The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-11-10 00:00:00

THY. 'STATESN;IAN.

.

eritneis was attending et the trial, but he was not

called.
• Lord ELLENIKIR2UOII—" Why wait he not
Called by you . , •
.Mr. Sim jeans Barrseg" .Ha was sitabpagated on
the part o' the Plaito4s', my, Lord ; but be states'
I now, ht his affidavie„ that Coloptl Wardle was
estretnely anxioiseabse he .alsould be easinitied,
and sent him, with Major Dodd, Into Caen for
that purpose."
Then there was tote affidavit of Mr.. lilingworth,
a wine-merchant, of Pall-Mall, who contradicted,
in direct terms, the evidence of Daniel Wright,
and sheaved clearly, the learned Serjeant said, that
the credit was given, in this case, to Mrs. Cleats
and nut to Colonel Wardle. , •
Lord Eetatneeaonetu wondered that Mr. Glen.
nie was not examined, since Colonel Wardle must
know what he could prove.
Mr. Serjeant BEST said the mistake arose frota•
not knotting what this woman would swear.
Lord ELLEI4IIOROUGU—." But you knew that
she was to be elamitied."‘
Mr. Serjeant Besv—" Yes, my Lord, but we
rdid not expect that any body would believe her."
The Learned Serjeant contended, that Mr. Illing.
worth's affidavit contradicted Mrs. Clarke also on
the subject of the Dill of Exchange fur 5001. for
that it was neguciated by him, for her, and not
for Mr. Wardle; Air that nothing passed between
him and Mrs. Clarke, or Wright, that gave him,
Mr. Illingworth, to undetstand, that Col.'Wer-
dla was indebted, or responsible to Wright in any
part of this transaction.
Another affidavit-which he had, was that of a
Mr. Bennet, acabinet-makerlin Tottenham-court-
road, which stated, that he was acquainted with
Wright, the Plaintiff in this cause, and with his
brother Daniel Wright ; that a short time after the
trial of this cause, he, Mr. Bennet, had a conver-
sation with Daniel Wright, who said they, that is,
he and his brother, " had sent several articles of
furniture, particularly lot the servants' room, to
the house of Mrs. Clarke, ,while under the praise,-
tion of the Duke of York, and charged them to
his Royal Highness ; hod others they set duvets to
the cl:arge of Gwyllim Lloyd Wardle, Esq. as bet
Daniel Wright, and his brother, the Plaintiff, knew
who would be the better paymaster of the two."
Here Lord ELLENBOROUGII read the eel.
deuce of Mrs. Clarke at the trial, on the subject
of the bill of exchange given by Mr. Illingworth,
and the manner in which it had been made appil.
eagle to Colonel Wardle; from which his Lordship
did not think the present contradiction of that part
of the testimony very material ; hut, however, IC
was not necessary to give a deciiLd opinion at
present upon that point.
The next affidavit 'was that of Mr. Becket, as
Attorney, which gave an account of an action he
had coetreenced against Mrs. Clarke, at the suit
of a Mr. Allen, for clothes, on which Mrs.
Clarke was arrested, and Mr. Francis Wright be-
came hail for her ; and it appeared that he had ,
bailed her in about 30 actions : this had been
discovered by Mr. Ellis, Mr. Wardle's attorney.
Mr. Justice BAILEY.—" He knew her: to 'be
much lu debt, and he might think that bailie( her
was the best chance he had of gcttiug his own debt
paid, Brother Best."
Mr. Serjeant Bes.r.—" Unquestionably he gave
her great credit, and he did trust her with these
goods with which he afterwards charged Colonel
Wardle." The Learned Serjealit then expatiated
on the whole of the case—on the atrochy of
charging Colonel IVardle with the debts of Mrs.
Clarke in this manner—of its being a recipe for
inch a genius as Mrs. Clarke to get rid of the
Statue of Frauds, which provides that one person
shall not be bound to pay the debt of another, un.
less the undertaking to do so be in writing,' &c.
and of the barefaced audacity of charging, as
Wright did, Colonel Wardle with the repairs and'
the insurance of Mrs. Clarke's house, which the
Jury didandeed strike out of the Bill, but still the
damages were serious, being 10001. ; besides, the
case waS of incalculable importance in other re.
pests, and he trusted that he had laid a claim'
upon the justice of the Court to grant a new trial
in this cause.
Lord Etaatmaortoveu, after a short conference
' with the other Judges, said—" I am very much
afraid of violating thu rules by which the Court
usually, indeed universally, governs a
itself.. In
cases of this sort, where the party has had' fall
opportunity of proving at the trial, his eat,
wherein he had. witnesses to pi ove what, upon
motion for a new laid, be offers to prove before
as, mid did not fail'fur want of that opportunity,
hot might have taken it and did not, the rule is,
.generally speaking, not to grant a new trial in
such u ease. Hero the Defendant had no difficulty
about producing his witnesses, they were actually
present, ready to bo examined, et least two of
-teem; and elsor•forol .1 Awl great -difShelty
granting this motion, thus applied for en behalf
'of the Defendant ; at the same time, • Mrs.
Clarke is, now, mixt more, from the beginning
to the end, with Wright the Plaintiff, than she
appeared to be at the time of the trial. His rat
presentations respecting her, arc, in souse respect",
important; and therls seem to be some .matters
new disclosed, e hick present them both under
other eircutustaticee, than those under which they
were presented to the Jury at th.: time of trial.
1 think, therefore, it may be as %tell to grant a
Rule to shew Cause, and hear this matter inure at
large hereafter."
Mr. Justice Gnose—" I am of the same opi-
nian—certainly."
The rest of the Court concurring, the Rule to
show Cause was granted.

DOE (ON DCllllBg op a LIAIIAM) SCOTT..
Mr. Sirrjeant WILLIAMS applied fur a rule to
skew cable why a nonsuit should not be entered in
this case? The Defendant, the Rev. Mr. J.. Scott,
had been inductdd into the Living of Brampton
Brian, Herefordshire, in Febreary and March,
11101, on • presentation by the Earl of Oxford
and in the year 1806, be was collated by the
;Shop to the augmented Curacy of Titley,
same county. The sedum was brought on the
ground, that by the Defendant's acceptance of the
Curacy of Titley, augmented as it had been by

Q.l.:ett Anue's bounty, the Living of Brampton
Brian, which he had formerly bold, had become
voidable ; and being so, that Mr. Graham had
been ',restated to it on the joint and separate pre.
scutations of the Earl of Oxford, and of T.Woud,
Richard Wood) and 11. Smith, the younger.
To prove his cue, two things were necessary on
the part of he Plaintiff...-lst, To chew that the
Curacy of Tilley had been augmented by Queen
Anne's bounty ; and 2d, That the Earl of Ox.
ford) and the other persons who bad granted the
presentation to Mr. Graham, were seised of the
legal estate at the time of granting the presenta-
tion. On the first point, after other grounds of
objection bad been removed, the Learned Serjeant,
as Counsel for the Defendalt,argued, that the evi-
dence of this being a Curacy augmented under
Queen Annes bounty was not sufficient, inasmuch
ss it was provided at common law that the pro.
petty should be vested in land ; an►l by the Act of
Ist George I. section 20, that the Deed containing
such lauded estate should be inrollcd in the High
Court of Chancery within six months after the
purchase. In support of this argument, the
Learned Serjeant adduced a decision by Lord
Camden.

. Lord ELLENsonouots asked, was not the aug.
emulation effectual from the date of the order ?
Mr. Scrjeant IVILLIAMS again referred to the
Act of Parliament. The second point was, were
the persons who granted the prestintation vested
in the legal estate? He referred to two terms of
1000 years, rhich had been granted in 1709 and
and 1727, which, he submitted, must, under a
' deud in the year 1757, be presumed to have been
surrendered ; and in the year 1802, the present
Earl of Oxford had granted a trust deed in favour
of Mr. Wm. Scott.

Lord ELLSNIOROUGII observed, the Earl might
have an interest in keeping the old term afloat.
Mr. Serjeant ‘ViLLIAtes said, this was a new
case. lie had never seen an ejectment of the
kind. The Learned Judge (Baron Thompson) who
had tried the cue, had afterwards spoken to him
concerning it, and had recommended to him to
move the Court on both points.
Lord ErAtttoottouun said, that the Court did
not hesitate on either point ; but in deference to
the doubt said to be entertained by the Learned
Judge who tried the case, they should common'.
cate with him on the subject, and if ho did seriously
entertain the doubt mentioned by the Learned
Counsel, he should have his rule.