appointed to the command of a fleet, he should not be entitled to any share of the prize-money, till he actually arrived within the limits of the station. On this ground, therefore, lord Nelson laid claim to one two of the learned judges were on the opposite side, the judgment of the court had nearly been withheld, but as judgment was prayed, on the part of lord Nelson, Mr. Justice Heath withdrew; consequently the decision of the court was in favour of earl St. Vincent. parishes in Plymouth, as well as by other reputa-, ble men there, and they came forward, in his behalf, on an accusation which would naturally have induced them to hold back, if they had not been thoroughly convinced of the real worth of the de-eighth of the prizes captured by the Alcmene. As fendant's general character. Lord EllenboroughLet him be committed, and brought up on the last day of the term. Mr. Erskine My lords, to shew the simplicity and ignorance of this unhappy man, I would state, that when the information came down, and the process was shewn to him, commanding him to appear and answer, he thought, on seeing the red seal of the process, that he had got his place. Defendant committed.. The King v. Hamlin. (Nov.29.)—The attorneygeneral moved the judgment of the court on the defendant. Mr. Justice Grose spoke nearly as follows:-" Philip Hamlin, you stand to receive the judgment of this court, charged by an information, in which you are accused of having attempted to, corrupt the rt hon. H. Addington, offering a bribe to the said H. Addington, to nominate and appoint you to the office of landing surveyor of the customs of the port of Plymouth, being an office of great public trust and confidence then vacant, and that, to induce him so to appoint you to such office, you wrote and caused to be written, to the said H. Addington, a letter, offering to him £2000 for so doing. You suffered judgment to pass against you by default. Such a practice, if permitted, would lead to mischief incalculable, for it might extend to every office in the appointment of the great ministers of the state, civil, military and ecclesiastical, and would supersede men of ability and integrity, and place in their stead the ignorant and corrupt. If the punishment we are about to inflict on you will not entirely check this practice, punishment still more severe must be resorted to. This court, for this your offence doth order and adjudge, that you pay to the king a fine of 100%; that you be imprisoned in the custody of the marshal of the marshalsea of this court, for three calendar months, and that you be further imprisoned until such fine be paid." KING'S BENCH.-Moore v. Durnford.-Crim. Con. Dec. 10. This was an action against the defendant for crim. con, with the plaintiff's wife. The damages were laid at £10,000. Mr. Erskine was counsel for the plaintiff. After a few general remarks upon the clearness of the case and the impossibility of setting up any defence to the action, he proceeded to atate that Mr. Moore whs a gent. of large fortune and high character. Some years ago he had paid addresses to his present wife. This lady was of one of the first families of the kingdom, being niece to the earl of Meath. Her beauty and accomplishments were equal to her birth, and a virtuous education had adorned her with innocence and modesty. Mr. M. succeeded in his addresses, and his fondest hopes of domestic happiness were realized. She was the mother of three children, the eldest 14, the second 11, and the youngest 4 or 5 years of age. It was fit he should say, that during the long course of the plaintiff and his wife living together, to the date of this criminal connection, the plaintiff had no reason to doubt her chastity or honour; on the contrary it was impossible for him to establish the fact of any adultery having been committed under his roof. For some months before her elopement her husband observed a difference in her behaviour, an unusual degree of coolness, but without being able to discover the cause. Previous to this time the defendant frequently visited at the plaintiff' house, but there appeared no particular intimacy between him and plaintiff's wife, that could justly the least suspicion. Mrs. M. had first become acCOMMON PLEAS. Earl St. Vincent v. Lord Nelson. quainted with the defendant at a public breakfast (Nov. 25.)-The important and long-depending given by the latter. The defendant was consi cause between carl St. Vincent and lord Nelson, dered as a man of character, and therefore the respecting prize money was decided this day. Lord plaintiff had not the slightest idea of his attempting St. Vincent was appointed to the command of the any thing dishonourable, but the incense he of fleet stationed off the coast of Spain; but his healthfered at the shrine of his wife's beauty and ac requiring a short absence from the squadron, he complishments, won her to his love, and she be obtained permission to return to England, on leav- came too affectionately attached to him for her fuing his command to the next flag officer. His ture happiness. Her fatal passion was the cause lordship, previous to his departure, gave orders to of her deserting her house, and abandoning her capt. Digby, of the Alcmene, to cruize within the husband, her friends, family, and children. The limits of the station; then deputing his command plaintiff was for some time unable to discover the to lord Keith, sailed for England in the Argo. From place of her retreat; but at last he found her liv. lord Keith, the command devolved upon lord Nel-ing with the defendant, and was enabled to preson, who became and continued senior admiral on that station until the return of lord Keith; in the interval, capt. Digby captured two Spanish ships of war; and lord Nelson, as commander in chief, claimed his share of the prize-money. The proclamation of 1797, on which the question of his lordship's right greatly depended, directs that a certain proportion of prize-money should be divided among the flag officers, and that one-eighth should bolong to the commander in chief: but the 4th art. of the said proclamation ordered, that if the chief flag officer returned home, he should not be Mr. Garrow, leading counsel for the defendant, entitled to any share of the prize-money obtained confined himself to saying a few words in- mitsby the ship under other command. The proclama-gation of damages. Capt. Durnford, though cailed tion can provided, that when a flag.officer was capt. was only a subaltern in the guards, and de cure that proof which would now be laid before the jury. The marriage being proved, three ge tlemen were called, who fully confirmed the learned counsel in what he said of Mrs. M. before she was married, and of the happy state in which she and her husband afterwards lived. The nex witness was a maid servant, who had seen Mrs. M. with the defendant after her elopement; she said i that she had made up one bed for them in the defendant's house at Brockhill, and that she had no doubt they slept there together. |tained the corn. The facts above stated were pended entirely upon his pay. Heavy damages COMMON PLEAS.-Corder v. Emerton. Dec. 10.-Serj. Best opened this case on the part of the plaintiff. He said the security of commerce in a great measure depended on the good faith and integrity of those, by whose recommendation we were introduced to new connections. In a country like this, where three fourths of the inhabitants were enaged in trade, and its existence almost depended on mutual confidence; no tendency could be more fatal than the false representations made ⚫of one tradesman to another: and if the evidence he was going to submit was believed, a more infamous or fraudulent scheme could never be concerted. The plaintiff, Mr. Corder, was an eminent corn-factor, in the city of London; and the defendant a country dealer in the neighbourhood of Oxford. About the latter end of Dec. 1801, the defendant, with a person of the name of Hall, came to the plaintiff's stand in the corn market, and purchased some malt and beans by sample. Mr. Corder being unacquainted with Hall, made some hesitation; wherein the defendant introduced himself by saying, that he had formerly recommended a customer of the name of Thomp-man who harboured the wife of another, without son; "True," said Mr. Corder, "and I had a great difficulty in getting my money of him. I hope you have brought me a better chap now." The defendant replied, that Hall was a good man, and would pay for what he bought; though at the same time he knew Hall was insolvent, and the sole intent of this bargain was to recover the sum of £50 which he owed to the defendant. It was agreed, that on the Friday following, a bill for £139, the amount of the corn. should be sent to Mr. Molyneux, of Foster-street, Bishopgate, who would accept it. In the mean time the corn was got out of the plaintiff's hands, and carried on board a barge at Brookes's wharf, to be conveyed to Oxford. When the bill was presented to Mr. -Molyneux for acceptance, he denied any knowledge of the transaction, or of the parties. The plaintiff, suspecting a fraud, sent an order to the wharf, to detain the corn, but it was too late. The barge was arrested in its course, near Abingdon, | by the ice; Emerton soon after came up, and ob the knowledge or consent of her husband, whatever might be his motives, could not be justified. Mrs. Wardell, mother-in-law of the plaintiff, alleged, that some difference had existed between them about two years ago; that Mrs. G. signified an intention of leaving her husband in consequence of his ill-treatment, which the mother endeavoured to prevent, by stating what might ensue. This conversation took place in the presence of the defendant, who said, if Mrs. G. could help herself, she was to blame if she stopped-that he was going to housekeeping, and she should live with him. On the 6th of March last, Mrs. G. called on her mother, and said she was going to her friends in the country, but did not then disclose the place of her retreat. Mr. Stevenson, a friend of the plaintiff's deposed, that five or six weeks previous to the elopement, Mrs. G. applied to him, to request he would intercede with her husband to procure a separate maintenance, to which the witness obiected. Seri. Shepherd said, it was important that it should be understood, that men was or was not the inventor of this compound, have no right to alienate the wives and children and the first who applied it to use? It appeared, of others; it should also be understood, how far that the practice of using this fluid for the pur relat ons or friends, when they perceive that ma- poses of bleaching, was a very great advantage to trimonial intercourse is nothing but misery and trade; so much, indeed, as that one house in the discord, are justified in opening their doors to the north of England had saved £2600 a-year by its unfortunate; or whether they were to be deaf to use, and that it bleached better than the former pity and distress, and thrust a wretched woman with mode, and did not discharge the colours, which her helpless children into the street. The founda- the old mode often did. The patent was dated tion of this action was, that the defendant had se- on the 30th Jan. 1798, and therefore, if this pracduced the plaintiff's wife from her home; but by uce had been in use before that time, the plaintiff some means it was possible to judge from the re- could not sustain his patent. It appeared on the cord, what was the intention of the parties. This evidence of Mr. Hall, that his firm, consisting of case rested on the testsmony of Mrs. Wardell; himself and two partners, whose business was and if her story was believed, it must be interred carried on by the help of two servants, used this that G. and his wife lived in harmony, till the lat- very compound for the purposes of bleaching, ter was seduced by the defendant: but could it precisely as the plaintiff claimed the exclusive be supposed that a man should seduce a woman right of doing; and that they had continually done for no other purpose than the satisfaction of sup- so ever since the year 1791. P. Pilkinton, the porting her For, from the first hour of her foreman of Mr. Greatrix of Dishley, in Cheshire, elopement to the present time, his conduct had a calico-printer, proved that he had constantly borne the strictest scrutiny; and could be attri- used the very same compound, in the very same buted to no other motive than a benevolent wish manner as the plaintiff claimed the exclusive right to afford shelter to an unfortunate woman, whom of doing, and that they had done so in the firm ever he knew to have just cause to be dissatisfied with since the year 1796. Hugh Foy proved, that be the treatment of her husband. The defendant was the instructor of the plaintiff, and that the first certainly had placed himself in a situation of great hint of uniting lime-water with gas, in the man. danger---a situation in which the slander of the ner here done, was given to the plaintiff by him, world would say, his charity and benevolence had and that on that instruction the plaintiff made the been extended to the enjoyment of her person.experiment, and it answered all expectation, on There were other circumstances in this case which which the teacher said to the plaintiff, jocularly, proved that the defendant's conduct was purely he would have a patent for this: the plaintif charitable. He had declared his intention to sup-said, "No, the improvement is yours, the inven port his cousin as long as he possessed the means; tion is yours, and you should have the merit of an assertion that did honour to his heart; and it it." was to be hoped the determination of the jury would not tell him that he should have barred his door against her; that unless she returned to her husband, she must starve, or get her bread in a way which shocked the feelings of humanity. Some time afterwards the patent was taken out. The jury informed the chief justice, that they were satisfied, and wished to hear no more of this, unless his lordship thought it necessary. Lord Ellenborough-I am indeed satisfied; I have been fully and painfully satisfied upon this subject for some hours, and the reason why I waited so long to say so, was to give you time to say when you had made up your minds upon the case. I Lord Alvanley said he was extremely desirous, from the nature of this cause, that the jury should determine some line by which a man might regu. late his conduct in receiving the wife of another.might indeed have non-suited the plaintiff hours In his opinion, the defendant certainly did not merit the aspersions which had been cast upon him, though it would have been more prudent, if he had acted with greater caution. The jury were to consider, whether the defendant had seduced the plaintiff's wife, with any sinister motives, in which case the damages could not be too heavy; but if, on the other hand, they conceived that she had just cause to leave her husband, and the defendaut merely afforded her protection, the damages could not be too small, if any. Verdict for the defendant. KING'S BENCH.-Tenant v. Slater. Dec. 23. This was an action brought by Mr. Tenant against the defendants Messrs. Slater and Co. for having infringed his patent, obtained for the exercise of his invention of a method of using calcareous earths, the earths of stronites and barytes, all of them either in their carbonated or calcined states, but more properly in the latter state, instead of alkaline substances for neutralizing the oxygenated muriatic acid used in bleaching, instead of pot and pearl-ashes, kelp, barilla, or other alkaline substances. In one word, the plaintiff claimed, in support of his patent, the merit of having first discovered the use of lime and lime-water, with oxygenated marine gas, united in a fluid for the purposes of bleaching; and the single question was, whether the plaintiff ago, because the patent itself is much too large, for it claims by its terms, a monopoly of almost all bleaching. It is a scandalous patent, as destitute of merit upon the facts as it is unfounded upon law. I never heard evidence more satisfactory than that of Pilkinton. When I was attorney-general, I had occasion to see men come for patents, who had actually stolen the invention from the author, who came afterwards to apply for it. Plaintiff nonsuited. Lingham v. Hunt.-Crim. Con. Dec. 24. This was an action for crim. con. of the defendant with the plaintiff's wife. M. Garrow opened the case. The plaintiff complained of the defendant, that he had debauched his wife. The present case he stated as the most aggravated that ever came into a court of justice, and would call on the justice of the jury to go the full length they were warranted to go, which was £5000. This defendant was the friend, and confident companion of the plaintiff, and while he was thus professing that friendship debauched the plaintiff's wife. When he had succeeded in debauching, or perhaps when he had not completed his object, but had reason to hope he soon should, he looked about him how he was to fence against justice, and generally he persuaded the victim of his lust to be instrumental in shewing something against the character of the plaintiff. 1 diately to the city, went off to Barnet, arrived at the Green Man Inn that night, and there he and Mrs. L. slept in one bed, and had lived in adultery ever since. Miss F. Merchant." I am perfectly well acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. L.; they appeared to me to be living very happ ly together." B. Waters. I know the plaintiff perfectly well. Mr. Lingham behaved towards his wife in every respect as an exemplary husband. I remember Mrs. L. saying something about their separation in the night of illumination, but nothing about a tavern; but that she and a gent. had supped together, and had fared better than the rest of the company, who were obliged to put up with what they could get at a pastry-cook's." Mr. Dixon, brother to the plaintiff's wise.—“ Į was one of the party who went to see the illumination: there were twenty of us nearly. We missed part of our company when we came to M. Otto's. Mrs. L. was under the care of Mr. H. and one of my sisters and Mrs. Lingham's sister were under the care of Mr. Lingham. We sepa→ rated before we came to M. Otto's, at Mr. Hope's house, from whence we went to M. Otto's, and | afterwards we went to a pastry-cook's, and then came home. Something known only to herself and some domestics, and this was to be made up into negligence in the husband, so that he was not to be entitled to damages in a court of justice. The plaintiff's wife was now under what the defendant called his protection, but the truth was, that she lived with him in the most degraded state that a woman can be in, having lost her virtue, and with it, of course, her character; and, therefore, she was driven by dire necessity to embark in the iniquity of the defendant, and enter on one common cause with him. He should now proceed to show how these parties came together. The plaintiff was a very young man, and in partnership with a gentleman of the name of Hopley, in the trade of a wine merchant. He was married on the 16th of Aug. 1800, to the lady whose misconduct with the defendant formed the subject of inquiry to-day. She was only 18 years of age when married, but extremely handsome and well accomplished. They lived near to the defendant, who is engaged in the same line of trade, who was also at that time married to a very amiable and most deserving lady. Accordingly, as Mr. L. and Mr. H. were intimate, Mrs. H. and Mrs. L. became friendly also, and visited each other frequently. Soon afterwards Mrs. H. died in child-bed, the infant surviving. On this occasion Mr. H. con- Mr. Newman, the stable-keeper in Windmill ducted himself as a man should, with great ten-street, and his two boys, proved that Mr. H. and derness to the infant, and apparent sorrow for the Mrs. L. came to his house, in a hackney-coach; Joss of its mother. Left thus, without the pro- on the 8th of July, about half after ten, and took tection of the mother, it became necessary to find a post-chaise to go to Barnet. That Mr. H. gavė out somebody to take care that all servants, and to Mr. Baily two letters, directed to persons in those who had the charge of nursing the infant, the city, and which were delivered the following should not neglect their duty, and Mrs. L. took morning at six o'clock, the one of them to the plainupon herself this kind office. It was in this state tiff's father by mistake, who delivered it immethat the defendant meditated the diabolical plan diately afterwards to the plaintiff; the other to of seducing the plaintiff's wife, of which the the defendant's brother. plaintiff had not the least reason to be jealous, for Sarah Limel, chamber-maid at the Green Man the two families had been in the constant habit of at Barnet, proved that the defendant and the plainvisiting each other, nor was there the least dim-tiff's wife arrived at the inn about half after one nution in the affection of Mrs. L. to her husband; but, to his astonishment, on the 8th of July last, when Mr. L. who had been attending the concerns of the day, in his business, came home, he found his wife was not there. The evening having advanced, he hoped she might be at her father's. He sent; she was not there. He sent to some other of her relations, but no tidings could be had of her; at last he concluded that she had Mr. Erskine made a long and very eloquent gone to the house of some friend. As the night speech. Admitted that his client could not be advanced, he thought a thousand things that justified in what he did; yet he maintained that might have befallen his wife, but had no idea that there were shades innumerable in this offence. his own confidential friend had induced her to Where a man had violated all the rules of hospielope with him, to the dishonour of all the family, tality, and had been a deliberate seducer, he deand ruin of herself. The jury should guess his served every scourge that could be inflicted on astonishment when he received a letter from the him in a court of justice; but where he had been defendant, by which guilt would appear in its true exposed to a blaze of beauty, without that sort of light. The letter was as follows: "Sir,-With caution from the husband, who was the natural sorrow, great, how can I announce to you, you guardian of the honour of the wife, and where the have most miserably misplaced in me your con- husband had been remiss and negligent as to the "fidence; your wife cannot return but with your safety of the wife, and had permitted her, young, forgiveness, which is impossible. I think, I see, beautiful, gay, and lively, to be too often unhowever, the situation of my poor brother, who, heeded and alone in the company of the defenas well as Eliza, yourself, and myself, must go dant; and where a man, under such circumstances, distracted. Still your's, Jos. HUNT." had not been propf against so much temptation, Mr. Garrow proceeded to detail the rest of the he was the object of the compassion of men of case. That about ten o'clock at night on the 8th feeling, nor should he be rigorously treated in a of July last, the defendant prevailed on the plain-court of justice. The parties were all of them tiff's wife to go with him in an hackney-coach to Windmill-street, where he took a post-chaise, and having delivered two letters to the proprietor of the chaise, directing him to send them imme. I o'clock, where they supped, and then went to bed, and slept in one bed all night. That a gent. came and asked for Mr. H. the next morning, and the chamber-maid went up, when she saw the lady in bed. It then appeared, that Mr. H. and Mrs. L. called at the house of Mrs. L.'s, laundress at Holloway, and there took change of clothes. objects of great compassion. He did not justify the defendant, for reost assuredly his conduct was criminal; but he submitted that it was not the conduct of an hardened offender, but of one night. Mr. L. was invited, but did not come over. At another time, when Mr. Lingham was present, there was some conversation concerning what passed on the night of the illumination. Mrs. L. observed, that she had been at a tavern with my brother, and had some beef and a cool tankard. Mr. L. observed, that they had fared better than we had, for that we had been obliged to put up with a pastry cook's shop. All he said as he went along was, "Do you know where Mrs. L. is" I said "No, I do not, I have not been home this afternoon." Mr. L. observed, going along, he did not like Mrs. L. being so much at our house, I inquired of the servant, at my brother's house, where Mrs. L. was? I learnt that she had beea there that afternoon, but had gone with Mr. H. a-riding in his chaise. I asked Mr. L. to walk up stairs, and take a game of cribbage with me til they should return. Some time atter dark, between nine and ten o'clock, they returned; the out of the chaise, and observed to my brother, that he should not suffer him again to keep Mrs. L. out so late, or after dark. When we were at cribbage, I told him I thought it was very improper for my brother' to keep Mrs. L. out so late, and that I should not suffer it if I were him.-Anne Atwood bad lived servant with Mr. and Mrs. L. four months. Q. Did you ever in your life sec a more affectionate husband than your master? A. Never in my life. Mr. Garrow replied with great rage at the conduct of the defendant in this most infamous transaction. He felt not the least scruple in saying, that the defendant's brother had endeavoured to support his cause by direct and absolute perjury. He protested that he never saw so iniquitous a case as that attempted to be set up by the defendant in the whole course of his life. whose sorrow and repentance accompanied his transgression. This was to be inferred from the letter he wrote to the plaintiff: but it would appear that the plaintiff had repeatedly been admonished of the impropriety of allowing his wife and the defendant to be so much together; but that he had been careless notwithstanding; had sutfered them to go out riding together, and instead of accompanying them, had gone a fishing, &c. and had, under pretence of taking care of his wife, sent an infant with her and the plaintiff on their excursions. When they came home, he had only complained that they were late, and said, his wife should not stay out so late. That he lived opposite to the house of the defendant; and that after the defendant and the plaintiff's wife had come into the defendant's house, after they had been out all day together, he had sent for the keys to get what he wanted for himself, and left his wife with the defendant at supper, where they were together until 11 at night. That on the night of the illumina-chaise came to Mr. L.'s door; Mr. L. helped Mrs. L. tion for the peace, a large party went out together from Tower street. The plaintiff, instead of taking care of his wife, allowed that charge to be taken by the defendant, he taking another lady under his arm. That when they came to the house of M. Otto, they separated, when the plaintiff showed no anxiety about his wife, while some of the company went to seek for them. That the defendant and the plaintiff's wife supped together, and that at a tavern. That above all, the plaintiff's wife told him that she had supped at a tavern with the defendant, who treated the matter with raillery, or badinage, as one of the witnesses described it. He colluded with observing, that where the plaintiff had been so negligent, and claimed damages in a civil action, for the loss of that, to preserve which it was his duty to be caretul, he should not take advantage of his own ucglgence, and obtain large damages against the man who, next to himself, had been most unfortunate. Mr. C. Hunt, examined by Mr. Gibbs. I am the brother of the defendant: was not very much in the habits of intercourse with him; I had had a difference with him, that difference took place on account of this transaction: I was one of the party who went to see the illuminations: I went with the party from Tower-street: Mr. and Mrs. L. were of the party, which was about 20 in number, my brother was one of them; he had the care of Mrs. L. and she took his arm; Mr. Lingham was walking alone, and flinging crackers about the ladies. Mr. L. did not express any apprehension, but seemed very careless. When we got home inquiry was made for Mrs. L. but she was not returned. We got home between two and three. I do not know when Mrs. L. came home. Afterwards, and on the first of May, I saw Mr. L. and a party was proposed for Mrs. L. that day. I was at tea with Mrs. L. and some ladies. Mr. L. came to the room: Mrs. L. said to Mr. L. that Mr. H. had desired her to take a ride the next day with him in his chaise. I observed to Mr. L. he had better borrow my brother's other horse to go with them; Mr. L. declined, saying that he was going a fishing. Mrs. L. did go out with my brother the next day; Mr. L. did not accompany them, but went a fishing. I remember Mr. H., and Mrs. L. returning that evening; they came to my brother's about eight in the evening; while they were there Mr. L. sent for a certain key"- -Chief justice.—should be disposed to make. Q. To Mrs. L.? A. To Mrs. L.; she sent it: she staid to supper, and after supper till eleven at Lord Ellenborough obscrved, that this case eserved their most serious attention. The plain; f by this action complained that the defendant, by the seduction of the plaintiff's wife, had deprived him of all the happiness and all the honour which marriage brought to him in social life. It appeared that the defendant had the implicit confidence of the plaintiff he had betrayed it-nor could 217 one use stronger language against the defendant than he had used himself; for he said, "you have most miserably reposed in me your confidence.” Had the defendant felt that contrition he expected the court to believe, he might either have suffered judgment to have past against him by default, or come into court by counsel, with humble instructions to watch the proof on the part of the plaintiff, and trusted to the discreet observations which his counsel would have made, and in which he would not have been disappointed. His lordship then reprobated the idea of supposing that a man gives up the virtue of his wife, so as to lose his right to claim damages for adultery, merely because he had suffered his wife to lay hold of the arm of another in a crowd at an illumination. This was too profligate even for this immoral age, so prone to seck excuses for adultery. His lordship concluded with observing, that upon the evidence nothing appeared against the plaintiff, for his case was satisfactorily made out, and that nothing occurred to his mind that could shield the defendant from making as full and ample a compensation to the plaintiff as the jury in their opinion of justice, The jury, in less than one minute, gave a ver dict for the plaintiff. Damages, £5000. |