CHRONICLE. 



301 



relHng with colonel Wardle. She 

 then stated that Coifield, his at- 

 torney, had called on her with a 

 subpoena last Saturday, and said he 

 wished to show her every respect. 

 He wished therefore to serve it 

 himself, but in a common case he 

 should have sent a clerk. That he 

 desired very much that the case 

 should go to arbitration to keep it 

 from being public. That if it came 

 before the court, Mr. Serjeant Best 

 would cut her up by a severe cross- 

 examination, and Mr. Wardle would 

 give it out to the public, that she 

 was bribed by ministers. 



Mr. Garrow. — Are you in fact 

 bribed by any one ? 



Mrs. Clarke. — Certainly not. 



Mr. Daniel Wright (the plaintiff's 

 brother), confirmed Mrs. Clarke in 

 every particular as to the credit 

 given to colonel Wardle ; and said 

 that he called in a gig, when he 

 was told that Wright wanted mo- 

 ney, and asked whether a bill would 

 not do as well. Being told he want- 

 ed 500/. or 600/. he said he would 

 attend to it immediately. He also 

 stated that the defendant looked out 

 the sideboard, and that Dodd and 

 he chose the carpet ; and Mrs. 

 Clarke yielded, because she said 

 they were to pay for it. The 

 amount of the bill was originally 

 1,914/. and 500/. being paid o&; 

 there were 1,414/. left due. No 

 goods were sent in on credit till af- 

 ter colonel Wardle had called. His 

 name was not mentioned, but he 

 knew him by sight. The goods 

 sent in to fit up the House at first to 

 the amount of 200/. were after- 

 wards charged to colonel Wardle. 

 They began furnishing about the 

 last day of November, or the 1st 

 of December. Mrs. Clarke was 



not in the house till after the furni- 

 ture was in. 



On his cross-examination by Mr, 

 Parke, he said the bill contained a 

 charge of 26/. for carpenter's work 

 done, which was not ordered by 

 colonel Wardle ; this carpenter had 

 done repairs to the kitchen. There 

 was a charge also for 9/. 15s. for 

 coals ; plasterer's work, 24/. ; pain- 

 ter's work, 18/. One item was a 

 tasteful figure of Mirth and Wine 

 for a pier, that is, a lamp support- 

 ed by a figure, 14/. ; a Grecian so- 

 fa, 50/.; another Grecian sofa, 

 43/. ; chimney glasses 200 gui- 

 neas ; French window curtains, two 

 sets for the front drawing room 

 (here was a third set enumerated in 

 this charge), 93/. I6s. Qd. these 

 were without the cornices ; and a 

 charge also of 5/. 14^. for insurance 

 from fire. 



Mr. Serjeant Best, for the de- 

 fendant, denied that he was liable 

 to pay. He said that Mrs. Clarke 

 and Mr. D. Wright contradicted 

 eachotherraateriallyas to the 200/. 

 worth of furniture on hire, and al- 

 so as to the time when the furniture 

 was sent in on sale. Mrs. Clarke 

 at first wished to make it believed 

 that the transaction took place at 

 the end of autumn, in order to in- 

 clude many things which colonel 

 Wardle could not possibly be re- 

 quired to pay. They differed as to 

 the 200/. worth of furniture on 

 hire. One said that it was taken 

 back, the other said it was passed 

 to the defendant's credit. This was 

 clearly within the statute of frauds, 

 and the promise should have been 

 in writing. With these contradic- 

 tions he called upon the jury to 

 reject all the testimony of Mrs. 

 Clarke, and of Wright also. There 



was 



