Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

not know that Captain Harrower had lent large sums of money to Giblett, nor did he know that the former was about to leave the kingdom on account of the importunities of Giblett, who wanted more money. Witness admitted that Captain Harrower had paid the expenses of the witness to Calais and back.

[During the examination of this witness he displayed much agitation, and frequently took some minutes to answer the questions put to him, some of which related to very recent transactions.]

David Wallis deposed, that he was clerk to the attorney of the prosecutor.

Witness extracted

from the register-book of the parish of St. George, Hanoversquare, a copy of the marriage of Captain George Harrower with Miss Susannah Giblett, on the 12th of October 1812, when the solemnization took place, a copy of which he now produced. The document was dated as above, and certified that George Harrower, bachelor, of Rickmansworth, was married to Susannah Anne Giblett, spinster.

Miss Eliza Giblett deposed, that she was sister to Susannah Anne Giblett, and was present at her marriage with Captain George Harrower, with other of her sisters, on the 12th of October 1812.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serj. Best.-Believed her sister might be living, up to the present time, in perfect unity and happiness with Captain Harrower, Mrs. Harrower did not reside with her father, and of course did not seek protection. [The evidence given by this young lady was

scarcely audible, from her great agitation.]

Here the three letters already alluded to, which were given by Mr. Cook, at Bombay, to the witness Burrowes, were put in and read.

Henry Adkins, a Bow-street officer, deposed, that he was employed by Giblett, a butcher, of Bond-street, to apprehend the prisoner in 1814. In this he did not then succeed; but he had lately met with him in Houndsditch, and took him into custody.

The prosecution here closed, when Mr. Serjeant Best rose, and submitted an objection, founded on the statute of James II. by which parties intermarrying beyond the seas, and afterwards separating for seven years, were freed from the ties imposed by the marriage act.

This objection was instantly overruled.

Captain Harrower, being then called upon for his defence, entered into a statement of his condition in life from his youth to the present time. He adverted to the period when he had had the misfortune to become known to the prosecutor Giblett, who, in draining him of his purse, and instituting proceedings against his liberty and character, had left him but one consolation, an amiable and beloved wife, unfortunately the daughter of the worst of men. The prosecution, he said, was the result of a foul and infamous conspiracy, and not that of a desire to support the laws of the country, or to punish those who transgressed them. He had been introduced to Giblett in an unguarded way, and, feeling a

conscious

consciousness of his own inte- he trusted never would be found in it again. He also made some strong allusions to the ungrateful part which the witness Thompson had taken against him in this conspiracy. Finally, he protested his innocence of the crime of which he now stood charged, and trusted that the sentence of the Court would at once rescue him from the infamous plot which had been laid against him, and restore him to the arms of a beloved and only partner.

grity, did not suspect a contrary principle to prevail in him. After the acquaintance between them was matured, he married his daughter, upon whom he settled a jointure of 10,0001. He afterwards lent Giblett sums of money amounting to 17,000l. and further sums, which raised the whole of what Giblett had succeeded in drawing from him to more than 30,000l. In fact, he had not only deprived him (Capt. Harrower) of all the money he could by possibility extract, but he had robbed his own daughter of the 10,000l. which had been settled upon her. Every means was used by Giblett to cause his wife to leave him, and live at home with himself, when he of fered to give up certain apart ments in his house for her accommodation; adding, "that they would be able to get the whole of the money to themselves, and he" (Captain Harrower) might go and starve." These proposals, however, were always uniformly and indignantly refused by his wife. He alluded to the commission of bankruptcy which had been issued against Giblett, by which he had contrived to defraud him of his money, and men. tioned a circumstance which that person had been heard to declare, namely, "that he would try and get the money into Chancery, if other designs failed of depriving him of the property." He went into a variety of other statements, the object of which was to represent Giblett to be a character of the worst description, a character such as he never thought existed in England, and such as

Mr. Baron Richards summed up the evidence at considerable length. He observed, that it was of little consequence by whoin or by what means the prosecution was instituted. The jury, as well as himself, were assembled there upon their oaths, and however painful the duty would be, should they determine upon the guilt of the prisoner, still that verdict. must be pronounced. The simple question, therefore, for them to try was, first, Had the prisoner been proved, to their satisfaction, according to the evidence of Mr. Burrowes, and the confirmatory confession of that fact to the witness Thompson, to have been married to Mary Usher of Bombay? And, in considering the latter part of this question, was the witness Thompson to be believed? Next, was the marriage of the prisoner to Miss Giblett, during the lifetime of the before-mentioned Mary Usher, also satisfactorily proved? Upon these points he had no doubt they would come to a safe and conscientious conclusion.

The Jury, having retired for half an hour, returned with a verdict of Guilty; but recom

mended

mended the prisoner, in the strongest manner, to mercy.

Mr. Baron Richards assured them, in warm terms, that the recommendation should not fail to be attended to.

The Court throughout the whole day was crowded to excess. Mrs. Giblett, who remained in court during the trial, was conveyed out, in an almost helpless state, after the Jury had retired to consider the verdict.

Arches-Court, Doctors Com mons.-The Office of the Judge promoted by Blackmore and Thorp v. BriderThis was a criminal proceeding promoted er officio by Messrs. Blackmore and Thorp, churchwardens of the parish of Harting, Sussex, against Mr, William Brider, an inhabitant of that parish, for incest. The suit was instituted by letters of request from the diocese of Chichester, and the charge upon which it was founded was the marriage of the defendant with Mary Walton, the daughter of his deceased wife by Thomas Walton, her former husband.

The evidence in support of the prosecution consi-ted of copies of the different registers necessary to show the marriage complained of, and the relationship of the parties duly authenticated by parole testimony; and their cohabitation was likewise fully spoken to by several witnesses.

No appearance was given, nor defence offered, by the defendant. Sir Christopher Robinson and Dr. Swabey, for the prosecution, shortly adverted to the effect of the evidence, and sub mitted that it fully established the accusation preferred, and they

[ocr errors]

therefore prayed the judgment of the Court on the defendant.

Sir John Nicholl expressed himself fully satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the prosecution; and he, therefore, pronounced the marriage null and void under the canon law, condemned the defendant in costs, and enjoined him the usual penance.

Some observations were then made as to the terms of the penance, and reference was in consequence had to the cases of Cleayer v. Ride, and Cleaver v. Ride, otherwise Wooldridge, which were similar proceedings, in 1790; from which it appeared that the penance performed in those cases was to this effect :-The offending parties stood in white sheets at the porch of the church during the ringing of the last bell for divine service on a Sunday, and until after the first lesson, asking forgiveness of all persons entering the church; they were then led into the church, and placed in a conspicuous situation near the minister, where they remained until the gospel of the day was said, when they repeated a submissive acknowledgment of having been guilty of the crime imputed to them, implored the forgiveness of God, promising not to offend again, and entreated the congregation to join with them in saying the Lord's prayer, which was accordingly done.

Sir John Nicholl expressed himself satisfied of this penance having been adopted after due reference to precedents; and he, therefore, felt himself bound in the same manner to enjoin it in the present case.

A similar proceeding was then heard

heard against the wife of the last defendant, in which the evidence being precisely to the same effect, Sir John Nicholl pronounced the same sentence in all respects.

Lady Brisco v. Sir Wastel Brisco, bart. This was a question as to the alimony to be allowed to Lady Brisco during the dependence of a suit instituted by her against her husband, Sir Wastel Brisco, for a divorce on a charge of adultery.

The suit was commenced towards the close of the year 1813. The usual statement of the husband's property, technically called an allegation of faculties, was given in, as the first step in the alimony question, in Hilary Term, 1814, Sir Wastel Brisco gave in his answers not long afterwards, to which some objections were taken; one of which, the want of a sufficient specification of the value of a house and domain he had in the country, was held sufficient, and fuller answers were decreed, The further answers were given in Michaelmas Term following; and Sir Wastel then estimated in them the net value of the house and domain in question at 3501. per annum. Lady Brisco, on the contrary, estimated them at 2,000l. per annum, and produced two witnesses who corroborated this opinion. It apIt ap peared, however, on their crossexamination, that they were in hostility to Sir Wastel Brisco, were engaged in lawsuits against him, and had indicted his steward for perjury; but the grand jury had thrown out the bill. The witnesses, on the other hand, produced by Sir Wastel Brisco,

his steward and some farmers, swore that, independently of the house which, though desirable to a gentleman, would only be an encumbrance to a farmer, the land would not let for more than 2501. per annum. The rest of Sir Wastel Brisco's property was evidenced principally by his own answers. It appeared to be near 3,000l. per annum, and Lady Brisco had 2001. per annum pinmoney. It appeared, however, that during the dependence of the suit, demands had been made and actions brought against Sir Wastel Brisco for debts of her ladyship's contracting for plate, linen, a carriage, horses, &c. to the amount of 1,4001. or 1,500l. besides a sum of 2001. which had been paid to her on account of alimony. Affidavits on both sides, with several letters annexed, were given in explanation of these items; but the letters were rejected by the Court as inadmissible. The principal purport of the admissible explanation was, that Lady Brisco had been obliged to incur many of these debts in consequence of Sir Wastel having burnt clothes of hers to the value of above 2001. Sir Wastel, on the contrary, denied that they were worth more than 101., and said, that he burnt them to induce her to procure some other clothes from the place where she had left them. Lady Brisco also stated, that the carriage was ordered on her father's account, but he had died before it was completed, and offered to deliver up to her husband a piano-forte, some plate, and other articles, for which the debts were incurred.

Considerable discussion took

place

place between the counsel on both sides upon the details of the property, and the proportion to be allotted to Lady Brisco.

Dr. Arnold and Dr. Jenner, for Lady Brisco, argued in support of her claims to a provision, during the dependence of the suit, upon a liberal scale, suited to her rank and station in society, and endeavoured to vindicate her conduct in contracting the debts in dispute.

Dr. Phillimore and Dr. Lushington argued at some length upon the extravagance of Lady Brisco with respect to these debts, and the diminution of Sir Wastel Brisco's income, owing to the present depreciation of landed property, and the heavy expenses to which he had been exposed; from whence they inferred that Lady Brisco, with her pin-money, and what she had received from Sir Wastel Brisco, having no encumbrances, was richer than he was with a larger property, fettered as it was with such constant and heavy demands-with the maintenance also of his children, and with the obligation of supporting a dignity and appearance suitable to his station in life. He was, however, auxious to have the question of alimony, pending the suit, settled, as his common law counsel advised him that, until it was, he would be constantly exposed to the debts Lady Brisco so lavishly incurred; but, under the circumstances, they trusted that the measure of the allowance would be very small; and as Lady Brisco had taken upon her to prove what she had so palpably failed in, with respect to his property, the learned gentleman sug

gested, whether it was not competent to the Court to condemn her in the costs of so unusual a proceeding.

Sir William Scott remarked, that the suit was originally for adultery against Sir Wastel Brisco, but it had now assumed the shape of recrimination against the lady. The allegation of faculties in these cases ought always to be given, and the question of alimony disposed of in an early stage of the proceeding, to prevent the husband being unnecessarily harassed with suits and demands for his wife's debts. He then stated the progress of the proceedings in the present instance, and remarked, that though it was usual to acquiesce in the answers, particularly when reformed by order of the Court, yet it was undoubtedly open to the wife to examine witnesses, if she thought proper: this, however, was a right not to be exercised wantonly, but with great caution and tenderness. It was never necessary to enter into an inquisitorial scrutiny of the husband's property; but it must be taken upon a fair estimate. Here, however, Lady Brisco charged the value of a particular property at 2,000l. per annum, which Sir Watsel set at 350l. per annum: : so great a difference as this induced the Court to go into the inquiry, upon the result of which, it now turned out that Lady Brisco's valuation was enormous and unfounded in the extreme; and that even Sir Wastel's was above the real value. This was a misrepresentation which the Court must consider had been imposed upon Lady Brisco, as it was un

willing

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »