Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-12-16T00:00:00

The trial of Special Jury causes commenced to-dniy. Thlis was an indictment against the deisadant, for keeping the cstablishment which has been recently the subject of much public observation. A full special jury answered to their names, and were sworn. The ATTORNEy-GENERAL rose, on the part of the defendant, and, lookiag round, inquired if any ofhis learnedl friends were in. structed for the prosecution. Receiving no answer, be said, I be- lieve n,o one aLppears to prosecute, and therefore the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. The LOaD ( 111EF JUSTICE then addressed the jury.-" Gentle- men, this is an indictment charging the defendant with a misde- meanour. No one appears to prove that he is guAlty, and therefore all you can do is to acquit him." The Jury accordingly returned a verdict of Net Guilly. OR'IXE V. CROCKFOSD. This was an action against the defendant in the last prosecution founded on the statute of 9 Ann, c. 1402, wlhichi gives to the loser of any sum exceeding 101. at one sitting, a power of recovering it back within three months; and which dnables any person after the expiration of that time, without action on the paTt of the loser, to sue for the sum lost, and treble its amount, ftrom the winner, oise moiety to his own use, and the other to that of the poor o'f the pa- rieh where the offence shall be committed. The plaintiff in this case sued on the latter clause, for four tirmies the value of the nieney lost by several persons to the defendant, bn behalf of the informcr and the poor ot the parish 6f St. George, Hanover-square. Ten special jurarb were -sworn. No tales being prayed for the plaintiff, the ATTORNEY-Gz. NERAL rose, and prayed a tales for the defendanL Two common jurors were accordingiy sworn. The ATTORKEY-GENERAL rose, and a short pause ensued, which excited some surprise, as it wag knovwn that lr. PHILLIPS and lMr. PATTESO32 were instructed for the plaintiff The LORD CurEF JUSTICE.-'WlIo appears for the plaintiff? The ATToUNEY-Gz2EnaAL -It does not seem that any one ap- pears; but I heard that Dllr. Phillips and Dlr. Patteson were in. structed. 'i'he LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE directed that those gentlemen should be sent for; as thev had 'been instructed to appear. The ATToRWV`.6EiREaAL-Perliaps, my Lord, they have becn instructed todisappear. (A laugh.) Mr. PHIL.LIPS anda Ir. PATTESO2 now came into Court, and were informed that a tales had been prayed? and the jury sworn. ' Mr. PlXsLLlpS.-.My Lordl, I was quite unconscious that the cattse was called on. . y learned friend and myself were consulting with our elientin the.bail-courton the propriety of withbirawin the re. cord in consequenceoftheabsonceot'a principal wItners; and I1ad re- commended that this course shlould be taken. I hope thc Attorney. General will allow us to withidraw it now; if tiot, we shiall be driven to indict him. The ATTonINEY.GEN.VRAL._ hope I am not liable to be per- sonally Indicted. (A laugh). Mr. PHIILLI PS.-Oh no ! I mean your client. i hope we may still withdraw the record. Tule AWTOZTJEY.GE-ERAL,.I | oye-you miw be nonsuited. Mr.PHILLrPs& ' If your IJqrdship wishes an affidavit of thefacts, it can be made directly. The LORD CHiEP JUSTICE.-I have no autllority to allew the record to be withdrawn without consent, after the jury are sworn, If you should be nonsuited, and thinlc you have grounds for setting the nonsuitaside, yoti must move tlhe Cort. I not mean to itl- timate that you have any susht grounds, or that the -Court will assist you ; I only,say I cahnot assist you here. - Mr. PIrnLsPS and Mr. PATTESON callcd their client and spoke to him. After whici Dlr. PATTESON Eaid. "M My Lord, we are very unfortunate; our absence from Court was quite accidental; and had wve been herc, we certainly shoald not have allowed the jury to be sworn." ThTlseLoRD CHtEF JUSTrCE_-I am sorry for it, Sir; but I cannot asstat you, unless theAttorney-General will consent. All 1 could do would be to dischirge the jury: and I have never done so in such a casc, nor do I think there are grounds to justify me in adopting such a course in this. A juror may be withdrawn, and the record afterwardo withdnrwn by consent. Thse AwToivNwEY_Gz2;E!tAa.._MyLord, I do not consider my. self r.tthorizedi-tocoensentt naly thing in tlis case. Itis a penal action. The LoRD0 C55Ev 'Jt1sTTicE.-Ic annot desire you to do so; I have no power te tiseYrere, except by discharging the jury, andl I do notn tbnk J ought todo that under any cizcumstancea presented to myonotiee. T Mlr. ?ArTUOS9 then proceeded to qpei the pleadings. The de. cla2tonfiatd,that one lane Fox, Esq., in F?ebruary, 1824, log 6,01 otedefendant ; thAt hie did' not aue fior thie same withii thr'ee months ; andlthat tbereupon ais ~action acc-rued to th6,Vaintif to recover for himself and tie pooir of the parish of~ St.. teorge Hanover-square, the;mid sum and~--three-times its amount; in thi whole 20 0001. Thicre were, othez-stiitementi of' losses by otber ~er sons of Lie sanme nature.; and four counes'on each tranisaction. 1- iei entire sumn sought to bcrecoivcred wairabout 180,0001.. Sir. PsIsLLAPs said: it would bFe an iunpardlonable waste o the time of the Court if~ he-sh6uld state n case which lie di( not know that hie shouldl be able to prove. A number oLf wvitnesse hAd been subp6enaed on behialf of 'the plaintiff'; and it was'a dut3 ihey owedato.the Court, as well as to,the party,,to appear in eid -o aubica jstice. If' thiey shouldI not appear, AIlr. OIrme would htav is reniedy against tliem; if arny-of thiem should appear, they woutlo prove the case smore f'ully than hie could state it- Mlr. PATTESO-.~ then called the Right Honourtable Horatio Ear. of Orford, andI the officer began to c-all him aloud. The LORD CItIEF JUSTieE.-Beforce names are called out it this way yout should band in your subprenals. Mlr. PATTESONr.-.My Lord, we cannot tell that the vwitnesse will not appear. SIr. OIrma, the plaintiiff ain eldcrly man of reapectable appearance. then. handed in a subpucnri. The noble Earl was called thrce times, and did not appear. Air. Edward HughesB13s1lHughes antillr. EdwardAMoore were called onthecir subprenas, but did not answer. lr. Thomas Chappell wat called, and answered, to theasurprise of the Court; but Mr.PHItL. LtPS3 explained, that lie was only c-alled to prove that the house Wam locally siituate within the parish stated in the pleadings. Sir. PHILLIPS, after consulting with his client, sanid he did not think there wavs aniy witness present who could spe-ak to material facus ; and therefore hie would not occupy the further time of the Court. The Loinn CHIxEF JUSTicE.-Do you wish to have ..aji t witnesses calledI on their suhpwenas ? ytie Sir. PHILLePS....Nio, miy Lord. The LoRD CIHtEF JUjSTic-E.-.Then call the plaintiff. The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited. The ATTOR-wEY..GEEItAL..-.ilil your Liordlsliip certify that the cause was fit to be tried by a special jury; the samn demnanded la vpry, laige? The l'ORD CHIEF~ JUSTtcE...Lo,okiiig mnerely to the it -I cannot say thlat I ouglit to certity. i 'lih &TTORNEY,GEYERAL..-Not after your Lordship hias heard the naniea of the expected w;itnesses ? The LORD CHIIEF JUTSTICE.-1 think niot, lilt. Attorney. lHere the inatter dropped. Lord Sefton and Alrl. Greville tat on the bench, and the Marquis of Hertford, at a suibsequent period, entered the Court, anil atfter speaking to ihe Lord Chief Jisfice;'sat sowe time o3a the bench but no allusion was made to them in the couirse of the day. GRAHAM V. WatOLEY. Mlr. CADPiuELr.stated, tAiat this was an action byBaron Graham -airtnst the del'endant, for criminal conyensation with the plaintiff's wifea. The miention of' the plaintiff's name, which corresponded with the ordinary designation of a venerable Baron of the Excehe- quer, created a general laugli in court. Mlr. SCAtRLETT opened the plaintiff's case, which lie would state in the onset, was not of a nature to entitle hint to ask for consider- able damirages. Air. Grahain, tliough related to an ancient and ho- nourablc family in Scotland, was a mani of small fortune, who, at a very early age, married the lady of wvhose conduct he was now obliged to comiplain. To obtain a livelihood he went to India, whi. tIter lie was accompanied by hiis wife; but he did not succeed in his profession, -whichi was that of a portrait-painter, antl returned to England. There tie found his meansi ot subsistence small ; and asi the tempers ot' his wife and himiyself did not agree, he was des. tinedl to vecrify the old adage, thlat " When poverty comnes in at the tloor. love flies out at the window." Hes proposed'a separation, and determiined to vitsit Ihis relations in Scotlntnd, whbo miighit be induced to aftbrd linin their countenance anor] suipport. Mrs. Graham- as- sentedt; and lie agreed to allow hier fifteen shillings a-week, whichk was; full half the income he was able to raise Air. Laing, the frienid by whomi the payments were miade was sar- prised to find that in 1822 sihe was residing at Walwort withi tile diefendanit, and that she called herset.lf rl.Wrg\ .'hicru s;tance was communicated to tier hulsbandthi riny Scthisd cinquin- ries were made ; and it was discovered that sihe was living wtli dlir. Ilirrigley as hiis wife. The mnanner in which they lived would be roved beyond doubt, by lodgers who had resided with thiem, be- 0ivig hmt be married, andl calling them Air, and Mlrs. (ira- ham; and thierefore thiere could be no questian as to the verdict they must give. it was once, intleed, thiought that where ahusband had separateti f'rom his wif'e, he was not entitled to nisintain this, aiction; andi the case of " We'edon v. Timibrell," 5 Term Reports, 357, wras dlecided on this principle ; but the contrary' was clearrly established in the case of Chamibers v. Caulfield," 6 Eatst Rep. 244, anti it was holden that rnetwithstanding a separation the action might be supported. Th'le plaintiff in this case hrad not, indeed, to comnplain ot'anly breach of hospitality or friendship; no~ had lie lost any comfort whiich lie was enjoying at the time of the injuy btut he hiad suiffered the danger of hiaving a spurious issue to inherit lils paternal fortuRe, and hadl beets dteprived of all opportunity of re- newing the iintercourse wvhich circumnstances had suspended. On these groundts, lie askedA for damrages-not large or vindictive, but in reasonable proportion to the injury whichi he liad sustained. Mlr. Laimig, the gentlemnan ref'erred to, said.-I w.as present at the matrriage of lilt,. and DIrk;. Graham in the year 1816. Mrp. Grahamn wags portrait-painter, of a Scotch famnily. Thie lady was a foreigner. I knew hier before her miarriage. They lived for so-me tinle in miy hiouse. Air. Gratham was 22 when he married, and she was about the same age. They went togethier to India, whiere he puroosed to exercise his profession assa pAinter. They eamne homse in 1820, and lodgedI at No. 9i, Villiers-street, next dOor to me: she had a little boy. They thien went to the Strand, where they resided til the Dc- ceimber tfollowinig. Mir. Grahiam was unsuccessful in h's profession, having no eusploymient excelpt whiat I gave him in painting glaes. lie went to Scotland, whiere his m.othter lived. lVheni he wrent, lie desired mne to allow Plirs. Graham 15sr. a-week, which I paid her till June last. At thiat time she was living at No. 5, Albany-road, Walworth. There I caled on her twice or thrice ai-year. About the enid of 1822, I first saw MVr. WVrigley, whom I than kttew by the namre of Rit.icy. Slhe told nme lie was a lodger, andI und Ersood the house was her's. I called her Sire. Graham in hiis presence. I afterwards, in May, 1823, wenit, and not recol- lecting the house, inquired for her by the n.ame of Graham. I then described her as a lady whio spoke with a foreign accent, and found her as Sirs. Wrigley. .1 then found her in the same house, and saw Alr. Wryigley in the gardlen. Cross-examined by Dlrl. TilESsGEA.1I donot k-now where Sire. Grahani ilived before her marriage. Mr. Graham was logng at saiy house,. and sthe caine to sit for hier portrait. They livd together from September to Decemnber, after he had returned from India. Alr. Grahiam told me lie ha4 reeeived a very unpleasant letter fromn India, whilch mnade himi resolve to leave her tot a season ; he was so disitressed he did not know what he did. Hie said thie letter related to alleged improprieties of conduct in Isis wvife. He afterwards told nie tie wouldI not live with her any miore ; andt I was desired to offer her this 15s. a week, which she 'consented to receive. J stopped the payments in June last, at which tinic Sir. Grahiam was in- dlebted to mie, and is stilt, for advanices to his wife. I do not think Mlrs. Graham ever saw her husband after lie left the Strand and went to Scotland. Slrs. Graham told me she was k;'eepin,g a lodgiig-house in Albany-place, and SNir. Wrigley was a BdIt e Jury-)I4hrs. Orahatia genierally camre to me for the money buit sonetimles I sent it to hier. y liltr. Ledger siaid-i lodged at No. 5, Albany-place. I went there in April, 18'23. The miaster and miistiess of'thiehouse passed bythe naniies of Mr. and Sirs. Graham. I lodged there a fortnight. There were two bed.rooms: I occupiedt one, and MVr. and Slirs. Graham the other. I -hiave seen thiem both enter It. TIhey called each. other "Sliy dear," and passed as husband and wife. I have seen Sir. Lainig at the house; andl the person who passed as Sir. Grahami was there. Cro&ssexaminmed.....The two bed-rooms were on the first floor; the sitting-roons were down stairs. There was asmeall humber..room on the staircase: no second floor. I have heard Si r. Wrigley say he held 8oine situation under Governmienit, batt the profits, were small. No servant was kept. I have not hieard that Mir. Wrigley was an un- emnployed purser. piHenry Light, who also lodgedI in the house, said the p arties occu- ped the samne room. One night he caine homneLae; M r. Grahamn let hiim in ; and then went Into the bed-room. The parties passed as man and wife, and baid they had but onie spoon betweeni them. Hie called tier Caroline. Cross.exanminied.hlir. Wrigley ditl not say he was; a purser; lie said he vwas a captain ; he leokedI like a seafarirng man. Hie never said his pay,was only three shillings aday. Slr. SCARLErT said lie would admit that Sir. 'Wriley was a purser in the navy, and that his half -pay wa-s onl.y si. ar a SIr. Saunders, whlo lodged at No. 5, Albany-place, I i Say last, said, when he went to look at the lodging, litr. Wrigley desired tthn to call again, as his wvife wau not at home, and he never interfered in these mnatters. Hie called againi, and saw the lady. .He had seen tise lady in thie presence of Alir. Liaing. 'I his was the plaintiff'fs case. Sir. TreESIGER submnitted that, notwidhstanding the case of "Chambers v. Caulfield," this action could not be supported. if the principle of the case of XV eedoin v. Timbrell" were just-..that thegist of' the action was the 195s of the conifort and so- cit fth e wif,tand that tie allegatton of that loss was nsaterial- thnit was clear, hat a man wlio had consented to a",andon that so- ciety could not recover. TIhe ease of 1' Chatabers v. Caulfield" did not overrule this decision, but was distinguished from it by its parti. cular circumnstances ; for there was a deed authorizing the wife to educate and protect hier younger chtildren ; and thecrefore the hu8- band continuedt to retain an interest in tier fidelity and propriety of demeanour. There was no expression in that case whic;h manifested an intention to overrule the preceding decision, that the tdecision was in poinit; aInd therefore the Plaintifftnust be nonsuited Thie LoanDCUxri, JUSTrscB said he did not think the separation in this ease was so comiplete as to deprive the plaintiff of his ritht of action. Bither party might-have sued the other in the Ecclesslstical- Court for a restitution of conjugal rights, and might have insistedl on a re-union. Tte circutantance, however, would of course have in- fluence hi mitigating thie damapes. Sir. TssIGSIELa shortly addressed the jury for the defendant. The difficulties with which he liad to contend were greatly lessened by the courtesy and candour of the learned counsel for the plaintiff; in consequence of whicil it would be necessary for him to make bat very tew observations in order to show that the verdict ought to pasu only for nominatl tiamages. He was not prepared to deny that the injury of which the plaiitiff con ilained was one of the most serious by which man could be aR'ected In his social relations, but it had sn infijiite variety of sciales; and rarely ha.d a case been presented to the Court, in which there was so mauch excuse on the one sitte, and so little stffering or loss on the other. It was clear that, before the defendant was ac- quaipted witt ilMrs. Graham, she was charged with impro- prietiesof demeanour-tthat all foundation of conjugal happiness waS destroy,ed-and that tbe parties had agreedto separate, not for a time, but for ever. It was true, that at first, lir. Grraham allowed his lady ai sum! which, though sniall in itself,w -as perhaps liberal conmpared with his mneans; but he was not consistent in his libera- lity; the allowance was withdrawn5 not, as tar as appeared, on ac- count of her infidelity, but because itr. Laing was not furnished tvith.mioneyto continue-It. And what could a ma; who voluntarily- abandoned the society of tiswife, who cast tier on the world without any notice that she was a married woman, and who withdrew the scanty pittance he at first consented to paY, in justice denrard front an untortunate defendant, who had unhappily been drawn itnQ a connexion without any guilt.' Tnowledge of her condition ? They were not to act as guardtans of niotali'1 and visit the defend- ant for Isis error; but to estit33ate vhat the plaintiff ought to receive as a compensation for the loss of that which .he had shown lie clid not value. lf the plaintiffcold claim little, the defendantcould pay as little: he v/as a poet purser with 3U a-day, who would scarcely be bleo meet the oets whichmust fall upon bim. Surely Ethe jury.would. think thaLt no wJddam&*e, La itiditival thwa, a edits, wedie for the defindant to pay -Ad -for th-plaintifF F to.-receive. ~i- :. - The 'Lon$b CHIErP JbSTICE, lafter Stating the facta Ined, Unc he w~as clearly.of.oplolon-tbat the action would liei, sU'.thb bZncro -mrage was bot dW6toved, nor its obl)mi,gons.d strsyed'4 but the jury wuld sy wha daaes ti plaintiff ou-ght .toitorT!, Ijwa notalear ont what Mun.thall6wance .wsu -withdravr,t, hut it was rclear that beforeit ha1d.cN*.ed, Xis. Gralians had forred the conl. I nexion writhi tjie dlefeadiLnt -beed,tepsn ain.The Iquestioni of damnages was pecillaryfcor the'Jury, .xua or deiding it, Itiey would no doubt give duseweight- to, -the "ObServatiomcreheY h-ad F heard on the one side madon theothca.; IThe jury consulted for a few minutes, nid then returned a-veraict i for the plantiff'-lumages Is.. I This was4 an action for a libel by Air. -Harris, an-attorney, at Hereford, aganst lir. Jay one R? the :parmersLaha 6 -oftha I city. The clfmatpe3dthe goerasemi sue . AIr. SVARL-ETT stated thecas-~eof the plaintiff. ThereWhdbeen, Idisputes between Afr. Harri% sad'-the Bank, -whlichhd,produce much -animosity; and if the letterecharged as libelouishbadbEeencon. firned to'these, Air. Hsarris would have passed it over in silence. But it imputed to him that be had acted dishonestly, as the treceiver of the rents of a gentleman named Weston, and that be hadfrons ma. lice taken up one of the blackest causms These imputations were conveyed in a letter from Air. Jay to Mr. Garrett, one opf his then partners,.and under them Air. Barrds Could not be silent. Theay were wholly groundless; for the rents had always been paid; and the action wbich had been so stigmatized hed succeeded. The letter, dated January 3, 1822, was -proved by Mlr. Garrett",to, whom it was addressed while in London. I t-be -nby -at .a -affair relaLtive to-some notes of. thec.lanlc, sent. l)?-AXin Mazrds to be- exychanged' for sovereigns, with a. apaer,. offering to put down the n ames of th e perseon from wh ?am they -w-r taken, on -which one of the partners wrote "W le wanit no ftirther-,proofthtttMr. Harzis is a, cut lacguad."It then intimasted tbat.Atis. -Weston had for.. tirdden him foer the future to draw draughts Onisr!zeaut,nad-wou1.~ dismiss him from receiving his rent.s, oulythat there were twro-pay.- meats ini arrear, and it was necessary ".toholdaadleatthe deviL It then istated that Air. Har-ris bad out of malice, psiceduip eSe oif the blackest causes ever heari of, lby s'ne rosa'i.r-kTar- bervile, which that gentleman intended to d4efeac; and conceluded with a hope "1that God -Almighty would soon -rid the earthoef ruch a diabollcal wretch." On the crons-exrmination of Mlr. Garrett, that-wvitness satdta he ceased to be a member of the firm in A t, IM2 adhd that at variance with his late partners. They d,. iat various times, advanced money to Mlr. Turbervile, but did niot knxow whether- he was in arrear at the time the letter was written. Artltattituehe. had as bad an opinion of Mlr. Harris as he csuld enterftdn, andl he- iuevdr produced the letter till afterhe left thefinm. 1twms produced, befo,,e the comimissioners orn the baokru1ptcy of a Per-on 3azmed Woaes in July, 182, not ont account of itg contents, but on ac.. count o a memeranidum endorsed on it, totally foreign to the pre-. sent cause. Mr. Hiarris was present the letter was taken away hy, some one; bat the witness could not say Harris took it. flarrs had indicted him for perjury; andsquits had been carried on between them, respecting large transactions in which they had been engaged; the letter was demanded of 1AIr. Barris, but be never return.. ed it. It was proved that Mlr. Harris wias receiverofMAr.Weara';s rents, and that in theactioli against Turberville. referred to in the letter, that gentleman gave a cozg'vit, and judgment was finally eniterea. up for 3811. damanges, and costs. The ATToRNFY..GEN.EfAL addressed the jury for the defeada ant. If Mir. Harris realty sought, by this action, La vindicate hiBs character, sutrely he would have brought it to trial in the city where he was known, where the defendant al6o was known, and where the~ iur,if any, must operate If such had been his object, be would- haecntent hmlfwt a snle action; yet the very next cause in the listicessan action by Mr. tarrdsagainst Air. B9denham, A1r. Jay's partner, becausebhe happened to direct theletctr which hecailedI a libel. lVas it not alear that thie vindication of character was not his object; but that he, being an attorney, only made use of this letter to put, coists into his pocket, which he k-new must fofllw the farthing he would obtain? Could he ask formsore P The letter was written fromn one partner to another on the business of-the firm-for Turber.. yille was their debtor, and Weston their russtomer...in all the confi- dence which such arelation dlenian)ded. Fifteen mouths afier,tiv ans produced for a collateral purpose; seen and caught at by Al r. Harris as a gronud of action ; and now by hiim, and hili only, published to the world. Could there be any doubt that he puirloined thislJetter, though Mfr. Garrett did not isee him take it ? And would the jury now give bins miore than a farthing for the injury done tn his charac- ter, by a letter wvritten to a person who thought as ill of him betore as ke could.--- letter accidentally prodaced, whichi he him-self had taLken, end now had the sudateity to malke the the ground of an action for damages ? Air. SCAIRLETT submittettd, that as the Attorney-General had stated a fact which was not in evidence, relative to the next cause in tile paper, he had a right to reply. Tuie LORD CsnnEr Ja S CeE thought the allusion scarcely justi-. fied a reply, as it was very usual for counsel to refetr to another cause depending betweeni the same parties Air. SCARLETT said he woutld wave his right at present; but if the Attorney.General stated a fact again, he should certainly replyr upon his speech. The ATnOaI-Y-GsIxs'tAL Said, he was quite ready to observe this strictness itf his frienid would do the same; but hie really thought he was himuself quite as regular as his friend. The LoRD CsRIEr JUSTICE expresed his opinian, tbattbe let- ter, tliough written from one partner to another, was not a privileged conmmunication ; and that therefore the action-would lie. h woudUecIlt h11i passed betweeni partners both at variance ~ rHarris; that the person to whom is was addressed enter- tained as bad an opinion of Mr. Harris before am. after is; that it was not intended for publication; and that it had bEen t-aken by Air. Harrits or some one who plared is in his hands. The law7 said thieaction would Lie: they would say wleatdamagea eheplaintiffooght to recover. The jury consulted for son1e mninutes, and then returned a verdict for the platintiff-Damages 2011. 5LaAR.Ra V. r.0DENRHA31. In thiis action, connected with the last, and referred to by thie At- torney-General, a juror was withdrawn by consent. flrt. SCAELLESTT begged to staLte, as it had been imputed to Mlr. Harris thiat he stole the letter. that the person who took it was now in court. The ATTORLNEY.GE-NERAL, as we understood, said hedid not mecan to imrpute theft in an oftensive sense to Afr. Harris. The LonD0CHIEF JUSTIrCE stopped the discussion as irregulaar, and the matter dropped. fULtT0Oy V. DUNHAM. This action was brought by General Burton against a sheriff 's officer, namied Dunhamn, to recover a compensation for trespasses committed on the O1th of January last, in his house at New-street, Dorset-square, and his villa at ilornsey. The deisendant pleaded the general issue ,and two epecail pleas in answer to the action. In the first of these he stated that a writ of fieri faciax had issued at the suit of Messrs. Hrud, Shaw, and Johnsoni, against another Person named Burton ; that by mistake this writ had been executed in the houses of the plaintiff; and that it was agreed between the plaintiff' anid a arseon niamed Gray, on behalf of the defendant, thaot Gray shouIxapologize to General Burton in the presience ofhis servants,nnd take ajourneytoHoraisev to repeat the aptilogy there; and thatthis conduct should beaccept;d in satisfiaction of the trespasses ; thLat the apolo las were codnl ae h ore ac,udbt c cetgins thcin yteGnra.Teatpe a anlgd bthe ac- ceptance of the journey and apologies in satisfaction of the tres- passes, without averring the previous agreemeant. The accord and satisfaction were denied in the replication,and issues st4en uponfathem. AiVr. D. F. JoxEs having opened thlep leadings Mlr. ilno u GH.ASI stated the c-ase on thle partgofi the plaintiff-an officer of' hIgh rank, advanced in years, and, at the time of the in. juyfor whic'h e sought compensation, sulfering under the effects of agunshot wound recently inflicted by a man whe had been ca- pitall convicted of the crime, It happened that some years be- fre, ealsers. Hurd., Shaw, and Johnson, attornies, in thei Temple, recovered A judgmuent against a sou of General Burton, who had since died, for about 2601. Tb. Genieral had the snisfortttne to be atakdin a way which excited much public attention: and I rbbythis circumstance drew on hiim the visit of which I eha now to comiplain. Mlessrs.Hurd and Co., withoutfsay inquiryihu osteig that thei r debtor's name was Napier Buirton, adtepanif~.Npe Christie Batrton-without re- collecting ta hoews ati and the other a General, issued the rt and iepthdM.Dna o execute it. He arrived in the eveing-lf hi oloe in Possession, and havingc ingeniously extracted frt . evntta his master bad a villa at RocnNey,scast Ithither the same ni-ght, though the furniture of the house in town was of mnore value then douible or treble -the debt. This meln, in spite of the General's remenetmtrnces, remained all night; he usn not removed till the maiddle of thie next day, anid then it -as pre- tended that the General accepted theseapologies in satisfaction of the trespasses. How probable this was, the-jury -might jtidg6; but it would be shown to -be imopossible by te evidenice of' the servants, irho would sipeakof the-temper 4Df mind in whicha their mater was left, after the outrage commnitted on hi, ProperY. ~Vxn Buge aidIn .anury astI was, in she ervice of Gene- ralBuron,;lisuchrstin nme asNanier.Christie Burton. On til 1th f anury bewen 5an 0 clk, Dunbam came to his hous inNewstret, orst-sqare Heasked if ieneral Burton, was t hme. sad " es. He heahanded me a card. which I took to the General, whio aensord," General Burton did not know-~ whatit meant," and des-iredlhimuto writeedownlhi-sbusiness. An. other personithien camne in, when the ~rt maii said..:." I thopght the General was at his country hotist at t.ilt ilti 6nf year." I said, "4No, he was not." lie asked wlfieri it was ? I said, "1 Near the Tunnel, at lHighgate." 'The General having readl the jeaper, which stated there was ani execuition at the siuit of- Haurd and Johnson, said he did not know what it meant, but desired the men would wxalk in. Dun- ham accordiaglY went in, and the ochter defendanit followed. After a coinversation which I did not hear, Dunhisn went outwand left -the .ithermn inaposess,ioni,who remained allznight. The Gen'eralw1o usually retirst rest'between 8 and 9, sat up till 12. He hadl been shot in the sidea few days before. Thpimsn had Wsisrmeals in thie bousr,and remained till half past one tho next day. At that time a persont nauled Gray catue, and was followed by another person, who went in to the General with a letter. Afterwards the bell rang,_ and I and the conk went up and found the man in possession, sDAd Gy with the General. Gray then said, "1 I wisth to say before you that it is aU a mnistake-it was owing to the General having the saute name that the execution was put in, and I ain. conie to take the mn- alway." General Burton seened angry, and said " It is strangeyou should make such a mi3take to take a Captain for a Gencral-" He shook his haad,.aszhe does when he is angry. That is all I 1tCar4 and the mean went away. Cross-examined-Therc were no other servants but myself and the coh,, in the house. I went up first, and was sent for the cook before Ar- Gray-began. I did not hea.r the Gencral ay "ou mllast go to Hornsey and make the same apology." The man-in psse~ssifn remained aUl night in the dining.room. Re-examined._The house was very neatly furnished. I should tbink the furniture was wordh 60i1. or 700L TItsr. Winifred Hoare, the- cook, corroborated the testimony of the latt wittess, aad said, the General -spoke in a very angry tene after the eTplaation was made, and moved his hand. .laryAtkins, wIho, with her -husband, wla in-JanurvylIast, liv- ing at Soutbwood-esttagc, Homrsey, General Burto's couutryvilla, stated, that on the ota of January last; having gone out, found a man namned Cavanagh, wto said he came with asnexecution. After an ineffetual allempt to connect this tan with Ifinha other evidence, the counsel for the plaintiff called *s - -- AMichael Cevanrgit, ~who stated that he was put into oases i the defendanti - On crosa-pxatnination, he said, -r. Gray tcai to disce t the next day. Ho explained somrething to she gardner and' W1fft when he discharged mze, aoout an escape. - ?.o one was an i 5 !bat the gardmelad bin wife. I p^ edtiaigelnhverwdUiai4- vi =t3me e not --I Qil't aoi-tohemy. ed ._.I had mrvefhmeins at night, blea4tfa8t' luncheon, MLt!ntyoHAr.~~ bedi t~eeclo1c.(A laugh.) Jrs;s Atlin ts was then. Iaecalled t aid,ba, che.roan said he ee'nrewrls King, att i'ie fti ilasiri,pibred the General owed Mrr tafarthim g9. o HurGtia enaf}aigald Rne hin insrtoipro. teetMDe I aet thtsigbtta thi ~~ M?. Grey said it was ~~all a m18- Jame Atcina th llsbab ofthelast witness, corkoborated her Dlve. King, attorney for the Pl-aintif, -proved that tlie General came to him on Tlhursdav zifter the aftair, and gave hiim instructions. R ain Napifr Burton died 6 or 7 X ears ano. F !A ..1 rned. The writ was sued out in May. On the 28th f Ap-il the first application was made to Hurdand Johnson. NPr,der Burton was Oeneral Burton's soni, not his nephew. Re.mawnined-Before I applied I was taking. opinions as to the Part againsvwhom the action should be brouglt. iILr. SCARLETT opened the defence set forth in the pleadings- tla? the Generl aceeested the apoltogy, and the journey in satisfac- tion of the injury which had been done him from mere error. For this defence a ground was laid already by the evidence of the seryants, wo stated that apologies were made at both places, and that the Iel lasr=Rgby theGeneal,stbntthey mighthear thestatementof(G ray. ROwcouldthis be if the General did not agree to receive the excuses ? ButTilr-Graywouid positivelyprove the fact wbich aready seernd pro- e The soni of General Burtons though he gave the warrant of attorney in ihe name of Napien Burton, signed the premissory note en which the action was founded, and in which his brotherjoined,"N. . Burton; he, as well as his father, was in the army; the name was uncommnon; and therefore the mistake was natural. The execution putr,in onTwelFth night, when M1csars. Hurd and Johnson were not. liklyto be-founda-a ni ht when attornies seldom were, and coantzeerve6e in their chambers, but the next day, as soon as 7th ermr =,as discovered, thev wrote a proper apology. and vrihdrevr theexecoation. SurelY'the plaintiff 6ught to have been satisfled with nil he concersions; mostprob4blhe was satisfied: but hisat- tarney mrght nevertheless choose to proceed and the delay gave rise to a vspicion tiat hc knew nore of the action than his cllent. Such a -uppositicn was, at all events, more honourable to a General offlier, than that he had advisedlv brought the present action after all the satisfaion given for an involuntary error. Grae4 Gray said-On thr 7th of January last, I went to General Burtons, by desire of Mr. Dunham, to make an apology for, the execn-ton levied there and at Horascy. I saw ltnf,it thd toidllin I camaeta apolozize fot the error, and produced a bill of exchange, vhicih I wag directed to show him. He said the signature was not hla handwrit`ng, biut the writing of his nephew, who' was dead. I raid I trusted, if he saw that the proceedings originated in error, he would nlotsue Ir. Dunham, whn was an uniaterested party, and radrnoInotliS1etooFendorinjurehim. The General said It was a snuatuoyustiable proceeding' but certainly Afr. Dunham had done nomore than his duty. I told him Mlessrs. Hurd and Johnson are also very sory, and no doubt would make every apology. He :sdd ha had rceived a letter from Mc.rs. Hard and Johnson, whi?h was not satisfactory. At intervals he talked about the at. ternit recently made on his own life. After some time Bis, the ran in pos&ession, suggested the idea ot an apology in the cc- ece of th- servants, 'as be had spoken of the injury done to bim in their eye& Bis said, " Perhaps the General will be satisfied with the a3ologyR,if repeated in the presence of the servants." I said I wo-il dto at willingly. The General said " lVell, I wili call the servants.'I The young man came in, and the General directed him to call the cook. She came; I then explained to them that the Ge- meral was in no wise liable to the execution-that it was all mistake --and that the General liad kindly consented to accept an apology in their presence, and to wave all further ptoceedings against . r. Durlham for the trespass lie had c6rainitted. All this was ald in the hcaring of the General, who again alluded to the sauack on his life. As I was going away, he said "You will withdraw the execution from the house at Hornsey." I said r I an instructed so to do." He said- You will make the same explanation treze that you have done here -" I said I certainly would. I accordingly went to Ilomsev, and made a similar expla- nation to the s;ervants there. 'When I'left the General, I thought he was satisfied with Mr. Dunham. Cress-examined.-I am assistant to M1r. Dunham. Formerly I was in aznercsatile situation. Afterwards I lived at Calais and Boul lze at the expense of my friends. Dir. BROUGleA-ii-And when you were in trade you lived at the ea ense of your creditors ? The witncss,_l owe money, certainly. Mr. BPOUGsA5I..That is what I call living at the expense of your creditors. (A laugh.) The vwitness said he never was in anuy firm, but was P. Custom- heuse-cderk. He had been in a most respeotable house, to which he could refer (he named the house, but it cscaped us.) Janes Hlollings, a clerk to Alessrs. Hurd and Johnson, and Bis, the batliffs follower, proved the apology proposed; the ringing of the bell; and the prnposal for the joumeey to Hormsey, but they did ant speak to the words of acce tance aud satisfaction related by Gray. They thought, however, the Gencral was satisfied.) A lctter fro-.n Messrs. H urd and Johnson, ot' the 7th of January, witlhdrawing the execution, and ofering an apology, was read ; and the promissory note proved to be signed "N. C. Burton." iI r. BRtOIGnA5t replied in a speech, to which it would have been difficult at any time, and is impossible at this hour, to do any thing like jutice. After rtviewiua and contrasting the evidence, he called Inn thc jiury to teach attornies who were plaintiffs to take care that while they played, others lid not smart; and that if there was to be no time when the process of the law should sleep-no holyday which could be held sacred from the inky deity who presided in the place whence that process isssed, at least to teach these who pro- cuTed that pr-cess, that in using they should not abuse it and that if thev permitted it to become the meanTs of distressing die innocent and the infirnn they nmust pay for theit carelessness in damages. The LORn CrIIEF JUSTICF said, the only question was, whe- ther the plaintiff accepted the apologies in satisfattion of that tres- pass which had undottbtedly been cmrmitt&d. That the apologies were mnade was clear; if they were taken with the journey in satis. faction, the verdict should be for the defendant; it they were not ro takren. the verdict must be for the plalotiff, but the fact that they were offered miight fairly operate in reduction of damages. The Jury, after a short cunsultation, found a verdict for the-plain - tiff-Damages 20L As the LORs3 CHitEP JUVTsCV was about to re:ire, AMr. Henry lunt, once of political notoriety, addressed his Lordship, to inquirc why a c3usc, in which he is plaintiff; fixed for to-day, had not been tried?-: The LoRD CsrIEF JUSTICE._-Therewas no special jury struck, Sir: and therefore it wa passed over. It will be tried by a coIU. iincrijury. MTr. 1ant raid he had been in attendance aU day, expecting the tral. The LonD Crr.r JUSTicE.-That will sometimes happen. IVe cannot avoid it. Mr. Hunt then proceeded toconfer with AMr. Bellamy on the sub- cat, and the Lord Chief Justice left the court. I COtJRT FR 1(fN(W R tm ttTT- I THE KIG VY, iYiLLIAI CROCXFOUD.