299 
(2H. B. 43); and Lord Ellen- 
borough, who refused to try an 
action ona wager ona point of 
Jaw in which the parties, have no 
interest, and. the whole Court of 
King’s Bench afterwards agreed 
in the propriety of such refusal 
(2 Campb. 408). 
The Lord C. J. Gibbs stopped 
further argument by saying, that 
he would suffer the cause to pro- 
ceed with a view of making an 
end of such cases, out of mercy 
to the parties. 
. Mr. Serjeant Best then stated 
his case, and proved by William 
Gordon that the bet was made at 
Gravesend on the 5th of Septem- 
ber last, and by Dr. Reece, that 
Joanna Southcott was never after- 
wards delivered of any child. 
Upon cross-examination by Mr. 
Serjeant Onslow, the Doctor said 
that he had never heard of ler 
having a husband, and that she 
passed for a single woznan. 
Lord C. J. Gibbs.—Now that 
the wager involves the question 
af a single woman having a 
child, I won't proceed with the 
cause. 
Mr. Campbell (with Mr. Serj. 
Best) sugested, that the woman 
herself gave out that she was with 
child, and prophesied that that 
child would be a male, born be- 
fore the ist of November... Were 
she alive, therefore, she would 
have no right to complain of her 
feelings being hurt. 
Lord C, J. Gibbs.— So Iam to 
try the extent of a woman’s chas- 
tity and delicacy.in an action 
upon a wager. I chose to wait 
till.the fact ofher being a single 
-weman came out. . There is a wide 
Jifference between a,wager, whe- 
Vv 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1815. 
- the accounts from respectable tes- 
ther a woman shall havea child 
at all. Call the next cause. 
LIBELS. 
The King v. Sir N. William 
Wraxall, baronet.—The Attorney- 
General obtained a rule to show 
cause why a criminal:information 
should not be filed against this 
defendant for a libel upon Count 
Woronzoff, in a work lately 
published by the defendant, enti- 
tled— 
‘* Historical Memoirs of my own 
Time,’ The libel related to the 
death of the first wife of the Prince 
of Wurtemburg, who afterwards 
married the Princess Royal of 
England. Theauthor commenced 
his book with saying, that he re- 
lated the events that he either wit- 
nessed; or of. which he received 
timony. The present prosecutor 
denied upon oath every word of 
this libel of which the following 
were the principal passages ;—+“ I 
have heard this subject agitated 
between 1789 and 1795, when 
great uncertainty prevailed re- 
specting the point, though it | 
seemed to be generally believed 
that she ‘was dead, and that her | 
end had been accelerated or pro- | 
duced by poison. It was natural | 
to ask, who had caused the poison 
to be administered?» Was the | 
Empress herself the perpetrator ; 
of this crime? And even if that | 
fact should be admitted, was not | 
the Prince of Wurtemburg tacitly 
a party to its commission? Though 
nO positive solution of these ques- 
tioos could be given, yet when the) 
fact of the Princess’s death came 
to be universally understood, 
many persons doubted the <inno- 
‘cence of her husband. | Fhe King 
i 
i 
