between the time at which Mr Patmore first applied to Mr Pettigrew, and the time of the meeting at ChalkFarm, there was certainly space enough for reflection; yet it was possible that, at the moment of Mr Patmore's application to his surgeon, the meeting might not have been contemplated by Mr Trail or Mr Christie. The decla ration of Mr Scott, at the moment of his fall, that all had been done fairly and honourably, was, although the law would not recognize such ideas of honour, entitled to the attention of the Jury; and there was another circumstance arising out of the words of Mr Christie, to which their consideration should be directed. The words to which his lordship alluded were these: "Why was I allowed to fire a second time? I fired down the field at first-what could I do more? I was compelled to fire in my own defence." Now, the circumstances were not such as would, in law, acquit a man as having fired in his own defence; but the words might have an operation upon the feeling un. der which the second shot-for that was the shot which did the mischiefhad been fired. The parties might have met deliberately and in cold blood, and under those circumstances the first fire might have taken place. Had death followed that fire, such death would have been murder; but it was possible that Mr Christie, having forborne to take aim the first time, might have fired his second shot under an impulse of immediate anger, produced by the failure of his pacific proceeding; and, in that case, although his adversary fell, the crime amounted only to manslaughter. The Lord Chief-Justice concluded by recommending to the Jury, in a case of doubt, to take the side of mercy; and by observing (upon the excellent characters which the prisoners had received) that, unforfortunately, men of the most exem

VOL. XIV. PART H.

plary humanity and benevolent feeling were too often led to take part in transactions which led to the loss of life on one side, and to remorse and repentance during life on the other.

The Jury, after a deliberation of twenty-five minutes, returned a ver dict of Not Guilty.

MANASSEH GOULDSTEIN FOR FORGING PRUSSIAN DOLLAR NOTES.

Old Bailey, Sept. 19.

Manasseh Gouldstein was indicted for feloniously forging and counterfeit. ing diverse Prussian notes for payment of one dollar, purporting to be trea sury notes of one of the ministers and officers employed in the service of the King of Prussia. The prisoner's age is 62.

Mr Law stated, that in some counts the instrument was called an order, and in others an undertaking of the Prus sian monarch or his minister.

Mr Bolland stated the facts of the case to the Jury. He commenced by reading an extract from an act passed in the 43d of Geo. III., which provides that any person convicted of forging any promissory-note or bill of exchange, with intent to defraud any foreign prince or minister, shall be lia ble to transportation for a term not exceeding fourteen years. It was immaterial whether the instrument was com posed in the English or a foreign lan➡ guage, or in both together. In June last year two persons appeared in the city of Berlin, of the names of Lobband Simeon, and were detected in uttering copies of the forged instrument which formed the subject of the present indictment. A large number, some thousands, of the notes were found in their possession. The King of Prussia, in

order to prevent the deterioration of his currency, considered it necessary to endeavour to discover the manufacturer of those notes. It having been intimated that the notes were manufactured in this country, the King of Prussia commanded the director of his police, Mr Echard, to proceed to England with Simeon. On the 10th of July Mr Echard arrived in London with Simeon. Simeon was supplied with money by Mr Echard, and on different occasions purchased parcels of forged notes from the prisoner, amounting altogether to 5000, 6000, or 7000 notes. On the last occasion, when Simeon purchased notes from the prisoner, he met him by appointment on the Strand-bridge. Foy and Clements, two police officers, watched Simeon, to whom they had previously given two 5. notes, to pay for the forged notes, and when they saw him give the money to the prisoner, they ran up and seized the latter. Foy found the two 51. notes in the prisoner's hand, who said that he had received them in payment for some watches which he had sold to Simeon some time before. Foy asked him whether he had any of the King of Prussia's notes about him, he said no; and when searched none were found on him. The prisoner was then asked if he knew where the forged plates were. He replied that he did not; Foy, however, who had been watching the prisoner for some time, and had frequently observed him go to the house of Mr Newman, an engraver in Widegate-street, Bishopsgate, took the prisoner thither. Here the learned gentleman observed, that he fully acquitted Mr Newman of all blame in this transaction. The plate was composed in a language of which Mr Newman was entirely ignorant, and he understood that it was an admission to a theatre at Berlin. When Foy arrived at Mr Newman's, he found the plate at work, which he seized. If, in addition

to the facts which he had already sta ted, it could be proved that the pri soner employed Mr Newman to engrave the plates from which the forged instruments were struck off, and that he caused a peculiar species of paper to be manufactured for the purpose, he thought the Jury could entertain no doubt of the prisoner's guilt.

Mr Bolland then called the following evidence :

William Newman deposed, that he was a copper-plate engraver, living at No. 27, Widegate-street, Bishopsgatestreet. He knew the prisoner, and had some communication with him in March, or April of the present year. He had known him personally for 20 years, but had never done business for him. When the prisoner called on him in March, he said he wanted a little business done in engraving. Witness asked what it was, and the prisoner then shewed him a print like one of those in Court, and asked him whether he could engrave it? Witness replied Yes, and asked what it was. The prisoner replied, a Prussian ticket. Witness asked, what ticket? when the prisoner replied, a ticket of admission. The witness saw the word "current," which was the only one he could make out, and was going to ask a question about it, when the prisoner said, "God bless me, do you think I am going to give you any thing wrong to do? You know me." Witness replied that he did. Witness then agreed to engrave the two plates, and to print 30,000 copies. He wanted them done in a fortnight. Witness replied that the time was too short; but that he would print 10,000 in a fortnight. The job was to be done for about 31. a thousand. The witness pulled proofs, and the prisoner not approving of the paper, agreed to find his own paper. Paper was included in the charge of 31. a thousand. The witness struck off ten thousand copies from the plate in about a fortnight or three weeks, The

prisoner used to come to the shop and remove the printed copies from time to time. Three plates were used because one was worn out; but only two plates were necessary to complete the impression. After the plates were struck off, a line of letter-press was inserted in red ink. This was also executed by the witness, he being a letter-press as well as a copper-plate printer. About 7000 or 8000 copies were struck off before one of the plates was worn out. The witness told the prisoner that he could not afford to provide a new plate for the money which he was to receive for the work. The prisoner then said, he would give him two guineas if he would get a new plate. The plates were left with the witness. The line of letter-press which was introduced, was also in the original copy furnished by the prisoner. About August the pri

soner told the witness that he had got a fresh order for 5000. The prisoner himself brought the paper cut ready for receiving the impression. About 2000 of the latter order had been done when Foy came to the shop. At that time the impressions were lying about the shop. The prisoner called at least thirty times during the execution of the two orders, and appeared very anxious to get the impressions. (The witness identified the plates and impressions from them, and also the original from which the plates were made.)

A number of other witnesses were called.

Mr Platt, counsel for the defendant; rested chiefly on an error in the indictment.

The Jury with very little hesitation found the defendant Guilty.

RESPECTING THE LEGALITY OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE MARQUIS AND MARCHIONESS OF DONEGAL.

Consistory Court, July 28.

DR SWABEY.-In this case a citation had issued under the seal of the Court, against Charlotte Anna May, falsely calling herself the most noble the Marchioness of Donegal, citing her to appear and answer to the most noble George Augustus, Marquis of Donegal, in a suit of nullity of marriage by reason of minority. A decree, also, to see proceedings, had issued against Arthur Chichester, Esq., and George Hamilton Chichester, Esq., as the sons

and next of kin ; and a similar decree was served upon Arthur Chichester, Esq., M. P., and the Rev. Edward Chichester, Clerk, as the nephews and two next in succession to the estate and dignities of the Marquisate of Donegal. These two latter gentlemen had appeared and affirmed their protest: they had been made parties in the cause, and protested against such liability. The learned counsel, after stating the history of the proceedings which have been had in this singular cause, said that, upon the part of his client, Mr Arthur Chichester, M. P., who was called upon by the process of the Court to see proceedings in this case, he was to allege, that Mr Chichester being interested in the entail of

the Marquis of Donegal's estate, in the event of the Marquis's death without lawful issue, found himself under an obligation to appear on every general session, and on the by-day of every term-de die in diem-during the dependence of this suit. To that process he had already appeared under protest, and it was for him (Dr Swabey) to submit to the Court the difficulty under which he laboured now to proceed under the terms of the decree.

Lord Stowell desired to know what was the objection of the learned counBel?

Dr Swabey stated, that unfortunately the term had now elapsed, whereas this being a proceeding in pœnam, could only be heard, according to the ancient and invariable practice of the Court, either upon the regular days of session during the term, or upon the by-day after the term.

Dr Lushington, on the same side, informed the Court, that a minor had been cited who had not yet appeared to the citation.

Dr Phillimore had understood that it was agreed on all hands, the last time that this case was before the Court, that the argument was to be entered upon this day.

Dr Adams, who appeared on behalf of the Marquis of Donegal, also understood the arrangement in this way. In the course of the argument which he should have to offer, he should only address himself to disprove the charge of collusion between these two noble parties, which he hoped satisfactorily to do. That charge appeared to rest upon the fact of the Marchioness of Donegal's having taken out a decree to see proceedings. Counsel being agreed to take the case, the pleas and acts of Court were read. The Proctor for A. Chichester, Esq. M. P., set forth that his party was unduly cited in this case; that on the 8th of August, 1795, the marriage of the two real and only par

ties in the cause took place by virtue of a licence, in which it was stated that Charlotte Anna May was a minor, about 18 years of age; that such marriage was about to be had by and with the consent of Sir Edward May, Bart. (then E. May, Esq.) the consent of whom was so given as her reputed father; and that in the month of June 1819, the invalidity of such marriage being matter of general notoriety and publicly talked of, another marriage, which was then about to take place between George Hamilton Chichester, Esq. (calling himself Earl of Belfast, as eldest son of the said Marquis of Donegal) and a lady of high rank, was broken off by reason thereof. It was further alleged, that Dame Elizabeth May, for whom a commission of examination de bene esse had been ob. tained of the Court through the representations of Counsel as to her advanced age and very precarious state of health, was at that very time going about to routs and parties, and paying and receiving visits; "that the said Marquis and Marchioness of Donegal, notwithstanding the institution of the present suit of nullity of marriage, still lived and cohabited together;" that such suithad been instituted "collusivelybetween the Marquis and Marchioness for the purpose of obtaining from this Court a sentence in favour of the said reputed but invalid marriage;” and that their proctors were instructed, under the pretence of conducting a suit for the annulling the same, to adopt any and every step that might tend to secure for their parties such a sentence. The other allegations were of a general nature; that the said marriage was ab initio void and of none effect that improper means had been resorted to to stop the mouths of witnesses; and that George Hamilton Chichester, Esq. calling himself Earl of Belfast, had declared that he had adopted every measure which might prevent the vali

;

dity of such marriage being now inquired into. Their allegations, or the major part of them, were denied in detail, by the proctors for the noble parties in the suit, and for the next of kin.

Dr Swabey then addressed the Court. The protest of Mr Arthur Chichester, M.P., was not against the jurisdiction of the Court, but against his liability to be made a party in this suit, either as nephew of the Marquis of Donegal, or as next entitled in the entail of his lordship's estates, failing lawful male issue of his lordship's body. This suit was brought under the act of Geo. II. for the better preventing of clandestine marriages. By that act, the marriage of a minor, without the lawful consent therein described, was declared to be ipso facto void. Such a marriage, therefore, required no declaratory sentence of voidance what ever. It had been permitted, however, since 1760 (the 34th of Geo. II.) to the parties to go for such a declaratory sentence; and the same permission had been extended, beyond the parties themselves, to parents and guardians; the law presuming that these might be interested in the decision of such questions. It was evident that these suits, in the intention of the law, could only be brought inter vivos; and those, the parties immediately contracting the bond of matrimony. With them the question at issue was, whether they had contracted verum matrimonium ; and such was the nature of the question here put at issue between the Marquis and Marchioness of Donegal. But his client, Mr Chichester, could have no interest in that question. He might, indeed, be consequentially interested in his temporal estate, supposing the event of the Marquis of Donegal's death without lawful male issue. But if the marriage should be declared to be invalid, the Marquis might marry again, and have lawful issue. There

fore, the interest of Mr Chichester, at the highest could be contingent merely, and was not absolute enough to constitute him a party in this cause. Supposing that after publication it should suit these noble parties (between whom, the learned Counsel declared, he must say that he saw some sort of consent and collusion) to drop this suit, would it be competent for Mr Chichester to continue it? By no means, for he was not legally or ostensibly a party to it. Neither would Mr Chichester in any case have any title to intervene in the suit, and say, "Let me see fair play, because I am consequentially interested." It followed, therefore, that he was not legally liable to be made a party in it. The desire and will of the other parties, and their citing him to see proceedings, were not enough to clothe him with such a character; and still less could his contingent interest in the entailed estates of Lord Donegal do so. Here was a suit professedly and legally "inter vivos;" and the maxim of law was, "Nemo hæres est viventis." A suit which should of necessity and in law. involve Mr Chichester as a party, could only be instituted after the death of one of the other parties. At present he had a right to protest against being drawn in to be one in a suit which might be to him vexatious and expensive. The learned Counsel, in an able and extensive speech, adverted to the case of "Dalrymple v. Dalrymple;" and quoted at some length from Oughton (Title 193.-" Quod, causæ tangentes matrimonium postulare solent, et quomodo in curiis Ecclesiasticis propositæ sint, et de forma earundem instituendi ;") and from the 106th canon, as promulgated in the year 1603. Finally, he contended that this Court had no jurisdiction in this matter, it being deposed that the Marchioness of Donegal had been resident for the last four years, and did now