave a merciful
rerilict.
Rule refused.

SKINNER V. TUCKER.
This nag an action to recover the penalty of 100/. against
the defendant. under the 55 Oro. 111. c. 137, s. 6, which
enacts that no clinrchuarden, overseer, or other person
having the management of the poor. shall in his own name,
or in the name of any other person, provide, furnish, or
supply, for his own profit, any goods for the use of any
workhouse, or for the support of the poor in his parish.
daring his appointment, nor shall he concerned directly or
indirectly in furnishing or supplying the same, or in any
contract relating thereto, under pain of forfeiting lOU
At the trial before the Lord Chief Justice in Middlesex, it
was clearly proved that the defendant, being overseer of a
parish near Holborn. did interfere in obtaining for a rela•
lion a contract for coals, and'assiated him to perform It.—
The suggestion made was, that he was himself really the
contractor; hut the witness, who was of necessity call-
ed, swore positively that he had no pecuniary interest in
the bargain; the Lord Chief Justice left the jury to say
whether he had or not ; and they found a verdict for the
defendant.
Mr. GURNEY now moved for a rule to show cause why
there should not be anew trial, on the ground that this d►-
rection was wrong ; for, under the lut clause of the act, it
was not necessary that the parts' offending should have a
pecuniary interest in the transaction.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause.

COURT OF COM 110 N PLEAS-YESTERDAY.

8 COCK EXCHANGERGAINS TRANS ACTIONS.—TIME
BA .
RAWLINGS V. HALL.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a
s'ock-broker, to recover on a Bill of Exchange accepted
by the defendant, who resisted the cl tiro oa the ground
of the corrupt and illegal nature of the consideration for
which it was given, it bring for the settlement of the
differences on accounts in certain time bargains for Stock
between the parties. The Jury on the trial found for the
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN now moved to art aside the
verdict, on the ground of the corrupt nature of the transac-
tion, on the ground of one of the witnessee, the broker in
the transaction, having refused to rimier certain questions
on the trial, and to produce his books, the Learned Judge
(Burroughs) before whom the cause was tried, having
rub d upon objection raised, that the witness was neither
hound to answer if he conceived his answer might expose
him to the danger of a prosecution for penalties under the
Act of 2 tiro. 11. cap. viii., commonly called Sir John
Barnard's Act, nor produce the book. if it contained
evidence which might he turned against himself on such
prosecution. In support of his motion the Learned Ser-
geant argued that the iiitness was nut defended from
answering the question, because. looking at the date of
the transaction, and the period of time which had subse-
quently elapsed, there was no possibility of any proceeding
for penalties upon that transaction !reing ins:tared against
the broker. The business was done, according ,to the
memorandum of the account in the broker's hand-writing
in April, lb-23, and the trial took }dace in December, coo-
sequently more than six months hail elapsed.
blr. Justice PARK —Bat the penalties under Sir John
Barn ird's Act may he used for withiu twelve months,—a
period which had not then elapsed.
Mr. Sergeant VAUIIIIAN then proceeded to argue that the
proceeding fur the penalty was in the nature of a civil
suit, and analogous to an action for debt, and therefore
the witness wee bound to answer by the terms of the Act
46 Geo. 111. Cap..l7.
Mr. Justice PARR referred to the statute, and read the
clause recited by the Learned Sergeant, which enacted
that a witness should not be excused from answering,
through fear of exposing himself by his answer to any
proceeding for debt, or any civil suit, either at the suit of
the Crown, or of any private person, but should be obliged
to answer unless there was danger of exposing himaelf to
penalty or forfeiture, or to any proceeding for recovering
the sante.
Mr. Sergeant VAEGIIAN then proceeded to urge the
third ground on which he rested his motion, viz., the
refusal by the Broker to produce his book. The Statute
to which lie had before referred, obliged the Broker to
keep a book containing an accaunt of all bargains in stock
transacted by him ; or iplevionahly to serve as evidence of
the nature of such transactions, but that enactment would
he wholly nugatory it it were to be contended that the
Broker, though hound by the Act of l'ariament to keep
such a hook, could not be rappelled to produce it in
evidence whenever called upon to do so. When the Court
looked to the object of the Litislature in pasaing that Act.
which was to check those transaction.; which it described
as infamous, and to put an end to gerribling in the putlic
funds, be was sure they would feel disposed to put the most
liberal construction upon it, with a view to furthering that
object. When, therefore. they found that the Act with a
view to the securing of such evidence of the nature of such
transactions as might ensure the conviction of the parties
engaged in them, directed that such a book should be
kept, he felt assured that they wonlil not allow the inten-
tion of the, legislature to he defeated by the refusal of the
broker to produce his hook in evidence, u hen called upon
to do so, though the refusal should even b.' granted upon
the avprehension of exposing himself thereby to a proceed-
ing for the recovery of the penalties to which he may have
rendered himself liable by such transactions under the Act
of Parliament.
The Leap CHIEF JUSTICR--." We will not trouble you,
Brother Vaughan, any further at present; the poiut is
certainly deserving of consideration, yon may therefore
take your rule."—Hule granted.

EDWARDS V. nELL AND OTHERS.
This was an action against the publisher proprietors
of The Times for having published a deratovito:y libel' on
the plaintiff, a Dissentinelinister. The defendants plead-
ed first nut guilty, and secondly a jn,t:fication ; and the
cause .vas tried at the Sittings after last Trinity Teruo,
when the Jury, under the direction of Mr. Justice Btu-
Plug It, xho tried the cause, returned a verdict for the plain.
tiff on the general issue, with 40a. damages, and fur the
defendants on the special jas•ification.
Mr. Sergeant PELL on a former day in this Term had
obtained a rule to shew cause why the verdict should nut
be entered for the ottiutiff, on the whole of the pleadings
non obstanie veredieto, on the grotind that the justification
did not sufficiently cover the words ot the libel.
Mr. Justice PARK on this day read an abstract of the
pleadings. and Mr. Sergeant VAughan ap:P-ared on behalf
of the defendants, to allow cause against the rule. Mr.
Sergeant 'faddy followed on the saute side. Mr. Sergeant
Pell replied in support of the rule, and was followed by
Mr Sergeant
The LORD CRIES JUSTICE then d. livered judgment, ob-
serving that in this case a motion had been made to enter a
verdict for the plaintiff, notwithstanding the motion for
averment on the part of thr defendant, in justification of a
libel which was the subject of the action. His Lordship
next adverted to the principal points of the libel, and said
that the sting of it appeared to hint to be in the alteration,
which imputed to the plaintiff that he had indulged in per -
sonalinvccires, and that too in a place which ought to be
Appropriated to religious and moral instruction. This was
certainly a grave and serious charge, hut then the defendant
"justified it ; for the words in question could not be con-
' sidered in any other sense than as personal invective,. The
allegation in the plea showed that the plaintiff had uttered
the words, and that the answer was sufficient to prose
them to have been personal invectives. The words, as be
understood-tbem, did not refer to the character of the fe.

malt in her capacity as teacher, but to herwerrevareandttet
,Yet, as the libel was in the charge- fit oittring personal
invectives, thus far the substantial part of thejustifization
was (math out. As to that part *Ws' r•feired to the
matter being about to be taken op seriously, it might
ei-
titer mean that some proceedings were in contemplation for
removing the party from the situation he filled as minister
,o the chapel. or that the female herself would seek redress,
against him. Under all the circumstances of the case, his
opinion was, that the ju•tiftcation was made out, and that
the judgment in favour of the defendant ought to stand
affirmed.
Mr. Jnstice PARR and Mr. Justice BURROUGN coincided
in opinion with the Lord Chief Justice, and the rule was
accordingly discharged.

POLICE.
Maarstoar-Housg.—The keeper of the workhouse of St.
Sepulchre's parish yesterday attended, as we understood,
to acquaint the Lord Mayor that he had received Margaret
Rice, the unfortunate girl whose case of attempted suicide
and seduction by a Quaker was stated in our paper a few
days since. The keeper begged to state to his Lordship,
that the case as it appeared in the public papers was very
much mitigated, and that the full circumitances of the
case were of extreme aggravation. The Quaker who
seduced the unfortunate girl was a man of about 35 years
of age. and she• was only 18. He had pursued her for
more than eighteen months before he effected his pnrpose
During that time she lived in a very respectable situation,
and was very lunch liked. He persuaded her to leave it,
and go and live with his mother. When she accepted the
situation, he made us,• of the opportunities that it gave him,
and in about 8 months after she gave way to the promise of
marriage which be ;wade ta her. He (the workhouse-
keeper) had been to the mother of the Quaker, who still
refused to have any thing to do with tier, and would only
believe that her son was reduced. She allowed no corn-
passion whatever for the unfortunate girl. The former
mistress gave her an excellent character, and so well con-
vinced was she of her innocence, that she offered to take
her back into her service after she was delivered.
The Lorin Nletrott expressed his pleasure at this state-
ment, and requested that every attention aright be paid to
the pour girl. In consequence of the report of the state
menu, he hail received :A., which sum had been sent by
sonic charitable person, van to he given to the unlortu-
nate girl, and part to be hestoiseil as a reward to the poor
woman who proven ed her committing suicide, and with
rare generosity received her, when she was spurned for her
misfortune by othe:a of her sex.—The Quaker has not yet
been found.
James Benjamin. a middle-aged man, was charged under
the. Vagrant Act, with having been found begging and
sweeping the streets In Cheapside. The prisoner, it ap-
peared, was a shoemaker, an inhabitant of St Luke's, and
had been compelled, by the sickness of his wife, and a great
deal of distress, to apply to his parish for relief. Warn lie
attended the Board he only obtained two shillings, and
when he afterwards applied to one of the ov..rseers, who
went and saw the distress of his family, he only got a
abilling more, and was told to go and sweep the s'ree.s,
and he o mild then get enough of money. The neighbours,
the officer who apprehended him admitted, gave him •
good character, as a hard working industrious man.
The LORD Meets,' expressed great surprise at the state-
ment of this mode of getting rid of those who were un-
avoidably poor. It was extremely disgraceful, but the
present case perhaps accounted for the boasted lowness of
the rates in that parish. A man, however, who would
work and was willing to work, who had a sick family, and
was reduced to misery by a continued failure of his means
of subsistence, must nut be treated in this way, and sent to
seek his existence from the hand of precarious charity.
He had, by obeying the directions of the overseer, rendered
himself liable to be sent to the tread-mill, and it was not
to he permitted, when efforts were waking to clear the
streets of beggars, that their number should be augmented
in such a manner. His Lordship regretted that the parish
was not within his jurisdiction, and ordered the poor man
to be immediately discharged. He was directed to go be-
fore the Magistrates of the district, and summon the over-
seers for refusing to give proper relief.
BOW•STRlCET.—illonsieur Achilles De Lcake, a most
tremendous-looking military beau, with a pair of patent
mustachios and costume of the latest Parisian fishion, was
brought up from the watch.house, having been taken into
custody the preceding evening, in Drury-lane Theatre, rips
on a charge of being disorderly. It appeared from the
statement of the officers that the defendant had entered the
Theatre at half-price, and obtruded himself into one of the
dress-boxes, in a very unruly manner, and thereby created
some interruption to the audience. Quietness was, how-
ever, at length restored; and after the play he went into
the lobby, where he commenced a running fight with the
fair votaries of dissipation in that centre of attraction,
many of whom he treated with great roughness. The
officers at length interfered, and drew from hitn many in-
vectives on the English police. Finally lie flung in orange
which he held in one of his hands, in the officer's fare;
and was in consequence, after some resistance, taken into
custody.
(in being questioned, he said, he was an officer in the
French service, and lived upon his property.
Sir R. Massie Said, whatever might he his rank, he was
not to be permitted to disturb a peaceable and respectable
audience to a Theatre, by his violence. his Wurshi a then
observed that he had heard there was a nest of foreigwrs
living in the Metropolis without any visible meatis of
support; under these circumstances he should make
some inqairies at the Mien Olhue respecting Achilles.
anti, in the interim, lie ordered him to fled bail for the
aasault.

AIifAIROUGII-11TRERT. —Yesterday, a young gentle..
man, who gave Ilia name Henry Jenwsaid,w4. char•.ell
nit!' defrauding 1.. n ler fake pretences. Mr Sheppard, who
keeps the Hotel railed t: a 1 ape' lel Call* , Bum!- •tre •t.
Mr. Sheppard steteil, Ih t a few days ago Mr. MM/anal.l
drove up to his untie in a gig, handed his great coat to
one of the servants, which was stained nit!) blood, to he
cleaned, and walked into the coffee-roam. where he hail
some refreshmeni. He called the next clay, and agoin
took refreshment, aed hereon ed :is. in a Ivor. He had keen
previously known to Mr. Sheppard. On Wednesday night
last he came a;!ain. accompanied by a gentleman, n horn lie
represented to Mr. Sheppard as Sir John Murray, a ::e!:tte•
'HMI of great arid said, " Now, Sheppard. I have
brought you a gno 1 customer, and we sh ill have sotn,
rood dinners." They drank six bottles of burnt claret, anti
Mr. Nl6Donatti ordered dinner ft?' four for the following Fri-
day. The party accordingly met and dined on that day ; to-
wards the close of the evening, Mr. Sheppard came into the
room, and. in conversation with 51r.51•Doitald, another dinner
was spoken of for the following day. He mentioned t..e cir-
cumstance to his wife on going down stairs, and she i ume-
diately said it was plain they intended not to pay the hill at
present, and that site would speak to the first of the party that
came down, which she accordingly did. Mr. Sheppard, on en-
tering the room soon after, was spoken to by Mr. Nl'Danalti in
a very angry lone, as one of his friends had been sp 'ken to by
Mrs. Sheppard about the hill, and said lie would give a cheek
for 151.; the person who was represented to him as Slr John
Murray, then said, " Never mind ; it's all woman's talk ;" and
added, " Come. Sheppard, I'll let you have a draft on my
bankers for 101." the amount of the dinner bill was 71. Ile
drew on the bank ofsl . Ladbroke and Co. Bank buildings,
for the 101., sod 51r. M•Donald then said, "Now, Sheppard,
you have got the draft, let us have more wine for the balance,'
which they had. The next morning Mr. tilteppe,d presented
the draft for pal meat, sad was told at the bans that the drawer
was unknown there.
Mr. CoNatet here asked the prisoner what lie had to say
to this charge, and questioned him closely as to who he
was, as well as the company he bad with h itu ? He replied
that Lls father was a Cuionel in the Invernt!as Militia, that