The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-12-06 00:00:00

STAFFORD V. HAMSTON.

The:Coert bid not proceeded far in this cause, when
111 r. rAisigley,x Special Juryman, was suddenly taken
ill. 4figitetiiedirom the box for a short time, but as
be eid'notxppear to be recovering, a motion was made
to pat off• ihe cause for this Sittings, to which it
was ohleeted: that the proper coarse would be to
strike it *lava the paper altogether. A criminal case
on' the'Wesiern Circuit was alluded to, and some di.•
• cutsioil took Ogee between the Associate and the Ser-
jeantiongaged in the cause; but ultimately
The+CHt•r• JUSIICIS said he would discharge the
Jury at pretest; sod leave the parties to move the
Coact' next Toile on the subject.
•
HARE V. MO.
Tfiejillaiiiir, Wile is the proprietor of a house in
firevllle•street, Hatton-Gaiden, sought to recover da-
mie.'s for injury his trade and family sustained by the
'new buildings erected by tbe defendant, in Furnival's
inn fia.rdetts... The jet .of the sction was that the
plaintiff had been deprived of tight, sun, and air. The
Jiffy es*, a verdict for 2001. damages.
PUTT V. PITO.

This was. an action by another inhabitant of Gre-
.
ville-ttreet, who complained of injury from the new
LOLA% erected by. the defendant. After some con-
versation the dafenOant's Counsel submitted to a ver-
liktlor the with. 100/. damages.
eoettl . SURROGAtES, DEC. &

~

• BEST V. BUT.

Sir C. Rontmson stated, that this was a qnestion
arising out of a suit, instituted in thin Court, by Mrs.
Elizabeth *Best,against her husband, J. Best; Esq. for
cruelty. This •suit was met by a responsive allega-
tion ou•the part of the husband, denying cruelty ; and,
among other articles of accusation, in bar of his wife's
suit, charging her• with the crime of adultery, and
praying to be divorced. The suit, it appeared, •had
originally commenced iu 1818; end the wife being
rolled upon td deliver her answer 'to the allegatioa of
the husband, (which contained 19 articles,) the present
proceeding•was upon objections taken and argued, as
to the sufficiency of those answers, on the ground that
the wife bad suwansWered.specifically and fully, as re-
qiiieed Gy forMs of law.
. Tlie.ohjwctlons takes by Dr. LUiIIINGTON, followed
by Dr. Dgniots, on the same side, as Counsel for Mrs.
Best. were;shortly these answer to the primary
articles of the hastand's allegation; which set forth,
that she had,' without just cause, quitted .his honse,
and gone to reside at the York Ilotel, Dover, on the
7th, and did not• return until the 11th of January,l
1816, pretending that she went to Dover, to consult
with Ms, M. Kennet, a solicitor; her absenting herself
from.ber.busband's hoise at such time, being fur the
purposeitlf extorting a settlement from him, and refus-
ineso riturn until each settlement was made, as the
eoffilitioNts of her !nun. That she had repeatedly de-,
claled 1‘ she only married him for what she could get
oui of ralm.” Her answer to this being, that she did

not qui t:his-tonse for the purpose of extorting a settle-
'scent as. prticulate.;lllt the only time she did quit her
hubby mi'S !Muse:oo'9)9o),gs consent, was, when, from
,he cruelty o the.said James Best, she ceased to he
under his protectibirb and went to seek the protection
,of her father.

It•wtiebbjacted that this denial was not sufficiently
explicit, like atiy pirty might deny a fact as artieu•
Wilted in any **rayon to what was stated in
the. allegatibi.
an 2.
dlbirtlartlcles went on to state; that
Widisttita,said iglixabetb absented herself from her
•said husband, is order to extort such settlement, she
w rote tota-ooveral letters from the York. Hotel, at Dover,
to him, to the effect that he should make such settle-

• inetit, deanantlinethis. as the couditionit.of her return
_ _ _ _ _

to bus ; and the third article stated those letters to be
her proper haed.writing, andexhibited the origin:►ls;
li.iewise pl. adinpthe identity of the parties. Her an-

awn.. to ibis liae;sthet she hiamever.wrilten. to her said,

huskhoki for the porpdse of-• extorting a setttlement
-from hi artietthtte;;oe demauding oo the conditions
of her returtillnitlitat her skid linsheird, upon their
, marsilte, lapCsomised to settle upon her 7001. per
annum; auit.thartHe hid ouly apptiid to him fee the
fnlfiltnent of anal iicuidie. With' respect to the aT-
tictepliatitio labors In her oWh lilind-rwiriting to
her bisha Vat* tholForli 'Holt!, at Dover, her
saver was. she cannot. ' and hopes the Court trill Mot
coopel lite to iinineer that article; ob. iimorsto ties

THE STA

protection of the Court, so that the Net pleaded say
be pat to.lawfsl
It was here contended that she ought to answer ape-
cifacally whether she wrote these letters or sot.
Sir C. Ronimaon, in answer to the objections argsed
by his Learned Friends, submitted, that the Court
would consider the Answers Isificiestly explicit..

_
Dr. Pam-mons followed on the same side.

Dr. SWAIM (the Judge) finally determined, that the
party should answer more apesifically the several ar-
ticles objected, and to which the answers were directed
to be reformed, with the exception of bar answer to the
direct affirmative charge of adultery. The Judge fur-
ther observed, that as this case had been • long time
delayed, the Court would allow only one month for
the busbalid to bring proofs in support of hi* ailega
tion, in order to bring the cause to a conclusion within
the time the practice of the Court prescribed.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS.

--+--

These Sessions commenced yesterday at the Justin
Hall, in the Old Bailey, before Mr. Justice Bayley,
Mr. Baron Barrow, the Lord Mayor, Alderman, Ike.
FURL! RT.—Newry Thompson was put to the bar,
on an indictment charging him with uttering as true
a forged check for 171. 6s. well knowing the same to
be a forgery, with intent to defraud Mr. Francis Pon-
tet, on the 18th of May last. _ _

Mr. Pontet, jun. stated, that on the day mentioned
in the indictment, the prisoner came to his father's
shop in Pall-mall, and directed a quantity of snuff to
be sent to, a house at Ulaokwater, by the Exeter roach,
and in payment tendered the check in question, which
purported to be on the house of Messrs. Jones and
Lloyd, of Lothbury, and signed by " Henry C.
Lloyd.", Nu suspicion being entertained, the change
was given. The check was paid into the. house of
Messrs. Drummond, and by them returned to the wit-
ness, in consequence of its being discovered to be a
forgery.

111 r. Thomas, butcher, of Charing-cross, stated that
on the 13 h of October, the prisoner came to his
shop, and having ordered meat to the amount of 21.,
he directed it to be sent to Henry Lloyd, Esq. 23, De-
vonshire-place, and for tvhich he tendered a check for
161. on the same banking-house, anti signed in a simi-
lar manner to that for which the prisoner stood indict-
ed. The witness having some doubt, took the check
to Messrs. Drummond's, and in consequence of infor-
mation he received, had the prisont.r conveyed to Bow-
street.

William Hook proved taking a check of the pri-
soner for 91. 10s. in payment for a load of Lay, which
he ordered to be sent to Henry Lloyd, Esq., Clarges•
street.

A clerk from the house of Jones and Lloyd proved
all the three checks to be forged.
The prisoner, on being called on for his defence,
said he had nothing further to observe than to throw
himself on the mercy of the Court. Ile appeared to
sutler from indisposition, and was very dejected.
31r. Justice BAILEY summed up the evidence, and
the Jury found the prisoner 6utity—Death..
Dlr. l'ontet recommended the prisoner to mercy,"-un
the ground that he was not Aware that be was com-
mitting a capital felony tube moment lie uttered the
note.

Aaron Isaac stood indicted for stealing a gold seal
from the person of Rowland Turner, on the 29th of
October last, in Holborn—Guilty.
Mr. Baron Gaanow asked on what grounds the
prisoner's trial bad been postponed from last Sessions?
Mr. Clark slid, it was in consequence of an affidavit,
stating that a most material witness was absent, having
been made by the prisoner.

Mr. Baron CiAnnow said there had never been a
clearer- case tnade out, and informed the prisoner that
he might depend on the sentence of transportation for
.life, which would be passed on him at the end of the
Sessions, being carried into effect.
Thomas Foy stood indicted for receiving one block
of tin, value 155., the property of Richard Wilson, well
knowing the same to have been stolen.
Richard Buck produced the record of the conviction
of the person who had stolen the property.
Jonathan Bundon' clerk to Mr. Wilson, wharfinger,
stated that tieorge Fletcher, the person who stole the
property, was sometimes employed by Mr. Wilson, and
that be saw him in the act of taking away the property
on the St h of Dec. ISIS.

Robert Key proved seeing George Fletcher with a
truck, on the• above stated day, at the wharf, and that
the prisoner, Foy, came up, and turned the truck round.
Thomas Garton, an officer, proved taking G. Fletcher
into custody at the shop of the prisoner, and that the
latter ran up a ladder and escaped. The block of tin
was found at the bottom of the ladder.

Mr. Richard Wilson identified the property, and state
that the house at which it had been smelted had stoppi
for some years. • _

The prisoner, in his defence, denied all knowledge of 1,
Fletcher up to the time in question. Several persons;
gave hint a very good character.
Mr. Justice BATLY again called Robert Key, whol
swore positively that he had seen Fletcher many times
at the prisoner a house previously to the day in question.
The Learned Judge summed up the evidence, and the
Jury having retired for 20 minutes, on their retnrn,
found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended him to
mercy, on account of the former good character given
Isim.—Mr. Justice BAILT said the recommendation
should be attended to.
BURGLARY.—Thomas Deakin stood indicted for bur-
glarionsly breaking and entering; the dwelling-house of
Mr. Robert Ray, in the parish of Edmonton, on the :WI li
of October, and stealing therefrom a great qiialititiof
. ,
wearing apparel.
The prosecutor stated that the plan nun produced
was a correct one of his premises. The laundry was
within the wall inclosing the eastern side of the pre-
mises; the drying ground was also inclosed; he did
nut know any thing farther of the robbery than what
he had been informed of by his servants. -
Sarah Bramwell bad been washing on the previous
day ; was the last. person there, and on leaving the
laundry locked the door. The property stated in the
indictment was there at the iime ; could nqt say whe-
ther the window of the wash-house was shat ; the
laundry window was shut; part of the,tkings belong-
ed to herself and fellow-servants, and part to the pro-
secutor ; the premises must have begin enterehltiongli
the wash-housetluor„ which witipae 4411th:secure:
John Hold, another servant, fount Has Isidge :gate
open, and when be west to the passagVeliev, be found
it had been broken open; as well esoge Kari ,house
door; witness found a colter of a plunah.:-.14 whirl,
means the doo.s bad Wen :Weill ;: awn' wale itots.bor4