Extraordinary trial! Norton v. Viscount Melbourne, for crim[inal] con[versation] ... A full and accruate report ... / by an eminent reporter ... Embellished with a portrait and memoir of the Hon. Mrs. Norton. &c., &c.

  • Norton, George Chappele, 1800-1875
Date:
[1836?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Extraordinary trial! Norton v. Viscount Melbourne, for crim[inal] con[versation] ... A full and accruate report ... / by an eminent reporter ... Embellished with a portrait and memoir of the Hon. Mrs. Norton. &c., &c. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    28/38 (page 26)
    uey said, c What do you see?’ * I see your dear little dirty face/quctb 1; I then handed it to him, and said, ‘ What do you see ?’ ‘ I see your dear big dirty face/ said he; was’nt it quick and funny? The other laughed amazingly at this filial impertinence. Spencer’s * good things I must not omit. We were sitting with Charlie and he was dull ‘Now,’ said he, ‘ let us resign ’ ‘ What do you mean ?’ said I. ‘ People says resign, ‘ when they go out,’ quoth he; so much for living with Minis* ters, [much laughter! ] Your ever affectionate, C. Dearest George.—Take your bath and be better; you cannot think how I reproach myself at your being ill, it makes me quite unhappy; but it shall never happen again, your remorseful wife promises you faithfully—you af'e a good kind hubb in the long run, and don’t believe me when 1 say harsh things to you, waking or sleeping; balance my words last night against the day you woke me. Glad to make friends, and happy to see you at Paris, and forgive me ! Y our’s, CAR. The papers containing Mr. Norton’s appointment as a police magistrate were then put in, and Sir v\ illiam Follett then said that the plaintiff's case was then closed. The Attorney General rose to address the Jury for the defendant. He could assure them unfeignedly that he re¬ joiced in the wish intimated b}? them, that the trial should close that evening. Their wish had saved him a night of anxiety, and he knew that before he left the Court, his Client would be delivered from the unfounded charge brought against him. They would have the satisfaction when they laid their heads upon their pillows, to reflect that, having heard all the evidence, and given it the most dispassionate consideration, they would come to the calm and clear conclusion that it was wholly insufficient to sup¬ port the accusation. He confessed that it would have been more according to the usual practice if his learned friend Sir WilliamFollett, instead of opposing had seconded his application for an adjournment. But no—when he found that it might be an advantage to the defendant, he strongly opposed the delay. That he must say was an un¬ usual opposition, but the present was an unusual case. He (the Attorney General) disdained the notion of ask¬ ing for delay, on the ground that he should call witnesses. He would tell them frankly that he would call no witnesses. He would rest upon that which he should demonstrate to them—that no case had been made out against his client— that all the material facts that had been urged were false, and that from the facts that really did exist, no inference whatever unfavourable to his client could be drawn. He asserted his innocence, and that there was no proof what¬ ever In which a Jury could satisfactorily come to a concln-