Court Of Common Pleas, Sa...
.ICJore the LORD O1IIEI JUSTICE and a Common Jutry. j.nis was an action for moneylent. Alr. Sergeanit PEAkxi opened the case. He said, that this was an action brought by thie plaintiffi, to recover of the dlefendant the su-m ,of 1101., which the latter had received on account of the former, under 'Very peculiar circumstarnces. In the year 1816. thie plaintiff, who is a man of humble circuimstances, residing in Birminigham, hadl the mnisfortune to have his son enlisted into the marinas, a, Portsmouth. The defendant at that time resided in the isle of WVight, where ke pased himself offas a doctor of physic, and was considered as a per- so0n of some importance. It was thiercfore thoug:ht th-at he mighit bave influience enaugh to get the plainEiff's son discharged fromn the Service into which hie had enlisted. The plaintifF, in consequence, applied to hiint but as he was not in a situation to p rove the repre- sentations which the defendant thien made to htis client, he shiould miot say an % thing about thiem. He would merely observe, thiat in Votisequence of subsequent transactions betweeni thie partie-s lie wras enabledl toshow that the defendant lhad been guilty ot' notlsin Iss than cheating the plaintiffoutof the 301.,far the recovery of whicX tchist action was niow brought. In the year 1818 the defendant, having remioved from thle Isle of WVight, hatd his residence in 5Marchosont- street, Russell-square, and passed hlimself off to his friends in the country as Dr. Powell, of Russell-square. The pl-aintiff, thinking that Dr. Powell, of Russell-square, was a very likelv person to -obtain his son's discharge, transnsitted to him 301. for that- purpose, throu,gh the hands of certain bankers in L-ondon and Birmingham. That imoney he afterwardls received ;and what was veary Material, drew a clieck for it, whioh he signed as " J. Powell, M1. D." fie entreated the jUry to recollect that the defesidant represented himiself as Dr. Powell, of Russell-square; and he begged leave to infornm ttlem, that hie did so, because tie're was a Dr. Powell residing in Russell-square or the necighbourhood, whio was a inati of the verv first respectability, and totally incapable of saith a fratud as had been practised by the defenda~nt. The plaintiff having paid over -this aiim of 301. to, the defendlant, expect ect to receive his son's ttis- chbarge in a few weeks. S3ome mnonths elapsed, buit tiie boy was inot forthcoming. A friend of the plaintiff in con-equenee calledl on the defendant in Marchmnont-stroet, to know wlhv the mioney lhad not been paid, and whiy the lad hadl not been dis6hal`ged. Th le defen- dant replied, that the dielay had been ocrasioneth by thec peculiar ,difficulties of the case, andl by a liope whichn he hadl of obtain- ing the boys discharge for 51: instead of 301. The same person called again after the lapse of some timie on the defendant, and wa's again pu.toff by a similar excuse. At last, in tkeyearI1819, ,he defendan.t told the plaintiff's friend that he could do nothing in the wae; that he couldI not return the mioney ; that hiis affairs were in the handsl of a professional issan ; and that they might havec4s. in the pound, if they chose, upon their wltoledermand.His clientreffused this proposition with intliznation. and he nowv brought his action to recover the whole sum. Tnes,e were the circum-stances of the case, aind if he made them out in evidlence, he had no douibt that he shotild have the benefit of a verdict for liia client. Mr. Job Ctutler. a merchIant at. Birmingharn,was the first witness examined. He deposed as follows :-l am acquainted wvith the plaintiff, who is a clerk in the Coal Company's office. Birminghagm. By deir fthe plaintiff Icalledlon the defenidant in December,1818, who then lived in Marehimont-street, Russell-square. I told hlim that I isati called to kniow why Mr.Johnson's boy was not dischargedl. He said that liehad written 'Several letters about Iliis dischiarge, but that he lhad not pressed the subjec on the Admiralty, because lie had hopes of ge-tting his dilcagl o 3.o 1 1cmui cated this to the plaintiff. I called on the defendant again in February or Alarch. 1818, and toldlIiim tliat the plain ti-ffWIhed himn to pay the whole 301. ani d get the boy's tliscliarge immn-ediately. 1ie then said, "1 I'll write about it to-niglit." Before I went, he asked me howv long it would be before I zot to Birmiingham again. I said it woibi be eight or ten dlays. "1 Thien," said he, "1 the boy mnost likely will be at home before you." I told this to the plaintiff. I called on the defendanat again about live or six months afterwards. I asked him for the money he had received frim thie plaintiff' He told me to go to his prof'essional friends in Covent-gardlen. I do not recollect their names ; but I went to the persons whose address he gve e; hey oldme hat heyhadgot his affairs in hand, and wer paing4s inthepoud o hs cedtors. I communicated this to he laitif. H wrte ackto e,to say that he would not accpt he ffe ofthi diided. wet to the defendant to tell him f tis,and e ten hut he oorini my face. Cros-exainedby r. Srgeat O s.o'W.-I believe this letter (looking at a letter shown to hiim) to be in the hiand-writing of the plaintiff. Nobody wasR present at the conversations which I had with the defendant; he appeared rather deaf. .I do tinot know the name of the defendant's attorney, nor his eron. JTanes Raper, the next witisa eossasflows :-I was, in 1819, a clerk in Hanbury esCo'bakn-use; they are in correspondence with AMessrs TalradLod ankers, Birmning- ham. This is a letter whc esr.Ialuyand Co. received from Messrs. Taylor and Lloyd: it orders us to py301. to Dr.Powell, of Russell-square, when he appliedl for it on accon of Mr. Johnson. A gentleman, who represented himself to be Dr. Powell, of Rus- sell-square, called upon us and drew a chseck for the 301.; we then jid the money upon it. i do not know the hand-writing of Dr. !11ary Carter.-I live as servant with Dr. Powrell, who lives in King-street, Covent-garden. I have seen him write, but I never saw him sien his name. I think the words " J. Powell, M.D." are like his hand-writing. Mr. Sergeant ONesLOW said that he would admit the check to be in the hand-writing of the defendant. The check was then put in, and read. Mr. Sergeant ONsLow then addressed tae iurv for the defendant. This ease was of great importance to the det~endant, on account of the sum claimied, by the plaintifF, a-nd still more so, on account of the Tnanner in which it affected his character. The defendant liad un- questionably received the moniey for which this action was brought; but the circumstances under which he had received it differed very mnaterially from those wvlich had been statedI by the plaintiff's coun- sel, First of all, hebhadnever represented hinmself to be Dr.Powell, of RusselI-square: it was in evidence, that he lived in the neigh- bourhood of Russell-square ;and if other people called him Dr. Powell, of Russell-square, it was a delusion of their creation, and snot of his. Untdoubtedly, if the representations of the witness Cutler were tr-ae, the transaction would still bear an awkward app"earance ; but he believed he should be able to prove that those representations were not to be implicitly trusted. He cer- taily oul no shw tat he onvrstions which he related were fa's; fr thy hd neer ccured n te presence of a third person ; hut e soul prducea ltte, wichwould raise the strongest in- fernceaganstther bingaccratlyreported. That letter was writenby he laitif tothedefndat some little time after the conerstios, hic ha ben dtaiedto them in evidence; and in tht letrteplaintif was so far from complaining of the defend- an' codc,thal 'he expressed himself most gratefully for the at- tento wihhad been paid to his application. Was it probable that Suc a eter would hiave been written had the representations of Cutler been true? He thought not; andl consequently he should call on the jury to give no credit to them, and to defend Dr. Powell from an attack, whichi would not merely take from him a sum of money, but would, if not defeated, have the effect of ruining his character. 'The following letter was then put in and read " Swallow-street, Birmingham, Aug. 18, 1819. Kind Sir,-Humbly hoping your goodness will excuse the in- tru3ion of my sending a tfew lines, which I do to infonmn you that my friend called on you, and you happenied to be from home; and 3Mrs. P6 well informied my friend that she thought you could not get my son his discharge, which I hope you can, as he hias just arrived *at Spithead from the East Indies. We have heard from him this week, and he desires you will get his discharge immediately, as he is afraid the ship will sail again directly. If you will gzet him released from thie ship, I shall ever feel obliged for your kindness. I am sorry for having given Youl so much trouble, but I hope yovi will excuse it, and I shall ever f'eel olbliged ; andI I lhope to have It in my power to make you a recompense in a shiort time. " I am,5 yours,&c Mfr. Sergeant PEAK- wgas about toreply, when The LoR.D CsufEF JUSTICE stopped hirn,and said__"~ Gentlemen of theJuiry-LfDr.Powellhasdefended this action for the nreservation of his character, I think his defence will not answer thEe purnose. .The case will at least do good .in oane way, becauise, as whajiever taks pacein hisCout i cicultedto heworld,the public at large wil beomeacqained iththetrasacion of it. I think whets theyhea' o it pcplewil tae cre ot to trust this defendant with ~0L. ethe t ge thir on dichage, or for any other purpose. Genlemn, he ater s to ceartnadmit of any doubt, and it toldbe anbee inutt o udrtnig to say one word more upon- The juiry returned a verdict for the plaintiffi-Damages 301. IIiOaYSETT V. JIUCKLAND. *This was an action for trios- cons. As soon as it was called on, tie LoRn CHIEF .JUSTICE intimated a desire that all thie females in *thercourt should leavqeit. At the samnetime all witnesses in- the case were desired to withdrawv. Mr. Sergerant PELL said that this was a case of importance, per- haps he mi glt say of difficulty, certainly of delicacy. I-e should .make no overatrained statement of facts, but should 'confine himself ,to a simiple narratioh of certain leading circumstances. whiceh it would .be material for the Jury to keep in mind from the beginning to the etid of this case. T'he declaration, whiich had not been opened on .account of the unavoidable absence of hiis learned friend Mlr. Jones, imntuted to die defendant that lie hail been guilty ofcriminal conver- sation with the plaintiff's wife. The jutry ivould therefore be pre- pared to hear that day a story of a singular descrition ; and as all cases of this nafure varied in degree as to their maincy the in- j Ury inflicted, and the facts involved, he should decieto them I?rs of all the situation oF the parties, next the n atfe of the injury 'complained of, thien the manner in which he intene to prove it, .and tibould then, aftei addressing a few wordIs to the onthe amount *of damages, -leave it to his learned brother to answer the case, eithier by observation pr evidlence, as he shouldl thiink lit. The plaintiff was a person in business at Tunbridge Wells, lie was the owner of a small inn in that towvn, called the Sw'an Inn. The defendant lived at no very great distance from that place,and carried on a sorft of business as a gentleman farmer. He badh formerly been in the army, butbhid quitted it. He wasnowl Iinrtired on afortuinewbich enabled him to enjoy all the comforts, and ma.n4y of the luxuries, of life. Sorry was he to add, that the offence of which he had been guity as ggrvatd b hi beng ims lf arried mnan. The plaitif wa marie to he adywhowastheunfortunate subject of thepreentacton in181, a th pris chrehofEast Grinstead : he wa the 27 earsof ae, ad ha forerl cared on business as a aprit~inrclantiii noter artof he ingdom His wife was at tie time of the marriage very young-her age did not exceed lf6 or 17. They lived together tbr some years, anid, as he was told, very happily and respectably. Five children had been the offspring of this marriage, th&last of whom was born so late as the so ing of 1o23 Thedefendantwas in the habit of frequentingtheplaintiff's ho, e,and hey would hear that he had from time to time been received there with those proper cvilities which were dae from the plaintiff ant Ihis family to a person of the defendant's rank antI situation in life. The plaintiff's wife wras at the tne of her marriage, and still con- tinued to ba, a woman of considetable personal attractions. Wlhen the defendant first determined to destroy the peace of mind and hap. piness of thC plaintiff, tditd rot very distinctly appear; but it would be seen, that in August last heo had takets more than one opportunitv of vilifying, dcgrading, and insultinjg the plaintiff in the presence of his wife. WRt~her it was that by such a line of conduct he believtd that he should be able to shake her affection to her husband, or whether he had already succeeded in doing so, he (Mr. Sergeant Pell) should-not pretend to say. It was a point for the jury to de- termine, and a feature of the case which ought not to escape their particular observation. Considering, however, t4at the plaintiff's wife wras the mother of flIv childrevi' and was, frain her tituation in life, more aissailable to the attacks of the seducer than the wife ot anY Other tradesman, it became agentlenman in the situation in which che defendant stood rather to haVe forborne than scizedt upon that advanitage. In the business which the plaintiff followed he wras obliged to be ofteni at a distance from his wife, and was also com- pelled to place her frequently in contact with men whiose language and habits were not much distinguished for delicaCY. He made this observation, not because he knew what the nature of the defenice wouldI be, but becau~e hie knew that a_ number of witnesses were to be called for the defendant, and because hie suipposed that they were summoned toseko rnatoswihle cainlytaken place in the plirf' os.T eun oee,t h ats of the case. In h ot fAgs at ncneuneo h abuse which the defnathdpue uo e ubn,or or same othier cause, the planifswf a idcdt ihrwherself from her hoame. He owed itto thedefendant to say, that although he believed him to have been actually mote or less concerned in that step, that nio distinct evidence of it couldl be obtained. In the latter part, however, of the year 1823, it was observed by several witnesses, that some- thing improper must be going on between Mr. Buckland and Mrs. Honysett; for in Decemiber last, it would be proved to them that she left her hutsband's hiouse early in the evening, joined MVr. Buck- land, stayed withi him for several hIourS, and did not return till uoie o'clock inthiermorning. This interview took place afterthie defend- ant hadl so grossly insultedl the pl-ainitiff, that he hadl given orders that the derendlant shi6uld never be permitted to enter wvithin the doors of his house. It was, therefore, only natuTal to conjecture that t-his interview had taken place without thie knowledge and against the will of the husband. How often the defendant. had seen hier since, he was not prepared to prove, but the iury might well believe that their interviews, however secret, were norufeun.OeSna afternoon, in the month of Mlarch last,itoldbprvdhase liad again, quittedi her husbatid's lhouse, n fe asln hog gap in the hiedge adjoining hiis field, had eth defnat wpr sans, whose names were Headl and Hook, passed hier as she was walkii,giwith the defendant. TIheir curiosityliaving been excited by the circuimstancee, they determiinedi to follow liar. Close by Tuabridige IVells were grounds belonging to Lordl Abergavenn y with a priVate Toa't running, throuagh them. To this rosad AMr. Buickland and Mirs. flonysett withdrew. The night was moonlighit, and the litour between seven and eight o'clock For a ishort timne thecy wvere lost to their pursuers among the trees. On thieir being dliscovered, the defendant gave that proof of guilt which always followeid its detection. He tried to avoid bothi mnen, and ran away. They would hear front the witnesses thie situation in whlich Mlrs. Honysett was found. Slte was in thie greatest confuision. Hie would not niention to them what she said, because lie slhould have to pot it to his Lordship whether what-she then saidl cou(il be adImittedl as evidence against the ilefendlant, who had then absconded. They vwouldi flind, however, that from his and( hier demneanouif it ivas evident that that act hadl been committed which by itself was sufficient to authorize thie present action. Hec wouldI prove to tiern the facts whichl liehadstated. If nootheranswer were gvn to them than the address of hiis learned brother,he shiould nut havel~ the opportunity of again addressingr them. H-e shottid, however, leave hts cause with, confidence in their hand, as lie only wishied for such tlamages as were justly due to a malt wh-) had been thuts seriously anti irreparably injured. The Rev. M r. Taylor, vicAr of East Grinjstead, was the first wit. ness called. A copy oaf the xegistry of marriage between a man of thle name of - llanysett, aid a wvoman of the naLme of - Balding, was handled uip to hiim. He deposeti that on the 12th of June, 1812, he had married two persons so named. He knew nothing of the parties, nor couldl he recollect whether the woman was very young or not. The register was thecn put in, but not read. Elizabeth Quinmell deposed as follows :-I knew Mlr. and Alrs. hionysett. 1 lived as servant with themn in 1823, at the Swan inn, Turibridge-wells. I went to live there shortly af'ter Mlrs. I-ony- sett was brought to bed of her last chiild. Alrs. Honysettlias5chfi- diren. I kno'w AMr. Btickland. I suppose him to be a gentleman. They SRV lie is a married man. I never heard him speak of lils wife. I recollecet in Juine, 1823, a quarrel taking place in the bar between fihr. H4ony-sett and Mlr. B3ackland. Mirs. Honysett was present. MVr. Honiysett told hLi wif'e to canse out of the bar. She cai-ne out, and Alr. Buckland followedI her. Mr. Buckland said if he offered to hit or abuse her, he ,vould knoclt him dawn ; at the same time he of- fered him five sovereigis testand against him for five minutes. Mvr. Buickland said, "1D-tn your eyes, if it was not for law, yuu should notse dalihtto-morrow morning." Mlr. Honysett then took away hswife, an told Mlr. Buckland "1he had better keep hia sove- reigns, he mnighit want theiri." I recollect that about eight or nine days afterwards Mirs. Honvsett left the house, anid that Mr. Ilony- sett went and brought her l3ack. Before this quarrel, Mlr. and MVrs. Honysett lived very comfoetably, except when Mr. Buckland came thiere. I do not know how old Mrs. H enyrett is. Crass-examined by Ai-r. SergeanitVAUGHAN.-Irnever heard Mir. Honysett say thiat hIts wife had a child before he married her; I do not kn~ow that she had. I niever heard Mr. Honysett call her by any bad names. I never heard them quarrel, except when Mlr. Bucklanid came. I lived with them four or five months; I do not know thatMlr. Hony.serttwent before a magistrate at Canterbury, and said that he would treat his wife better if she would come back to him ; I never heard him say thzat he had done so. She left his house upon one occasion at fourT o'clock in the imo-rning. For some time previously slite had not slept with her husband; she did not sleep with her hiusband on the Sunday or rthe MVonday niight before she left hfim; it was on the Sunday the quarrel took place between Air. Honysett and Mr. Buclaland; the quarrel was aboout her sitting in the bar with Mlr. Buckland. I swear that Mlr. Honysett did not kick her in the bar. I dlid not he-ar hini threaten to kick her out of' it. I did not hear Mlr. Buckland say, "1If you kick her, or any woman in my presencea, I'll knock You down.'I never heardi Mr. Honysett use indecent language to his wife in the prmesne of strangers. I do nor kcnow that Aifr. Honysett has been sleping Istely with his wife, and that he intends to live with her again when this action is over. "eRee.earnined by Mlr. Sergeant PELL.-.Mlrs. Honysett nursed her child. Elizabeth Head.-I live next door to the Swan Inn. I hiave knowrn Mr. and Mirs. Honysett for six or seven years. They hiave lived together on good terms as man and wife, as far as I ever saw or heard. Mlrs; H onysett is a p rutty little woman ; she is now 30 years of age. I know Mir. Buckland. He is married. I was coming home one night, in last August, about 9 o'clock, on the Pantiles, whien I saw Mr.lonysett and Mir. Buckland meet one aniother there. I saw him afterwards at I I o'clock that same night walking before my house; he walked there by himiself for an bomur. Mlrs. Honysett then canie out, crossed the road, and went to the place where AMr, Buck!and was, bitt I cannot say she joinedI him. She stayed out of her house till half-past one o'clock. Cross-examined by Air. ADOLPHujs.-The Pantiles is the mioat public part of the Waelly. Ben,jamin Winch.-I live at Queensborough, about 35 miles fro ')unbridge. I married Mir. Honysett's sister. I dlid not ko lrs. onysett before her mnarriage. I do not know her Christian name. Her father was a farmer, and lived at Cranbrook. His name was Balding. I do not know, from my own knowledge, that she had a child before her marriage, hut I have heard that she had, but not fromn Air. Honysett, I have often been at their house, and they appeared to live most happily. Cross-examined by Air. ADsOLPsU S.-.I formerly lived at Hawk- hurst, only 13 miles from the XVells. I visited thlem six months after their marriage, but I saw no child in the house. MNrs. 11ony.. seer is now living with her brother-in-law, Mlr. Cuthbert. I have seen Alf r. Hanysett thiere. I saw no intercourse pass between them. As soon as he c-ame into the room, she walked out. I saw him go away about seven o'clock in the evening. I believe that he did not sleep there; I slept there myself, bttt I did not see him there the next morning. A letter was here shown the witness, which he said was in the hand-writing of the plaintiff. Sarah Sageman.-I was servant to M[r. and Airs. Honysett in Marc lat. Tey ad hen efttheSwan, and were living at the Bowlng-ree. Irecllet Snda, te 14th of Mlarch. Aly master wen ot o capl bou ~intheevnig. I saw Mr. Bucldand, about hal-pat 8o'loc, wlkig n te radto Frant. I went with.my misres upthefied bou haf-pst . We went across the field into the ran-rod. the wet hme.I saw mY mistress go on the road towards where AMr. Buckland was. I lived with Alr, and Mlrs. Honysett for eix moniths; during that timre they lived very well 'tolgether. George.9ead.-l am alabouring man, living atTatnbrige Wells. I know both Air. Buckcland and Airs. Honysett. On Sunily even- ing, March 14, I observed Mrs. Hfonysett come over a gap-way into the Frant-road, and joinAiVr. Buckland,- who wis there. It was about eight o'clock at niglit. It was a moon-light night. They passed me, and Ifollowed them. I lost sight ot them when they got a little up the road. I was then joined by a person of the name of Hook, who had also followed them. We met a gentleniian on the road, and in consequence of what he told us, wve went to the toll, a thicket of wood, belonging to Lord Abergavenny. When we got to that place, we did not see any thing at first: after waiting five m-i- nutesi, we went down Lord Abergavenny's ride. After we had gone five or six rods down it, and after ten or fifteen minutes had elapsed, we saw Mrs.Honeysett and M1r. Buckland standdown In the thicket. Hookand I were then about 10 or 12 yards from them. It was light enough forus to have a distinct view of their persons. [Here the wit.. nes desctibed several circumstances whichi public decency prevents us from detailing. 1 Air. Buckland, on seei%gus came out. Hook said to, him, " You needi not go away, Air. tucklarid, we know you.", Air. Bucltland got into the road anld wenit home. Airs.. Honysett went out into the ride, and walked the OPPosite way to Mr. Buck- land. Cross-examined by Air. Ser cant VAUGHASt.-1 had not receiv. ed any directions from any borWy to watch MVr. Buckland end MVrs. hionysett. I thiink his trousers were of a drab colour. I snaver said that I could not tell what he was doing, but it seemned as itf he mighrbe adjustinghis dress, but what part of it I couldI not say. Hook s,aid so; hut I neither agreed or disagreed with him when he said so. I said nothing. Hienry Hook, a fishmonger at Tunbridge Wells, corroborated the testimony of the preceding witness. This was the ease on the part of the plaintiiff AiVr. Sergeanit VAUGHAN, in his address to the jurty for tIme de- fen dant, obsearved, that it vwas impossible to speak withouit feeling time difiulisagainst which he bad to contend, A. criminal smputit- than had been made on thc defendant, so serious is its nature' that he trusted the jury would not give credit to it after they had hIeard his witnesses, even if they were new disposed so believe it, which be trusted they were not, on the evidence adduced by' the plaintiff. Although he f~elt that the ease had not been sufficiently proved against his client-although he felt confident as to the ultimate re- sult-still he must confess that he approached tie discussion with no considerable feeling of reluctance. He gave credit to his learned brother Pell for the care, the caution, the dexterity, the management evinced in opening this case. It had been 3aid, and said truly, that this was a case of delicacv and difficulty. It was so. In its nmature it was at all times delicate; in the present in- stance, at least to the plaimuiff's advocate, it must have been very difficult, for the materials on which it had been presented to their notice were any thing but satisfactory. At the same time he ac- knowledsged that it was difficult for te defendant's counsel. The jury naturally felt inclined tO rise in arms against the adulterer-it was a true British feeling, ad he trusted it would always be enter. tained by Englishmen. He knew, too, that such a feeling would be doubly strong when that adulterer was himself proved to be a mar- ried man ;butstill lie believed, that until thc facts were satisfacto- rily established, the juty would not act upon their feelings, however strong those feelirgs miSht be. In all these cases there were two in- quiries-first, had the tacts charged been coiimmitted, and had they been satisfactorily proved; and, secondly, what were the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled. That latter consideration put the conduct of tleplaintiffin issue ; for the jury before they could give damages, were bound to estimate what he lhanl lost. Here they ivere called on to believe that he had lost the affectioais of a chaste, affectionate, and devoted wife; and if he had, and that through the conduct of the defendant alone, lie (rIll. Ser- gea%t Vaughan) would himself call on them to inflict that pu- nis eiemt which in such a case 'heir own sense of wounded fioriour ~putld dictate. ?'?w what lis the pfajittift' lost ? In-'what state had he lived with his wife ? How could that be proved so well as by female relations; and ye-t none of them had been called ? Mlr. Wginch, who lived 86 miles ftc,m thlem, bad certainly given evi- dence on this subject, but he wvas n0? a witness whose tesitimony could be compared to that of a fe.male in such a case. Women understood these raatters better-they observed thie behaviour of a husband and wii'e more closely and MOse attenitively3-than men. They were more alive to the subjcct; they had better opportuni- tiest of- forming a jud~ment uon it ; and, if he mhtsay so, they were most interested in it. Then why had tbhey no ben itroduced ? Was not their absence a just ground of suspicion ? But was that all ? He thought- not ; for he was of opinioni thtat, even svith re- gard to the legal proof in this casn, he might have addresised an objectioni to his lordship. The parties had not been properly iden- tifed, and up to this moment there was "not the slightest proof that the persons who were married in thie year 1812, at East Grin- fstead, wrere the samepersons who were now the subject of the present investigation. The CHIEF JuJSTrCE observed, that he had himself been con- sidering wliether the identity had been sufficiently made out. In the case of "1 Bitt anda Barlow," reportedl in Douglas, it was held that a copy of the register alone was not sutticient to prove the identity; but that the minister and the subscribing wit- nesses were the onlv competent witaiesses to provg it. In the present case the clergyman who married the parties stated, that he neither knew nor recollected any thing of theni. The subscribing witnessets had not bceen called. The only witness who hnd visited theni about the period of their marriage was Winch, and he had coiifessed that hie did not know the Christian name of jltrs. Honysett. It had been held that when the register was pro- duceed there was sufficient evidence of identity, supposing it were proved that the woman had been called by the same maiden name as was mentioneLd in the register up to the day of her marriage ; that shie had gone out upon that day, and on her return and ever since had been called by the name of the person whio was desribed as her hus- barnd in the register produced. In the present case the evidence did not go even so 1far as that. Illr. Winch was here re-called by the desire of AMr. Sergeant PELL. He deposed that he knew th u father of Mlrs. Honysett. His name was Bolding. He knew her brother's Christian namie, but he did not know hers M5r. Sergeant PELLr admitted that this proof of the identity was not sufficient. He had, however, abundant proof of it fro,n other pe.rs,ons He would, with the permission of the C'outrt, caU the per- son who hbad given them their wedding-dinner, anid who had known them ever since. 'llr. John Hloare was then called. He deposed that he recollected tile time when these vaties were married in the parih of East Grinstead. They had thi edng-dinner in his hoose. In his cross-examination he stated that they had no child wvith them at that dlinner. He thought however, that they had a child nt the tinme of their marriage. He irnew them since their mearriage, but had not visited them frequently. The LonD CongE' JusTIcg held that the identity was now suf- ficiently eatablished. Mir. Sergeant VAUGHAN; continued. The identity bad certainly been proved, but by a loan who couldI not give the slightest evidence of the manner in which the plaintiff anid his wife hadt lived togethier. The former deficiency of proof had arisen from no other cause than a determination to throw every obstacle in the way of the jury as- certaining the truth, by preventing those persons being brouglit before thent whocould alonespeak to the realstate in whiceh the plaintiif and his wife lived. Hislearaet friend had notcalledMlr.Hoare,becausehe suspected that by doing so,he mighit expose the vulnertable part of his case.Tliat witness had proved that Al rs.H onysett hadl borne a child to the plaintiff before her marriage with himn. The jury had heard it stated, that she was married when only 16 years of age; and if she had had a chiild before she arrived at that early age, who, he would ask, was her original seducer? Who- had first debauchedI the per- son, if not the mind, of this unfortunate womanu? W'ho had paved the way for her present dishonour ? Who but the plaintiff' on the present recordl ? True it was that he had made her the best repara- tion in his flower by marrying her; snd if,from the time of his miar- riage, he hid conducted himself like the faithfuil guardian of her ho- nour, if he had acted like a kind, affectionate, and attentive husband, thie jury miighit do well in throwing a veil over his ea-rly depravity, and in p'reventfng it from being objected against him as a reason for catting down the damages whic henowsought to obtain. Butsuch was not the case they would hear such an appalling statement of facts as ought to have' deterred him from ever comiing into a court of justice to demand redress for the injury which he professed to have sustained. They would hear that his conduct towards this unfortu- nate woman hadi been that of a brute, and not of a nman. LHere the learned Sergeant related several instances of gross mis- conduct, wholly unfit for the public eye.] He then pro- ceeded to state, that t1hete was another ground of defence to tnis action. This husbaind who now complained to the jury of the de- struction of his peajCeO?mind and happiness.-.-this man, if man he deserved to be called who could be guilty of actinig in the mnanner st described-.this sensitive being, who had avoided the presence of VIsi unfortunate wife whien he hadlnmet her at Air. Cuthbert's-this pattern of conjug,al tenderness and fidelity, had actually slept, and ived, was actually now slecping and living with his wtfle since the transaction on which he founded his p resent complaint. Did the jury start at this ? Alas! they were destined to hear something stil mrestrnge ad een or reoltngthan it was strange. He (Mr.SereantVauhan)meat no meelyto chiarge the plaintiff wit conivngat insowndihonur,butevn with a conspiracy,- ay2anda cnsiray wth iswif, t cok up information on which to brig frwad Se atio,rnrel wih aviw to put money in to his own pocet,andto nahie im o lve omfrtalyat the defendantis ex- pense. Hesol rv hsb w etr,one written by the wife and the othrb thhubn,ndiecd to Mliss Aary Bolding, who was a cosno h ies h ere egat was about to read the wif' lettef, whten he was intruedb Al1r. Sergeant PELL, who objected,thtate wife's letter could not be admittedI as evidence against the plaintiff, his learrad friend ought not to be allowed to prejudice thej'ury by readtihgit to them Ir. Sergeant VAUGHAN answered, tat the wife's le Ti was evi dence, inasmuch asit was written at'tesm ie on th sm sheet of pper, anct was sc-aled with the same seal as the husband'si letter. Yu&, whatever the jury might think of such a statement, it was positively true. TIhere sat the "1ruined" hu-sband and the criminal vwife, "1 cheek by 'owl,"i conspiring to discover evidence by which the defendant to d be made answerabple In an ac- tion of this sort. He should read these twvo letters to the jury, not in the order in whichi tkey were written, for, to gratify his brother Pell, he would read the husband's first, although it began by refer- ring to the wife's, which had been written above it. Tis letter of the husband's had been proved to be in his hand-writing by MVr. Winch; and though ano such proof had been offered as to tie wife's, yet, being referred to in the husband's, both were evidence. They' were as follows: addressed to Mliss Mlary Rolding:_ " Dear Mary,-You will see, by the above, that it is Mlrs. Hony sett's wrish for you to inform me of what you can recolltect of the- transaction between Bucklasid and her, as she says you know that Bucklandl and her have been to-ether in the bedl-room, and you must have seen many things pasis between them when the y were together. I have no doubt but you wish us both well and more happ than we have been lately, and no doubt yox can afford saris- fatIoYn by being explicit, and giving every information which may bring this business to the end we wish. 1, a-s well as Als Hon- sett, shall be most happy to see you at the Wells, that You msgiii converse together about matters. I will pay.your expences ; fbr, by what she says, probably it would bebeat torcome thanwrite." So much for thehusband's letter. He trusted that thejurywould maLrk the expressions, t1 I have no doubt but you wish us both well, andmor hapy ita wehav ben ltey." He trustcd that thtey woud rcolect tht i thy afiredthe fact of adlultery by ther erdct th hsbnd adstaed uderlhis hand and seal he expcte toliv moe hppywit hi wfe than he hitherto had done. He wuldnowgiv thei te wfe' leter, whiich was referred to in I hope you will give MVr. H. every information respecting the unpleasant business that he writes about, and I liope you will come to the ViWells as he wishes ; for I very much wish to see you respecting many different things. Whatever has past, let it be forgotten, forlI have more on my mind than any other person knows or believes of. DearAMary,vyou willnot ofiend meby giving Mr. H. every information respecting what he inquires about. " Vour affectionate Cousin." How kind ! how amiiable, how fiorgiving Was such con- duct! Blacken me as much as yo ie, dye me as deep in guilt as you can, I will not be offendead-_I will not say one word a%ainst you ; I know you wish us well, and that my husband and I ahall live more happily together in conaequence! He did not like to say that a conspiracy hiad becn formed between the husband and wt,ife to pikthepocket of the defendant under form of law, without the ,lret evidence; hut after the letters he had just read to them could there be a doubt that such a conspiracy had becn formed ? And if it hadbeen formed, could the jury think of awardinigto theplain. titff Atny dainages ? What danmages did a husband deserve, who could make his wife act as an iinstrumetit to prove her' own guilt, and wiho had a wife so degraded as to consent to become such an iiistrument? Damages were only given as a cmpesatonfbraffctinsalinatd,peace invaded, confidence violtedand appnessdesroye. Bt whet's was the affection alinatd, her ws te paceinvde, where was the hap- pinss esroy~ n tse~reentcae? Athmages, too, were onl gien,whee te iultry wasproed;andhow had it been provd inthi insanc? Gie te utostweight that it de- serve to the evidence of Head and Ho,an it only proved that there had been great indiscretion on th prof the defendant and Mrs. Honysett. Guilt there couldi hvben none at that time; for the acts imputed to them were impossible under the circumstances described. He conitendedathat theadultery was any thing butnmade out ; but even supisosing that it were, the only doubt which the jurY cOuld have, would be whether they could give a shiilling or a farhsn daage. e rpeaed hatnoman could have eonducted a woan wth ore nmaly and unfeeling bruta- litytha th plintffinhisactanhd cnduted himself towards his unfrtuatewif. le lloed,tha asth wife of an innkee r, Ars Honyett as pace in sitatin peulitrlydelicate and tlen?,erolus; fora wman bu tht cnsieraionougethave led her husbnd to us every exertin towithdraw her fro temptationh,insteadofexposing he to it. Hiewould givethiem profun proof that the great ob- jetof the p laintiff's life had been tori thle morals and debauch teprinciples of his wife. H e would c-all a person who had been in- timate in the family, to state how he had himself been shocked by expressions he had heard uttered by her husband in her presence. Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN then recapitulated the arguments which he had already used, and asked the jury whether, even if the adul- tery had been sufflciently proved, they would consent to give da- mages to the plaintiff, when his own writing was in evidence to show that he had required his wife to blacken her own character,and to obtain the meabs ofjproving her own infamy-when, at the very time he was complaining to them of peace ruined and happiness destroyed, he was writing a letter, in which he talked of living witl his wife more comfortably and happily than ever. The letters were then put in and read. Mr. Sergeant PELL. said he should eave the Court any further trouble on this cse. He was always anxious to do so: but he could not stop the cause on the mere statement of any supposed evidence; on that he haWIo right to act; bat that evidence having been now given, hefeltbound to say, that whether the Verdict would bein fa. vour of his client's or not, the damages could be but small, and he should therefore agree to withdraw a juror. To this his brother Vaughan consented, and the cause was therefore at an end. The CHSEF JUSTICE said, the learned Sergeant had acted velt wrisely in adopting this course. If the jury had thought the adu - tery so clearly proved that they muust have given a verdict for the plaintiff.they would doubtless have given but small damages, and hc nhaveertified to deprivcthe plaintiffof his costs.-A inror wa s then with it:tan. COURT OF COMAlMON PLEAS. SATURDAY, JUT.Y 10. JOHNSON V. POWELL.