LAIP 1117,1'0117'. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MONDAY, JULY 30. EXTENSIVE FORGERY.-EIRCH V. CREWE. This :tenon was brought by Nies -- ers Co. bankers, of Stafford, against the Kcr. Mr. Ofley Crewe, Rector of M iixtriti,near Stafford. The action was brouglit against the reverend defendant as the indorser of 19 bills of exchange, drawn by a person named William Berkes, and made payable to his order. The nineteen bills appeared to have heen all signed at one time. They amounted to 80001. There were six other bills of ex• change, purporting to be indorsed tr.• the defendant, and ontstanding bills in the hands of Messrs. Sparrow and Co. Bankers, the whole amounting to 40,0001. It appeared that Berks, who was a maltster at Stafford, bail been in the habit of supplying the defendant with malt, for which he was occasionally paid in bills, pay able at Messrs. Drummond's, where the defendant kept cash. Berks occasionally got his bills discounted by the plaintiff, amid the bills in question were also discounted I'he plaintiffs seeing the indorsement of the defendant, did not hesitate to advance the cash, NVllets they were dishonoured, notice was sent to the defendant of their intention to proceed against him as the indorser. The defendant on the 16th of May, 1820, wrote its answer, • " I have received proof of your proceedim_ against me.— Thank God I never indorsed a bill in my life, unless the bill was accepted by myself. It does not Ix come a man of (lunation honesty to makeup losses by the innocent.— Am I to miler because you were avaricious, and gave the vile Berks discount! Why did you not refer to me when you saw so many bills presented! I would have 'told you enough to satisfy you or any honest man I have had no dealings with that mats since June 1840.' After the bills were dishonoured Berks went to France, . and finally us America. It becamea question whether the indorsements were a litrgery. Several witnesses for the plaintiff declared the indorse ments to be the hand writing of the defendant. Mr. Searlett defended Mr. (Misty Crewe, describing him to be a gentleman of greet property in the county of Cheshire, respected by all the county, and one inca pable of the dishonour imputed to bins. If Mr. Crewe bad put his name to a bill he never would have denied the act. H. Davison, El. the Rev. M. Cockburn, Sir John Chetwynd, and Mr. Crewe, jun. all declartd the in dorsement was not the defendant's writing. After an alile charge from the Chief Justice, who left the Jury to decide upon the question, whether the in dorsements were not the defendant's hand writing, the Jury found, without hesitation, a verdict fur the de fendant. This impqrtiinc cause occupied near seven hours. COX AND OTHERS V. TROY. This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 2381. The bill was drawn by Stephen Roche and Co. of Cork, upon Mathew Tierney Rattans and Co of London, at sixty-one days' sight; it was payable to the order of Michael Murphy; and it was endorsed by Murphy, to Messrs. Cox, Weston and Co. the plaintiffs. The Solicitor-General said that the action was brought • under circumstances of some peculiarity, and it involved a question of great commercial importance. The bill, receiv Al by Messrs. Cox and Co. on the 24th May, 1820, was left on the same day for acceptance at the counting- Muse of Messrs. Tierney Robans and Co. On the 27th of the same month it was again called for ; and in the mean time, the act had been done which gave rise to the Present proceeding. The Nil being left with Messrs. Tierney Robarts and Co. on the 24th May, was accepted by them on that day, payable at the house of Robarts, Curtis, and Co.; but on the 25th of May, news of the failure of thu drawers, Messrs. Roche and Co. and Messrs. Tierney Robarts and Co. that endeavoured by obliteration, to cancel their acceptance. The bill was put in and read. The defendant was admitted to be the surviving partner in the house of Mr. Tierney Robarts and Co. Mr. F. Wallis was clerk to the plaintiffs. On the 24th of May, 1820, he left the bill in question at the house of the defendants for acceptance. He put it into the box it► the ordinary course, and called for it again on the 27th of May. Cross-exJmined.—The words " 27th July," denoting the day upon which the bill would fall due, were not in the hand writing of any of the plaintiffs, or of any clerk its their employ. 'Prose words were out upon the bill (as witness believed) when he left it with the defendants. Mr. Coles said, 1 ant attorney fur the plaintiffs in tins 80.1011. I have ex.' m i lied the bill since a cattle from the hands of the defendants. Font my kIHM ledge o! . the facts I am enabled to make out, under the red ink obliteration, the whole acceptance; but I do not think that without such previous knowledge, I could make out so much. Mr. Scarlett for the defendants referred to the case of snaking a bill of exchange. It bail been held over ana user again, that a bill was out made until after u was d. livered. The Lord Chief Justic , , thought tile questiou of I tw highly important; the better counr would be to put it into a shape of a case, !eat.* the :,,ct to the jury whe. they there had not bet.ti au acceptAice writnn tiputt the bill. The Solicitor General admitted that the law was doubtful. DI r. Scalett assented to his lordship', tilvz,z e .i The Lord Chief Justice then the fact of a written acceptance to the jury. Tile cadence of Mr. Coles, his lordship said, had been giver, won great candour and caution. The jury nail be. is told Ilya an acceptance night be written upon a hill by abst,, ke. If such had been the fact in the present case it would hate been easy fur the defendants to prove it. The Jury found a verdict fur the plahlt4s—Darnoges osi. The question whether delivery he or be not a ne cessary part of the acceptance, Of course rettlains to he proved. THE NATIONAL REGISTER WEDNESDAY. AUGUST Li EARL NALCARRAS, LADY ANN LINDSAY, AND OTHERS, V. MICHAILL ATKINSON, ESQ. 111 this case a bill was bron3ht into the Court of Chancery, stating, " that there was no will duly made by Richard Atkinson, E.g. Alderman of London, and, if wade, it bad been cancelled." An issue was sent from the Court of Chancery to try the question whether there was a will executed by the said Richard Atkinson, Esq. Alderman of Loudon, in 1782, and if that will had since been cancelled. After a body of evidence was given pro and con. the Jury found a verdict for the plaititilL, egablishing the validity of .iic will. CI IM. (.ON.-COVENEY V. YORSTON. Mr. Holt opened the pleadings by stating this was an an action to recover damages for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wire. Mr. Scarlet( stated the case. He had to make an appeal to the Jury for the redress of one of the greatest injuries a man could sustain, namely, the loss of Ins wife's alltction. The profligacy of a seducer had destroyed the happiness of a father, and ruined the prospects of his children. The plaintiff was a person who cart ied on the business of a publican. Some time ago he took the 0. P. and P. S. chop. house, Russell-coin, Drury-lane, which had been long known as the resort of theatrical persons, and the pet I ttttt iers of the different theatres: The de fendant was a law stationer, carryi n g on business in Mitre -court, Temple. lie was very road of theatrical amusements, and was in the habit ol going into the win ter theatres, and kept the company of some of the actors of Drury-lane theatre. lle was introduced to Mr. Kean, and (Wier eminent performers, at Mr Covency's house; and such was Mr. Yorsion's literality, that he gave a grand dinner to the principal actors and their friends at Mr. Coveney*s. After this dinner, Mr. Yorston visited at Mr. Coveney's hint,e, and a great deal cf attention was paid by him to Mr.Coveney's fatuity, particularly to Ars. Coveney's sister, who assisted in the bar. Mr % Yorston became afterwards the constant companion and professed friend of Mr.Coveney, and took the opportu nity of the ansence of Mr. Coveney to seduce his wife front her duty, and to commit the most base and treacherous injury which one man could do to another. He paid particular attention to M rs. Coveney—frequently invited her to sup with him, and became tery intimate. The plaintiff having unfortunately become embarrassed, • the defendant advanced him money, and filially arrested him, %Virile he was in confiement, the defendant car ' ried on a criminal intimacy with Mrs. Coveney. The lady, as he should prove, under pretence of going to the country to visit her relations, went to Crap:tad, in Kent. At the Bear and Ragged Staff, in that town, she was met by the defendant, who inquivd for her as his wife. He was introduced to her, and they remained together during Saturday night and Sunday. They Slept in the Same bed, and passed for man and wife. The identity would he proved by the servants, and the jury would have no room to doubt the fact. Adverting to the quo don of &mugs, he represented the defendant to be a person in good business as a law stationer. Ile kept his gig, and was able to make the plaintiff such compensa tion as the circumstances of the case required. Edward Coveney sworn, and examined by Mr. Holt. —1 ant the brother of the plaintiff. I was present at his marriage with Miss Johnson, the present Mrs.Covency. It took place in 1819, at St. George's, Southwark; she I was then 22 years of age, and he was 32. After their 1 : marriage I visited them. They had two children—boys. They lived very comfortable together. Miss Johnson was a lady of considerable personal attractions; she re sided before her marriage at Balden, near Canterbury. BeAre the plaintiff went to prison, be lived at the 0. P. and P. S. tavern, Russell -court, Drury-lane. In 1819 the plaintiff went to prison ; he was arrested by Mr. Yor sum ; he was in prison nine mouths, and took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. Cross-examined by Mr. Scarlett.—l went with my brother to his wile's lodgings in Canterbury-place, and found the children in distress, and gave him money to relieve them. This was after his release from prison the second time.. I have seen Mr. Yorston in the bar of the U. P. and P. S. Miss Felicity Johnson sworn.--1 resided with the plaintiff and my sister, at the o.l'. and P. S. lie pre viously lived in Warwiel-court, Holborn; was a wine merchant ; he had two boys. The 0. P. and P. S. was much frequented by the performers at the Theatres. The house was well attended. Mr. Yorston visited the 0. P. and P. S. the first time about six weeks after my brother took the house. { first saw hint on the day of a dinner being given by him to the performers. Mr. Yorston was I cry Iriendly y•ith my brother and sister. They visited Mr. and Mrs. Yorston in Al itre-court, and Mrs. Yorston visited at the 0. P. and P. S. I remetni.er my brother and Mr. Yorsion went a trip to Margate. Al y sister's conduct to toy hr tther prior to Mr. Yostern's visits was very proper, but subsequently it was very strange ; she lit.C.lllle cureless towards hint, and 1 observed that her attentions were lint as formerly directed towaids him. 1 remember thy sister going on a visit to my father and mother at Whits:Ade, near Canterbury. I remember when she returned home it was hi the eveninst. She said that she stopped at Chatham ad night,atul ham come home by the Chatham coach. When tiiv sister entered the home she seas exctedin,oly agit:Led, and burst into tears, and went tip stairs. My sister went more than mi c e to visit ht r father and mother while residing at the 11. P. and P. S. My Mother was taken to the King's haviiig I c n arrested. Alter this period, and while lie was in priS,,l!, Mr. Y0T,, , 11 visited the 0. P. alri P. S. more frequently illah !Whole. One day Mr. Coveney bad a day title ; ue sup;.ed with Mr. Yorston at his house at the 'lentil.... Air. Yorsion enure that evening to the 0. P. and RS. am: Mr. Covehey entered the hou-e, while Alt. Yorsniti went ant at one door as Mr. (twenty entr:ed at the timer. Mr. Covency did not ts.e Mr Yorsm.i out. r. Yorstun told me not to tell Mr. Cm envy that he hat: been at the house; for while he %ea, at (limier wan Into, he told him he was on a ti>it to swite , :l.tate at die west end of the town. After my brother came out of prison he lived in Salisbury court, Fleet -street; after that Mr. Yorston was not so friendly towards Mr. Coveney. Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney : —The 0. P. and P. S. was a house of mirth and festivity. Seven or eight actors were admitted into the bar. I never saw seven or eight persons take liberties before Mr. Cormley's face with my sister. I never saw any person rage liberties with her at all. I never heard any licentioni language, nor did I ever hear Mr. Coveney cal' my sistcd a " d— b—." I do not know that Mr. Coreacy was drunk twice a week or not. I saw Mr. Yorstone once kiss Mrs. Covenev in the bar ; when it was I can't say. I knew when Mr. Coveney was Lipsey, he was made so by Mr. Yorston. Mary Norman.—l reside at Dartford. I did reside in 1818 at the Bear and Ragged Staff Tavern, at Crayford, in Kent. 1 was chaml)::r-maid at that inn.— I remember in June or July, 1618, a lady and gentleman coming down to Crayford ; it was about two or three o'clock in the day. The gentlemi.n came down in a chaise and the lady in a coach. They (passed by the names of Mr. and Mrs. Colford.—They remained at the Bear and Ragged Staff two nights. 1 have since seen the two persons; they are Mrs. Covvney and Mr. Yors ton, the defendant. I went to see Mrs. Covemy lately over at Walwortn ; Mr. Cuveney went part of the way with me, and the lady I saw at %Valworth was the laity who slept at the inn with Mr. Torsion. I have since seen Mr. Yorston at his house in the Temple. I went to purchase a stamp at his shop by the direction of Mr. Abbott the Attorney, and Mr. Yorston supplied me with it. I know him to be the man who slept at the Bear and Ragged Staff with Mrs. Curette/. The landlord of the Bear and Ragged Staff was ex amined; he could not prove that the two persons who boarded and lodged at his house were Mrs. Coveney and the defendant. The Lord Chief Justice said, that there was not suffi cient evidence to prove that the female was seen at %Val. worth, by the last witness but one, who slept at the Bear and Ragged Staff, was the wife of the plaintiff; and directed a non-suit to be entered. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Aug. 1. IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM HOLDING'S BANKRUPTCY. We two or three weeks ago reported the trial of an ac tion brought by this bankrupt against three of the com missioners for trespass and false imprisonment, in having illegally committed him to Newgate ; and it will be re membered that on that trial a verdict was given for the defendants, although it now appears that it ought to have been given for the plaintiff, the validity of the commis sion being one of the chief points in issue. This was a petition to the Chancellor to supersede the COMMiSIIIOII, upon the ground of no good petitioning creditors debt having existed at the time of the act of bankruptcy being committed; and, note ithstandiug the verdict in the action tried against the commissioners being supposed to have established the validity of the commission, his Honour the Vice-Chancellor this day pronotinaed judgment in favour of the bankrnpt, and directed the commission to be superseded at the es.pence of the creditor who issued it. Mr. Loyal, in support of the commission, stated, that upon the commission being superseded, the bankrupt might bring a great number of actions against the com missioners, messenger, assignees, and others ; and ha therefore trusted his Honour, upon granting the super sedeas, would itnprose such terms as would prevent any actions being brought. Mr. Aluntagu and Mr. Wakefield, the bankrupt's coun sel, would consent to no terms which should deprive their client of his undoubted right to bring actions against all parties concerned in this illegal commission, and the Vice- Chancellor declared be could not interfere to prevent Mr. Holding bringing suck actions. LONDON FASHIONS. ENGLISH DINNER PARTY DM:sc.—Dress of fine plain Indio muslin over pink, with three rows of pulling of deal muslin round the border; between which rows use blond spares richly embroidered in raised spots, or filled up by letting in of broad lace ; spotted muslin, ur late sleeves to correspond, wreathed round with pulling. of muslin. The tuniirlicrons of plain India muslin, braced in puckers in the antique coronation style, with pink satin rouleaus. Falling tucker of line Mechlin lace, surmounted by a row of pulling. Agnes Sorel cap of line blond, with diadem points towards the hark part of the bead, bound with pink satin, and roma. mented iii front with a full blown rose, and drooping yellow lupins or wheat cats. The hair arranged in antique ringlets,. the 1.6411 of Cluarlesi I. Scarf rush of white sarsnet, beautifully fringed ; w bite rutin slippers, and yellow kid shaves. Illclanchqy Accileut from the overturning of a Stage Ceach.—A coroner's inquest was held at the sign of the Boar, in Chipping Norton, OtCOrdshire, on the 14th of last month, on the body of Mr. John Cooper, late of Southampton-row, Bloomsbury, a piantedorte-maker, who met with his death in conscquence of the overoim ing of the Old Fly Worcester coach. The jury, after taking a view of the body, adjourned to the 19th, whin they tnet again to ti.-ar the es idence, from which it ap peared, that about twelve (o'clock on the main of the 13th of July, as the Old Fly Wrist:ester coach was enter. ing Chipping Norton, Mit-Mg:line outside and One Inside passengers, the deceased, Mr. Cooper, sitting on the box with the coachman, the coactuna❑ Chute it upon the wised footway, within a t . ew int•ltcs attic wall, and the coach was immediately mermmed, and live of the pas sengers FO much injAred, that they are not yet able to pursue his j urneJ ; aim the decaased, who itas kit disconsolate widow and set en stuall children to lament his loss, died of the injury tie received the next day, at one o'clock at nooti. Ilw jury, alter hearing anti exa mining I:ae different witnesses, returned the verdict hie deceased came to his death by the overturn.log of the coach, occasioned in pant 13, earciess and negligent conduct of the coachman, 31Ij Lid a den laud of live potitit;s on the coach.