Star. — London, England, 1817-07-18 00:00:00

f re LBW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MIX 17. GRIM. CON. igenannitALFOßD, ESQ. v. •I ft THOMAS STAINES, R.C.B . This was an actin', 1,4..1 Images for criminal con versati,ill with the wife of the Plaintiff. M. St:Antsrr, in rising to state the case on be half of the Plaintiff, observed, that he felt no corn 'met n that his client had b?en compelled to ; arc <r he'ore a Jury against a man who had been e of his neatest relations and his dearest.trienJs.— c intemplation of the relative situation of the ro ues, the ties that had formerly united them, and t..e abyss by which they were now separated, ren it..rcd him almost incompetent to the JO:charge of I 4 duty as an advocate. All ordinary topics (;t de clarnotion had been exhausted upon the too numerous of this kind that itai recently been brought be- 1 f. , re the public ; but to attempt to work upon die tainds at a Jury, with the filets lie should be able to establish, would be to insult their understandings, vii.f their feelings: those facts would speak for them :dyes with no ordinary eloeieence, and demand of t i.e Jury an ample r:.is.penutinis. The Plaintiff co.nplained not merely of the violation of his bed.' ant the seduction of his wife, but that that violation ,d seduction had been accomplished by the disre., gard at all the ties of blood, and the betraying of all - .'!e confidence of friendship. Nothing could he dis :over in the whole of the transactions to excuse or eien to mitigate the guilt of the Defendant. The parties were not brothers, it was true,•bat they were the next degree; they were the sons of the chil. i!ren of the same parent, they were first cousins, and they had lived from their infancy in a state of the warmest intimacy ; so long and so close had been their eannexii a, that the Plaintiff would have been l ath e r Inclined to have suspected the fidelity of his brother than the integrity and honour of his friend. The Plaintiff was a Banker at Canterbury, the son • of a gentleman who had been engaged for many years in the same concern. Re bad married, in 1805, with the approbation of his family, a young. be:runlet, and accomplished wcman. The defers.' dant was an Officer in the Navy, who, having reach ed a :sigh rank in the service of his awn country, bad even, from foreign Sovereigns, obtained acknowledg ments, of. Ins gall entry and honour. He bad, for some time, resitkil on an estate which he derived from his father, 'at Dandelion, in the Isle of Thanet ; but, doting his absence abroad, he had intrusted the management of his affairs to the Plaintiff, who had frequently resided, with his fussily, in the house at tached to the farm. When the Defendant was nut engaged in the duties of his profession, the Plaintiff, and his Lady were in the frequent habit of voicing him at Dandelion, about sixteen miles from Canter bury, and of staying some time under his roof.— The Plaintiff, however, being engaged in bnieness, was frequently called upon to return. and at these times be left his wife, as he supposed. wider the safe protection of his relation and his friend. His absence seldom e.xceeded a night, and tie ties of blood andl intimacy, not less than the :acted rights of hospitality, warranted bins in dismissing all suspicion from his mind. His confidence had hem as uiloounileil as his regard ; and it was not until very lately that he d:s. covered that his affection had been thrown away upon a worthless object; and that his confidence' had been betrayed by the playmate of his infancy, I I and the companion of his manhood. The Defendant was of a gallant and a captivating profession, and he had found means to work his way into the heart of MI s. Halford, and to undet mine the fair fabric of her 'rime and her honour. The Learned Counsel then entered into the minuter particulais of the case, which •we have given from the mouths of whe wit nesses, illustrating the facts as lie ,proceeded by a reference to the relative situations of the apartments in the defendant's house. He observed, that one of the most painful parts of the case was the unavoid able necessity the Plaintiff was under of calling the only very important witness to the actual adultery, the sister of the Defendant, to whose lot it fell to make the important and painful discovery of her brother's guilt and perfidy. The offence itself had been committed in the spring of 1816; but as she was naturally anxious to preserve silence as long as possible, to prevent the unhappy consequences which bad now resulted, the story of the Plaintiff's cala mity did not reach his ears until the beginning of the present year, when an investigation of the whole affair was made before the faintly, the Defendant and Mrs. Halford being present. who both confessed that at least their conduct had been most imprudent, it it had not been positively guilty. From that hour the Plaintiff, unwillingly convinced, had .separated himself from the wife whom, till then, he had looked upon as the model of beauty, and the mirror of vir tue. Tire Lady had since resided with her mother. The question then was, what reparation in damages the Jary could make an individual so deeply and ir reparably injured. No doubt Sir Thomas Staines, would be ably defended ; but the Learned Counsel dried the other side either to impeach the conduct of the Plaintiff as a husband, or of the Lady as a wife, until the unhappy event which had led to this discovery. Damages could not afford any adequate compensation, and in assessing them, the Jury ought not to be guided by the circumstances of the Defen dant, but by the injury of the Plaintiff. It might be proper, in conclusion, to state, that the Piaiutiff and his wife had a son of such an as age happily not to be affected by trausatticns of comparatively recent date. The Rev. W. Tournay was the Clergyman who married the plaintiff and his wife, but he did not re collect the day or the year; it was about twelve years ago; the Lady was the witness's niece. Cross-examined.—He was not present at the meet i.ig when the disclosure of the infidelity 01 Mrs. Hal. !...,rd was made; he had ♦isitrd- the plaintiff and his wile occasionally, but had not been intimate with them; apparently they lived happily together, but 'he witness did not think the husband paid as much attention as he ought to his wile. Re-examined ; he was requited to explain.-4le caaceived the state of matrimony to be a sawed' thing : at table he had uniformly seen proper eon duct on both sides, but when at Canterbury he had seldom seen the wife walking with ber husband, but with other people;. he had seen her walking with Captain Staines; he could enter no farther into par- Lculars ; he had seen her walking with other Gentle mcn, but seldom with her husband; when the hus- , . . . . . . . . . band was of the same party he usually walked behind, . . who it was ; and finding that no one returned up ti , el and the wife with some other Gentleman. He had I stairs again, after some time I called Mary Rolfe into bad very little acquaintance with Captain Sir Tbos. my mem. I asked her if she believed any of the ser Staines: the plaintiff and defendant were cousins.— vents went out at night; and she answered no. I thee He had once dined at the plaintiff's house when the weal down stairs to see if any of the doors or win. defendant was in company. The plaintiff is a banker dows %vete open, but they were ah fast. I bolted the at Canterbury: door at the bottom of the stairs, and returned into my Cross-examined again. —He had not seen Mrs. i bedroom ; I then went to my brother's-room, in or- Helloed walking with Mr. Stephenson; only with der to tell him what I had heard. I took a candle,' Sir Thomas Staines that he recollected. Mrs. Hal- and on going to his bed-side I found that he was not Turd once came to the witness's house at Denton, there: all the dress he had worn in the day was there . about eight miles from Canterbury, in Mr. Roseland his do - song-gown and slippers, however, were gone. Stepheneon's cur r icl e ; the hu s ba n d w a s not present. N o b o d y but he could have gone down stairs. Find " Ole witness Lad seen her walking with Major Goring my brother not in his room, I weft down and don, who was quartered at Canterbury. From Den- unbolted the door at the toot tat the stairs, and re ton. Mr. Stephenson drove Mrs. 1-I.llfind to Dover, turned to my bed-room. I laid down on the bed, but above nine miles further. Mr. Stephenson had been of course could not sleep, and kept the maul with me. a lover of the Lady before she married the plaintiff. About tour o'clock in the mortung I heard somebody Re-examined again.—Mr. Stephenson is the 'Alt. return up the staircase, who %villein the direcnon of ness's brother-in-law, and was a married man at the my brother's room. I think Mr. Heliord returned time he drove Mrs. Halford. The witness had a next morning from Canterbury ; but in the following very high.opinion of his honour. He had seen Mrs. week he paid another visit to Canterbury, and stayed Halford with Major GArdon in the public walks. all night. In the mean time the servant, Mary Rolfe, Lord ELLENISORnUGIi interrupted this course of and I, had talked on the business. Oir the fit st night examination by observing, that such evidence proved after Mr. Heltord's departure, and at about the same nothing, if it did not lead to any the ig more precise. hour as before. I heard the same noise on the stair- If such conduct were criminal, it would cut off all case. I had desired Mary Rolfe to wait in my room, the innocent intercourse of society : in Turkey, a and tee went together to the double door which led husband might be jealous of such conduct on the part into Mrs. Hellord's bed-room. We opened one of of his wife, but nut in England. the doors, the servant having unbolted it before bed- John Baker, Esq. M.P. for Canterbury. was part- time. We could then hear more distinctly ; and we net in the Union Bank with the plaintiff and his heard some person enter Mrs. Hallned's room, and father. He had been most intimate with the plaintiff get into bed ; and afterwards we heard voices stiff'. and his wife. and (torn what he could judge they ciently loud to make myself assured whom they be werea very happy couple. She was a pleasant and lunged to : .they were Mrs. Helloed': and my tau accomplished woman. He lived in the house adjoin- thei's. After going into my brother's room again, ing the Bank. The witness had been in Sir Thomas and seeing his clothes the as before, with the dies- Staine's house at Canterbury, but did not recollect it singegown and slippers gone, 1 wnt to bed. 1 4111 particularly. When the defendant was at sea he in- certain that two persons were iu Mr , . liellord's bid. trusted his house and his farm entirely to the plain- I did not bear my brother return that night, but on tiff. He always thought, instead of cousins, they subsequent occasions I heard similar noises, and on were like brothers, so much: were they rooted and going into my brother's room I found that he was fixed to each other. In the summer the plaintiff absent : this occurred every night when the plaintiff used to fo to Dandelion, and in the winter Sir Tho- was absent at Centerbury. I know Miss Helloed, max Staines Came to Canterbury. The plaintiff was aunt to the 1 p.aineff ; I saw her in the Jime following ; 1 1 about 37 or 38 years old, and the defendant about I' mentioned the circumstances I had übeereed early 1.0 years old. an April, about three weeks afterwards, to a Mr. and Cross-examined.—Sir Thomas Staines was paid off Mrs. Cramp. a neighbour, uhont I consulted ter ad from the wavy about the Autumn of 1815. Sir T. vice on the subject. My brother did not know gullets Staines had served with Lord Nelson, and was Con- of them, as he had been absent. I was present at sidered a very gallant officer. Cautetbury in January last, when an inquiry took Colonel N. Webb, who had been appointed In- place before the Weeds of all parties, and before Mrs. specting Field Odicer of the Yeomanry Volunteers in Heiford and my !mother; I then related what . ! have the neighbeurhood of Canterbury, had known the now mentirreed. I Always noticed a greet peitielity plaintiff and his wife intimately since 1808 or 1809, between my brother and Mrs. Helford, which I re and to all appearance they were a very affectionate marked particularly after the discovery I made: one couple. time going out of the room and returning sooner than Edward Tayler, Esq. who lived in the neighbour- they expected me, I found Mrs. H druid sitting on hood of Canterbury, and had represented that City in my brother's knee. Perliaatent, hid known the plaintiff before his mar. Cross-examieed.—Generally my brother and I riage, and had kept up his intimacy sinee that event. lived very affectiorkely together. until about the The plaintiff and his wife appeared to love each time of this discovery. We never I eve quart died. other as affectionately as could be wished, and be He told me I was no longer te live in his !liaise be lied had frequent opportunities of judging. fore the month of January. I went to my &argil- Miss Sarah Halford deposed, that she was aunt to tea's during her confinement in the summer ; but at the plaintiff, but had not known Mrs. Haltord before that time 1 had nut the least idea 1 was not to return her marriage. She had seen them much since their to Dandelion. Before November I had bad a letter marriage, and thought them a happy couple. The from my brother, telling me I should no longer be plaintiff heel conducted himself with perfect propriety so halms, iota. his hotoe. I corrtivottik‘d w i th my towards his , kile as far as she had seen. They h a d brother when he was at sea .in the Britton. '1 hi one child , i son, eleven years old. Tu he witness au letter is my handwriting, dated July, 1812. I h.tv.. known Sir Thomas Staines many years ; between a brother George, but I have never to my knowledge him and the family of the plaintiff there WAS great said, that there was any thing improper between Mrs. intimacy, often visiting at Dandelion. The witness Helturd and hint. had visited there at the same time ; but she had not The letter nets handed to the witness for the pur been led at all to suspect the conduct of Mrs. Hal- pose of refreshing her memory. ford. It was not mail about the middle of June. Tien letter dues not allude to any thing of the hit. 1816, that she first heard any thing against her.— sines.. I beer never ..rid or written that Mrs. Hal- The witness was well acquainted with Mrs. Stewart, ford had conducted herself improperly belose I made , sister to Sir Thomas Staines, and had seen her Ire- this discovery. queratly about that time. The disclosure of the arise You have never said that Mn.Helloed went on conduct of Mrs. Helloed was not made known to the 1 the Pier with a person of the n a m e o f G eorge , at plaintiff until about the 15th of January last. The Margate. after it was dark ?—Never ; but I beg to witness was present at a meeting of the tinnily -upon be allowed to lock at that letter—(lt was pin into' the subject, when Mrs. Stewart was examined, and 'her hands, and she read it.)—Thia letter does not stated what blur. knew. The defendant and Mrs. say that she went after it was dark. Halford were both there. After that time Mrs. Hal- What do you mean by the words there used. 's the ford quitted the residence of her husband. business being completed ?"—'!float she went out of Cross-.examined.—At the meeting Sir I'. Staines ill-nature. By completing the business, I mean being did not o ff er to send all his servants to be examined cross and ill _ n.nured. on the subject; but he did send them ; among them Lord ELLENIiIItOL - Gll.—Not very ill-natured : it were Mary Rolfe, Quiz, the black servant, and die seems rather as if you meant that she Was improperly coachman, but not the cook ; he also sent a groom of good-naturecito somebody. the name of Carter. You mean then to swear, that out of ill-humour Mrs. Susannah Gibbs. who had known the plain- she went to walk at eight with a young man alone tiff and his Lady tow 15 years, and had constantly upon the Pier at Margate ?—I do. visited them with her daughters, gave evidence to the harmonious terms on which the buebend and wife ap- Mr. Scat air then proceeded to re-examine th e peered to live. witness, first reading the material part s of the l e t ter . whiCh purported to be adeireterd to Sir Thomas Mrs. Margaret Stewart was then put into the box. —1 am sister to Sir T. Staines, and Ent cousin to . Staines, ,lowss on boar.: the Britton. Wha, he read was as the plaintiff. lam a widow, and have lived the whole fo l lows H We spent the day at Buenos Ayres, all rather in the dumps of my lite at Dandelion, excepting five years after I --Mrs. Haliord truly disappointed, and not being able to conceal was married. The plaintiff and Iris wife were in the her feclings, at not being able to spend une day wrth you ha the habit of visiting at Dandelion, but more frequently island. Recharge Halford ( h e plai i. ni ch t% att l a t d t t a i t i her again re ; since the death of my mother, three years ago. The t_l4 ._ lll_ V y to he u r s e Y . est when erda 'ea . ' ra n h urn (Are " .Hattitast ) .hewed pa r t y ... ha high farm at Dandelion is very large, and while Sir T. ' l ' style to poor Halford; Kitty (Miss Catherine Pearce) got quite Staines was at sea, it was managed by Mr. Helloed ; in the wrongs, but I trust by Oh time all will be well Richard but I kept the accounts, and paid the servants. We and K li a ed te . ba . v r e h j e ust t been uus u t r ia t t o a i . ! , l , v r ite we us i r ri d th in e n m er ; h w av e in o g f a course . always looked upon each other as brothers and xis. c p o anie p d them do wn to their tiouse, leaving Mrs. Richard at Dandy, ters, and not as cousins, the intimacy was so great. whom George Staines (brother (41 the defendant) took down in I remember Mr. Helloed arid his wife coming to the chaise atter, she took it into her bead to walk out, and gotta Dandelion in the spring eflBl6. Up to that period 1 the Pier qqi:e alone, and did not return until untilten o'clock. —th s had observed nothing improp e r in the conduct of you not tLull; the Laity convicted the busm Mrs. Helloed: the husband and wife seemed to live The witnesi explained that what she meant in that particularly happily together. Twice a wick Mr. Halford's business generally called him to Canter bury, where he went, leaving his wile and child be hind at Dandelion. He sometimes stayed away one night, and sometimes two, and now and then re turned the same day. The house at Dandelion is old and rambling ; my brother's bed-room is at one end, with a staircase to a landing-place from the lower floor. This landing.place led to my brother's bed-room, to nil own, and a servant maid's room. Mary Rolle slept in a room through mine. There is a double dour between Mary Rolle's room and Mrs. Halford's. There are two doors with a very small space between them, owe fastened by a lock, the ocher by a bolt. A separate suitcase leads to Mrs. Halford's room only. I remember going to bed late one nigltt in April, when Mr. Haltotd was at Canterbury; it was about one o'clock, twelve being the usual hour. Soon after I got into bed I distinctly heard some person walk down the stairs and open a door at the bottom which was bolted. 1 bad nu idea letter was i that firs. Halford was cross be c a u s e the I defendant had gone away, as he was a great favourite with her and the rest of the family. The witness's - brother, George Staines, had driven Mrs. Halford down to Buenos Ayres, from whence she proceeded by herself to the Pier; because she was so much out of humour. This Was all she meant by the question —A , Do you not think the Lady completed the • bu-: sums ?'' Lord Eu.annoaounts here remarked, that the let ter su explained did no: seem to bear the construction he had first put upon it; but it certainly mentioned an instance of very unguarded conduct in a married woman, who went aloue to the tier of Margate at so late ai hour. A letter was then put into the hand of the witness, which she said was the writing •ol her brother, but Thomas Staines; the date of it was the 25th of Ot tuba last, and it contained the' first intimation that she had received, that she was no longer to superin toad his huthetuld at Diadelit4.. 1. was subsequent' . . . to the shy wren sl a had seen Mrs. Halion! sitting ' upon the c'..efendant's knee. Ir was read in the following terms: " Mae Mits. Rraw.ta . ..,— . l:ee lialfords have ail beet; makiag a ttt.,y of some weeks here, hut they are now about les depot, &c. Without apt rf,ct explanation yin! and I may no; uuderstat i d each other, and fur tha , r e ason I write, prititub.„:7y as I find you are staying so long away from IV m.lellon. P.a you know we arc frequently of dill'rert (minium, it is better; perhaps, that it should he .;o. I tor now belting um kw a cook and housekeeper, and I hoiie to find cue to answer my fur. po.e: therefore when you return to Wilde-Lim it w:11 be as a visitor. This arrangement you Will not el:like, especially as you have but Hale ktrneletige ur for the • The witness added. that the object of the defen dant by this letter, was; as mochas possible to an noy her; and to dita ‘ w from her, it pot:Able, a refu sal to continue longer in his house at Dandelion. To qiiestions from Lord ELLErtaostotxm, the saii, that the plaintiff usually lett Dandelion twice a wet k from April to June, 1816; and during that period the criminal intercourse had undoubtedly continued. Her brother was so h.:sty and violent that she did not think pf speaking to hint herself upon the sub ! ject : . she had not withdrawn from a house where she had witnessed this criminal conduct so frequently, because she wag of particular service to her brother, in keeping his books, Ste. 'She was in hopes it would he found out in same other way. Mr. Cramp and Mary Rolfe, were to have made a comertinicatif.ri during the witness', stay with her daughter. She was airaid even of dropping a hint about it to her brother. Mr. John Cramp lives very near Dindelion, and ;1 acquainted with the family of the defendant. Early in the month of May, Mrs. Stewart made a commit- . nication to him respecting her brother's c o nd uc t : h e advised her not to disclose it to ;toy one but to her brother. lie saw the m tid Servant also upon the subj,ct ; he declined cornmiiiikating the matter to any body but Sir T. Stain. s. Mrs. Stewart said that she was Afraid, from the violeiice of her brother's temper, fiat he would knock the witness down. Mary kolte is still in the service ut the defendant. The defendant has but one arm. Mary Rolfe, the servant, corroborated every part of Mrs. Stew irt's testimony, so far as related to their meeting at night, watching the different parts of the house, and listening to what passed in Mts. HAlford'a bed-room. She said site had heard a person getting into the bed of fifl!s. ; that she heard some whispering, bilt.coutd not know whose whisper it wait, or whether one to two persons whispered. When stie made the bed in the morning, she thought at one time that more than tine person had slept in it ; but after wArtieliad some doubt auout it. This was the substance of the case on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. S:tijeant BitsT, for the defendant, addressed the Jury in an able and ingenious speech, in which he endeavoured to prove that no adulterous inter course whatever had taken place. The circumstance on which he chiefly dwelt was that of the witness, Mrs. Stewart, never having made the affair public until her !mother had discarded lie: from his house; when in a fit of anger and malice that wicked wont in trumped the story wl ich she related that day in Court ; and laid it alter a lapse of nine months, for the purpose of ruining her btother and an innocent woman, whose honour and sitar toter she had deter. mined to ruin. Here the Learned Seejeant CMPTIC3. fed oil all the parts of Mts. Stew art's eviderce, ;e ere der to shew that it WAS defective, as Well as tent ; and he covresttled. that from the manner in which she had conducted herself—tram her firstkeep ing the business react, end afterwards disclosing • only in a lit c,f malice, she was unworthy of ctesiiia I ler very concealment was alone sudicient to shake h er resumialy ; and it statements thus treasured op, and only sent forth when a particular purpose was to be answered, should be believed by e Jury, nn man could be sate against the machinations of wicked err. sons. The evidence of Mary Rolle di not in the sligh test degree go to prove any act of :adultery ; and therefore must rest tin the statement of one who had acted more like a fiend than a human bring. A per. son had been heard getting into Mr. Haltord's bed ; that ;mull might be Mrs. Raiford hersel!. Wins. ;wring had been 10.3td; but there was no evidence as to who the prawn was that whispered—whether one person or two persons whispered. It was unneces sary to remind the Jury, that certain offices were per. formed in the dead hour of the slight, during Which ej;.calatiuns were uttered in W:itspers. On such at UCca+io.,, it was not unreasonable to suppose that a cheste and virtu-ins woman might be settling her ac e unt with her CREATOIS. He wished the Jury also LO attend to the evidence of th.• servant, where she stated that she did nut think the bed had the appear. ance of two persons having slept in it. There were CAWS in which much stronger evidence to prove the aVultery had been adduced than on the present cc. casion—cas s in which the parties had been seen in a bed-room t igether—and yet no verdict was given toil,' any of the plaintiffs. But this wicked woman, on whose testimony the whole ct this case rested, went no further than mere tuvicion. It was incumbent on the plaintiff to bring the guilt home to a moral certainty : all that could be proved, however, was, that the defendant had been out of his room, and who could tell whether there were not occasions very different from any guilty Motive which made it ne. cessary for him to leave his room for a very short time ? Not a single tact had been stated in evidence which was not perfectly reconcileabk with the inno cence of the parties. The circumstance of the lady being found sitting on the defeniliiiit's knee, even if true, could not be • matter of surprise to any one Who considered the intimacy that It id subsisted be tween all the parties. Beside, it Sir Thos. Staines had been coi.szious of guilt, must he not have known that his fate was in the hands Of this woman ? and was it to be supposed that he would have dismissed her from his house ?-1:1 justice and charity, the Jury could n•-t, on both veide..ce as had been adduced, find a verdict against the defendant. a was cot. vie.ced they would not on this occasion allow a pi. Lint and deservingoftcer to fall a sacrifice to the malice of an artful and designing woman; but that the laws would this day, throu g h th e m, give prot ect. tion to an individual who had f oug h t an d shed hit blood in defence if those laws. With reread t o t i, e pr.iperty of the deli:nal:art, lie had nor been pro possess any ; in fact Or was at present ai halt pay Captain, eejeyine id addition a pen,ion for the loss of his arm, amounting to about halt a guinea a d a y and should tie Jury fake a different view of to What he had door, he trusted they would - the .4; :.•ge I bail out