334 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1810. 



have been justified in pushing the 

 law to its utmost extent. It was 

 not owing to this woman but to 

 the providence of God, that instead 

 of coming to that court to assert 

 his innocence, he was not now 

 sinking under the punishment of 

 his imputed crime, languishing in 

 Horsham gaol, loaded with irons, 

 and preparing only to exchange a 

 bitter captivity for a death of pain 

 and infamy. 



The Attorney-General, on the 

 part of tlie defendant, said, he had 

 no objection to proceeding with the 

 case; hisevidence were ready, and 

 they could satisfy the jury. But 

 he had read the evidence given on 

 the examination, with great atten- 

 tion, and felt that no suspicion of 

 the crime could remain on Mr. 

 Barrett. 



Mr. Alley. — " I declared be- 

 fore, that if the alibi were allowed, 

 no further proceedings should be 

 taken. 



Mr. Serjeant Best " My lord, 



Mr. Barrett is only anxious to de- 

 clare, on oath, his own innocence; 

 after that he puts himself in my 

 hands, and I am in your lord- 

 ship's." 



Lord Ellenborough — " I can- 

 not change the course of proceed- 

 ings ; the cause must be tried like 

 every other cause." 



The Attorney -General. — " My 

 lord, you seeinto what dreadful evi- 

 dence we must plunge by proceed- 

 ing; I can show sufficient grounds 

 to exculpate my cHent. But it can- 

 not be for the general good to pro- 

 ceed. I should have interrupted 

 my learned friend but for the mo- 

 deration of his commencement. 

 But even now 1 have no hesitation 

 to withdraw all charge against his 

 cuent, and spare the morality of 



the public, and the feelings of a 

 father." 



Lord Ellenborough. — " Gentle- 

 men of thejury, there has been rM> 

 evidence adduced in this cause ; 

 you will therefore find a verdict 

 for the defendant." 



Feb. 12. Maynard v. Gilbert. — ■ 

 This was a trial on an issue from 

 the Court of Chancery to try the 

 validity of a marriage. 



Mr. Park stated the case. The 

 defendant already named was a 

 nominal one, and named only as 

 connected with the deed on which 

 the cause was originally moved in 

 chancery. The real defendant was 

 Mr. Daniels, lately a stockbroker, 

 and now residing at Hampstead. 

 The plaintiff was also astockbroker. 

 — Some months before the 8th of 

 April, 1809, the plaintiff, going to 

 the defendant's house on businessof 

 his father's, a wholesale ironmon- 

 ger in Castle-street, saw the defen- 

 dant's daughter. His connexion 

 with the Exchange enabled him to 

 serve Mr. Daniels on some occa- 

 sions inhis business. Thisproduced 

 an intimacy, in the course of which 

 the plaintiff paid his addresses to 

 Miss Daniels, and was desired to 

 wait till she was a few months 

 older. One evening, at supper, 

 Mr.Danielssuddenly announced to 

 his daughter his consent that she 

 should be married to the object of 

 her declared regard. She was a de- 

 licate girl, and the intelligence pro- 

 duced such an immediate nervous 

 agitation that medical aid was ne- 

 cessary. She recovered soon after, 

 and from her strong attachment, 

 and her habitual irritability of 

 frame, her friends advised that the 

 marriage should not be delayed. If 

 it were possible thata verdict should 

 go against him this day, be could 



