Star. — London, England, 1820-04-18 00:00:00

LAWC~t3 ' BR As§zite. CIVIL 'SIDS—APRIL s. CRIM. CON. GILL, ESQ. V. AUEEET, ESQ. Mr. SCARLETT. stated that this was an action brought to recover a compensation in darhages for one of the greatest injuries which one man could in flict upon another—the seduction of his wife by the defendant. The plaintif in this case was Mr. Gill, who was formerly a'solicitor in the town of Liver pool, but being prissessed 'of an independent fortune he relinquished his profession many years' ago, and retired into the country. In the year 1808, he mar ried his present wife, then Miis Lewndes, a Lady su7table in years, highly accomplished, and with whom he had lived with the greatest harmony and afrectien until the discovery took place which formed the subject of this action. By the fruits of this mar riage he had three children, the eldest about ten years of age; and it was not until after the birth of the youngest child that a criminal intercourse took place between the defendant and Mrs. Gill. Mr.; Aubrey was also a Gentleman of great property ; he • had married a Lady of large fbrtune, but much older than himself. The first acquaintance of the families took place in -Montgomeryshire, in the year 1816. The two families living in the same neighbourhood, that kind of intimacy took place which is natural in' such situations, and the families visited each other, and were upon the most friendly footing. In the year 1817, Mr. Gill took a house near Hereford ; and during the period it was fitting up he took a cottage at Hailstone-hill, within about a mile of the town of libieford. Some time after Mr. Aubrey took a house in Hereford, and it was here that those circumstances occurred which first awoke the suspicions •of Mr. Gill. The house of Mr. Aubrey had been taken some time before it was occupied by his family, and during this period Mr. Aubrey was at an Hotel in Here ford. He was frequently observed, however, in the mornings to be in the house, and Mrs. Gill was ob served to leave her own residence and pass through the turnpike-gate leading to Hereford at an early hour in the morning, and approach by a circuitous route, the house of Mr. Aubrey, which she entered at the back door, and after remaining about an hour, she was observed to leave the house and return home by the same route. These visits were repeated se veral times, and when it is considered that they were made at a period when no person but Mr. Aubrey was in the house, the purpose ofthem cannot be mis understood ; and no reasonable man who knows hu roan nature can doubt that the intercourse took place which forms the ground of the present action.— When these circumstances v. ere made known to Mr. Gill, they nece%sarily excited in his mind a strong degree of suspicion, or rather convinced him that a criminal intimacy existed between the defendant and Mrs. Gill ; but in a m.:ter so important, whatever . he might feel in his own mind, he did not think him self authorised to act on these suspicions. Hs there fore took measures to ensure a more complete detec tion, and among other-steps to effect this purpose, he employed a female servant of the family who lived in the opposite house to Mr. Aubrey, to watch the conduct of Mrs. Gill, when she visited that house ; and the result of her observations proved that his previous suspicjons had been too well founded : you will find that she perceived instances of fami liarity, which will leave no doubt that the last act was not refuied. You will find her locked iu Mr. Aubrey's arms, who was kissing her ; but this wit ness will go farther than this, and will state, that from a window in her mistress's house, she distinctly saw the commission of the ell:ohm' act itself, and that un,ler circumstances of peculiar indelicacy.---1 This occurred in the early Hit of the year 1818 but the young woman, for reasons which she will explain to you, did not communicate this fact to Mr., Gill for a very considerable time. Ile should also prove a similar seene, committed in Mr. Gill's house during his absence. If lie should establish these facts to the satisfaction of the Jury, they must necessarily give their verdict in favour of his client. With re spect to damages, he should leave that to their coat sideration, without any observations, being con vinced that they would give him such reparation (which could only be measured in a Court of Law by money) as the nature of the injury he had received demanded. The first witness called was Thomas 13.11nd, the clerk of Trinity Church, Liverpool, who proved that the marriage was solemnized on the 30th of Oc• toter, 1808. John Bonner, Eq. lives in Denbighshire; is ac luainted with Mr. and Mrs. Gill; knew Mr. Gill hcfbre his marriage; he then lived in Montgomery sh;re, and after the marriage he was in habi:s of in timacy with the family. Mr. and Mrs. Gill always appeared to live together in the greatest harmony, aad constantly manifeszed towards each other the utmost affection. Witness knows Mr. Aubrey; he married a lady considerably older than himself.— Witness does not know her age, but he should sup pose her to be upwards of 50; he should take Mr. 'Aubrey to be between 30 and 40. The two families used to visit each other; remembers Mr. Gill taking up his residence in the county of Herefora, three or lour years ago. Has had ample opportunities of seeing the conduct of all the parties, and he never in his life saw the slightest appearance of im• propriety in the conduct of Mr. Aubrey toward Mrs. Gill. Ann Morgan lived at Hereford in the latter end -of the year 1817; knows the house in which Mr. Aubrey lived ; the back door opens into Powsey lane ; she saw a lady soon after Mr. Aubrey had taker his house, come from Hind-street into Bowsey lane ; this lady, was Mrs. Gill, and she went into Mr, Aubrey's house at the back door ; she had previously seen Mr. Aubrey look up and down the lane. The door was opened by Mr. Aubrey. The lane was very dirty, and it is a lane in which ladies of respect ability do not usually walk ; she was dreised in a scarlet pelisse, a black hat, and a plume of feathers, and had on a very long black veil. Witness, on her cross-examination, said the lady must have seen her husband, who was Mr. Gill's coachman. Witness then lived in Fryaf's-gate ; she has since lived in Colt-lane; people might say that she kept a bad house, but it was not true. Witness is married to Morgan. In answer to a question by the Judge, she said the lady had her veil down, but she could swear that it was Mrs.oll. Matilda Morse had lived six years in. Sowsey lane ; knows the house occupied by Mr. Aubrey ; he took it in the latter end of October, 1817 ; ,she saw him at the back ddor of his house a few days after he had taken it, looking up the lane; be im mediately went into the house, and soon after she saw a lady come quickly down the lane, and go into Mr. Aubrey's back door. In about half an hour or an hour, witness saw her come out again. Witness said this lady (whom she did not know) was dressed ki a crimson velvet pelisse, a deep black veil, and a hat or bonnet, with feathers; her figure was very genteel. Witness saw the same lady two or three times, within a few days, go into the same house, but witness only saw Mr. Aubrey once. Witness never saw a similar dress in Hereford before. Witness, in answer to the question from the Judge, said, the direct road would have been more private for a person coming from Hailstone-hill (the residence of Mr. Gill), Two other witnesses (James Balaam and his wifej spoke to their having seen a lady in a crimson pelisse, in Bowsey-lane, about the time that Mr. Aubrey .en tered to his house, and that she went in at the back door of Mr. Aubrey's house. Sarah Cole was servant to Mr. Aubrey in the latter end a the year 1817. She was employed to make the fires in the house, previous to the arrival of the family. The object of her testimony seemed merely to prove that there was a bed in the room, which was afterwards used as a drawing-room, and that Mr. Aubrey was some days at the Hotel before he came to live at the house. Ellen Lewis was a most important witness. She stated, that she lived one year and a half in the ser vice of Mrs. Wainwright, in wide Marsh -street, He reford : her house was opposite to that oceupied by Mr. Aubrey : he entered to the house in the year 1817. Witness knows the drawing-room ; one of Mrs. Wainvrright's upper rooms commands a view. , into. this room. Witness knows Mrs. Gill; has seen; her in the street, and has seen her go into Mr. Au brey's house many times, perbaps a dozen, at dif ferent periods of the day, at ten o'clock, ball-past tea, and &even o'clock in the morning. There was seldom any person with her; upon one occasion she saw Mr. Gill with her; sometimes a female servant was with her, and sometimes her little ones. Witness has seen her go frequently alone; the times she went the latest was when she had somebody with her. Wi:ness has seen Mrs. Gill both in the lower and upper room, but more frequently in the latter. Upon one occasion, she saw Mr. Aubrey lean towards her to kiss her : she was sitting in a chair, and did, not move, but witness cannot state positively whether he did kiss her or not. Witness said, when Mrs. Gill left the house, Mr. Aubrey attended her to the door, in a different manner to what he did any other Lady. Being asked to explain in what this difference con; sisted, witness said he talked to her at the door, and it seemed to the witness as if he was speaking to her concerning the meeting with her again. They ge nerally remained some minutes in conversation be fore she quitted the houte. Witness then said, that in January or February, 1818, she saw Mr. Aubrey and Mrs. Gill in the front room together Witness described, with great minuteness, what she had seen, and which she said she distinctly saw from a window in her mistress's house. Witness repre sented this scene as taking place between ten and eleven o'clock in the morning. Witness never saw this kind of familiarity more than once. Witness has known Mrs. Gill leave the house before Mr. Au brey has come down to breakfast. Witness stated, that those mornings when Mrs. Gill visited Mr. Au brey, be remained at home the whole morning ; at other times he generally went out between eight and nine o'clock in the morning. Witness cross-examined at great' length by Mr. RAJNE.—Mrs. Gill was in the habit of visiting M rs . Aubrey. She (the • witness) was first applied to in, January, ISIS, by Mr. Gill, who sent Harris down to her, to desire that she would be upon the watch. A telescope was provided tir her, which was given • to her by Harri, but she did not use the telescope to view the scene which she bad been describing. After some unimportant questions, as to the situa tions the witness had been in since she quitted Mrs. Wainwright, she stated, that she was a fortnight at Worcester, in lodgings, provided for her by Mr. Gill. She took tea with him at a public-house. After s;ome hesitation, she admitted that he took hold of her hand, and that she drank part of a glass of rum and water with him. Mr. Gill never called upon her more than three times at her lodgings ; she was wait ing there for the commencement of the Assizes. Wit ness said it was more than a year after the transac tion that she communicated it to Mr. Gill ; her sister had dissuaded her from doing it. She wished him to find it out by some other means. Mr. Gill did not supply her with money ; he did not "pnrchase the dress the had on. Witness was in private lodgings at Lancaster, and not with the other witnesses. Her sister was with her. Mr. Giil has not called every day to see her ; may have called three or four times. Mr. Gill appointed to meet the•witness at Worcester. She had written to him to inform him that she was going from Gloucester to London, and that it was to prevent the great expense of bringing her from town, that he had provided the lodgings for her at Worcester. Witness, on her re-examination by Mr. SCARLETT, said, there was no improper connection existing be tween herself and Mr. Gill. Mr. Justice PARK.—Having been employed by. Mr. Gill to watch, and having seen what you have stated yourself to have seen, why did you not men- 1 tion it to Mr. Gill mach earlier? Witness replied, that she had been advised by her sister not to mention it. Harris often asked her if she had seen anythitsg. Witness told him that she had seen something, but would not say what ; she told him the very month in which it occurred that she had seen something. Witness said she had told Mr. Gill that she had not seen anything. Witness stid that Mrs. Aubrey breakfasted in that very room, 'the same morning that that transaction took place. Witness said she told Harris that something .partica lay had occurred. Witness communicated it to her sister, never told her plain, but her sister knew what she meant. Mr. Aubrey keeps four servants. Catharine Morgan, the sister of the last witness, is a widow, and lives in Colt-lane, Hereford: her sister made some tommmicatiOn tp h er respecting Mr. Aubrey and Mrs. all. .. Mrs. Wainwright lives at Hereford. Ellen Lewis was her servant at the time of which she had been speaking ; her house was immediately opposite to some part of that occupied by Mr. Aubrey. Witness has seen Mrs. Gill go into Mr. Aubrey's house ; she was dressed in a scarlet peliise and a straw hat ; other ladies in Hereford wore similar dresses. Ellen )Lewis had lived with her about a year and a half.— Witness supposed, And if the light was favourable, it might be posslbleto see into Mr. Aubrey's draw ing-room from a window In her house, but she could not speak from her own observation. Samdel Harris is the keeper of a turnpike-gate near Hereford. Mr. Gill came to him and desired that he would watch Mrs. Gill. Mr. Gill then lived at Hailstone-hill. Witness stated that he frequently, saw Mrs. Gill passihrough•his gate, generally alone; has seen her in different dresses; sometimes she had a. reddish one, with a black bonnet and feathers : she had no veil. The question being repeated to him rather significantly, he corrected his evidence and said she had a black veil over her face. In the month of January, 1818, he saw Mrs. Gill and Mr. Aubrey in a room together. Witness said he saw Mr. Aubrey go through his gate on foot between three and four o'clock in the afternoon (Mr. Gill and the servants were from home). Mr. Aubrey Ana towards Mr. Gill's cottage, and witness followed at a distance:• he saw Mr. Aubrey walk twenty yards past the cottage: he then returned and entered the gate, and walked into the house. Witness, as soon as the door was shut, concealed himself in a laurel bush, from which he could see into a small room : the window was about eight or ten yards from the bush. Mrs. Gill and Mr. Aubrey came into the room soon after. Witness,then proceeded to detail a scene exactly similar to that described by Ellen Lewis. Witness having satisfied his curiosity, got unobserved away. Witness underwent a very long and severe cross examination, in which he equivocated so much, that the Judge threatened to commit him. Witness stated that the first time that he communicated this extra ordinary circumstance to Mr. Gill, was on the very day that he was examined by his Attorney, in refer ence to- the evidence he was to give on this trial, which was in the present year. Witness said he never told any person that he could have any money he wanted ; nor did he ever tell Williams, the butler, that there was no more between Mr. Aubrey and Mrs. Gill, than between Aubrey and his wife ; never told Williams that he would give him 40 guineas or any smaller sum for information; never said anything of that kind. Witness was employed by Mr. Gill to watch ; he was to follow the.coach to Wresham ; he went as far as Church Stretton, and then told Jones, the coachman, that it was of no use going any far- 1 Cher, who said he believed it was of no use. Witness did not offer him money to conceal from his master that he (the witness) had not been to Wrexham ; but he offered him half-a-guinea because he understood that he was short of money; he did not accept it._ Witness did not desire him not to tell his master. This journey took place after the scene of the laurel bush. Witness did not, in September last, tell Mr. Read that his mistress was innocent. He had a con versatien with Read in September, who asked him if he was the man that apprised Mr. Gill of that cir cumstance? and witness said no. Did not say it was to no purpose to watch, for that Mrs. Gill was as in• nocent as his wa. Witness stated, he might have said that Mr. Gill would never find anything out, Witness being asked how Read knew anything of that circumstance which he had not then mentioned? said he understood Read to mean to ask if lie was the man that first put the suspicion into Mr. Gill's head ? The question being repeated, if lie dlll not say that it was of no use to watch, as Mrs. Gill was innocent, or something to that effect? he stated several times that he did not say that word, and equivocated so much, that the Judge again threat ened to commit him. He then admitted that he might have said that. Mr. Gill would never find any thing oat. Witness knows Mr. Watkins, the auc tioneer; had some talk with him in June, 1818, long after the laurel-bush affair; that was the time when a hole was to be bored from an empty house adjoin ing Mr. Aubrey's, for the purpose of watching Mrs. Gill, but it was found impracticable, as the wall was hollow. Mr. Gill was assisting in this boring scheme. Mr. Gill knew nothing about the laurel-bush at that time ; the reason why he did not communicate it to Mr. Gill was, because he was authorised by his owe wife not to do it. This was the only reason the witness could assign for his long silence. Witness said that Mr. Gill was in disguise in his (the wit ness's) house two nights and one day ; he was dis guised in a great coat, a red ruff, and a wig. This was in December, 1818, for the purpose of watching Mrs. Gill. Mr. Gill saw his wife pass the gate, but he did not follow her. She was followed by the witness's wife. Mr. Justice PARK.—How could you see this poor Gentleman distressing himself in this manner to ob tain information, and ytt remain silent, though you had seen all about it from the laurel-bush ? Witness.—My own wife told me not to tell. Wit ness has not had much money from Gill ; he may have had from £8 to £lO to pay expenses.---Some further questions were asked, respecting a curious device which Mr. al was supposed to have pro posed to ascertain the guilt or innocence of his wife, but of a nature unfit for the public eye. Witness said he never told any person that Mr. Gill would give a thousand pounds to obtain a divorce. Witness, on his cross-examination, said it was Mr. Gill that pro duced an instrument for boring with; and that Mr. Gill and Mr. Watkins bored through the wall in the house adjoining to Mr. Aubrey, but they found it was of no use as the wall was hollow. The boring was about Christmas in 1818. Mary Harris is the wife of the last witness. She was also of the watching party, but shit did hot seem to have made any d' , as the *thole amount of ber evidence was, that she d seen-Mrs. Gill go into Mr. Aubrey's house. This finished the case on the partof the inarseention. Mr. RAINS rose to address tho Jeri fOr the fendant ; but the Jury, after Callibtrigg blgetber a short tune, said it was anaeassney, as they were already satisfied. Mr. SCARLIIITT said, if this was the Opinion of the Jury, he would be nonsuited. the *iota was accorikily reistarked, much to • • the satisfaction of a etOwded Court.—Mr.Susite PARK said, these sewer was more unfortunate pits I to produce evidence, and never with less success; its he never knewa weaker case on the part of the plain tiff. He said, the evidence given by the female sex. vast, Ellen Lewis, was most incredible. At Carnarvon Sessions, an action was brought for a breach of promise of marriage. Huhes v. Row lands. The plaintiff is the daughter of a respect a _ ble farmer, and the defendant also a farmer residing in Llyn, in the same county. The damages were laid at £5OO. The charge was clearly proved; but it also appeared that the plaintiff had indulged the defendant with that odious privilege, common arnor.F: the lower class in some parts of Wales, we allude tc. , bundling, or courting in bed! On remarking upon this practice, the Learned Counsel, Mr. PA LAI Ell: observed, that he had frequently regretted Ile . .;; E not born a Welshman, and he never felt that rcgrfa more stronly excited th an at the present mcmenL The Jury, Yter a short consultation, found a verdict for plaintiff—Damages £5. Among the numerous characters that hove lately presented themselves before the Hil.ll Priest of Gretna Green, were a couple from Carlisle, who had more legs than stockings, and who expended their last five shillings upon the altar of Hymen! As a set-off, however, the couple were agreeably surprised by the arriyal of a carriage and four, the inmates of which, after the nuptial knot was tied, presented the offs ciator with £4O. In the Court of King's Bench, on SaterdAy. an action was brought by Dr. NCTTA LL against Mr. CLEMENT, the Proprietor of the Sunday and Monday Observer Newspapers, for publishing three alleged libels in the former, of and concerning the plailard's conduct, as a member of the Committee for ereczit- 3 a Cenotaph or Monument to the memory of beri.. e Royal Highness the Princess Criaanorra of WALES and Saxii-Coawao, by public subscription, imputing fraud and dishonesty to him in the disposition of trie money collected in his character of a Comluittee- man. After the case had been stated for the plain tiff by SCARLET? (who remarked that the server was a Newspaper of the most extensive ce cL:- lation in London), Mr. A DOLPHUS interposed on be half of the defendant, and proposed to save the t:ine of the Court, by admitting all that had been st.t:ed by his Learned- Friend to be perfectly true. Ile was instructed by his client to express his unaffected 'e gret for the publications complained of, u.:ith found the* way into his Paper under an error and miscora cept:on of the circumstances to which they referred.. The defendant had taken every means in his pm% cr to repair the mischief which the plaintiff had suf fered, and it so happened that the apology which had been alluded to, was published on a day when the Observer had an unparalleled sale, nansely, when as account was published of the Cato-street Conspiracy. Sincerely lamenting the publie4tions, and admitting that they contained matter not founded in truth, he was instructed by Mr. Clement to,osake the most ample apology-to the plaintiff, and so to the other Gentlemen named, whose characters he was cc:winced 'deserved the high eulogiurns passed by his Learned Friend ; and as an additional proof of his sincerity, he offered to give the plaintiff a verdict for £5O, the defendant paying the costs of the cause as between attorney and client.—Mr. SCA RLETT, after confer ring with the plaintiff's solicitor, accepted the terms proposed, and repeated, that as it was not Dr. Nut tall's object to recover pecuniary satisfaction, the damages offered would be appropriated, if not to some charitable use, certainly towards the comple tion of that national design to which the libels re lated.—Mr. Justice HOLROYD, in addressing the Jury, said he thOught the plaintiff was entitled to very great praise, for the forbearance he had shewn in accepting the terms proposed by the defendant.— The Jury, under his Lordship's direction, found a verdict fpr the plaintiff--Damages £5O. 41 WICSTMINSTER ELBCIION. St. Ann t - - - - St. Paul and St. Martin-le-Grand - St. Clement and St. Mary-le-Strand - St: Skala - - - - St. Janata - . St. George - . - - -St. Margaret's and St. John's- BUILD. Lax'. lloss. 625 266 573 957 187 218 721 504 683 - 1113 598 108 S - 1123 854 1019 - 1315 571 - 799 732 751 Single Votes Split Votes - £327 4436 4889 • 5815 • 5365 Total Polled 11•1.110 • BIRTH. At &. Helena, the 11th February, the Lady of Llealenant- General Sir Hudson Lowe, K.C.B. of a son. MARRIED. At Dilberara, January 10, Captain Maeda& Hare r Bsog, t. idas El s ies Thornton, daughter of —.- The E s* of bore. At Idinburgh, on the Sd inst. Charles Beylay e , to Miss Christian, daughter of the late Chadic writer, Rdinburgh. At Lochside. the Seth ult. the Rev. Robe, italk Minister of J o ochwinnoeh, to Margery, eldest daegllaer 'fibs late Wil liam Barr; Esq. of Lichside. April 10, the Rev. •Henry Richards, of Magdalen Hall, Or.- ford, to Mbs Richardva, daughter of thr late Mr. Richardson, of that city. The Err. A. Kidd, Teeeher of the Classics at Hull, to Mary, eldest daughter of Mr. J. Archbutt, of Cottingham. April the sth, at Hammersmith, the Rev. Jobb Leggett, many years Assistant-Curate of the same place, to Miss Frances Was. aged 21, attend daughter of the late Henry Wells, butcher, of St. James's Market. The following singular marriage took place at Milford Church, near Portsmouth, on the 30th ultimo :—A mah nailed Richard Wren, being inclined to take unto himself a wife, selected as the object of his choice a buxom widow named Moody, who neer tunately had been left by her former husband in embarrassed circumstances; and as the lover drawl discharging the debts, t h e Lady, rather than forego the et being again united in wedlock's bands, was. seam be no maim garment whatever than her chemise "NO, is au part of the country, is foolishly considered a receipt in fall of all demands on the estate of a deceased husband. DI BD. . At Woolwich, the 26th ult. Francis Pure% eldest sou of the late Sir Alexander Purees, of Pones, Bart. At Celinton, on the 31st ult. Wm. Forbes bert Bunter, A. M. parochial schoolmaster son of Ro• Ships at Market. 46 Newcastle 141 Sunderland 1 Welsh Coal AL MARKET, API Ship. 8.14. 37i L 17. Price. 31Is el t• 41. 321 Od w 45$ 3d 70s Od 00s 04 G H- WATER at Morning Afternoon - BRID6R TO-MOR RUW. 44 minutes after 1 10 .•.•••••• 7 LONDON.; 'Muted and published by Last Halts, Pickett- Dacc a Temple Bat, . ID. ire emslo 1 yap be and seci aJ On re E Prig slm Tue Tin etiv bcf: tb • on Is 1 14 iur • Ea , of Lc rel - 'WI t; I 1