was a sort of action which required as much strictness in proof as a trial for felony; and that the imprudent conduct of the rider laid him open to a severe cross-examination; but the jury, believing his testimony, had come to a right conclusion.The subsequent finding of the pocket book was a decisive confirmation of his story; and though he did not mean to attach suspicion to the defendant or his wife, yet he might have dishonest people about him; and he could not believe the pocketbook was between the mattresses on the morning of the search. He rather believed, from the noise the circumstance had occasioned in the country, the party who took the pocket-book was apprehensive it could not be got rid of without detection, and had therefore placed it between the mattresses previous to the sale. Upon the whole, he saw no grounds for disturbing the verdict, or for granting a stet proces

sus.

The other judges concurred in opinion, and the rule for a new trial was discharged.

12. Sheriff's Court.-Crim Con. -Wellesley, Esq. v. Lord Paget. In this case, the plaintiff having brought his action for damages against the noble lord, the defendant suffered judgement by default, thereby acknowledging the adulter ous intercouse; and this day a jury was impannelled before Mr. Burchell, the sheriff, to assess the da

mages.

Mr. Garrow, with great eloquence and feeling, depicted the previous state of happiness enjoyed by the plaintiff and his wife, and recounted the numerous offspring, the fruit of their connubial intercourse. He then drew an afflicting

picture of the mental distress into which the incontinence of his lady had plunged him. Nor was he less eloquent in describing the miscon duct of the defendant, who, he said, had courage enough to conquer every other enemy but his own passions. This speech was followed by evidence of the facts, and a speech in mitigation of damages, by Mr. Dallas, when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages, twenty thousand pounds!

The elopement of Lady Char lotte Wellesley with Lord Paget, which gave occasion to the above action, took place in the afternoon of Monday, the 6th of March. Mr. Hemy Wellesley, who is secretary of the treasury, had spoken, it seems, more pointedly than ever to Lady Charlotte, on the very marked and constant attentions of Lord Paget, which (though from the long and confidential friendship which had subsisted between the families, he did not apprehend to be dishonourable,) might affect her reputation in the world. Lady Charlotte was indignant at the idea of reproach, and hurried out with her. servant to take the air in the Green Park. She desired him to remain at the gate, as she should walk for a-short time; and it appears that her ladyship took a hackney coach, and sent a note to Lord P. at Uxbridge house. They met, and in this state of irritated feelings, and probably on the consciousness of guilt, they set off together.-As she did not return to dinner, inquiries were made. The servant had continued at the gate of the Green Park till a late hour; and on his return home, being questioned, he' gave the above account. The me lancholy truth was confirmed by a

letter,

letter, which Lord P. wrote to his father, in which he acknowledged his trespass-and that he had in vain, in the heat of battle, sought a refuge from the agonies of a distracted mind. It is certain that on every occasion in Spain, he exposed himself in a way which got him the reputation of a rash and adventurous gallantry. As it could not be imagined that a nobleman apparently gifted with all the means and objects of happiness could be in reality so wretched. The two sisters, Lady Charlotte and Lady Emily Cadogen, married two brothers, Henry and William Wellesley. Lord Paget is married to one of the beautiful daughters of Lady Jersey, by whom he has a numerous family.

The first consequence of their elopement, was a duel between Lord Paget and Captain Cadogan. In order to prevent the appearance in the papers of any mis-statement respecting the duel which took place this morning between Lord Paget and Captain Cadogan, we, the respective friends of the parties, feel it incumbent on us to submit the following as the correct statement of the event as it occurred :--In consequence of a challenge having been received by Lord Paget from Captain Cadogan, and every attempt to prevent a meeting having failed, the parties, attended by their respective friends, Captain Cadogan by Captain M'Kenzie of the navy, Lord Paget by Lieut-Colonel Vivian of the 7th light dragoons, met as agreed, at seven o'clock, on Wimbledon cominon. The ground having been taken at twelve paces. distance, they were directed to fire together. Captain Cadogan fired, Lord Paget's pistol flashed-this

having been decided to go for a fire, a question arose, whether Lord Paget had taken aim, as if intending to hit his antagonist. Both the seconds being clearly of opinion that such was not his intention (although the degree of obliquity he gave the direction of the pistol was such, as to have been discovered only by particular observation), Captain M'Kenzie stated to Captain Cadogan, that as it appeared to be Lord Paget's intention not to fire at him, he could not admit of the affair proceeding any further. Lieut.-Colonel Vivian then asked Captain Cadogan, whether he had not himself observed that Lord Paget had not aimed at him-to which he replied in the affirmative. Captain M'Kenzie then declared his determination not to remain any longer in the field, to witness any further act of hostility on the part of Captain Cadogan. Captain C. replied, of course his conduct must be de cided by his second; declaring at the same time, that he had come prepared for the fall of one of the parties. On Captain M'Kenzie and Lieut.-Colonel Vivian making it known to Lord Paget, that as he evidently did not intend to fire at Captain Cadogan, the affair could go no further: Lord P. replied,

66

as such is your determination, I have now no hesitation in saying, that nothing could ever have induced me to add to the injuries I have already done the family, by firing at the brother of Lady Charlotte Wellesley." The parties then left the ground. (Signed)

not, which sufficiently betrays the auguished state of mind which followed the imprudent, step she had taken.

"It would be the height of ingratitude were I not to try to convey my thanks to Henry Wellesley for his most kind and generous of fer of taking horse a wretch, who bas so much injured him. I dare not write to him myself; but I implore it of you to say every thing which gratitude and feeling can suggest, to express my sense of the kindness of his conduct. His note was forwarded to me this morning; but, degraded and unprincipled as I must appear in the eyes of every body, believe me I am not lost to all sense of honour, which would forbid my returning to a husband I have quitted, to children I have abandoned. Indeed, indeed, my dear Mr. Arburthnot, if you knew all, you would pity more than blame me. Could you tell all the resistance that has been made to this criminal, most atrocious attachment, could you know what are my sufferings at this moment, you would feel for me. Henry has not deserved this of me. We have had some differences, and he may, perhaps, sometimes have been a little too harsh to me; but I can with truth assert, and I wish you to publish it to the world, that in essential, and, indeed, in trifling subjects, he has ever been kind to me to the greatest degree; nor has the person who may be supposed to have attempted to lower him in my estimation, in order to gain my affections, ever spoken of him to me but in the highest terms of respect. About my dear, dear children, I must say one word. Do you think I dare hope, by any remote or indirect means to hear sometimes of

them; you know how much I love them! You are aware of their merits, and what I must feel at having quitted them; but I have the satis faction, the inexpressible comfort of knowing they will be taken care of by their father, though their mother has abandoned them. My dear little Henry and Charles-Oh! God bless you!-I wrote every thing to my brother last night."

"Tuesday morning, 7 o'clock." "Since writing the inclosed, I have come to town, and if it is not repugnant to your feelings, I think I should like to have one interview with you, but not if you object to it in any way. The bearer can bring you to me instantly, if you will see me; but if not, ask no questions."

Henry Wellesley wrote to her in answer to this letter to Arbuth not:

"That for the sake of her welfare, and that of her children, he would consent to receive her again, provided she would return, and break off all correspondence or connection with the person she was then with; but that she must return instantly, for the next day would be too late."

The result of this unfortunate affair has been, that Lord Paget returns to the bosom of his family. He is to live with Lady Paget, and has left town with her ladyship for Beaudesert, in Staffordshire. He has purchased a house for Lady Charlotte Wellesley, in which she now resides, and has made a settlement upon her-while Mr. Wellesley is eagerly proceeding to obtain a divorce.

Rolls Court.-Lord Mahon v. Earl Stanhope.-This cause, which we reported at length on its first hearing, was re-heard on Wednes

day,

day, at the desire of the Noble Defendant.

Mr. O'Deady, jun. Council, opened the case of Earl Stanhope.

Mr. Richards, on behalf of Lord Mahon, expressed a wish that the Noble Defendant, who was in court, should not be permitted to speak for himself, as he had engaged the assistance of Counsel.

Earl Stanhope immediately addressed the Master of the Rolls. He said that old birds were not to be caught by chaff. He claimed it as an indisputable right to speak for himself, because he knew his own cause better than he could instruct any Counsel. His intention was to state his objections to the Decree which his Honour had made on the 9th of March, 1808; and before he should state them, he wished to acquit his Honour the Master of the Rolls of all bias or partiality, and he trusted that any thing he should say against his opponents should not be considered by the Learned Gentlemen (Sir Samuel Romilly and Mr. Richards,) who were Counsel for the Plaintiff, as a personal attack upon themselves. His Lordship said, that his son had originally filed a bill against him full of falsehood, and charging him with many atrocities, which he afterwards abandoned in his amended bill. He was charged in the amended bill with having exceeded the powers vested in him by his first marriage settlement, and his Honour referred it to Mr. Harvey, one of the Masters in Chancery, to inquire how far the allegations were true. To that part of the decree he felt himself bound to object, because it was not sought for in the prayer of the bill; and he contended that no decree of the Court of Chancery VOL. LI.

could be made upon any other grounds than those which were stated in the bill, and the allegations of the bill must also be proved by the answer of the Defendant, or some other evidence. He objected partly to the decree, because it referred to what had taken place in his father's time, and for whose acts he could not be responsible. He had nothing to do with what estates his father had sold, nor the money he received for them, and he therefore thought that part of the decree which referred to that point ought to be expunged. In the whole bill there was no charge made against him respecting the estates which had been sold in his father's time, and if there had, it could not apply to him, but to his father's trustees, who were dead; and there was no person made party to the suit who could defend his father's character in his transac tions. He could not consider the inquiry of the Master to be any thing else than a sham inquiry, because no opportunity was allowed of cross examining the witnesses, who might perhaps be perjured. He did not think that his Honour could act upon a report taken under such circumstances. His Lordship then quoted a number of Law Authorities, tending to shew, that no decree could be made by any Court of Justice beyond that which the Plaintiff prayed for. The doctrine was established in the case of Mr. Hastings, where the House of Lords, at the request of Mr. Law, now Lord Ellenborough, refused to hear any evidence which did not respect any of the charges alledged against the Defendant.-His Lordship, therefore, objected to the Decree, because it was not founded Z

upon

1

upon what was charged against him, but upon that which he admitted in his answer.

Mr. Scott was not heard, on the ground that it would be irregular for Counsel to speak after their Client.--Mr. Richards made a short reply; and his Honour, after a few words, affirmed the decree.

Lord Stanhope, we understand, means to appeal to the House of Lords.

26. Court of King's Bench.The King v. Valentine Jones.The attorney-general stated, that this was an indictment against the defendant, charging him with a breach of duty, in his character as commissary-general in the WestIndies, and superintendant and director of army provisions, appointed by his majesty in 1795. The indictment stated that the defendant, having the several allowances of 21. and 31. per day, and it being his duty to provide stores for his majesty, and not to receive any part of the emoluments or gains arising from the provision of such stores, entered into a corrupt agreement with one Matthew Higgins, in pursuance of which, he received to his own use a moiety of the profits arising from such provision.

The right hon. George Rose proved the appointment of the defendant, and that he had admonished him as to the duties of his situation; telling him that he was expected to derive no advantage from the situation, but his pay and certain allowances for provisions. The pay and half-pay had lately been increased, to insure the strictest fidelity.

A letter from the defendant, to Mr. Michael Sutton, dated 1796, acknowledging his consciousness of

the terms of this agreement with Mr. Rose, was then proved, put in, and read.

Mr. Matthew Higgins said, he was a merchant in the West-Indies in the year 1796, and had a contract with brigadier-general Knox, when he had the command there, for supplying government vessels. Mr. Hugh Rose acted as deputypaymaster there. He first heard that the defendant was coming out as commissary in 1796, while his contract with brigadier-general Knox subsisted. Upon the defendants's arrival, the witness supposed his contract at an end: in consequence of this apprehension, he applied to Mr. Hugh Rose, as he was on terms of intimacy with the defendant, to ask him to speak to the defendant not to take the contract from the witness. The witness at length saw the defendant, and repeated to him the conversation between Mr. Hugh Rose and himself. After this, Mr. Hugh Rose told the witness he had arranged the business with the defendant, and that the witness was to have the contract; adding, that he was obliged to make terms with the defendant, who insisted upon having half of the emoluments arising from that contract, and that the other moiety should be divided between Hugh Rose and the witness. The witness at first said he would have nothing to do with this arrangement; but Mr. Rose told him he was very wrong, and that there were many ready and willing to take the contract upon those terms. Mr. Hugh Rose told him, the loss the witness would sustain, in giving up so much of his contract, would be made up to him in supplies; for that whatever supplies were wanted

for