Star. — London, England, 1822-08-03 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES. CRTM. COX.—YORK, JULY 31. WARRELL O. SANDERSON. Mr. SCARLETT stated, that the plaintiff, John War rell, Esq. a Lieutena:it in his Majesty's Navy , brought his action against the defendant, William Sanderson, who is a schoolmaster at Leeds, to recover a come pensation in damages for the seduct i o n of the plain tiff's wife. No damages were laid in the declaration, because (observed the Learned Counsel) the damages could best be measured by the inju r y susta ine d. . The Liarned Counsel prefaced his address by challengin . g the most - vigilant -suspicion and jealousy of the cm cunastantial evidence which he should adduce. The plaintiff (Lieutenant. Wariell), , after serving many years as a Lieutenant in the Navy, and being disap pointed in hislinpes of promotion, had .thought pro ' peeto retire from the service upon a small independent income, just sufficient to support L im in the rank of a Gentleman , to which he was entitled by birth, edu ,cation, and profession. Prior t o this, in the year 1800, he lived in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth, where he became acquainted with the Lady whose unfortunate alienation of connubial affections was the subject of this action. She was the object of his ear liest love, and afterwards became his w ife. They were married in Hampshire in 1800, and their union, for many years, was marked by the most tender and mutual affection ; three children were the happy fruits of wedlock. Previous to this Gentleman quit ting the Navy, and subsequently to that period, the Lady had brought him three others , five of which children, sons and_daughters, are now living. After he quitted Portsmouth he came to reside near Hull, ia 1807, and from the time of their marriage in 1800 to 1815, no man had better reason to be satisfied, for no woman could be more affectionate both as a wife and a mother, and no man more happy as a husband. In 1812, their children requiring education, choice was made of a school at Aberford, and the defendant, although a stranger to Mr. and Mrs. Warred, yet the circumstance of sending their children to Mr. Sanderson, who kept a school at that place, produced an acquaintance between the defendant and the plain tiff's wife. That acquaintance between the family of the plaintiff and the defendant (who is himself a mar ried man, with four children) gradually improved. The plaintiff, for some reason, about the year 1814 or 1815, thought proper to remove his family from the neighbourhood of Hull to Leeds ; soon afterwards Sanderson thought proper to remove his school to Castieton-house, . which is about three miles from Leeds, whether with the intention of pursuing the unhappy object of his unlawful attachment did not exactly appear, but so it was, and the children of the • plaintiff, two boys, remained at his school till 1817. Between 1815 and 1816, after the plaintiff and his family came to Leeds, circumstances of suspicion arose in the mind of the plaintiff, who felt his do mestic felicity interrupted, the cause of which had doubtless for some time previously existed, as would be apparent from circumstances which would be left to the judgment of the Jury. The plaintiff now be gan to entertain strong suspicions that his wife's affec tions had been seduced by the defendant, but which , were deemed insufficient to justify his bringing the defendant before a Jury. The defendant's visits be came more frequent to the L 1.17, especially at inter vals of the husband's absence from his house; these circumstances of suspicion, although such as to fully warrant a separation from his wife, were yet deemed no: sufficient, when it became necessary to consult his legal adviser as to what evidence was necessary to substantiate adultery to the satisfaction of a Jury. It was one thing to say what evidence would satisfy a Court of Justice, and another what would warrant a separation between the parties. It was not until a very recent period, subsequent to the separation, which took place on the plaintiff agreeing to allow her SOL per annum for her maintenance, on condi tion that she delivered up all the letters that had passed between her and the defendant, which,she averred she then did; so that the plaintiff's attorney, now in Court, was enabled to produce that evidence which it was hoped would prove conclusive. This short out line would explain why the action was not com menced when the husband separated from his wife, in 1816. The plaintiff having occasion to go to London in 181 i, and being a few weeks absent on private business, the defendant had become a con stant visitor to his wife, which somehow connected. itself with the birth of her last child in 1816, though under circumstances impossible to be proved. Many occurrences might pass between husband and wife, which could not be brought before a Court of Jus tice. There are irresistible proofs of the alienation of a wife's affections to satisfy the husband, which would not satisfy a Jury ; such as her not shewing the same attention to her husband and her family as she had done before. Now, a letter was discovered, in the defendant's hand-writing, under circumstances ex tremely mysterious, to which the plaintiff's mind at tached the strongest suspicion. That letter, although it might not satisfy the Jury, yet satisfied the husband that his wife's affections had been seduced. Those who were conversant with human nature could best know what circumstances would excite jealousy, where love had once possessed the breast, and bow impossible, when those suspicions were once excited, that a Gentleman could live under the same roof with a woman who had dishonoured his bed, al though perhaps he could not produce evidence of that fact to satisfy a Court of Justice. The plaintiff know ing he could not substantiate his charge of adultery, yet thinking he could no-longer submit to the pain ful situation in which he felt himself Opted, deter mined to separate from his wife, in order that he might judge from her future conduct how far he might rely upon those suspicions with which his mind was unhappily impressed. It was finally agreed that from henceforth they should live apart, she going to reside at Aberford, and her husband at Thorparch ; and that the youngest child, born the preceding year, should accompany her. The special condition of her allowance of 801. was, that she should give up all letters of Mr. Sanderson's, but he had so cautiously • • expressed himself in all those letters, but one which subsequently fell into the hands of the husband, as to m a k e it impossible that those letters alone could .. be made the subject of evidence in a Court of Jus tice. la. r eking the Arit., of these letters. the Jury would be ready to admit "that no situation 'could be more miserable than that of a husband having ground of suspicion to form constiction on his own mind, of, ;~ ,~ • « . t • • - a nature so imperfect 11.1 to be told, on consulting his lawyer, that it was impossible to bring forward Lhat circumstantial evidence, but at the risk ofprtindicing his children, and aggravating his own misery. The following evidence was then adiluced: Mrs. Davis, the mother of Mrs. Warmll, prfeed the marriage of her daughter to Mr. Warren, at Portsmouth. They left Portsmouth shortly, and she had not seen much of them since. Mr. Ilulmer , an upholsterer, of Leeds, knew the plaintiff and his wife when they lived at Bradford. He did not visit them at that place; but when they went to reside at Leeds, in 1913, he became well acquainted wit h them, and he always thought they lived upon very amicable terms. They had three children at Leeds.---Cross-examined.—They lived about three years together at Leeds. Mr. John Flood, a surgeon in Leeds, was also acquainted with the plaintiff and WS wife, and, as far as he had an opportunity of judging, they lived upon very good terms. In the latter end of 1815, and is 1818, he perceived a difference in their conduct toward~ each other, and they appeared to be much less affection ate than they had een. James White, a post-boy at the Bull and Mouth, Leeds, knew that Mr. and Mrs. Warren resided at Leeds in 1816. He fre quently drove her in a chaise to Abberford, the defendant's place of living, where she had two sons. He had driven her to Mr. Sanderson's house, but generally it was to Morris's Inn, where she would remain for- several hours, and the defendant would pass his time with her. When site went home, Sanderson would go three or four miles with her, and on leaving the chaise he would give the driver sixpence or a shilling not to say that he had been with her. Sometimes be would walk a mile once( the town, and then get into the chaise. The last time he drove her to Abberford the defendant was waiting for her at Puling ton Park, about a mile from Abberford, and rode nearly to Leeds, which was ten tunes from Abberford. He had known Mrs. Warren stay at . &elan from ten o'clock in the morning to seven o'clock in the eventne, israunpany with Sanderson. Sarah Ripley lived servant it Mo. Warren in the summer of Isis. Between Jammer/ and July ber,itaster went to London, and during his absence Mr. Sander Wk. at else house very fre quently, and then he and her mistress would p out in the even. log for two or three hours. One evening in the latter end of June, her master returned unexpectedly from London when Mr. Sanderson was in the house. Sanderson came that day about two o'clock, and remained to tea ; and after they had drank tea, they went into the drawing-room, and remained there a long time. The witness had been desired to go up stairs to her mistress after she had taken her tea, and on doing so she found the room door was fastened. Her mistress opened the door, and said it only wanted a push. It did not require to bz pushed at other times. Mrs. Warren save orders to have beef steaks prepared for supper, and after the cloth was prepared, and Mr. Sanderson and he r mistress had reached as far af the back parlour, where they staid for some time on the way to the table, a rapping .came to the door, which proved to be the mu ter of the house, who came unexpected. Mr. Sanderson was then passed out of the house by the back way ; and on Mr. War reles expressing surprise to see a hot supper, it being contrary to their usual habits, Mrs. Warren said she ad prepared it for him, thinking he might come home; upon which the plaintiff seemed pleased and happy to see his wife. She had never men tioned this to any one but to her master, about six weeks since. She had more than once found the drawing-room door locked when Sanderson and her mistress were in the room. The Rev. Mr. Lindley knew Mr. Sanderson ; he was a schoolmaster, and the witness had been his assistant for several years. Mr. Sanderson was a married man, and had four chil dren. The letters produced were all of his hand-writing. Amelia Beaumont, nOw the chamber-maid at the Bull Inn, at Leeds, but formerly a servant to Mr. Warrell, had seen Mr. Sanderson visit her mistress at Thorparch, where she lived after she separated from her husband, and he generally staid with her about two hours. Charles Kitching was a butcher at Leeds.—Mr. Sanderson went to live at Castleton In 1814. In 1815 he received letters from the defendant, with instructions to deliver them to Mrs. Warren pemonalbf, or to keep them till he saw her. He also convey letters from Mrs. Warren to the defendant. Joseph Briggs, of Wakefield, painter.—Early in the spring of *B2O, Mrs. Warrell went to reside at the next house to him; the divisions between them were slight, and on several occasions 'he had heard a man's voice in Mrs. Warren's room at night; he had heard him chiding a child. Mr. Sanderson was with Mrs. Warrell at all times, and had been seen in her room. This wit ness also spoke to having seen and heard Sanderson at various times in Mrs. Warren's room. _ _ Cross-examined—He was taken before a Magistrate for using abusive language to Mrs. Warren, but the warrant was dis charged. Mr. Sanderson appeared before the Magistrate as her protector. He bad never mentioned what he had seen, but when he was applied to by the plaintiff's attorney, about a year ago. Mary Sutton, a discharged servant, proved that the defendant came three times to see Mrs. Warren in the space of about seven weeks, and that he staid two days each time. She had seen them together when she went to bed. Mr. Serjeant HEMLOCK, for the defendant, cos tended that if the plaintiff had abandoned his wife to the care of the defendant, under a knowledge or belief of criminal connexion, without seeking to re move her from thence, he was not entitled to any compensation. His Learned Fiiend bad represented the parties to have lived in a -state of connubial bliss and happiness, until interrupted by the lady dropping, as it were, like " ripe fruit into the hands of the spoiler." Wu this consistent with the case wherein the plaintiff had either deserted his wife from unjust cause or suspicion, or, knowing the criminal connexion between her and the defendant, had con nived at it by leaving and abandoning her to his pro tection. The Learned Serjeant commented upon a correspondence between the plaintiff and defendant, about a bill which the wife had drawn for her salary upon the husband, and which could only be nego ciated by the defendant's endorsement, the plaintiff, it appeared, having published a notice in the country papers, that he would not be answerable for any of his wife's debts. Mr. SCARLET? ably replied. The LORD CIII al? JUSTICE summed up the evidence with great perspicuity, in the course of which he re marked that the evidence was slight, but that pro bably the situation of the plaintiff was such as not to allow him to, bring many witnesses. The case, his Lordship said, divided itself into two heads—the first was, whether, upon the evidence they had heard, they were satisfied that the improper intimacy had taken place before the separation? for, if it had, then, at alt events, their verdict must be for the plaintiff and if they should think that it did not occur until after the separation, yet there was abundance of evi dence to entitle the plaintiff to their verdict, for there was sufficient proof of the defendant's having at tempted to seduce Mrs.Warrell before the separation —unless, indeed, they thought the plaintiff had foi faked his claim to it by his subsequent conduct. • The Jury retired for about half an hour, and then returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £5O. The following causes were tried on Tuesday : • THE KING V. RARNSDAW. This was an indictment for an assault. Mr. Charles Roe is the Comptroller of the Cus toms at Hull, having a country house at Hestle, near that place. 'the defendant is a Gentleman of pro perty, and a near neighbour of the prosecutor. It ap • peared that the road leading to the houses of the dis• putants was very narrow, and that the defendant had lately increased its natural defects, by making a new footpath, at an elevation of twelve or sixteen inches above the level of the road, sois to make it almost impossible five two carriages to pass each other with out doing an iajut' to one of their. ' The prosecutor complained of this to the defendant, :and after using la great deal of persuasion he prevailed upon him to r t . • - •'t 46 ~;.. A ; .,,y ~ . • .7 14: • T . :* *_f. • , , • •'i 77 - 711,;; " • . , _ allow an alteration to be tna;l e in such a manner as' upon to establish lien legitimacy. A cogent a n d i n mit to throat the run of water wing some improve- resiatikle body of evidence was now offered, com. merits that he had lately made. The soggestionsof the /sleety proving the legitimacy of Miss Fox.. prosecutor were consented to,endort April9th he sent Mr..Fierjeant noise, on the part of the defendant, workmen on the road to make the alterations accord- expressed the conviction'of his cli ent t h at ing to the stipulations which had been entered into. there wits not tre r :i . ' t ghtest doubt of the lessor of the The men had no :miner began to breek up the path, Oxhide's title, and a verdict for the plaintiff w as titan the defendant hurried from his house, and In the vvrditigly recorded. most intemperate manner began to abuse Mr. Roe, • TL AUER v. MEYMOTT, GEN,. and denied ever having authoriced him to destroy This was an action of trespass for breaking Rade*. the path ; and at the same time seized him by the tering.the plaintiff's dwelling-house, and seizing and Collar, sg knuckled'shis face, and threw him with great carrying away goods and chattels , his property. :violence into the road. The prosecutor would not The ease opened and proved on the part of the desist from the work he had commenced, which so plaintiff was thist—The plaintiff was shopman i n t h e . ezasperated the defendant, that he repeated the as- set vice of Mr. Deboffre, of Ludgate-hill, and the de sault at three different times i and ittlicted•consider-. fendant is a respectable Solicitor- For several yew s able punishment on Mr. Roe,behig a. powerful athle- the plaintiff had been weekly tenant of One of several tic man, and a patron of, and practitioner in the pu- houses, the property of the defendant's father, it gilistic art. An altercation took place between the King's-avert, Dover-street, at a weekly rent of sen d s parties, in the course of which strong unpleasant lan- shillings. The defendant was one of the trustees guage was used on both sides, but in the end Mr. under is father's will, and had given the plaintiff a Roe was compelled to retire, and to forego making weekly notice to quit in the month of February 1. 154 his projected alterations. Preparatory to quitting possession, a female, with The LORD CHIEF JUsTICE interrupted the evidence whom the plaintiff lived, sought for astother dwelt: by stating, that in his opinion both parties had acted ing. On the day when the trespass was allcged to .wrong, and that the better course to adopt would be , have beet. committed, the tenancy had expired fior to bind them over to keep the peace towards each about three days. Some of the plaintiff's goods re other in £lOO bonds. mained on the premise s, such as a few articles of This suggestion was at length adopted, but with crockery-ware, and a deal sideboard, all under tile great reluctance on the part of Mr. Roe. value of £B. Whilst the plaintiff's housekeeper was DUFF v. HALL. out its search of another domicile, the defendant cane This.was an action brought by the plaintiff, a see- to the house, and finding it fastened up, and appa vant of Mr. Harrison, a Gentleman of large property, rently abandoned, proceeded to break open the door. Jiving near Hull, against the defe .dant, to recover He first tried to kick it open, but the door not yield penalties undo' the Game Laws. _ ing,he obtained a crow-bar and a hatchet, and at last ItraPpertied that the defendant was the son of a Gentleman of good property, and a near neighbour of Mr. Harrison, and that on the 11th of November last he entertained several of his friends at his father's house, when it was proposed either by Mr. Hall or a Mr. Peacock, that they should go out coursing the next day, and several Gentlemen present were in vited. li, however, occurred to Mr. Hall that he was not qualified, and that he was surrounded by some troublesome neighbours, and that therefore he could not be the•leader of the day's amusement, al though he could command the use of his father's dogs, and all other accommodations that might be wanting; and in this dilemma it was proposed by Mr. Peacock, who was a duly qualified Gentleman, that the dogs should be lent to him, and then it was presumed that the others could join him in the pur suit, without infringing the Game Laws. Accord ingly, the next morning, three or four Gentlemen took the field, with five greyhounds, and in the course of the day started three hares, but did not kill any. It was distinctly. proved that the defendant was seen-with the dogs, and was observed to call them from a plantation, to which they were pursuing either a rabbit or a hare, that was seeking a refuge from its enemies. The action was brought to recover two pe nalties, the one for being abroad with the dogs for the purpose of coursing, and the other for pursuing game. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed to the Jury, that on one of the charges the defendant was entitled to a verdict, because it had not been proved that he had been pursuing game, there being some doubt whether it was a rabbit or a bare that he was seen to Call the dogs from. With respect to his being abroad illegally with the dogs, for the purpose of hunting game, that was question for the Jury to decide; it was for them to say, whether he was the leader of the sports, or whether the dogs had been, in their opinion, lent to Mr. Peacock. The Jury, after a very short consultation, returned a verdict for the defendant. DOE DEM. THOMAS AND WIFE D. ACKLAM. This was a case of tedious pedigree, to prove that an American lady, Mrs. Thomas, was heiress at law to Miss Harrison, who died at Hull in the 'year 1818, and left considerable property,without any. testamen tary disposition. Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK stated the case, which he afterwards proved. Joseph Harrison had gone from York to America, and been Cbmptroller of the Cus toms at Boston, in 1775. Peter Harrison, his youngest brother, followed him to America, where he died, leaving four children, who all died without issue, ex cept Elizabeth, who married Mr. James Ludlow, of which marriage Mrs. Thomas was the only surviving child. Miss Harrison, whose property was now in question, had been the daughter of Joseph Harri son; and hone of the family or of their descendants being now alive, but Mrs. Thomas, she was clearly heiress at law. Captain Acklam, Colonel Le Blanc, T.W.Ludlnw, Counsellor at Law, of New Yell k, and Miss Brentham, daughter of Admiral Brentbarn, were examined. Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK then handed a miniature picture of Mary Frances Ludlow (Mrs. Thomas) when a child, which had been in the possession of Miss Harrison, observing, " My Lord, I put in the lady herself."--(The Barristers looked very - curiously at this picture.) The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, " The Lady is ried, Gentlemen !" Mr. SCARLErT admitted that the only point on which he could found an objection, was the lady's being an alien. . The LORD CUM JUSTICE directed the Jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court as to the aliency. It. was surprising to find a case so clearly made out at such a distance of time and place. GUILDFORD, JULY 31. • DOE, DEM. FOX V. FOX. This was an ejectment to recover the possession of a freehold estate at Reigate, valued at 6001. per an num. The object of the action was to establish the legitimacy of a young Lady, named Eleanor Douglas Fox, grand-daughter of Mr. Fox, formerly a solicitor of Parliament -street, Westminster, offspring of a clan destine marriage between Mr. Fox's eldest son and a Miss Douglas, the daughter of a Mr. Douglas, for merly purser of the Royal George. The marriage in, question was solemnized in 1795, and Miss Fox was born in 1796. Upon the death of Mr. Fox, the grand father, who died intestate, leaving a large personal property, estimated at 1000004 Miss Fox, the grand dAughter, was acknowled ge d a s t h e h e i r at law of Mr.',ltehn Fox, who died greatly embarrassed, and was admitted td the possession of the estate in ques- . tion ; but afterwards, in 'consequence of an anony mous letter, insinuating her illeitimacy, Mrs. Fox, the widow and grand-moth er ; w ho had taken out ad niinistration, the lessor of the plaintiff WAS called effected an entrance, and put another tenant into posL session. The plaintiff's goods were never restored, but it did not appear that they had ever been appro: priated by the defendant. Mr. MARRYATT contended, that in point of law the defendant was justified in making a tOrcible entry after the plaintiff's tenancy was expired. He was prepared to spew that-the plaintiff had had legal no tice to quit, and that his tenancy had expired before the alleged trespass. He cited 2 Tetm Reports, 431, and 1 Price, SR, as authorities for his possessi,in. Mr. Meymott, jun. son of the defendant, proved the service upon the plaintiff of a weekly notice to quit on the 26th of February list; but the plaintiff did not quit. When the alleged trespass was commiaeil the house was shut up, and appeared to be abandone. Mr. GURNEY, in reply, contended, that there vas no case which had ever yet decided that a landlord might break open a house and obtain forcible pos session freely, because his tenant had held over a few days after his tenancy had expired. Such a docti would lead to the most dangerous consequences. It would completely legalize a mode of ejectment, said to be resorted to in another part of the island, wh.-:e the roof of the house was sometimes take off to etlL:t an ejection. Neither of the cases cited supported ii.e proposition contended for on the part of the defendan:: and it would be a monstrous position to hold that defendant's conduct was legal, merely because t! e plaintiff had held over two or three days after Lis tenancy had expired. Violence, bloodshed, and nag der might, in many cases, he the consequence, if a landlord could exercise sad' a power. The LORD CHIEF KA ReN was clearly of ()onion, that the.defenclant's conduct was unlawful, and could not be justified under the general issue. The cases cited did not appear applicable, and therefore he would direct the Jury to tind their verdict tar the plaintiff, with such damages as appeared to them to be-just and reasonable, under all the circumstances. The Jury immediately found their verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 25/. costs, 40s. CROWN SIDE. Frantic Lundell was indicted for feloniously killing and slaying Jahn Morris, on the 23d of May, in the Parish oT Christchurch. It appeared in evidence, that the defendant, who is the • brother of a livery stable-keeper, had bor rowed a horse to :Ace a ride on the day in question. As soon as he mounted the horse, which was young and restive, not having been properly broken in, it ran away with him down Blaoktriars-road. The prisoner being unable to manage* him, •the horse ran against the deceased, who was thrown down, and in the fall ruptured one of. the large arteries near the heart, and expired. It appeared that the prisoner, fintlins.himself unable to controul the horse, called out t:,people to keep clear; but the deceased not being-quick enough, the accident happened. Ti:e prisoner voluntarily surrendered himself, and ex pressed grain sorrow .for the misfortune. Mradsvi„-liis — Counsel, called witnesses in his be half, 'who gave him an excellent character for hum.i nity;—Mr: Justice PARKE summed up the case ter the Jury, and told them that if they believed that the death of the deceased was occasioned merely by . ac cident, and not from any improper conduct of the prisoner, they were bound to find him not guilty.— fhe Jury immediately found the prisoner Not The Farmers' Centenary contrasted ; illustrativc 3t the causes of the present Agricultural Distress : In 1722—The Man to the plough; ybe Wife to the cow ; The Giri ,o the sow ; The boy to the snow; And your Rend will be sowed I In 1822—Best Alan, tallyho; And Alin, piano; The Wife, silk and satin; The Boy, Greek and Latin • .iad you'll ail he Catena ! I! COUNTItY MARKETS. Ovroan, Atmore I.—Wheat 6s. Cid. a bushel. The price of half-peck loaf (household) Is. 3&d. McNamar, Avouse I.—New Wheat per load, £l4 103 to PS —Wheat, £6 to XlS—Barley, per quarter, 18s to 22* —Bas, I's to vs —Beans, 17sto 24s.—Peas s 27s_to 30s. DIED. Lately, at Salisbury, afteeaiong and severe Mness, Mr. FAI - Burbidge, late Cashier at Alessra Kensington and Co. Ilattkers. J 0 Flattarrs 0 0 Jamaica 1 1 Gotteithetegb • MA 11,S. A sa. nut. WNW 1 0 VVaterfurd 1 0 GU". and Jeney 0 Prance Ilaniburgb A K. PI 0 1 o 0 0 0 0 I uet nsey lAsbuz Holland HIGH-WATERat LOSDON Hahn; c Tamom ROW Wetting -.- Ininute. Ater 4. . Atte mum • - -44 abates alter 4. LONDON avid pubilind 41 'Lori YAM% P 46 " 1 " place, TeinpleZar. II %tt I S ! 4 ,