The National Register. — London, England, 1809-12-10 00:00:00

DEC. 10. the Defendant. It appeared that in the course of the year 1808. and soon after the birth of her youngest child, Mrs. Taunton tad formed the most intimate habits of connection with the Wy borne family, and that her affections were gradually alienated from aer husband, In order to facilitate the criminal intercourse which then began to take place between her and the Defendant, the latter took an unfurnished room in the house of a Mrs. Stewart, in New Boswelhcourt, for which he paid a rent of 151. a year. This was in the month of March last, and here the parties used to meet together twice or thrice a week, and passed about two hours in this lodging. To the peo ple of the house, Mr. Wyborne gave himself out to be a person of the name of Jones, and that the Lady whom he met there was a person to whom he was paying his addresses, and whom he .meant to marry ; and that they were obliged to have recourse to that method of seeing each other, because the match was not agreeable to the parents of the Lady. The win dows of the room were overlooked by a female who inhabited another house, and the shutters were always closed when the Defendant and Mrs Taunton were together. For about four or five weeks the pretended Mr. Jones did not visit the lodgings at all, and it appeared that, during that time, Mr. Wyborne was absent from tow nen the Spring circuit. Before his return to town, a variety of articles of furniture were pill into this lodg ing, such as chairs, tables, a carpet, sofa, &c. and the mutual visits of the parties were again rene4ed asbefore, twice or thrice a week. At last the suspicions of the unfortunate husband were excited by a variety of circumstances; and Mrs. Taunton having chanced to drop a note addressed to Mrs. Jones, at this house at Boswell-court, a discovery of the intercourse which took place between them, was the natural consequence. The proofs of criminal connection were rather of an inferential na ture than direct in their tendency, such as the parties being do sited in the room for hours tog ether , the sofa being found much tumbled on their departure, an ether circumstances of a similar nature. • •,. The circumstances set up by the Defendant in mitigation of damages were of a very extraordinary nature. A female of the name of Anne Bell, who had been a servant in the house of the •Plaintiff, was brought forward. She had previously been pre vailed upon to make two affidavits, which asserted circumstances as coming within her knowledge, which materially affected the character of the Plaintiff. One of these was, that she bad wit nessed such gross indecency on the part of the Plaintiff as to have seen him in bed with his wife and wife's sister at the same time. This, however, was expressly contradicted by another female servant, who swore, that the circumstances which gave occasion to this most nefarious allegation, were these :--Mrs. Taunton's sister, a lady of the name of Breeze, who lived near town, happeied one night to have gone to the Opera, and it being rather too late to return home, she very naturally agreed to sleep in Essex-street ; but a Mr. Popplewell and his wife' being also there, all the beds were occupied, and Mrs. Taunton's sister slept upon a bed-chair in the loom adjoining her sister's bed-room, merely wrapping herself up in flannel, and that when , Mr. Taunton rose in the morning, she went to bed to her sister, in order to enjoy some more comfortable repose. It was also deposed on the trial, that this Anne Bell had said to some of her fellow-servants, that if ever she was brought into a Court of Justice on this business, she would be d—d if she spoke ever a word of truth. This Anne Bell had also swore, that Mrs. Taun ton was rendered very twhappy by the ill usage of her husband; but this likewise was contradicted by other evidence. Impu tations were also attempted to be thrown on the character of MN. Taunton, previous to the criminal intercourse with the Defendant, arising from circumstances which occurred at Broad stairs in the summer of 180 S, while her husband was in Lon don; such as having slept out from her lodgings one night, and another time having been accompanied home by an Officer at an unseasonable hour. Upon the exam nation of the evidence, however, it did not appear that there was any thin.. serious M these insinuations . was also insinuated, that • 114. Taunton, having a Lieutenant Daly to dine with him alone, one day, ask ed the. latter to go with him to a brothel. This, however ; was expressly contradicted by Mr. Daly. After the evidence had been gone thrt'ugh, the Attorney Ge neral made a most energetic reply, in which he reprobated with great severity the conduct of the Defendant, who had not only ruined the domestic happiness of the• Plaintiff by the seduction of his wife, but now, by what he had set up in mitigation of damages, had attempted to do him still greater injury, and to ()last his character for ever, in the - estimation of all the world. lie was confident, however, that this most insidkous attempt, kintead of, ccdouudiiit to the attlyttatage of the . Defendant, would • 791 render his conduct still more detestable in the eyes of the Jury, and induce them to give, without hesitation, all the damages which the Plaintiff had laid.—lndeed, he was sorry that the damages had pot been laid at a much higher amount, as high as any damages that had ever been given, for convinced he was that they would be but a slender compensation for the irrepara ble injury which the Plaintiff's domestic comfort had received, and the mortal stab that had been aimed at his reputation. Sorry be was, that such a character as the Defendant belonged to the honourable profession of the law ; would not say that he had disgraced his profession, but he had brought indelible disgrace upon himself. As if it was not enough to have se duced the affections of the Plaintiff's wife, to have destroyed his domestic comfort and happiness, he had now attempted also to ruin his moral character, and that by means of a K itness whom he had previously bound down by extracting from her two several affidavits, and who had been guilty of as gross un blushing perjury as ever appeared in a Court of Justice. He trusted the Jury would give most exemplary damages ; be understood the Defendant was able to bear them; hut what ever might be the case as to that, he mast also remind the Jury, that though the circumstances of a Defendant in an action of this kind might be far from affluent, yet this did not exempt him from suffering the consequences of his own misconduct. Lord ELLENBOROVGU charged the Jury at some length. The first point for their consideration was, whether the fact of adultery was proved or not. Now, in cases of this kind, occu-. lar proof was neither necessary, nor to be expected, witit re gard to transactions which naturally avoided the inspection of every human eye and therefore inferential proof was all tha k t, in most cases, could either be expected or required. • The Jury returned a verdict for the 4laiut4f—Damagcs, 8000!. The action Wardle v. Wright and others, for a conspiracy, is postponed to Monday, on the application of the Attorney General. The Duke of Kent, it is said, is one of the wit.- nesses subpcentad. CREW. CON.—SATURDAY, DEC. 9. BOYD V. WHITE. This was an action to sustain damages for criminal inter" course with the Plaintiff's wife. The ATTORN CY GENERAL for the Plaintiff, described iris client as a Clerk in the Custom House, of a salary of about five or fix hundred pounds a year; and the Defendant was a Merchant in the city, who kept his horse and grown. The Plaintiff had married his wife, who was a Miss Hind, the daughter of an eminent Surgeon in 1807 ; and until she be came acquainted with the Defendant, who was a good looking young man, Mr. and Mrs. Boyd lived on the most afii,ctionate terms. Her conduct was lately discovered to have materially varied; and instead of conducting herself as an affectionate wife, her deportment was careless, and her behaviour unkind. Mr. Boyd had reasons to suspect her fidelity, and on the 7th cf. September he left his house in Coratn street, under pretence of going on business to Oxford fur a week. Mrs. B— affected much uneasiness at his departure. On the follow in; , morning, a maid-servant, who was in the confidence of it: .r master, saw the Defendant and Mrs. Boyd walking together in tpe neighbour hood. In the evening of the same clay, the Defendant was secn in the fields, at the back of Mr. Boyd's house, and he hail not been there many minutes before Mrs. Boyd went out, and thPy walked off together. They called a coach in Guildiord-sreeo, and hay ing been safely set dawn at the Key Hotel, Chandos-strer the people who were on the watch, were conve3ed Itisrl e same coach to the Plaintiff, who returned in it to the key. Mrs. Clarke the hostess denied the lady, and whilst in a par ley with the Plaintiff, Miss Clarke, the daughter, went up stalks. Mr. Boyd was invited to sit down in the parlour, and whilst in that situation, bliss, Clark attempted to get Mrs. B-4- sect etly out of the house, hut the husband detected her, and she exclaimed, " Oh, Charles, the man has not irOured, mr," Mr. PARK, for the Defendant, observed that his Client was a clerk without salary in a hose in the city. The case he still mined was not of a nature to call for large damages, as the De fendant bad made no breach of hospitality ; nor did he ever know the Plainiiff. He was an uoexperienced youth, under twenty. Lord ELLENDOROUGH was of opinion, that under, ail the circumstances, heavy damages should not be given, and the w i ta of the . Plaintiff appeared to, have beau the cause of her.sedoc ' tioo.—Damages 2001. IF 4•• as • • THE NATIONAL REGISTER.