THE NATIO t mgaccount; and Francis Wright has sworn not that the good were put down to my account, but to the account of Mrs. Far quhar ; and that the goods sent in upon hire to Mrs. Clarke before I became acquainted with her, were also put down to the account, of Mrs. Farquhar for the following curious reason, which I will give to your Lordship in the words as they were sworn io the answer of Mr. Francis Wright. " And, therefore, " this Defendant, having explained that the first entry of goods, " sent in upon hire, to the said Mary Anne Clarke, had been gg made in the name of Mrs. Farquhar, the mother of the said " Mary Anne Clarke, as the said Mary Ann Clarke WAS, AT 66 TH AT TIME, APPREHENSIVE. OF BEING ARRESTED FOR 64 DEBT, AND MANY PERSONS HAD BEEN MAKING F.NQUI -44 RIES AT THE SHOP OF THIS DEFEN DA NT (Francis Wright), 46 AT WHAT PLACE THE SAID Mary Anne Clarke LIVED, the " Complainant (Gwyllim Lloyd Wardle), suggested, that tht' " entries of the said goods, should BE CONTINUED to be made 66 in the same manner, and the said articles, goods, and furni " titre were entered in the books of this Defendant accordingly." Now, my Lord, Mrs. Clarke's evident object was, to lode the statute of frauds, and thereby subject me to the whole of Mr. Wri;lit's demand. But, my Lord, not only is Mrs. Clarke's account contradicted by the Weights, but the statement of the two brothers is at variance ; for if Francis Wright's statement is taken for the truth, then, all the things hired, as well as solo' c rt! entered in the name of Mrs. Farquhar, and formed ONE CONTINUED ACCOUNT. I observe your Lordship to have stated, that, " as to the 46 litle circumstances of taking the house in llolles-street, and ' 6 the transaction with Curt, they are hut trifles in the cause.' The insurance is another circumstance ; ' 6 hut that, (says your 46 Lordship) I cousideras a MERE IRREGULARITY of the par " ties, who had made a FOOLISH INSURANCE. on which they could not have recovered." With great submission to your Lordship, these circumstances do not appear, upon attentive con , ideration, to be very trifling; I beg to put it thus to your Lordship : You . have, my Lord, the fact, that the house was taken by Mrs. Clarke, in the name of her mother, Mrs. Farquhar; that the lease was in the name of Mrs. Farquhar; that MN. Farquhar was the person debited in Mr. Wright's books; and that the insurance was made in her name. 'Why, my Lord, all this was done, the Defendants do not condescend to inform us; and your Lordship even appears at a loss to guess at a reason. But I think, my Lord, I can point out very substantial reasons why all this is not to be considered " as trifling" and attributa ble to " mere IRR EGU LA RITY." If my lord, the lease had been granted to Mrs. Clarke, or any person in trust for her, without the concurrence of her husband, might not .that hus band, have taken possession of the house? If the goods had been sold to Mrs. Clarke, might not that same husband have possessed himself of those goods, or might not his creditor.? have taken them in execution ? If too, my Lord, Mr. Wright had debited Mrs. Clarke, might she not have pleaded her coverture against him ? And 'ten., my Lord, I again peg you to consi der the remarkable reason, stated by Mr. Wright, for debiting Mrs. Farquhar ORIGIN ALLY in His books, for the goods sent in Upon hire; and I put it confidentially to your Lordship, whether it is a creditable reason. Can it, my Lord, for a mo ment tie believed, by any man of ordinary capactiy that because Mrs. Clarke was apprehensive of being arrested for debt, and many persons had been making inquiries at the " shop of the " Defendant, a' w hat place Mrs. Clarke lived," that thriv fore Mr. Wright should without any sugge4ion front Mrs. Clarke, or permission from Mrs. Farquhar, debit the latter in his hooks? Who, inv Lord, that enquired at the shop of Mr. Wri4lit. for the residence of Mrs. Clarke, would ask to inspect the Loa.ks of Mr. ‘V right ? What right could a person have to do so ? Was stt,sh a thing ever heard, or dreamt of ? But, my Lord, as I have said before, the reason is obvious; Mr. Wright would not give the credit to her, lest be should plead her eover ture, as she did do, in a variety of actions. wherein Mr. Wright. was her 6761, and who thereby became a part:;, in d.-featin!: the just claims of her creditors. Respecting the insurance, I understood Your Lori!-hip upon the . first trial, to hove thought, tiiqt circumstance savoured more of hire, than a sale: and Now a motion for a new trial, your Lordship observed, toat 66 people " or the desc ri pt ion of the Defendants, are gentroffir shrewd and well informed." How then, my Lord, is this to be reconciled with the opinion, last delivered by your Lordship, that, " the " insurance was a mere irregulurito of the parties, %s ho had made a vOOll5ll one, on which they could not recover ?" Is this like the conduct of " shrewd and well advised pei.sonl?" If Mr. Wright read the policy, or even the proposals of the Are, DEC. 24. AL REGIS' he must have known that the insurance was void, if the goods were not sold to Mrs. Farquhar, and upon her credit. I say, my Lord, every circumstauce of the case demonstrates, that the credit was given to her, for the reasons before pointed out. Much, my Lord, very much was said, regarding the form of the Indicthent. In that respect your Lordship was apprized by Mr. Alley, that neither tnysetf, nor my Solicitor, were to blame:. it was the concurrent opinion of my Counsel, in which I ac quiesced, and it was manfully and honourably stated by them, that, " if they had erred, upon their heads be the sin." Your Lordship considered the indictment for conspiracy op pressive, because the Defendants were thereby prevented frogs profiting as they might in a separate charge for perjury, by each other's evidence. But I will shew to your Lordship, out of the mouths of these very Defendants, that they had abundant evidence to prove the orders I have given; and yet, my Lord, not ON Eof those, persons was called. I will refer your Lord ship to a letter published by Mrs. Clarke, in THEN A 11 ON AL REGISTER, of the 16th of July last, and copied. from theoce into all the Newspapers. In this letter Mrs. Clarke says. " Colonel Wardle knew, that Mr. Wright's SER VA NTS. aq " well as OTHERS, can prove every syllable that I have • sworn." On the 2.3 d of the same mouth, Mr. Francis Wright, published also, in TILE NATIONAL REGISTER, an appeal to the Public, wherein he states, " That having recovere4 • from his accident, he went to Westhourne-place, on the 14th " of December, and saw me there." He then proceeds thus : " If Colonel Wardle has forgot our conversation on that day, " I will endeavour to remind hi'n—l was assisting my W 014 - " PEOPLE in the room where Mrs. Clarke was sitting. k utt " know, said the Colonel, I have given your brother ORDERS " to furnish this house for Mrs. Clarke, and I mean to pity 2.0 u " HONOURABLY and HONESTLY." Non, my Lord, what is become of the SERVANTS of Mr. Wright, who. could prove every syllable of the case ? Where are those same PEOPLE, who were present at the conversation between me and Mr. Wright? Where is THE MAN who brought home the mirror, and put me in a passion. Mrs. Clarke, your Lordship knows swore, that his man was so much frightened, " that he 66 almost let the mirror fail from his hands." Such conduct, my Lord, I should have supposed, would have made an impres sion upon him. Why, 1 ask, was HE not produced? But before, my Lord, I close my observations upon this appeal of Mr. Wright's. let me give your Lordship one other extract from it, RS regards the insurance. The passage is this:—" Much " stress has been laid, and MANY OBSERVATIONS made, about 66 MY INSURING THE FURNITURE; it is DO uncommon case " for the Upholsterer to receive orders to insure the furniture " immediately after the house is furnished, because he is sup -44 posed to be hest acquainted with the amount of the value; " bort WHEN THE POLICIES ARE MADE OUT IN THE NAME " OF THE PARTY IT BELONGS TO WHICH WAS THE CASE 44 IN THIS INSTANCE, the Upholsterer is by no means rested in so doing." The Policy for the Insurance of the House and Furniture was taken out at the Westminster Fire Office, on the Slst of March, 1509, and likewise ANulliEß FOR. WEARING APPAREL, JEWELS, &C. Now, my Lord, the House and Furniture were insured, and the Po LICY MADE OUT. 111 Mrs. Fi,rqultar's name ; •and, unless the House anti Furniture btforafed To it ER, how can it he said, that the Policy ;vas mutie out in the name of the Party the Pro perly belonged to ?. The Jewels, Ste. were insured, and the Policy made out, on the said 31st day of March, in the name of Mrs. Clarke.—Really, inv Lord, this does appear to me to he STUDIOUSLY done, by SHREWD . AND WELL-ADVISED PERSONS."—DOCS 1101 our Lordship see the object? ---Tae Jewels were not suppli(:d by Mr. Wright. Mrs. Clarke, vs hen Debtor to the Tradesmen supplying these and other articles, and sued for the money, could plead her covet - tore. She was ever prepared to defeat her creditors; for, upon what occasion, from 1501. up to this time, did Mr. Wright refuse to hail her ? He thereby, your Lordship, observed, incurred no risk, he. cause she was a Pine c:mcrte ; and from the period at which Mr. Stokes uKCA ME HER AT:•CRNEY, he certainly did not run any risk ; for this defence was invariably set up, and her t reditors as invariably defeated. But to shew your Lordship, that Mr. Wright, pr:or to the adoption of this system, did en counter risk in becoming hail for her, I must beg to refer you, to an action brought ai,ainst .Mrs. Clarke by Solomon de Young, in is hick actions Mr. tiarnett was the Attorney of Mrs. Clarke, and Mr. Wright justified as her bail, and w as afterwards fixed, with the pay meat of the debts aud cots, iu consequence of Mrs. Clarke out toeing surrendered. 1