The National Register. — London, England, 1816-01-07 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER. SHERIFF'S COURT, Bedford Row, Jan. 3. —......-- CRIM CON. RUIDALL V. VAVASOUTt. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who had been a subaltern officer in the Devonshire militia, against the defendant, a Captain of Engineers, for a compensation in damages for cri minal conversation with the plaintiff's wife, who is the daughter of the late Sir James Dunbar, and represented to be a very beau tiful and a:Tomplished woman. The damages were laid at 5,0001. A special Jury was summoned on the occasion. Mr. Serjeant Onslow, and Mr. Serjeant Best, were retained for the plaintiff' and Mr. Espinasse appeared for the defendant. Mr. Serjeant Best having apologised to the Jury for not rising from which he said he was prevented by a severe visitation of the gout, proceeded to opeu the case. It was a case of much peculiarity, and he was fully aware that his learned opponent Vould avail himself as much as possible of the circumstance of the plaintiff and his wife not living together at the time the adul terous transaction took place. This separation, he should be able to prove, arose from a virtuous desire on the part of the plaintiff to secure his wife from distress and misery. The learned Seijeant then proceeded to state the facts. The plain tiff was the son of an attorney, who, at his death, had made such a provision for his family as to be enabled to give 20001. fortune to h:s son (the plaintiff) who obtained a commission in the De sonshire militia. The regiment was then stationed at Liver- pool, where Sir J. Dunbar resided, and the plaintiff had not long been there before he became enamoured of the daughter of Sir James, and the consequence was that a marriage took place. She had no fortune; it would therefore appear that the match was made out of pure affection on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff finding that his commission, and what i einained of I:'s small fortune, would not keep her in the state to which she had always been accustomed, determined to retire from the regiment and proceed to some obscure place, where they could live cheaper. They accordingly retired to Cullumpton, in De vonshire, where they resided some sime. The plaintiff's wife, however, becoming ill, she was advised to have the benefit of the sea air, and they removed to Toignmouth . for the recovery of her health. Here one distress accumulated on another, until the plaintiff's means became exhausted, notwithstanding there having been a strict attention paid to rigid economy. The plaintiff was shortly afterwards made father of a daughter. This circumstance added to their distress, and the plaintiff made an application to her father,Sir James Dunbar, to receive her into his house, which he readily acceded to, but unfortunately died a short time afterwards. The plaintiff had in his youth acquired a very extensive knowledge of music, and from the period of his wife returning to her father became a teacher of music, and thereby obtained a scanty subsistance. The learned Serjeant then proceeded to ask, what could be the state of the lady's mind •' 1 can (said the learned gentlemen) inform you as to her dis position, by her letters and behaviour. Letters addressed to I ar husband can have no disguise, but must come from the heart. Smiles, it might be said, might be put on and off, as clothes are suited to the weather; but language in a letter must come from the heart. I am, gentlemen, instructed not to add one pang to those already felt so poignantly by the family. Sit James Dunbar is since dead, and there is a lady now trembling t e e n the next room, an aged widow , w ho could s p eak to the unin rrupted affection of the parties previously to this transaction ; ut 1 dont wish to introduce her, if it can possibly be avoided." The learned Serjeant then produced two letters, written by the laintiff's wife to her husband. One bore date the 27th July, 812, the other, although written a short time before, had no slate. Mr. Espinasse objected to their being read in evidence. A long argument then ensued on the part of Mr. Serjeant Qnslow and Mr. Serjeant Best. The objection, however, was field good, and the letters were consequently not read. Mr. Seijeant Best submitted to the judgment of the Sheriff. He should therefore confine himself to narrating the circum iltances under which the defendant became acquainted with the p laintiff's wife. The defendant is an officer in the army , a Laptain of Engineers, whose income he undeistood was 10001. JAN. 7. per annum. At the Cape of Good Hope he had associated with a Captain James Dunbar, brother to the lady in question. On his return he (the defendant) took a tour to Paris, where be met Sir William Dunbar, an elder brother; he introduced himself to Sir William in consequence of having seen the Captain at the Cape of Good Hope. Sir William and the defendant, from this period became intimately acquainted, and he was afterwards introduced to Lady Dunbar, at whose house he continued some time; and here he availed himself of the opportunity of insult. ;ng the family. and of violating every law of hosp italit y and hu manity, by seducing and taking away the affcctwas and uersou of the plaintiff's wife. The Learned Serjeant then read the fol lowing letter, sent to the brother of the plaintiff's wife, and animadverted on it with considerable energy " Sir,—From your sister's letter to lady Dunbar, she has been led to expect a further communication to account for my sudden disappearance. 1 wish it was in my power to convey more grateful intelligence, or that our union could have taken place sooner, under more favourable circumstances. I feel it 'duty I owe to your family, to say that y ou r sister is living w... me in the character of wife ; this letter is intended to release you all from that painful state of suspense you must be under. do not intend to defend my conduct. I have acted under the influence of an attachment,which I found impossible to subdue, and which unfortunately was returned by . your sister. My incli nations and affections are not depraved—the lady that . possesses them, I am in hopes will become my wife ; rest assured she has fallen into the power of a man who will dedicate his whole life to her service, and will treasure her up with the highest degree of affection. Ido sincerely hope the violence of my feelings, and the peculiarity of your sister's situation, will operate in favour of yours, faithfully, Sm. " HENRY VAVASOIJR. " P.S. A letter addressed to your sister, under cover to me at my law agents, will be carefully forwarded. -" To J. Dunbar, Esq. Portman Square. London. Mr. Serjeant Best then observed to the Jury, that they want. ed no other proof than this letter, for nothing could be better evidence, and for the loss the plaintiff had sustained no damages their verdict could give would be a compensation. The learned Gentleman concluded by defying his learned antagonist to pro duce a scrap of evidence to impeach the character of the husband or wife at any former period of their lives. A lady, who stated herself to be a milliner, residing in Bond- Street, knew the family of Sir James Dunbar; knew the plaintiff's wife; they had a child. The family bad removed to Town from Lixerpool. Witness knew Mrs. Rudall's hand-writing ; the letters produced were in her hand-writing. (These were the letters objected to be read.) Cross examined—At 16 years of age Mrs. Rudall was taken from her father's house by the plaintiff; and married at Gretna Green. He was a Lieutenant in the North Devon Militia. The plaintiff and his wife had lived in a state of separation for two or three years; did . not know that she had thrown herself upon her family. itness bad seen Captain Vavasour and Mrs. Rudall at her house together. Re-examined —Captain Vavasour came with her and a lady in a carriage. Henry Wm. Marriott, a gentleman in the office of Green wood and Cox, proved that the letter above inserted was the hand-writing of Captain Vavasour. When he was employed, he had but 1I s. id. per day, subject to income-tax : when on foreign service his income was double; he was now a Ca thatanise through their office. Cross-examined—He had been employed far the last tell years on foreig n service. This closed the case for prosecution. Mr. Espinasse for the defendant, addressed the Jury at con siderable length in mitigation of damages, but did not call a single witness. He strongly urged his poverty, and observed , that if the Jury awarded heavy damages, the young man who had been 10 years fighting the battles of his country, must be incarcerated within the walls of a prison ; for the Jury must be well aware that, under such circumstances, he could not claim