The National Register. — London, England, 1816-07-28 00:00:00

L. 11 17 INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—S AMMAN'. MAINTENANCE OF A LUNATIC. muslin V. MOOR V. 'The plaintiff in this ease was Dr. Munro, the proprietor of Ttruke-Ilause Lunatic Asylum, at Clayton ; the defendant was Mr. Thomas Moore, a merchant, having an establishment iu this country, and ulso at Aliemat, in:Spain. In 1800, Mr. Moore sp,slied to the plaintif f to receive under his care Mr. Peter Moore, hts brother, who WAi at tkat time in a lunatic asylum. Accordingly, in consequence of an agreement being come to between the plaintiff and defendant, Mr. P. Moore was taken to Rroke-House on the 80th of dune. Here he remained 11x12; his half yearly bills being regularly transmitted to Mr. Thos. Moore, and regularly paid by him. In !KU!, however, the defendant, on pay ing the summer's half year's bill. stated, that he was going to Apain; he deckled himself perfectly sa tisfied with the manner in which his brother was treated, and said he WAS happy to have him in such an asylum; he might perhaps be gone to Spain more thou six moutha ; but he desired his bro ther should still be treated in the same manner; and that at the end of six month', if he, the defendant, should not he bark by that time, he desired the bill should be sent to his mother, with whom he would leave instructions to pay it. At the end of six months, therefore, the defendant tint being come back, the bill was sent to Mts. Moore, who, however, said she had no funds in hotel, all Mr. Peter Moore's property being in the hands of Mt. Thos. Moore. From this time the plaintiff had received 'Rotting, though Mr. P. Moore remained there till July 15th, 1814 ; when he was removed in consequence of a commission Of lunacy having been taken out against hint. The defence set up was, that the plaintiff well knew that the eprendant was not solely liable for the maintenance of his bro ther; hot that an elder brother, Mr. George Moore, was the person in whose hands Mr. Peter Moore's property was ; that, an tar from the plaintiff ennsidering the sit fendant as the per- Non having a control over the lunatic, he had, on one occasion, forbidden Mr. Thos. Moore from corresponding with his bro ther, and had even sent a letter addressed by Peter to his bro ther. the defenthint, to his other brother Mr. George Moore. It also appeared, that at one time the plaintiffs bills were made out to Mrs. Moore, and at another period to Mr. George Moore. The witnesses on the part of the plaintiff. however. proved 'tat this was only in consequence of Mr. T. Moo e's absence; and further, that the orders for Mr. P. Moore's accommoda tion and treatment, were always given by Mr. T. Moore, the Eefendant, and by no other person. These facts were proved by Mr. Holmes and Mrs. Richardson, the Superintendant and Matron of Broke-House ; and the Jury, tinder them: eireurottun crs found a verdict fur the plaiuta—llamages Still. Us. 6d.— Coats, 40s, COURT OF COMMON' PLEAS, GUILDHALL, JULY 23. CRIM. CON.—SPECIAL JURY. WRIGHT r. altariaat. This was an action for the recovery of damages, brought by Ur. Wright, the Plaintiff, against Mr. Firaham, of music cele brity, for criminal consolation with his wite. The damages were laid at 5.0001. Mr. Serjeant Len+ stated the case to the Jury. This was, he said, a case of a very different description from some of those which, though they arose from a similar offence, were yet at- tended by extenuating circumstances. It was one which re quired the most serious attention. The Plaintiff stood in a Welt and responsible situation in life—he was a Purser in the East India Company, and wax of course, firquently absent on his professional duties. What aggravated this case was, that It was at such periods the Defendant took advantage of the friendly and uususpectiug intercourse witha l s u b s ist e d b e t w e en him and the Plaintiff's family, and seized those moments which ought to be doubly sacred, to commit the crime which led to the present action. During the absence of Mr. Wright, he had, of course, made every provision in his power for the 'roper maintenance of his wife, whom he bail is er treated with the greatest affection. He had long bceu intimate with Mr. Braliam and Madame Storace, and this intimacy was preserved in his absence with that confidence which one man places in another. Madame Stutacc lived with the Defendant as his wife, and was so received in respectable families ' although, for some objects of a professional nature perhaps, site did not as. same his name; there could theretbre he nu surprise at Mrs. Wrights receiving and visiting Madame Storace, whose com pany, as well as Mr. Ili ahem's, was of course 11111114 courted. It was during this euntidential family intercourse that, in the absence of the Plaintiff on Ins professional ditty, the Defendant thought proper to quit Madame Storace, and to carry off the Plaintiff's a ife from her husband's house, where she lived with her children, not only with adequate uyciuts, but with that cre dit in a pecuniary :mint of view, ahidi belonged to her hus. band's station in life. On the return of the Plaintiff to this coun try, he found to his cruet' and astonishment that this seduction had taken place, and that his wife was (lieu in a state of preg nancy under the domestic roof of the Defendant, fur which she had been induced to quit her home and children. 14 to that moment to could prove that the Plaintiff and his wife lived in the utmost harmony and affection, What defence could he set up for f10..11 % iolal ion of confidential friendship, lie could . cot anticipate or apeenlate upon—it would be for him hereafter to advert to that, and for the Jury to appreciate it. But in looking at the quantum of compensation, so far as a pecuniary verdict could administer it, it would be for the Jury to remem ber that the Plaintiff was affectionately attached to his wife up to the moment of her departure from him—that his absence from her was not voluntary, but for their mutat benefit ; they *null then weigh well the reparation to which such a husband was entitled, from one who had so grossly violated the ties of i:onf &nee and friendship. The degree of datiimgcs was only important so far as it would denote the feelings of au uptight Jury on such an occasion; for, it must be obvious that nothing timid repair the wounded feelings of the sufferer. The Learned het j: ant regretted much, that a man like Mr. Brahatn should have thus exposed himself'. If, by this act, he had tbifeited hopes and expectations of an admiring public, the fault 'was his own--his ow n misconduct bad occasioned it ; he had 'rbased the enufalence of a friend, and openly violated the mo te' duties of society. Mitch as they may lament such a de -1 lulu* from rectitude on the part of such a mandhey would teel V o id, me higher duties which devolved upon them, rendered it accessary for the ceaeral good, that the offemier should be loathe to feel the responsibility he had lactated by the flagrancy 'of his act. He *mild now proceed to reel his witnesses, and the .1 ur y would, flout a review of the evidence, apportion the measure of that re:Toteataa ty. Mr. holicet Cuysli roved that the plaintiff; who was a mate of an Fast Indiumaa, maenad his present wife, Mrs. Wrig' ht then th • wi- 7 , 1! '"rk• on th e 155. 'fool' , r; .t.A% at . • .4,, • 4 . a TILE NATIONit nansTru. customed to visit the pleintiff and his wife, and they appeared to live in the greatest harmony. On his eross-examination, he said, that in 1811 they lived in New Millman-street, Foundling Hospital; after which they wens to live at No. 35, Lamb's Connuit-strect. He aid not know that Madame Sot race and Mr. Brabant lodged in the seine house with the plaintiff and his wife. He had eon Mr. Brahaw, but he did not know him at that time. Miss Walphew, a lady about 55 years of age, odd she had been ar quaintest with the pluintiff and his wife since 1311. Stte had vistual and been well acquainted with them ; they . appearedto live re: y happily together. Mr. Wright was it sery affismonate and ten:ler husband. and Mrs. Wright returmsl his atrection with equal ardour. On her cross-examination. she said she had slept in the same house with Mr. and Mrs. Wright sine.: Mr. Brahma had bacome acquainted with them in 1811. Mrs. Wright was a pattern of wives. Whiles: did not re member the pLtintiff ;ind wife and Mr. Brnharn going. to Cheltenham together in the carriage of the hitter. Mr. and Mrs. Wright were very intimate with Madame storao, and they wed to visit teat lady very frequently at Herne Hill. Mrs. Wright frequently went to Madame Storaee's in Mr. Braham 's carriage, but she never saw foe latter alone with Mrs. Wright in the carriege. Madame ,itorace and Mr. Botha::: had lived together for many years as man and wife, they slept in use 84111,± bed, and this pattern of a married woman nevertheless visited Maclaine Storace. The latter never wait by the name of Brehm, or was married to the defendant. Captain John Deelinnip, who had been formerly in the lin?. hut now 1 a Captain in the Militia, said he had kilos n Mr. Wright for many years. and had visited him sines , his marriage. lie had considered the plaintiff and his wife to be a very happy couple. Win. Patterson had been footman to Mr. Braham for about three months, and entered his hawk': in the month of March last. which he quitted about six works ago. lie was with the defendant at Tunbridge It'd's, when Mrs. Wright lived with him as his wife. • He was after wards with the defendant and Mrs. Wright, at No. 50, Tavistuek-sq. where they also lived upon the same terms. Cross-examinssl—During their residence in Tavistoek-square Mrs. Wright did not go by the name of Braham. but was often called so in the tradranens bilk. Witness, e hen he first went into their service, found them living together as tram and wile. Witness was discharged from Mr. Itraham's service about six or seven weeks since, when he told that he and his wife, who lived as cook in Mr. Braliam's ser vice. were no longer wanted, as Mrs. Wright was going abroad. Upon leasing the defendant's service he was told that he should have a good character and a month's wages in advance. Witmas never knew any thing about al:titanic Stowe. Ite-examined.—About two months ago Mr. Braham toll witness, that Mrs. Wright was going abroad. This was just after Mr. Antes ley, the defendant's attorney, had called upon the latter and had dined with him. In Tavistock-square, the defecdant Lot two man servants, and two maid servants. Ile was mite sure that the defendant and Mrs. Wright slept together in Tavistock-stimire. Hester Patterson, the wife of the last witness, corroborated the fact of the defendant's living with Mrs. Wright, as wan and wile in Tarts tock-square. Mary Grycr lived servant to Mrs. Wright in October last. Mr. Wright was then absent upon a voyage to the East Indies. Mrs. Wright then lived in New-eh-Jet, Foundling I hospital. The defendant was a eiin•tant visitor at airs. Wright's. IVitness remembered that one day in Christmas week last, the defendant dined with her mistress; and in the evening of the same day, her mistress left her home in a carriage with a person whom she supposed to be the defendant, but as it was dark she could not speak positively as to his identity, Isabella DOOM, a midwife, proved that she visited Mrs. Wright about two months since; her husband being then absent for above a year. and found that she was pregnant, and that she expected to be put to bed in next September. Crose-examined.—She had never visited Mrs. Wright, except in her professional chanteter. She had delivered her of twins a tow years since. Here the case closed for the plaintiff:- The Solicitor-General rose on the part of the defendant. 'I Tc prefaced his observations nn the case by observing, that it was impossible to defend or justify the criminal connection of one man with the wife of another. But in this case, as in all other cases, there were shades of character which in fact defined the na ture of the offence—diderent circumstances altered its com plexion, and dictated the amount of damages which it became a Jury to give. In the present ease there were sonic singular and peenliar features which distinguished it from others. Here was a gentleman, the plaintiff in this cause, from to leave his wife, when his avocations absented hint from her, in proper society, well protected, and with ample means for her support; Wile had made out his ease, and that under such circumstan ces the affections of his wife had been estranged front be by a seducer, then indeed he would have a right to demand from a Jury excessive damages. But was that the case here? The plaintiff knew perfectly well who Madame 6teraee and Mr. Braliam were, aud the first female witness called here to prove the domestic felicity that subsisted between the plaiutiff and his wife, was herself in the odd predicament of being also an intimate acquaintance with Mr. Brabant and Madame Storace. She, us well as Mrs. Wright, was in the habit of passing her time with them; that is, in plain English, in familiar and inti mate association with a man and his mistress. Now it could not he concealed that its the present state of society there were many connexions that were overlooked, because they were in a certain degree domiciliated, and their example , not prominent. In le crowded concourse at routes, assemblies, fetes, and dejeunes, great professional abilities were always a passport, without reference to the immediate mural habits of individuals —and why? because neither men nor their mistresses could influence such assemblies, nor did their any . arance there im ply any thing like familiar intimacy with the party. There was in fact no contagion in their presence— no implied intro duction or intimacy. It was most certain an object of regret, • that in such societies, or in any large circle.there should be such inmates, but he reincii.bered to have heard it observed, that on such occasions, however objectionable the momentary as sociation, it was yet not catching.. But he was afraid that in smaller circles in private life it was catching, and he was per suaded that no husband tit ho felt for his own honour, and the character able wife, who wished her (as he ought), like Ovules wife, to be above suspicion, could for a moment suffer her to hold an intimacy, or allow the visits of those, who, thoughad missible in public company, were not the most fit associates elsewhere. He would not say, that by allowing visits of that kind, the husband could be said to give a license to his wife to play an improper part, but he would say, that such negligent conduct on his part went close upon the last degree of pro priety, and that he in a guest degree diminished his claim for ulterior compenautier, by admitting such a course. If he al lowed his wife to become familiar, by association, with the ex ample of a man and his mistress, he had no great right to com plain that she, io her turn, became a mistress also. It was in evidence, that Mrs. Wright was in the habit of going with Mr. Braltani to Herne-hid. Now he was instructed that the de fendant could in evidence further chew, that the plaintiff's neg ligence as to his wife was more than that before his last voyage. He had suffered an intimacy between his wife and thedefendant, e hea t no man of delicacy or common sense could for an in: taut allow. If under such circumstances he had not suspected what was passing, he must have shut his eyes upon what was as clear as day. A great deal had been said by the witnesses about Lamle?, Conduit-street aid Herne-hill ; bid it was singular, eel* n”•••• se tt... witnetaea proved that Mr. Brilliant lived in the ' • •- • e' JULY R. that sorb was the fact, anti that Mr. %t right wise privy to it. When the defendant was with Mrs. W. she was denied to every body else, even her OWII husband walked out. A ho,,b a u t i who oonid he so easily satisfied, had no right to complain, that if lie hail nourished a smothering dame, it at length found a vent and fanned itself into a blaze; he had nu right to have- his story told in a Court ofJustii e with sympathy for himself. It would also be proved, that so late as eleven o'clock at night, Mr. lirehans had called at the plaintiffs house, when he was himself at home, and taken his with away on a visit to Herne-bill, where she staid that night, and longer. Oa some oceasious the age of the female would account for such volatility, but here was au experienced lady, thirty ses en years of age, who must he supposed to know and feel the con requenee of such acts. 1t those facts be posed, as he was lash maell theywould be, if they did not go the length of calling for a verdict for the defendant, they would at least reduce the claim for dama,ets to a mere nominal • . he defendant, like cs cry otht r man in the professiou of which he was an ornament, depended for his means of life oft the estimation of his talents iu the public eye. In an inquiry of this sort, he stood in so delicate a si tuation, that he ought nut to be. prejudged, or inconsiderately condemned. This delicacy was occasioned by that good and honest principle of morals about John Bull, which led him to make a riotous comment upon the moral characters of those dram-air personage:3, over whom lie holds au exclusiseaid conanauding control—This was a feeling salivary in itself, and one of which he (the Solicitor-General) was proud for his country. But yet it was, front the nature of things, zealous, and sometimes rash iu its decisions—it was therefore right to protect an individual from the excess of its operation. lle therefore felt it incumbent upon him to point out to the Jury, that in tlint rase there was no wanton or profligate violatiou of friendship on the part of the defendant. It was no such cir cumstance. Ile had notoriously fallen into the arms of a mistress, with the eyes of the husband wide open. The lath r was therefore deprived et' that right which other men, who acted differently, would base a right to receive the benetit uP from the hands of a seducer. Mary Clarke and Fliinlieth Ilaverstock, who had lived with Mr. and Mrs. Wright in Lamb's Conduit-street, during the year 1814. and pat t of the year iBl5. proved that Mr. Rraham was in the constant habit of visiting at Mr. Wright's; that Mn. Wright frequently gat up for hours after lur husband was gone to bed; that she often went our. in the defendant's ...arriase with him alone; and that the defendant fre quently slept in the platntirs lodgings in l.amb's Conduit-street. • The case of the defendant being closed, Mr. Eierjeant Lens rose to reply, and observed, that he had opened the case, by stating, that he could not anticipate the defence, and he really was uninformed, until he heard it, of any of its bearings. It did certainly appear, that a cautious or a jealous man would not have countenanced that sort of con duct on the part of his wife that might be deemed equivocal AO far the plainta might, perhaps, be blameable. But could such an unsuspicious confidence on his part be misconstrued into an absolute license on his par; r Certainly nut, nor any thing like it. It' the whole of the evidence for the defendant could be supposed to imply the easy connivance of the husband to his ow u disgrace, where was the necessity for the defendant's carrying away the woman? Did it sound like common sense, that with such such open intt.reaurse as it was attempted to establish, with such a facility and accommodation tbr his pur pose, he would be driven to the necessity of carrying away tiro object of his passion, and thereby publishing to Cut world thz, whole story of the Intercourse? That the plaintiff, in his int ',licit confidence, had been wrung, no one could doubt- that he was connected with unguarded circumstances. might also be surmised ; but it should be recollected, that matters uhieli, when committed, appear trivial and not worthy of notice, ate oftentimes. by subsequent steps, rendered glaring and impor tant. How, then, was the unsuspecting and confidential friend and hushand to divine his own disgrace in the spirit of pro. !Awes- ? Considering the intimacy that subsisted bete him and Mr. Brahma, there could be nothing thought of front tho late hours of his visits. Mr. B. was in the evening profession. ally occupied. It' be slept in town, he came occasionally to Mr. NWri,elifs, to save the expace of a town residence. if • Mr. or Mrs. Wright wished to go to Bane-kill, they availed themselves of his carriage, either by day or night, as it suited their convenience. If the Jury could believe that conduct, for which the p'aintiti could so fairly and rationally account, bad a right to lie weighed against hint, they would of course, lean that way. If; ou the contrary, they thought, however careless in the confidence of friendship, it was yet natural and likely, they would, of course, not allow him to antler more than lie had done by such unsuspecting intercourse. •. Sir Vicary Gibbs, in charging the Jury, said, that the Conn ect on both sides had pat the question fairly. 'the plaintiff had said, that if there were no alleviation, the case would be a most serious one; and the defendant, that it was one , übject to a va riety of shades, according to the finis of the case. It was on those facts that the Jury were to found their vcr ict ; and from thou circumstances of alleviation (if any there be), that they .were to measure their damages. The facts proved, in the pre sent vase, furnished a striking instance of the danger that at tended a deviation from the strict and decent rules Of propriety. It exemplified, that alien persons indulged in a course of life that cannot be jnstified, they not only contaminate them. si Ives, but taint whatever approaches them by contact. This observation arose from the circumstance, that the only allevia tion which the defendant's Counsel was instructed to make, liir the act of the defendant, was, that, living in the state in which he did, the plaint if had carelessly suffered an intimacy to soh. sist with his family. The Learned Judge wade some strong moral animadversions upon this feature in the case. In consi derations of this kind a Jury had better take a middle course, and well consider, that though the plaintiff had diminished his claim for damages ' by allowing such au intercourse us that which had subsisted between his family and the defendant, it by no means followed, that, when he committed his wife to such society, he bad consigned her without reserve into the arms of a seducer. He had also the natural confidence in her behalf, which the age of his wife afforded. When he married her Mai was a widow, of the age of 30, with three children. When this intimacy with Mr. graham wa§ carried on, she was 37 years old. True, indeed, he allowed her to mixTwith such company ; but this fact, faulty as it certainly was, did not deprive him of kis remedy against the act of the defendant. The Learned Judge here recapitulated the evidence to the Jury, and com mented on each part of it with his accustomed perspicuity ; leaving to them to determine, from the retrospect, the quantum of damages to which. the plaintiff was entitled, under all the circumstances of his case. The Jury, after a consultation of ten minute:, returned t verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages, One 1 homsasid Pouads. BRECON CIRCUIT. Pre:Meier, Munelny, August 25. Thermo, Saturolsy. Anprt 51. 198