The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-11-09 00:00:00

WWWIT

r .11
Po sae

.. rg~.i

conld not hare framed a statement that should meet this
ditliculty.
The nert point is equely derisive. To acconnt for
I the sum of Lifelt dollrro, mentimonl in the statement of
vouchers as the sum due from Captain WEI:, Mr. [look
produced upon Ms esanaina,ion a 'statement altozother
fall .clogs, as expressly shown in ourlreport of 2d of July,
1519.

Here, then, my Lords, In support of that statement,
which we considered to have been fabricated, another
was produced to us, which turns out to be altogether Id-,
lacious; and in the latter instance there can he no doubt
whence it originated, as it was framed and delivered to
us by Mr. Hook himself, on his oath.
Mr. Hook has stated that we have not mentioned the
rertificate of the find Committee which was appointed to
investigate the state of the Tteasnry on its transfer. It
referred expressly to oar report of the 23d of Oct.
IS2I, and is moce.particolarty referred to in all its bear.
into in our report of the 2il ofJuly.lBl9.
With reference to the allegations by Mr. Hook. that
the list of vouchers in our ;.essarssion is the orijnal, we
have merely to refer your Lordship!' to his evidence, in
which, upon being asked i.vbether the list presented by
him to us was a trite copy of the statement delivered by
him to the committee, he answered," I cannot state that
positively, as I have not now the original."
Be it however original or copy, it is certainly all in
his hand-writing, still welt interlineations and altera
Lions; and its a rem trkable fact, that one of the alscr-
ztions has been of the figures indicating the suits slue
1.14,111 Bonhomme and Co., which, as altered, stands at
twenty thousand dollars, the amount at which it ought
to have stood, prior to the charges made iu the securi-
ties by Mr. ILIA.

it will also be within the recollection of your Lord-
ships, that Mr. Hook stated that be counted therouchers
from month to month, and knew their exact amount; if
so, and your Lordships shonld he satisfied that the
stmetnent of vomiter% was fahriented, it is scarcely' po.-
sible to believe that Mr. Hook was ignorant of its
nature.

Mr. Hook further states, that if the list of vouchers li
was felse, the vouchers mast have been true ; to this
conclusion we cannot assent. For to recnr to the in-
stance
attic)) is already before yoor Lordship., if there
were vouchers of a balance due from Cept. Dick, cor-
responding With the false statement presented to us by
Mr. Hook, those vouchers also must have been false.
It being, however, as we think, established by incon-
trovertible evidence from the documents themselves,
that the statement of vouchers %IRS fallacious, and the
certificate of dor Committee of Examinstion erroneous,
we mast advert shortly to the observations of Mr. Houk
respecting the evidence of Major Webster.
The character of that gentleman, from the confession
of all opposing parties, is too high to stand in need of
our commendation. It is, however, bat justice to state,
that in his examinations before sir, he has shown great
care and candour; it appears therefore to us, that when
called upon by (fractal Hall to examine into the actual
state of the Treasury, on the 19th of November, he did,
after the fullest examinetion, admit in the most bononr•
able manner, the error of himself and the rest of the
Ceolotittee,• assigning the true reason for it—the want
of time to tenter Into a scrupulotteexamioatipn of the do-
tunients. ' •
With respect to that paragraph ;it Me, Boors letter
which imputes tons thisrepresentatioo .aod misstate-
ment, we have repeatedly declared oar conviction, that
the effect of the first examination was defeated by a fa-
bricated statement. We repear, that if the Commit:n..l
on the second investigation, had given credii to Mr-1
Hook's assertion, that he Lad counted the chest, sod
to tbestmeessary inference that the Wines was correct,
the44-mnd investigation ...might Imre bees- as ineffectuil
as the first.
We have only to express our opinion that such an
invitation as that n.ade by Mr. Hook tithe Coinspi,ttee.
was, antler the circumstances at least, no proof of in-

nocence.
We bare considered and simmered, almost paragraph
by paragraph, the observations in Mr. Hook's letter, lw-
cause we thought they would thus he must trireme:ly
refuted. Much do we regret the time that has been
thus occupied ; but us your Lordships referred to us his
letter for consideration, it became our duty to compare
it with the evidence, of which a great part was given
nearly these years since.
As,the reort, upon which Mr. Hook's letter is a com-
ment, was signed during the time that Colonel Jenkin-
son was a member of this Board, we thought it right,
for obvious reasons, to confer with bias on the subject ;
and after a careful re-consideration of all the circum-
stances, we are authorised to assure you Lordships of
bis entire concurrence in the views sad opinions which
we have expressed in this report.
We have the honour to be,
Your Lordships' most obedient bumble Is
E. H. LCIIIII:VGTON.
EDMUND BIND.
Tnos. liaamsox.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Noy. S.

Tun PORTSMOUTH CAUSR.
Mr. Wyruntott.t. resumed at 10 o'clock, and conclude&
at 12.
Mr. SHADWSLL followed oa the same side, and spoke
fur two hours. ..
. Mr. !limy spoke also on the same side until the rising
of the Court, at half.past two.
[As the lame reason which induced us yesterday to
withhold the details of this very delicate case still Opel.
Rtes with the same force, we continue to suppress state-
ments that are purely ex parte.)
COURT OF KINWS ItENCH.—YRIDAY.

. STA tii.ll V. DODD.
Mr. SOLICITOWG . moved for a role to show
cum, ephyseerusteial should not be granted in this came,
or whyttbe jnrigment should not be arrested. The di,
fendant was thar,red with having Hewer.] the pe:.atty
of this clanse, because be bring a governor of the poor
of the parish of Bethnal-green, supplied the workhouse
of that parish with milk. The case has been twice tried,
and at the last trial before the Lord ChiefJusiice at
Westminster. a verdict was found fur the plaintiff. This
verdict the Solicitor-General now sought to set aside, on
the ground that Air. Dodd was not a governor of the poor
under the fair construction of the local acts for the di-
rection of the parish funds, hot only a vestryman.
The Court granted a ride to show cause why there
should not be a new trial, on the donht suggested res-
pecting theofficial character of the defendant.

THE WINO V. JOLLINFE.
Mr. Sergeant Pam. in..red for a rule to show eaw
Why judgment in this should not be entered ter
the. Cron n won obstanol7eridieto, ore new trial granted.
This has a quo warraelu, calling on the defethlaut to
show by what authority he exercised the .functions of
Mayer of PeteVsliel.l, and was tried before Mr. Jettior
Borough, at the last assizes for Hants. The ohjevioa
to the defendant o as, that the jury of the Court beet by
whom be was appointed were simmionrit. not by the bid-
' lief, but I.y tke 'reward of the Court. On his behalf it
was that, by.inonetnorial custom, the steward
had authority to summon the jury, which W 46 the sub-
stantial issue at the !rid. o support this custom, rei•
dente was given of usaike only twilit; 20 years; and it
was laid down by the Judge, that on the sli2htest•evi-!
denca of usage, unrelnitied on the other side, tlw jury
were hound to bud the esistenceedthe customs. On this,
direction, the jury found a verdict for the def.mdant.4
which the Lemcd Scroaot argued wasentit e!y against

-

.-K,..

evidence, and could only be sustained Ivy a doCltiLe
which was Contrary to law.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
Input:to r. naLSay.
Mr. CHITTY Mated fur a rule in this case to I,IIOW
cause why the verdict fir the defendant should nut lie
set aside, arid a new trial granted.
It was on action under the game laws to recover cer.
tain penalties from the defendant, and iris tried et the
!wit Assizes of Hereford heftier Mr. Justice Park. It
was proved that the defendant was teen he two g:we,
keepers appointed to watch him, set two snares is a
hedge row. They remained op during the night, an,'
saw the defendant come and examine the snares. on
the following day two other came-keepers watched Lim,
who saw him cone and examine the snares; there gas
then a hare in one of them, wh:ch he did not then take
away, but reset ilie other snare whirls Was Sprang, to
the dusk of the evening lie was seen to rome aid take
away the hare wrapped up in his coat. The defenee wt
op was, that he was the servant of a valified per,o„,
and was nut therefore liable under the Stalsts. Isis
was, lan wryer, proved to be false. The Learned Jaffe,
its his charge to Om Jury, said, that every possession of
game was not all unlau pose-scion; and that if a
titan was foam' in possession of a hire fur the use of 11.1
to aster, it should he considered an tu.aurent poste,iians
and, therefore, if the Jury were of opinion that tite'das
fentlant took the hare fur his master's use th.y afraid
find a verdict for him.
Mr. Csarrrz contended that he was entitled to
trial; on the ground of inisMirertium. If the master
himself. in this case, bad been found with the hare, le
would have been liable. because be was nut 40.41.. J,
and therefore so should the defeadaut.
The rule wasgranted.
Mr. Pitt, who has appeared as plaintiff in tar.) actions
for bribery, rose and begged the Judges. whits were re-
tiring, to listen to an application fir hiving tap the
bond, on whirl, lie had bee" arrested, to be cane-14,10n
the ground that the plaintiff had drtlared he uotild net
wane him, lint seek his remedy against anothrr.
The Con UT ilitOtUlall him that they could not hear the
subject of his defence discussed on motion. They sever
received affidagita in answer to an alli I.vit to mild to
bail; and mustsdeal with his Cabe as it I all others.
Mr. Pitt urged with great vehemence that the liberty
of the subject ietrired the interference of the Court.
That Logo Om., Jusztcz reins:el that the Court
could nut interfere.
Tel KING O. WADDINUTOg.
Waddington was in COlll4 &Haley, it axiom:ly waiting
for an opportunity to move fur at new trial. anti on the
rising of the Court was proceeding to move. wheu
Mr. Justice limas' 4141.1 anywise you are suing to
move for a new trial. it is pow tuo
IVadding too—This ii the last day. any Lord. for met-
ing for new trials.
Mr. Justice flavhsv.—Nn, it is net; you can girt
your name to the eacer. and Inure on another

-.SF_
COURT OF COIIIION PLEAS—Famr.

HOODART I. TONED AND CNA AIPOND.
This ease was tried last week at Ore London Sittior.
It was an action brought tty this plaintiff. a r'•Drealti•
auctioneer. to recover front. the defendants IC:91. lot,
Nhich he claimed t0,.i0 his opittion..• fair remuneration
, for the trouble and 'epees, be incarret in preparing (sr
sale an estate. of.whith they were the leavers, sad
which they. coisigned to him for th t purp..so.
however, afterward,' sold the estate for I Lena/. witheet
the assistance of the plaintiff. mid altered him 69f.
for hie trouble. The verdict of the trial sas for thin
/latter sum.
Mr. Sergeant P 21.1.1141 sLay.leoved fora race to almw
eagle why that verdict should stet be set aid. as coa-
t/sr, to-evidence.
......Lord Chief Justice DA1.1.411 said that it was shown tit
the trial that waggoners hid no fixed per rentage for tt!e
transaction of their business; and therefore it vs
I.cicarly a question far the jury to odic the fair ionanot..‘
/enumeration and they gave the NUM estimated .by IP-
vend respectable witnesses.—The rule for a LOA tliai
was refused.

CONS' STORY COL/ RT, Nov. S.
THUILLOW is. THURIMW.
This.which was a snit calling on the hnshand tbr
restoration of conjugal rights to his wife tla►ia Otflow,
and hail stood over from the last term, in consegneecr
of an allegatioa propounded by her, in which exceptions
were *tiered to the tem knotty on the other side, and the
question now was whether such exceptions conj.' Ise ad-
mitted after publication ?
After hearing Counsel at great length, the Judge (Sir
C. Robinson) then observed, that the Court was here op-
plied tot to call on the husband for a restoration of use•
jngal rights, and a return to cohabitation with his wife.
Now in answer to the charges against her, she had at
first confined herself to rceritninatioo. It was a a.tfsci-
ant reason for guarding that husband against any vexati-
ons or dilitory proceedings, that the expellees fell wholly
upon him. With regard to the proffered olibisif twit
dente were to be admitted, it would afford no very satis-
factory prospect of coining to a termination of the cause.
It must however be decided by the rules observed la sits►
tar instances, and to which be bad every disposition to
Rat re. The Silt article involved V 44011111 particulars at
to the laity and tor paramour ►tated as distinctly 44 por-
anal which it was fair to expect would Lava been
met in the counter-plea. If the whole had not been die
proved, it might Lave been partially controverted, takirg
in, as it necessarily did, a wide snips of circumstanret.
Unless, therefore, it was asserted, that the whole was a
fabrication, the party hail deserted her own case in not
bringing forward the alibi before, nor propounding any
interrogatory atilt relation to it. The difference bowels
the testimony of Lucy Anderson and Elizabeth White
seemed to be immitenal, the words ow or shoat falling
within the maul latitude of expression. Referring to the
general practice of that Court, and to the probable issue
of the inquiry, if gone into, he felt no hesitatio❑ in sayleg,
that the first exeeplioo pa, brooctit forw:rd- trm late.—
The second, as to the evidence ut Carr, he dionglst
o hie fell *Wail the same rule so frequently lain down by
his lAtifileti Predecessor. The witness was, no doubt.
nab's. so souse suspicion, (tat Isis testimony was cotisistil t
wills the other parts of the husband's case, and it waubt
be going too great a length to enquire into Lis genera:
character, on the ground of the expressions imputed to
him. 'l•he fame observations applied to the third excep-
tion, as to the party's residence at Walwortli. Ifer de-
fence 113% simply ana!ibi, and under al these circen:-
statutes, he felt himself bonml to reject the allegation.

An ingirst WAS yesterday held at the Ihirdre Arm..
lieHtnall.reen. by Mr. Uroin,cororier,on tle. body 4):
infant named Mary JonrsJt appeared from the rehlehrr
that the drte.sed, while layinz asleep in bed, had hren
v:ry in. entities!), left there and tnrnril up with the hr.!.
by which she was staicated, Tut. jory, .:;ter animad-
verting very severely on the conduct of the na.dot of the
child, returned a verdict of—Acciden:al Death.

DIED.
At New York, of the yellow Geer. Ahrohom Moore,
Darrister-al-law, a native of the Coon.), of Oevun. IA at•a
for many years travel:o.l the Western l'irrn;t.
On Monday last, Mr. R., Marks, of o.sea's-place. Gos-
well-street-road, aged 33 years.

Londca : Medi Prialatt.. and Pown,,,oe, ese ogee cf
Ito 6T0Taa11e.::".1414 Tag Coa FT ITVI4.11" (Sendai
Pdper.) No. t 97. Strand, by R. W
whom adi coin adicationa, Ordvra, tkr.. are reiseittael
be addrcased.