The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-04-15 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN.

LAI{ INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH', APRIL It
BURGESS v. CLEMENTS.

Mr. Jaavis moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict for the Defendant should not be set aside,
and a new trial granted on the ground of a misdirec-
tion of Mr. Baron Raolimos, who tried the cause
at the last Oxford Assizes. The action was brought
against the landlady of the Three Tuns Inn, Oxford,
by a guest, to recover the value of a parcel of Bir-
mingham trinkets, which had been stolen out of the
Plaintiff's room at the inn. It appeared that the
room was not the common travellers' room and that
it was immediately accessible from the gateway of the
inn-yard; that the Defendant was told he had the
key of the room door, and might lock it; and that
he had said he (lid not know whether he locked the
door when he went out or not. The Learned Judge
ruled, that the general liability of an innkeeper at
common law was in this case exonerated by special
circumstances of extreme negligence on the part of
the guest. The Learned Counsel now relied upon
the 4th Resolution in Calye's case, 8 Rept. 65, in
which it is laid down, " that the innkeeper is bound
in law to keep the guest's goods and chattels safe,
without any stealing or purloining; and it is no ex-
cuse for the innkeeper to say that he delivered the
guest the key of the chamber in which he is lodged,
and that he left the chamber door open ; buthe ought
to keep the goods and chattels of his guest there in
safety."
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—At present I am of opi-
nion that the Learned Judge was right, and Lord
Coke wrong • but having that case, you may take
your rule. I have known several instances where it
has been held, that if a guest takes his goods out of
the inn keeper's charge into his own, the latter is
exempt. However, the authority of he case cited
deserves attention.
REX. U. ANTHONY INNES STORES.
Mr. SCARLETT OR the absence of Mr. Abbot)
obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict for the
Defendant in this information in the nature of a quo
warranto which was tried at the last Hereford As-
sizes, before Mr. Justice Dallas, should not be en-
tered for the Crown, notwithstanding the finding of
the Jury ; or, if the Court should not be of that
opinion, why a new trial should not be granted. On
the trial one of the common Jurors, who seemed to
have a considerable (the Learned Counsel would not
say 64 inter'st so" but) knowledge of the case, took an
active part in the trial; Ind aster th.. Jury bad retired
for two hours, acted as the foreman itt pronouncing a
verdict for the Defendant generally. The Learned
Judge asked the Jury upon whic, issue they found
their verdict, there being several issues of compli-
cated plettaiiii;s. Mr. D-tuncey, for the Defendant,
objected to this question being
,but to the Jury, and
the Judge did lict press it ; so that a verdict was en-
tered for the Defendant upon all the pleas. Mr.
Scarlett stated that there never was a clearer case that
the verdict ought to have been the other way, and
that to find for the Defendant upon all the issues was
inconsistent and repugnant.
Lord Eizcaisortoveir said, that with all his re-
spect for the Learned Judge, he thought he should
have had more firmness than not to have persisted in
his question to the Jury. A purposed disregard of
their duty was shown in finding what amounted to
black one way, and white another ; and although the
Judge might not be ableto command them to do their
duty, he might at least have made their neglect of it
apparent. His Lordship added, that it was extremely
improper for the Counsel to interfere as they did be-
tween the Judge and the Jury.

CON SISTORY-COURT, DOCTORS'-COMMONS.
THE RIGHT HON. TIIE EARL OF ROSERERRY V. THE
• COUNTESS OF ROSERERRY.

This was a proceeding for a divorce, on the ground
of adultery, committed by the Countess of Rose-
berry with Sir Henry St. John Mildmay, Bart.
The particular's of this case have been already folly
detailed to the public in the report of the proceedings
on a writ of enquiry to assess Lord Roseberry's
damages, in the action for Crim. Con. brought by him
against Sir Henry Mildmay, who had suffered judg-
ment to go by default. It will now therefore only
be necessary to state the leading circumstances of the
case as they appeared in evidence upon the present
occa Sion.

On the 20th of May, 1808, Lord Roseberry
(then Viscount Primrose) was married to Harriett, his
present Countess, a daughter of the lion. Mr. Bou-
verie. In 1809, Sir Henry Mildmay married the
eldest sister of Lady Roseberry ; and hi, younger
brother Mr. Paulet Mildewy, subsequently married
another sister. This family connection necessarily
produced a great intimacy between Sir Henry
Mildmay and Lord Roseberry's family; and;,
on the death of Lady Mildmay, iu 1810, he re-
mained with them for some time, daily receiving
from them those affectionate attentions, heat calcu-
lated to alleviate his grief for the loss he had subtle-
ed. They had the desired effect; and Sir Henry re-
turned to society from a retirement which has un-
happily since proved a source of the greatest unhap-1
piness to this noble family. Lord and Lady Rose-
berry were then living in the most uninterrupted state
of domestic happiness ; her conduct, until that period,
and for some time afterwards, being represented uni-
formly correct in the discharge of her ditties as a wife
and mother. An alteration in this conduct was first
noticed by the Dowager Countess of Roseberry, to-
wards the end of the year 1813, when she observed
her daughter-in-law disposed to advocate principle*
inconsistent with her domestic duties, and previous
behaviour. .In March 1814, Lord Roseberry left
town for Scdtland, upon the occasion of his father's
illness, whose death, which was then hourly ex.
pectea, shortly afterwards took place. He then re-
turned to town and remained about three months.—
It was at this time that several letters pained between
Sir Henry Mildmay and Lady Roseberry, which were
produced in the cause, and evidently showed an un-
due intimacy between them. They were couched in
terms of the warmest affection, and pourtrayed the
feelings of Sir Henry in the strongest laorrage.—
Lady Roseberry, too, at this time, was in the habit
of often walking in Kensington-gardens, where she
was met by Sir ileory,and the progress of this intimacy
produced in her a great indifference of behaviour
towards her husband. He remonstrated with her,
and subsequently forbad Sir Henry his house; but
finding they had still many opportunities of meeting,