The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-02-14 00:00:00

1

t


1,

LAW INTHLLIGENCE.

roe
tidily inculcated amongst-tl•em, 'at %arida send them
into society able and willing to obtain their livelihood.
Mr. Alderman Gooosituana treated that there
-would he no inclination to support the motion of Me.
Sumner in the noose of Commons, awl that the Coat.
wsittee would report from time to time.
• Mr. Alderman Alvin, had heard all thatched bees'
said by the Worthy Member upon the door, hot,
after all, had been hardly able to understand whether
hr assented to or dissented from the motion. He
Lad nu idea at all that there would be any opposition
anode to the grant of the sum of money. He did
stut,soppose they would oppose the Bill at all. Bet,
-whenever he saw the House about to take a bold
sitride, be always endeavoured, as meat-as he could,
to prevent it. Such a principle as that of demanding
accounts In the way the House of Commous would be
doing, if the motion should be carried, was most en.
exampled ' • and if it were once set on foot, he did
not know how Brit might extend.
Mr. FATELL said, that if the Worthy Member
was convinced the City Members could do so little
against xis hundred, he took it for greeted that he
was an advocate for Parliamentary Reform.—We
-understood Mr. Favell to speak against the giviug op
of the accounts.
Mr. Alderman BIRCH was surprised at such a
sweeping intention of demanding of the City of Lon.
duo, accounts of their whole concerns. He thought
they might jest as well go to the Duke of Devonshire
to know how he got his income collected, what was
his rental, and how it was applied I
Mr. WAIIIIMAN doubted whether Parliament had
net a right to call upon every. Public Body in the
kingdom for their accounts ; bet yet he thought therV
should be some special grounds for such motions. If
there had been any misapplication of fends, or eves
a suspicion of misapplication, it should be stated.
Mr. PsAnson moved, as an Amendment, that the
Court saw with astonishment that a motion was to
be made in the House of Commons on the 17th in •
aunt, requiring the accounts of the income and ea.
pendit 1041 of the Corporation of London, and that the
Report should be referred back to the Committee of
improvements, to consider it any, and what measures
should be adopted thereon.
Mr. lesesia. soggested that the word astonishment
should be omitted.
Mr. J. DAVIS withdrew the original motion, and
after some further debate, the Amendment, with the
omission of the word astonishment, was carried.
After some other business the Court adjourned.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fss.l3.

• CR IM. CON.
FRANCES V. MILKS.
In this case the Militia, who holds s situation in
a Public Office, sought to recover from the Defend-
ant, who is described to be a physician, the sum of
20001. es a compensation for debauching his wife.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated the circumstances of
the case to the Jury ; in doing which he animadvert.
ed in very strong terms upon the heinousness of the
offence. The plaintiff, he observed, was a man who
held a situation in a Public Office, and the Defendant
was by profession a physician, who had been krt.°.
duced into the family by Mr. Owen, a Gentleman
ostensively known, and highly respected by all who
knew him, not only for his talents, but also for the
high and deserving character he sustaiired in society.
Mr. Frances was married in the year 1812 ; and down
to 1817 they lived together in an uninterrupted 'Wu
of happiness ; there was scarcely any disparity be-
tween them in years, and their matrimonial alliance
was crowned by an issue of two children. The De.
fondant, the Learned Serjeant contended, was doubly
tulpahle—first, inasmuch as the friendly introduc-
tion to the family by Mr. Owen ought to have been
a barrier to any criminal innovation upon the heppi-
nets of its members; and, secondly, that as be was
introduced in a professional capacity to administer to
the indisposition of Mrs. Frances, he ought not to
base taken an advantage of her situation, but instead
of being her seducer, ought to have been her pro.
tector and friend. It might be urged, that he was
In a state of poverty, and, therefore, incapable of
paying heavy damage., bet to this he had only to say,
that the law said, 66 If a man could not pay in
purse, he must pay in person." And with these
brief observations, be should rely upon the Jury for
a verdict.
Mr.CAIHIERv, who was with the Learned Serjeaut,
their proceeded to call evidence.
Thomas Dean produced a copy of the register of
the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Frances at St. An-
drew's, Holborn, on the 14th of May, 1812. James
West and others were preient.
George Caster stated, that he was present at the
marriage: Mrs. Frances was about 20 years of age,
and Mr. Frances was about 25. Witness lived with
ahem a year and a half after their marriage, and they
lived happily together. Their affection appeared to
he quite mutual. Witness knew but little of the de.
fendant Wilks, but be was received into the house as
a physician ; he had lived in the house between two
and three mouths before the Defendant and Mrs.
Frances eloped, which was is the month of October.
The day following their elopement, witness and Mr.
Ira aces went in quest of them; they went toe hoses
in Foley-street ; aud, in conseqaeuce of information
they obtained, they finally saw the Defendant and
S,lrs. Frances at Union-ban Police-otfice together.
'inc Defendant was apprehended on suspicion of hay-
isle stolen a brooch ; it was sis weeks after : witness
believed it to be about the 28115 or %Other December.
Witness desired her to return with him, bet she
would not. Witness afterwards found the letter
produced in Mrs. Frances's lokirigs in Joiner-street,
St. George's-Gelds; it was addressed to bar as Mrs.
Seymotir.
Examined by Mr. Justice DALLAS.—After they
were married, they were in lodgings, and bad a ser-
vant
; that servant was not in Coact • they had two
children. Mr. Prances was in the iost-office. He
usually went out in the morning, and did nut return
until the evening to dinner, and Mr. Wilks was left
all day with Mrs. Frances : nobody bat tne servant
being present.
Henry Banks stated, that he married a sister of
Alr..Frances. Witness lived at Tenbridge Wells.--
Whet' Mr. and Mrs. Frances were first married they
find in Dedfritd4treet, and he bac! hesitant met.