274 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



Mr. O'Connell having conclud- 

 ed, 



The Attorney-General inquired, 

 if there were any evidence? 



Mr. Wallace answered, that he 

 should call sir Charles Saxton, 

 upon the event of whose appear- 

 ance only, other witnesses would 

 be adduced, the evidence of that 

 gentleman being necessary, in order 

 to render that of others useful or 

 legal. Sir Charles Saxton not ap- 

 pearing, no other witnesses were 

 called. 



The Solicitor-General spoke in 

 reply. 



The Chief Justice then charged 

 the jury. He stated it as his opi- 

 nion that the publication was a 

 gross libel. 



The jury retired for some time, 

 and brought in a verdict — 

 Guilty. 



Mr. Magee was committed to 

 Newgate. 



Being called up for judgment on 

 Nov. 29th, a sentence was pro- 

 nounced upon him of a fine of 

 500^ and imprisonment for two 

 years in Newgate, and further, till 

 security is given, himself in 1,000/. 

 and two others in 500/. each, for 

 peaceable behaviour during seven 

 years. 



MISCELLANEOUS CAUSES. 



Court of King's Bench, Tuesday, 

 Feb. 2. — Sittings at Nisi Prius, at 

 Giti/dhall. — Home, v. Webber. — 

 This was an action upon a breach 

 of Covenant contained in a bond of 

 2,000/. conditioned for the payment 

 of an annuity of 200/. per annum 

 by the defendant to the plaintiff. 

 The defendant pleaded that the 



bond was given for an unlawful 

 and invalid consideration. 



Mr. Parke, in stating the plain- 

 tiff's case, observed, that the de- 

 fendant, at the time of executing 

 the instrument in question, was a 

 young gentleman of considerable 

 fortune, holding a captain's com- 

 mission in the guards ; the plaintiff 

 was the daughter of respectable 

 parents in Shropshire,andhad been 

 induced by this young gentleman 

 to live with him as his mistress 

 for some time, and in that immoral 

 state they continued to live to- 

 gether for a length of time. No 

 one could deprecate so immoral a 

 practice more than himself; but 

 when a party was the cause of 

 enticing another from the paths of 

 virtue and chastity, it was but fair, 

 when they were inclined to return 

 to that path, that he who had 

 drawn her from it should make 

 her some compensation for the loss 

 she had sustained : such was the 

 present case. The plaintiff, wish- 

 ing to return to that path from 

 whence she had strayed, and the 

 defendant, as would appear, still 

 entertaining some attachment to- 

 wards her, upon their separation 

 executed the bond in question, as 

 a future provision for her, and not 

 as the price of her chastity, or a 

 consideration for continuing to live 

 with him in that state, as by his 

 plea he had endeavoured to show. 

 The learned counsel then read a 

 letter from the defendant to the 

 plaintiff's mother, wherein he ex- 

 pressed himself in the strongest 

 terms of affection and regard, call- 

 ing her his dear Eliza, his wife, 

 &c. 



Mr. Reilly was then called, and 

 proved the execution of the bond , 

 by the defendant. Upon his cross- 



