The National Register. — London, England, 1816-07-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BEN Cil.-S 4TURDAY. MAINTENA NICE OF A LUNATIC. NRO V. MI)(IRV. The plaintiff in this c 7 ise was Dr. Munro, the proprietor of Se oke-House 11611'411C y) ,at Clapton ; the defendant was Mr. Thomas 510. ire, a inert haul, having an establishin• ut in this comitry, and also at lirant, in:Spain. In 180 a, Mr. Moore applied to the planitiff to receive under his rare Mr. Peter Moore, his brother, who was at that time iu a lunatic asylum. Accurdinoy, in consequence of an agreement being come to between the plaintiff and defend tnt, Mr P. Moore Was taken to Rroke•Huuse on the tUth cf June. Here he remained till lnIg; his lislfytarly bills being regularly transmitted to Mr. Taos. Moore. a.,d regularly paid by I . lu ISIV, however, the drfendae,t, on payee); the summer's half year's b:11, stated, that he was going to lie declared himself perfectly sa tisfied with the manner in which his brother was treated. and said Inc was happy to have him He !aril au asylum; he might perhaps be gone to Spain mule titan six months ; but he desired his bro ther should stilt be treated in the seine manner; and that at the rod of it months, if he, the defendant, should not be back by that time, he &sired the bill should be sent to his mother, with whom be would leave instructions to pay it. At the end of six smooths, thee efore, the defendant not being come hack, the bill WAS sent to MIA. Moore, who, however, said she lead no fonds is) hand, all Nlr. Pet.'e MotHloi property being in the hands of Dlr. Thos. Moore. Prom this time the plaintiff had received Nothing, though Mr. P. Moore remained there till July 15th, 1514; when he was removed in consequence of a commission of lanary leaving been taken out a;ainst him. The defence set op was, that the plaintiff well knew that the defendant Was not solely liable tier the maintenmere of his bro ther; beet that an elder brother, Mr. George Moore, was the person in whose hands ,Mr. Peter Moore's property was ; that, ao far f the plaintiff comadering the iletemlant as the per eon having a control over the lunatic, he had, on one occasion, forbidden Nlr. Thos. Moore from corresponding with his bro ther, and had evt n sent a letter addressed by Pt ter to his bro ther, the defendant, to his other brother Mr. George Moore. lt also appeared, that at one time the plaintiff's bills were made out to Me s. Moore, and at another period to Mr. George Moore. The witne;ses on the part of the plaintiff, however, proved that this was only in consequence of Mr. T. Moo. e's absence; and further, that the orders for Mr. P. Ittuore's accommoda tion and treatment, were always given by Mr. I'. Moore, the defendant, and by no other person. These facts were proved by Mr. Holmes and Mrs. Richardson, the Suiterintenda it and Matron of Broke-Hoene ; and the Jury, under these circumstan ars, found a verdict fur the plaintiff.—Damages Smell. 14s. 6d. — Costs, 401. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL, JULY 23. CRIM. CON. —SPECIA L JURY. WRIGHT V. BR.SSSAM. This was an action for the recovery of damages, brought by Mr. Wright, the Plaintiff, against Mr. Brabant, of music cele brity, for criminal couveisation with his wife. The damages were laid at 5,0001. Mr. Serjeaut Lens stated the case to the Jury. This was, he said, a ease of a sery different description from sonic of those which, though they arose from a similar offence, were vet at tended by extenuating circumstances. It was one which re quired the most SerIOUS atte11:10(1. The Plaintiff stood in a high and responsible situation in life—he was a Purser in the • East India Company, and was of course, fiewicutly absent on his professional ditties. What aggravated this Cclse was, that It was at such periods the Defendant took advantage of the friendly and unsuspecting intercourse which subsisted between him and the Plaintiff's flintily, 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, lie Lad, of course, made every provision in his power fir the proper maintenance of his wile, whom he bad ever treated with the greatest affection. He had lung been intimate with Mr. Brabant and Madame Storace, and this intimacy was preserved in his absence with that confidence which one man places iu another. Madame Storace lived with the Defendant as his Wile, and was so received in respectable families; although, for loam objects of a professional nature perhaps, she did not as sume his name; there could therefore be no surprise at Mrs. Wright's recta% ing and visiting Madame Storace, whose com pany, as well as Mr. Brabain's, was of course much courted. It was during this confidential family intercourse that, in the &absence of the Plaintiff on his professional duty, the Detimilant thought proper to quit Madame Storace, and to carry off the Plaintiff's wife from her husband's house, where she lived with her childri n, net only with adeipiate means, but with that cre dit in a pecuniary point of view, which belonged to her hut baud's station in life. (hi the retain of the Pla;nliir to this coun try, he found to his spier and astonishment that this seduction lad to►en place, and that his wife was then in a state of preg nancy wider the domestic root' of the Defendant, for wbich she had been induced to quit her home and children. Up to that incinent ht• could prose that the Plaintiff and his wife lived in the utmost harmony and affection. What defence could lie set up for such a I iolatim of confidential friendship, he could not anticipate or speculate upon—it would be for hint hereafter to advert to that, and for the Jury to appreciate it. But in hark big at the quantum of compensation, so far as a pec uniary verdict could admihist2r it, it would be for the Jury to remem ber that the Plaintiff• was affectionately attached to his wife tip to the moment of her departure from him—that his absence from her was not volimtary, but fir their mutat benefit; they would then weigh well the reparation to which such a husband was entitled, from one who had so grossly violated the ties of 40121itletice and friendship. 'the degree of damages was only important so far as it would denote the feelings of an upright Jury on such an occasion ; for, it must be obvious that nothing could I rubor the wounded feelings of the sutl'erer. The Learned Serjeant iegretted much, that a man like Mr. Brahma should thus exposed himself. If, by this act, he had fat felted the hopes and expectations of an admiring public, the fault was his own--his own inileosolort had occasioned it ; he had *based the confidence• of a friend, and openly %totaled the mo ral &tics of society. Much as they may lament such a de parture frail) rectitude on the part of such a man,they would feel that toe hilher duties which devolved upon them, rendered it nee"ssary for 'h • ei.aserill good, that the offender should be road. to feel the responsibility be had incurred by the flagrancy of nos act. He wankd now punted to ca-1 his uitne , ‘es, and the Jury would, flow a ieview of the evidence, apportion the measure of that t espial/66114v. Me 'tt-bert Cayeh provA that the plaintiff, who was a mate of an Raft Indianian, !named his p-•ss.nt Mra ight. then the wi dow o f al:. Fin ( 4 . with three chikiren, on the tat January, tisua, at yarish o. St. George the :tiariyr, Queen's-square. At the sta., or , tihrs. Wright was thuty yuars of sae; he was 41C, TILE NATIONAL REGISTER. eustomed to visit the plaintiff and his wife, and they appeared to live in the greatest harmony. On his cross-examination, he said, that in 1811 they lived in New Millman-street, Foundling Hospital; att.r which they went to live at No. 33. Lamb's Conduit-straA. lie did not know that Madame Sto race and Mr. Witham lodged in the same house with the plaintiff and his wife. Ile had seen Mr. Braham, but he did not know him at that time. Miss Walphew, a lady about 35 years of age, said she had been ac quit:null with the plaintiff and his wile since itOI. She had vi.ueil and been well acquainted with them ; they appeared to live very happily together. Mr. Wright was a very affectionate anti tender husband, and Mrs. Wright returned his affection with equal ardour. On her cross-examination, she said she had silo in the sante house with Mr. and Mrs. Wright since Mr. Brahma had become acquainted with them in t'll2. Mrs. Wright was a pattern of wives. It Muss did not re member the plaintiff and his wife and Mr. Braham going to Cheltenham together in the carriage of the latter. Mr. and Mrs. Wright were very intimate with Madame Storaee, and they used to visit that lady very frequentll at Herne Hill. Mrs. Wright frequently went to Madame Sumice's in Mr. liraham's carrisge, but she never saw the latter alone with Mrs. Wright in the carriage. Maitame Storace and Mr. timhani had lived together for many years as man and wife, they slept in the same bed, and this pattern of a married woman nevertheless visited Madame Storace. The latter never went by the name of Braliam, or was married to the defendant. Captain John Dechamp, who had been formerly in the line, but now a Captain in the Militia, said he had known Mr. Wright for many years, and had visited him since his marriage. Ile had considered the plaintiff and his wife to lie a very happy couple. Wm. Patterson had been t'oottnan to Mr. Brahant for about three months. and entered his service in the month of March last. which he quitted about six weeks ago. He was with the defendant at Tunbridge `Vella, where Mrs. Wright lived with him as his wife. Ile was after wards with the defendant and Mrs. Wright, at No. 50, Tavistock-sq. where they also lived upon the same terms. Cross-examined.—During their residence in Tuvistock-square Mrs. Wright did not go by the name of Braham, but was often called so in the tradesmens' bilk Witness, when he first went into their service, found them living together as man and wife. Witness was discharged from Mr. Braham's service about six or seven weeks since. when he was told that he and his wife, who lived as cook in Mr. ltraliam's ser vice, w ere no longer wanted, as Mrs. Wright was going abroad. Upon leaving the defendant's service he was told that he should have a good character and a month's wages in advance. Witness never knew any thing about Madame Stowe. lie-:xamined.—About two months ago Mr. Braham told witness, that Mrs. Wright was going ahmml. This was just after Mr. Anne,- ley, the defendant's attorney. had called upon the latter and haul dined with him. in Tavistock-square, the defendant kept two man servants. and two maid servants. Ile was quite sure that the defendant and 51 rs. Wright slept together in Tavistoek-square. Hester Patterson. the wife of the last witness, corroborated the fact of the defendant's living with Mrs. IVright, as man and wife in Tauis tock-square. Mary Dryer lived servant to Mrs. Wright in October last. Mr. Wright was then absent upon a voyage to the East India. Mrs. Wright then lived in New-street. Foundling Hospital. The defendant was a comtant visitor at Mrs. Wright's. Witness 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 sva, dark she could not speak positively as to his identity. Isabella Delpini, 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. Cross-examined.—She had never visited Mrs. Wright, except in her professional character. She had delivered her of twins a few years since. Here the case closed fur the plaintiff. Tho Solicitor-General rose on the part of the defendant. He prefaced his obscrs ations on the case Ly observing, that it was impossible to defend or justify the criminal connection of one Milli with the wife of another. But in this rase, as in all other cases, there were shades of character which in fact defined the na ture. of the offence—different circumstances altered its com plexion, and dictated the amount of damages which it became a Jury to give. In the present case there were some singular and peculiar features which distinguished it from others. Here was a gentleman, the plaintiff in this cause, professing to leave his wife, when his avocations absented him limn her, in proper society, well protected, and with ample means for her support ; if he had made out his case, and :hat under such circumstan ces the affections of his wife had been estranged from her by a seducer, then indeed lie would have a right to demand from a Jury excessive damages. But was that the case here? The plaintiff knew perfectly well who Madame Storace and Mr. Witham were, and 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, as well as Mrs. Wright, was in the habit of passing her time with them; that is, in plain Engli,h, in familiar and inti mate association with a man and his mistress. Now it could not be concealed that in 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 the crowded concourse at rotates, assemblies, fetes, and dejeunes, great professional abilities were always a passport, without reference to the immediate moral habits of individuals —and ? because neither men nor their mistresses could influence such assemblies, nor did their appearance there im ply any thing like familiar intimacy with the party. There was in fact no contagion in their pretence—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 remembered to have beard it observed, that on such eceasions, however objectionable the momentary as sociation, it was vet not calehmg. But he was afraid that in smaller circles in private life it was caching, and he was per suaded that no husband who felt for his outs honour, and the character of his wife, who wished her (as lie ought), like Caesar's wife, to be above suspicion, could for a moment stutter her to hold an intimacy, or allow the visits of those, who, though ad missible in public company, were not the most tit 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 lie in a great degree diminished his claim fur ulterior compensation, 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, in her tarn, became a mistress also. It was in evidence, that Mrs. Wright was in the habit Of going with Mr. Brahma to Herne-hill. Now Ile was instrnrtcd that the di , froth:met rotild in evidence further show, that the plainness neg ligence as to his wife wits more 111.111 that before his last voyage. He had angered au iiit imitcy between hit wife and the il-feadant, which no met of delicacy or affinities sense VUUlli bit as Instant allow. [fonder such cireutaststiees he had not respected 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 Lama's Coadoitateeet and Verne-lull; but it was 111111:(11:11'. twat none of the witnesses proved that Mr. Brahma lived in it.e toriner with dlr. and Mrs. Wright. Now, lie would prove JULY 29. that such was the fiu•t. and that Ali. Wright was privy to it. When the defendant was with Mrs. W. she was denied to every node else, even her own 1111Sb/1111i walked out. A husband who could be so easily satisfied, had no right to compiaim that if he bad nourished a Slllytilarillg 11/1111P, it at leugth found a vent and binned itself into a Maze; he had 110 right to hose his story told in a Court of Josh , c with sympathy for I • self. It would also be proved, that so late as eleven o'clock at night, Mr. Brabant had called at the plaintitiss house, Is hen be was himself at home, and taken his wile away on a visit to whet.. she staid that night, and longer. On some occasions the ace of the would account for such volatility, but here was an experienced lady, thirty seven years of age, who must be supposed to know and feel the consequence of such acts. Ifthose facts be proved, as he was instructed theywould he, if thi y did not go the length of calling for a verdict tar the defendant, they would at least reduce the claim for damages to a mere nominal sum. 'I he defendant, like every other wen in the profession of w hick he was all ornament, depended fin' his means of life on the estimation of his talents in the public est.. In an inquiry of this Port, he stood in so delicate a si tuation, that he ought rot to be prejudged, or incoosiderately condemned. This delicacy was occasioned by that pood and honest principle of to. rats about Joiia Bak which led him to make a rigorous comment upon the mural characters of those dramatic personages, over whom he holds ■n exclusive and commanding control—'this was a feeling salutary in itself, and one of which he (the Solicitor• General) was proud for his country. Hitcyet it was, from the nature of things, zealous, and sometimes rash in its decisions—it W. 4 therefore right to protect an individual from the eveess or 14 operation. Ile therefore felt it incumbent upon him to point out to the Jury, that in this case there was no wanton or profligate violation of friendship on the pait of the deli 'Maid. It w•a; 110 such cir cumstance. lie haul notoriously fallen into the al ins - iii a mistress, with the eyes of the husband wide open. The latter was therefere deprived of that right which other men, who poed differently. would has e u right to receive the besitlit of from the hands of a seducer. Mary Clarke and Elizabeth Bavvr.oack, who had lived with Mr. and Mrs. Wright in Lamb's Cunduit-street. during the year Itsl4, awl pail of the year ISIS. proved that Mr. Witham was in the constant habit of visiting at Mr. Wright's; that Mrs. Wright frequently sat up for hours after her husband was gone to bed; that she often went o u ► in the defendant's carriage with him alone; and that the defendant fre quently slept in the plaintiff's lodgings in tounb's Conduit-street. . . The case of the defendant being closed, Mr. Serjeant Lens rase to reply, and observed, that Its 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 s so far the plaintiff might, perhaps, be blameable. But could such an unsusideions confidence on his part be misconstrued into an absolute license on his part? Certainly not, nor any thing like it. lithe whole of the evidence for the defendant could be soppeitil to im!ily the easy conniva.ice of the hits baud to his own disgrace, where was the necessity for the defendant's carrying away the woman? Did it sound like common sense, that with such such open intercourse as it was attempted to establish, with such a facility and accommodation fur his pur pose, he wankd be driven to the necessity of carry ing away the object of his pr,ssion, and thereby publishing to the world the whole story of the intercourse? That the plaintiff, in his ins plicit confidence, had been wrong, no one could doubt—that he was connected with unguarded circumstauces, might also he surmised; but it should be recollected, that matters which, when committed, appear trivial and not worthy of notice, are oftentimes, by subsequent steps, rendered glaring and impor tant. then, was the unsuspecting and confideutial friend and h to divine his own disgrace in the spirit of pro phecy? ,onsidering the intimacy that subsisted between him and Mr. Rraham, there could be nothing thought of from the late hours of his visits. Mr. B. was in the evening profession ally occupied. If he slept in town, he came occasionally to Mr. Wright's, to save the expellee of a town residence. If Mr. or Mrs. Wright wished to go to Herne-hill, they availed themselves of his carriage, either by day or night, as it suited their convenience. If the Jury could believe that conduct, fur which the plaintiff could so fairly and rationally account, had a right to be weighed against him, they would of course, lean that way. If, on 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 puffer more than he had done by such unsuspecting intercourse. Sir Virary Gibbs, in charging the Jury, said, that the Coun sel no both sides had put 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 subject to a va riety of shades, according to the facts of the case. It was on those facts that the Jury were to found their vendet; and from those circumstances of alleviation (it' any there be), that they were to measure their damages. The facts proved, in the pre sent case, furnished a striking instance of the danger that at tended a deviation from the strict and decent rules of propriety. It exemplified, that when persons indulged in a course of life that cannot be justified, they not only contaminate them selves, bat taint whatever approaches them by contact. This observation arose from the circumstance, that the only allevia tion which the delimilant's Counsel was instructed to make, fur the act of the defendant, was, that, living in the state in which lie did, the plaintiff hail carelessly antlered an intimacy to sub sist with his fancily. The Learned Judge made some strong al animadversions upon this feature its the ease. In consi derations of this kind a Jury had Letter take a middle cours:., and well consider, that though the plaintiff hail diminished his claim fur damages, bv allowing such an intercourse as that which had 1.111040 A fl ' elWeell 1104 41114 and the defendant, it by mu means follow ed, that, a hen he committed his wife to such society, he had consigned her without rust rve into the arms of a seducer. He had also the natural confidence iu her behalf, which the age of his wife afforded. When he married her she was a %Wow, of the age of 30, with three children. When the .ntiinary with Mr. Witham was cariied on, she was 37 years 'frue, indeed, he allows d her to mix with such company ; but this fact, faulty as it certainly was, did not deprive him of his remedy against the act of the di fundant. The Learned Judge here recapitulated the evidence to the Jury, anal com mented on each part of it with his 111TUFW111141 perspicnity ; leasing to them to determine, from the retrospect, the 4111Ulliwn of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled, under ail the circumstances of his case. The Jury, after a eunmdtaiion cf ten minute'', returned a ‘r edict fur tht Plainnti—Darnages, One Thou Atria founds. BRECON CIRCUIT. Prestrigne, Monday, Auptst 26. B, own, Satunlay, Aurubt 31. Cardiff; Saturday, brirtaaulwr I) . l u. a