302 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1809. 



was good reason why the plaintiff 

 should trust Mrs. Clarke, because 

 she was 600/. in his debt, and he 

 knew her intriguing spirit, and 

 thought it better to trust her with 

 goods to enable her to keep up ap- 

 pearances, than to let her sink 

 into insignificance, by which means 

 he would lose his money. The in- 

 surance of the goods showed that 

 he looked to Mrs. Clarke as his 

 security. As to Mrs. Clarke, she 

 was a woman whom nobody ought 

 to believe. — She was the most art- 

 ful inventor of a fictitious tale 

 that ever appeared. As to major 

 Dodd, he could not call him, be- 

 cause he did not believe he was 

 present. — (One of the jury asked 

 her, why the bill was given for 

 500/. and in whose name? — To 

 this the learned Serjeant answered, 

 that it was all a fabrication.) — In 

 this case colonel Wardle's honour 

 was at stake ; for Mrs. C. wished 

 it to be understood, that all this 

 furniture was given as a bribe for 

 her to appear in the House of 

 Commons. The Jury would sure- 

 ly not invade both his property and 

 his honour upon the testimony of 

 a woman who could not be believed 

 in any court of justice. If he could 

 judge of colonel Wardleby his own 

 feelings, he said he was sure after 

 the exhibition she had made to-day 

 it was impossible ihat had that hap- 

 pened before the motion against the 

 duke of York, he could have at- 

 tached any credit to her testimony 



There were no dates to any par- 

 ticular items throughout the whole 

 bill. 



Lord Ellenborough summed up 

 the case, and complained both of 

 the plaintiffand the defendant. The 

 one he said had introduced charges 



which were evidently unfair in hit 

 bill, such as the insurance, the 

 plasterer's bill, &c. (These were 

 given up by the attorney general.) 

 There was also a charge for kitchen 

 furniture, but that was sometimes 

 supplied by persons who furnished 

 the house, and the jury would in» 

 quire whether that was within the 

 scope of the defendant's order. 

 On the other hand, the defendant 

 had denied the circumstance of the 

 bill, but he would do that at his 

 peril. For if he denied it, then the 

 charge would be so much increased. 

 His lordship likewise thought that 

 if credit was ever given to Mrs. 

 Clarke for the 200/. worth of fur- 

 niture, that should have been pro- 

 vided for by a promise in writing. 

 His lordship then detailed the evi- 

 dence, because there was some mis- 

 takes, or some inconsistencies in the 

 dates, some of which were hastily 

 applied to things which were not 

 accurately settled. There was some 

 little confusion in this respect, which 

 could only be cleared up by read- 

 ing the whole evidence. 



The jury retired, and about nine 

 o'clock brought in a verdict for the 

 plaintiff, deducting the ^zOOl. the 

 500/. paid, and also all the items for 

 plastering, painting, insurance, &c. 

 which are to be taken out of the 

 bill by the officer of the court. 



COLONEL wardle's LETTER. 



4. Honoured as my parliamen- 

 tary conduct has been by the ap- 

 probation of so many of my coun- 

 trymen, I feel myself called upon, 

 in consequence of an event that yes- 

 terday took place, immediately to 

 address you, and that in vindication 

 of my character, rendered open to 

 attack from the verdict of the jury 

 upon the evidence of Mrs. Clarke 



and 



