Court Of King's Bench, Tu...
The Times, 1824-01-14T00:00:00

Alf. UHVTTY having opened the p!eadings Mlr. HUTcINSION stated to th'e jury, ;Aat this wvas an action biroutght by-the j,Liintiffi a tailor in Hoborn, against the defendant, a horse,dealer near Smithfield, for the payment of an accouint for goodsi sold and cdelivered,and alis foAi'e -amoust of a bill of exchange dra vii by the defendantupon one.Knowles,-ajob-maaeteratBrighton accepted by thejatter, and endoarsed by the defendant to the piaintiff! M5oney having been praid into court upon the connts in the -declara- Iflaf6r goods sold, thie sum-in dispute was reduced to thZ'e amnount of the bill of exchange,the pa~rnentof which was~ refu.sed on the ground of Plaintiff's dela in giving notice of its having been -dislhonoured. The bill became duem.n-he 8tb of; MY, and having been first paid to Curtis and Co., the plaintiff-'s bankers, was sent by thein to Messrs. AMasterman. wbo corresponded with M'essrs. WVignes' and Co., of Brighton, to which latter bankers the bill was transmitted, and by wliom it was presented on the day it became due. it was not p ai d ; was returned by Messrs. -Wigney on the 9th ; it reached M essrs. Mlasterman on the 10th ; was sent by them to Messes. Curtis-the Ilth, whiich was Sunday intervened...and the bill cominig to the hands; of the plaintiff on themorning,of the 12th, he waitea on the defendant to give him notice ofit. The plaintiff said to him, "1You ace too late, you have made the bill your own." The plaintiff commenced his, action, but~ great difficulty presented itself in consequence of the plaintiff having hiwipslf- given notice of the nonpayment of the bill. This had, however, been removed by his discovering that the defendant's clerk-, who was sitting in the countlng.house.--. had overheard the conversation, sand, bad, at the defendant's desire, mgde a~ memonatilp of it in a book. The p laintiff fearing that the deficlency- of ewidence would preclude him trom recovering, had taken out-the money paid into court, and had proceteded to taxc his costs he had also taken a cognovit alnd warrant ofatorney fr6m the acceptor of the bill, hot the discovery of the defendant's clerk had induced him to change his intentioni, and to proceed ip. the'action. Henry.Johnsoni wa&then called, whpqssfore that he was preitentat the drawing of the bill, and afterwards when thie -plaintiff gav odice of its nonpayment, when the defendantaaid to himn,"Y6u are out of time; y'ou havle made the bill your own ;"~ and that tbe defendant immediaely afterwards, coming into the counting-house, asked thfe witness. ife had heard the conversation, and uipon his answering. that ha had, the 4qfend44nt desird, hinm to miale it memsora sdVm ofirtint"h.bookr. Noticelhad beei~giventoprodulce thisboolk, which wasnow callecd for. Trie defendant's-attorney hnew nothing ofsuch a- hook. The baniker's clerks were then caHled, and proved the sransmission~ and presentation of the bill. Mlr. Gua.srEy, for the- defejidant, objected.- thAt the plaiatif' lacluis prevenied hiis regoveriug inj thisi actLion 'The rule wvas, that one ay as lloed o eah cdp,er o gve-noticeof the nonipay- inen of bil; hee-te bakerscoul no hconsixdered as endorsers, but s th agnts f te deendnt. hefirst-objection was, that the bil hanotbee reurnd o th da itwas presented, as it miight hav ben, he ostleaingBrih o at10 at night-; the second, tha Mesrs Cutishadnotsen itto heph4intiff'or the sash a thyrceived it after its dishonour. * a TeLoitD CatEp JUSTICt....I sin noat awar-_tht the -rule giig one day is confined to efiaorse'rs ; but I thiiik ratber that it nples to everyone through whose hands the bill ma have assed.' Thsrule seems to have been complied with, and-the bankers at Brightoin might have hadl a very good reasoni for keeping it in their hands one day, Mlr. GurnSNIy's other point of defence war., tliatthieplaintiff hav- ing taken a co;rnozdf from the acceptor without the def end~ant's con- sent, and having proceeded to tax his cosits oa inst the defendant, had( precluded himself fromn all farthier proceedhngs, The plaintiff's attorney was called, to produce the office copy of the rulde to py money into Court. He was Also called upon to produce the warrant of attorney, which of Course was not in his pos- session, having been filed pursuant to the act of Parli4ment within 21 days of its execution. This_p art of the defence, therefore, failed, and The LonD CHIEF JUSTICE said, -he thought there was nothing in the objections. All that had been alleged to he done was since the action brought; there was no defence. The jury, therefore, found for the plaintiff, 1061.1lOs.-Costs,40g. LO'DGE V. HUREELL. Mir. AniuAnAxe having openied the pleadings in this ease, Mlr. BROUGHASC1 stated the circuimstances upon which the action was founded It was brought by the plaintiff to rcvr from the defendlaot a compensation in damnagsorteiuyhha sustained by being deprived of the society of hi wf,bten hom and the defendantacriminalconnexionhad sbitdTh anifws a clerk in the house of some tradesmapl at thwetndoteto ; the de- fendant had the prospe,ctof succeedingtzan eumplefortune. In 1816 the plaintiff-was married to his present wife, and in 1821, -some dis- pattes having arisen between them, in consequence of his- wife's in- sisting that her mother should live with her, they agreed to separate. 1I hey did separte, but occasionally visited each other, and were upon good teems. He (Mir. Brougham) was, however, prepared to admit that no other intercourse took pla,cebetween them. They had at the period of the separation one- child. The defendant camne frequiently to visit them while the lived together, And after the separation his visits to ilrs. Logle were more frequent. He should leave the details of thecase to he gathered from the witnesse, contenting himself with stating simnply, that in consequence of tFe connexioni between Alrs. Lodge and the defendant, and long after all cohabitation had ceased betwreen her and the plaintiW, she becamae pregnant, and was delivered of a-child, ini May, 1822 ; . that the. greatest care was taken to conceal the birth of this child; that the servant was strictly en,joined never tG comne in the Plaintiff's way while this child was under her care,or if she did, to get out of it again as soon as possible. It was not uintil the Plaintiff's suspicions were awakened bv the elder child talking of its little brother, that the plaintiffset aibout m'aking inquiries which hadainduced him to bring tie present action. The jury would have to consider, first, whethier the facts alleged had taken placee, and secondly what damages the plaintiff was thercfore entitled to. It might be alleged for the defence, that the separation was the husband's fault; but it would be considered also, thlat if the facts of the case' should he proved, the plainOtif was not onl saddled with a child which he knew not to be his own, but liable also (until he should procure a divorce) for all his wife's debts, which were very heavy. - AiVr. BitoUGEIAse then called Anne Blakie, who said she knewv Mlrs. Lodge before her- marriage; her namne was Harriet Clough. The marriage, at which the wvitness was p resent, took place in MAryi~ lebone church. Mrs. Lodge was before that time, and tas canz since, a railflner. Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL....MrS. todge was married in December, and was delivered of the first ehild in the M1ay following. She was visibl pregrnant when she was married. In 120, urin hersecod cnfinment, witness assisted to support her, her -husband having left her. Witness supplied what was n'e.. cecsary fr her on that occasion. She did not know whether Mir. and Mrs. Ldge slapt together in the same house in which they lived. The certificate of marriage was then put in, (Dec. 1816.) The nexf witness was a servant tc Mir. Everett, in whose house the plaintif lived in 1821. Mlrs. Lodge was then with hiui, They hiail then one chifld. Knows Mlr. Burrall, the defendant, who used to he aLt her master's house generally three or four times a weak. Mrs. Cloughi, Mirs. Lodge's mutliar, lived with them at the same time. Thinks it was in 182 that Mlr. Lodge went away from his wife ; since that period Mtrs. Lodge has had another child, whicb, when witness saw it, was about four months old. This was five months after Mlr. Lodge left Mr. Everett's. Mir. Lodge came once or twice after he had left Air. Everest's to call upon his wiife ; Mrs. Lodge remairned there for two or three coonths. 'Witness had often seen the defendant at oil times of the day Ind evening at ilfr. Ledge's; generally when Mfr. IM,ge was oaut. He came to call- upon M'lrs. Lodge; he would ask it Mlr. Lodge was at home, and if hie was, would go away ; but if not4 he,would go up stairs Mfr. Lode sometimes came home when the dlefendant was with his wie, upon which o-ccasions the defendanit wouild go usp stairs.-to the seodlandling, andaafter Mlr. Loge had gone in,the defendant would Flip out; this happened three times After Ljodge left 'Everett's, defendant used to come frec1'iently. witness has often seen defendant andAMis. Lodgetogetber,in both the bed-room landtlw~sitting-rc,om.' S!'c has seeni t enm in the bed-roomi twice. Ther~ was a sol's in the sititng-r6~rn. Op onle.Occasion -witness saw 4efen4nt with'his arm round Mrs. Lodge's neck on the sofa. 1mrs lpodge's servant (Char-! lotte ZIlake), or tsar mother, used to slee " 'dit Mfrs. Jdge. Wit. ness rectillects Blake sleeping withi her three ndghts at other timnes she slept with liar iniistiess. Mrs. todge iii genefal called defen'd-' ant " Edmund." One night witneishadlt, him in5, and' Charlotte Blakec~metohersnd aid, Thehave ed spper, and are having somegin nd vate slw." itnes dd noletim out thatenlght,but thenet mrnng,athal.pst iv, secasi him go out; she k-new hisfooste wel.Mr.Lode i -beteen3D nd40 Mrs. Lodge is Crs-examined by Mir. ATTORWEY-GE2NERAL;.Anld the de- fendn is 21. There were three or,fourimilliners' apprentices in the house MIrs. Lodge workedl for brs. Harrell, the defendant's mo1- thier, andbad know himn since hewasa - ho. _Mr. Lodge went away in 18,21;. before that he did rnot sleep with his wife. Witness had never heard thema quarrel. Charlotte Bla'ke soratet'mes slep;t 4own stairs, somnetimes up ; the back kitchien was the pis whler~ Mlrs. ]Wdge's servants usualy slept WInsale o str with -her, l~etai~soair rvrta boer occupied Ier (wiitncsi's) bed. The wor~womnen came at nine in til omoring'-and reiriaiti~d until ll hi ein h~ jverdifs: in the frdnt roomf they'worAed; thie bade was the bed"roomn. 'Ihicn Alfs. H.mrpll called, bD sh own into thefrnt oo, wer heusd tst takig,Sometimes he went in te sme rom ith er.She newnothng f~be duplicates of thing whih beloged to MArs. Mloore ee lived -with.Mrs. Buteler, in Davi sstreet. Never, live wit a-esna erbhus- band: he was her felrow-seivanit. Now he rcletd rsButler;- but sh neverlivedwith thatmiais: be had ase The to- do so many - Chaldtte~l~(I 't4fiiint;'b Mr. AlrrmLum) lived withl Alrs. Lodg'~ t Mr ~vi~'in 1821. - She i awa5.s slept in.- the back kitchn; jt~he iod, Aflr- Hurrell was there during-that -- riodVitnsslet Mr. Loge ana'Mr.11twillitogethdr-latoeige was abu 10'lck h'e hafd sen Mr.urc1n r.Ioe' bed-room whr -Ms .1Ito or;-Winy ice2 pitiy-s never sew hinj -be~ut whnhrmsgein t ok ee horn atter ncr as tress!s renial fron Mr. E/egtt's-to, Mrs. Aloorc?i; thqcqhilld w4vsornJ 0th olfMay, 1822. - Th'e defenatlant was not there at that tlme. .).os'not knowvwheiher he wa,s tbereaete. wards,- for ihe went into the country for a4f rortnigt eio the dLaYTola lowinig. Ohs her returri she saw M6r. 11tijrehl whio neVer said. aLny. thing to her aboust thie child. - 9, le ~requeltlyr-mpt Ar. Lodge 'after hbirth pf the c whn -lthe r lI r e u%ed to meat him tn;Portlaad- lace ;- her assistress was thxen-living in Poftland-street. -1 lr. Hurrel has frequently met her- with the AU;hle' ne6v ?2 vd 'n:9hpto;klils chl;h ne Jiooe-tf he hever said-nov thiog9-,about 1,00d1, 8snkstbdc. Wimess 11 . . _evennjordlers front M'r. iurreU 2Zou the chihl'. " --- Oross.etalnined hy Mlr. A-ATORNET-UEsERAL....,itness was never in the habit of sleeping with hier mistress: if any one liad said so they said falsely. - MIr. W. Mloore.-mr Lodge caJne to - live at his house in 1822, ad left it in 1823. Mr. }Hurell csre very frepuendly to see Mr5i -Lodge generally about eight o'cl?ck,in' the eVemng, and his tino of 1 goinlgawiy used to be *ofl ten tilt 1ilf.past ten. XeitSza was Drs. Lodge s servnt. Has frequehtlyr Hu o wc ha rote; Blake tobe out with the elderchilld while diri. Bubln rws there; *lbisa does no' know how Iong, becalise he was attending to bis own busines. lrr. Elizabe h loore, the eweto the last witness, recollecs the defendanntvisiting UMr 'ldgewhile sIi was in w ess's house. Mrs. Lodge's mother lived with her. wias seen Airs. Clough end Mrs. Lodge repeatedjy letimmHin. The Lonn C1}lE? JU^TCE asked Mr. Brougham if he thought he could go anyfutther: at prcsent Ieheb made out no case. Milr. BEOUGHW -feared lbe could not, uleaz he should can llrs. Clough, which he. was venn unwilling to doe The plaintiff' ws therloefo nonguited; for~ want o f evidence. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. T -T.A - T WADE V. ALEXANDEL