296 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1S09. 



ruin this ignorant young woman. 

 Upon the whole, he thought they 

 must find for the plaintiff, and that 

 they must give damages. The quan- 

 tum was for their consideration. 



The jury retired for a few mi- 

 nutes, and then found their verdict 

 for the plaintiff — Damages, Fifteen 

 hundred pounds. 



JULY. 



I. The chancellor's prizes are 

 this year adjudged to the following 

 gentlemen : — 



The English Essay " On the love 

 of our Country," to Mr. C. P. Bur- 

 ney, B. A. of Merton College. 



The Latin verses " Corinthus," 

 to Mr. Peter Meyer Lalham, of 

 Brasenose College. 



The donation for English verse, 

 " John the Baptist," to Mr. Charles 

 Henry Johnson, of Brasenose Col- 

 lege. 

 Court of King's Bench.— Colonel 



Wardle's Case.— Wright v. War- 

 die, Usq. 



3- The attorney-general opened 

 the case on the part of the plaintiff, 

 Mr. Francis Wright,an upholsterer, 

 who brought his action to recover 

 1,914/. for the amount of sundry 

 articles of furniture for fitting up 

 the house of Mrs. Mary Ann Clarke, 

 in Westbourne place, Chelsea. He 

 stated the circumstances of the case 

 atfulllength.vvhich were afterwards 

 detailed in evidence. The defen- 

 dant became liable to pay this debt 

 in consequence of his personal pro- 

 mise. Mrs. Clarke H'as already in- 

 debted to the plaintiff about 500/. 

 or 600/. and applied to him to fur- 

 iiish her house, which he refused to 

 Jo without being paid. She then 

 Xold him in the end of last autumn, 



that she had a friend in view who 

 would furnish the house for her. 

 She afterwards brought colonel 

 Wardle to the plaintiff's house, 

 who ordered the house to be fur- 

 nished, and the goods were sent in. 

 Mrs. C. being distressed for furni- 

 ture, had previously obtained of 

 the plaintifFa few necessary articles 

 to the value of 200/. upon hire. 

 Mrs. Clarke, he said, would be 

 called as a witness, and also the 

 brother of the plaintiff, who could 

 both of them prove the plaintiff's 

 case. Besides these witnesses, there 

 was major Dodd, who had been 

 present at one of the conversations, 

 and if he was called, he would 

 prove the plaintiff's case. If the 

 defendant did not call him, his ab- 

 sence would equally prove the case. 

 But would Mr. Wardle deny the 

 credibility of Mrs. Clarke ? would 

 he say that she was not a witness to 

 be believed upon he oath ? in this 

 case he would say, that though she 

 could not get credit of her uphol- 

 sterer, yet as her evidence would 

 be confirmed by the brother of the 

 plaintiff, and she was upon her oath, 

 she was deserving of credit before 

 a jury. The attorney-general then 

 stated, that Mr. Wright being de- 

 sirous to have part of his money, 

 colonel Wardle called and offered 

 a bill for 500/. at 3 months, which 

 was received in payment by the 

 plaintiff'; but as the investigation of 

 the charges against the duke of 

 York was then to be proceeded in, 

 Mr. W. would not give his own bill, 

 but got a Mr. lllingworth, a wine- 

 merchant of Pail-Mall, to give a 

 bill for that sum, which was 

 afterwards paid. The attorney- 

 general made some very severe 

 and sarcastic observations upon the 

 frailty of human memory, which 



might 



