The Express.
London, England, 1862-12-02 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 2, 1862.

lab) intelltstnce.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Dec. 1.

Sittinp at Eiti Prins after Term at Westtaiaster.—(Bdore

Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)

BATEMAN V. WINDILAY.---titt. AND MR& ViniDHABI.

(Concluded from yesterday's Ezpreu.)
Mr. Kerslake, in opening the case on the part of the de-
fence, said that though the slim claimed in this action was
trifling, it was only one of a series of claims against Mr.
Windham, and, therefore, involved an important principle.
lie would not go through the history of the early connec-
tion of Mr. and Mrs. Windham. They were all aware who
Mrs. Windham was, and what her life was before Mr. Wind-
ca became infatuated with her and married her, and the only
question was whether Mr. Windham was liable for this and
the other debts which she had contracted under similar cir-
cumstances. He contended that he was not liable. Mrs.
Windham was • lady living under the protection of a gentle-
man, or gentlemen, when he became attracted by her beauty,
and when he married her in August, 1861, he warn • minor,
and a ward in the Court of Chancery, or had only just es-
caped from that court. For what purpose that marriage
was brought about was not material to the present inquiry,
but there could be no doubt that it was with the view of
getting the extravagant settlement which was made
in that event. In addition to other benefits she
derived under such settlement an annuity of
8001. a year was settled on her until 1869, and after
that period she was to receive 1,5001. a year, charged on the
Felbrigg and other estates in Norfolk. Almost up to
the moment of her marriage she was living with some
other gentleman, but she accompanied her husband
abroad and remained with him • week in Paris.
From the moment he married her he had no control over
her of any sort or kind. She did what she liked, went
where she liked, and would listen to no remonstrance on his
part. They came back from Paris in the early part of Sep-
tember, and lived together at Felbrigg for a short time. He
whaled her to remain there and be the mistress of his house,
but she went against his will, and the object of her leaving
afterwards became apparent. She was acquainted with a
person of whom she was much fonder than Mr. 'Windham,
and went with him to Dublin and elsewhere, and lived with
him in open and barefaced adultery. At the latter end of
December, 1861, proceedings in lunacy were commenced
against Mr. Windham, and continued through the whole
of that month and January following. During the whole
of that period she remained away from Felbrigg against
Mr. Windham's will, although every comfort and
henry were provided for her there, including car-
rages and horses. She chose, however, to remain away, but
she was provided with ample funds, and, besides the pro-
ceeds of the settlement, she had jewels of great value. She
lived in open adultery with the person in question, • ringer
of great eminence, at Clarendon-gardens ; and if she chose
to leave her husband, and more especially for the purpose of
committing adultery with other men, she could not legally
pledge her husband's credit for debts contracted
by her while living in that immoral state.
She actually drove about in these very broughams with her
paramour. Mr. Windham during this time remained at
Felbrigg, and was totally ignorant of the career she was
pursuing. Under these circumstances he was clearly not re-
sponsible for the debt now sought to be recovered.
Mr. Frederick William Windham, the defendant, was
then called, and examined by Mr. Rarslake. He said—l
married my wife in August, 1861. Her name wail Agnes
Ann Rogers, but she passed under the name of Willoughby.
Before then she had been living under the protection of a
gentleman. After the marriage we went to Paris, and re-
mained there a fortnight. The eldest sister of my wife
went with me. 1 was then on good terms with my wife.
In September we came to London and stayed a night at
Morley's Hotel ; next morning we went home to Felbrigg.
That was on the 16th or 17th. We remained together at
Felbrigg until the beginning of October. She then went
away without me, and went to Dublin. She said her
doctor recommended her to go there. She remained away
a fortnight or three weeks, and then came back to Felbrigg.
She remained there until the middle of November, and
then went away again. I stayed at Felbrigg until the com-
mission of lunacy wasopened in December. When she left
she did so against my consent, and I did not know where
she went to. The commission lasted through December and
January. I first mot her outside bare during the inquiry.
I requested her to come back, and she said she would
after the trial. She kept away from me until
the Bth February last. I did not know that she was living
at Clsrendon.gardens until Mr. Davies informed me after
the trial. I had nothing to do with taking the house.
I bad carriages and horses at Felbrigg, and also some car-
riages in London. I had a phaeton in town during the
trial. I had also a brougham at my house, 132, Piccadilly.
She could have lived there if she chose. After the Bth
„ .

February she remained with me three weeks at Felbrigg.
Afterwards she came to Loudon to see the doctor, on the
ground of being ill. She went to • house I bad provided
for her in town in Clifton.ganlens. When I went up there
she had gone. I understand that she afterwards went to
Spain. In August, 1862, I was reconciled to bar. She kept
on writing letters begging and praying me to let her come
back. At last I found that it was impossible to bear with
her any longer. I lived with her in Westbourne-terraoe in
July. and in August we went on an excursion in a yacht to
Boulogne. I know nothing as to what she did between the
31st January and Sth February, or where she was. I was
never at Clarendon-gardens in my life. I don't know Mr.
Bateman, the plaintiff. I never bald I would pay him the
bill if it were 100/. 1 once met a man dressed like • Nor-
folk pig-dealer, who informed me that be had received •
cheque from Mrs. Windham, signed by me. (Laughter.)
I said that was very probable, but I knew nothing about it.
I took the house at 10, Clifton-gardens, for her for • month.
That was in February last. I paid 21 guinea to the auctioneer
for the month. She went there on the Saturday and left on
. .

the Monday. I never saw the plaintiff at Hampton races.
I left Eton at Christmas, ism. I was with my mother at
Torquay in 18.57, and in 1858 I was at a private tutor's. I ern
now 22 years of age.
Crum-examined by Mr. Muddleston—l was at Hampton
races with my mother about three yearn ago. That is the
only time I ever was there. I don't know that my wife's
illness was caused by me.
Were younot labouriog from disease'—l might have been.
Were yon Lot ill at the time you married Miss Wil-
loughby ?—I decline to answer any such questions. They
have nothing to do with this me.
Was it not in consequence of her illness, communicated by
you, that she came up to town ?—I decline to answer the

_
. .
question.
Mr. Baron Martin—l think he is quite justified in
saying so.
Defendant—The first time she left me she went to Dublin,
and not to see a doctor. The doctor saw her at Felbrigg-
hall first, and she came to town to see him in February.
I believe she was ill whilst she was away from me.
Mr. Buddleston—Was she ill when she was with you ?
Defendant—l shall not answer the question. Yates, my
pad groom, did not tome to London with Mrs. Windham.
S' be would not let him go with ber. I don't know if Messrs.
Gregory, my solicitors, have applied to the plaintiff for the
amount of this bill. I gave them instructions after the trial
to get in all my bills and settle them. I assisted to get out
a list. We put down Mrs. Windham's debts as far as we
could ascertain. I can't recollect if the plaintiff's
bill was among the lot. My solicitors were in-
structed to get in all the bills and discharge
them. I heard from Mr. Davies of Mrs. Windham leaving
Clareudon•gardens. I saw her twice daring the trial. She
drove down in her brougham to Westminster-hall. I spoke
to her on each occasion in the presence of my solicitor, but
I don't recollect if I shook hands with her. She told me
she was staying at the Euston-square Hotel, but I did not
go there to see hor. I lid not see her after she left Felbrigg-
hall till I saw ber io the brougham. I made no inquiries
about her. I hired Clifton-gardens. When she saw macho
asked nie how the trial was going on. I did not make a
disturbance at Clifton-gardeos. There was no party there
at the time I went there, only my servants. My footman
was there in possession of the plate. I was not going to
leave it there except in charge of my servant. I had no
chance of living there with Mrs. Windham. She
went there on Saturday. I went back to lelbrigg-ball,
and when I came up again on the Monday she was
gone. (Laughter, in which the defendant heartily joined.)
1 think her running away from Clifton-gardens is the seine
as her running away from Felbrigg-ball. I went to live with
her at Westbourne-terrace in July in consequence of the
letters I received from her solicitor, and also from herself,
is which the begged me to come back, sad she would live
quietly with me. I remained there with her about two
months—till I found what she bad been at again. (Laughter.)
I afterwards learned that she had been to Spain and
Dublin.
Mr. Huddleston—Did you know whom she had been with
to Dublin?
Defendant—She said with the opera company. (Laughter.)
That is all I know about it.
Had you beard that she had been living with Giuglini ?
I heard many reports, but nothing positive. 1 made no in-
quiries. I did not trouble myself about it. I did not in-
quire where she had been before I went back to live with
her. She asked me to forgive her for what bad passed.
For what were you to forgive her!—That I can't tell.
Had you not learnt that she had been living with this
opera singer!—Not positively.
Had you not reason to believe it?—l never saw them
together.
Did she promise to give him up ?—She said nothing to me
about it? (Laughter.)
Did you not make inquiries about it!—No ; I minded my
own business, not hers. When I went beck to her in July
I did not ask her where she bad been. I had signed a deed
of separation, and l bad no ream° to ask her. I heard she
was living in Westbournoterrace alone.
Whom did you-hear she had been in Dublin with!—Her
sister ands servant.
Not with Giuglini?-oh, yes ; with the opera company.
There ware reports that she had been seen with Giuglini.
Having signed a deed of separation I had nothing more to
think of her. I heard enough about Giuglini during the
trial. I have beard that Giuglini used to visit her in the
day.time—l suppose at Clarendon-gardens. I don't know
where she was hying.
Did you not think it worth your while to inquire?
Defendant—Certainly not During the trial I was ad.
vised by my *elicitors not to do so. I had my interests to
look after then. not hers. (Laughter.)
Were yea at Clifton-gardens on the 28th February ?
I was there about two hours. I never saw • void there
except the footman, sad I went back to Shoreditth Sta-
tion. I moonset a shabbily dressed man looking, es we
should may in Norfolk, "like • pig dealer,* said something
to me as I got into the cab. It night have been the plain-
tiff, but he Is dressed differently now. I don't know the

plaintiff. I don't recollect what I said to the person who
accosted me on that occasion.
Re-examined—Mrs Windham had left me before the
trial, or she could have gore to my house in Piccadilly. Sho
never honoured me with her presence there. I had no con-
trol over her. She would do as she liked. (Laughter.)
When she left me she went alone. I advertised In the
papers tbat in consequence of her scandalous conduct I
would not be answerable for her debte, and I directed my
solicitor to get in my bills and diachargo them. A separa-
tion took place in June, IBG2, by which I was not to molest
her, and I should not have gone near her afterwards if she
bad not bothered my life out. (laughter.) She took a
house in Westbourne-terrace, and paid for it out of her own
money. Sho was constantly writing to me, and I wont
back. I spent a great deal of money, and I then separated
from her again.
-

Mary Ann Dicker deposed—l was in Mrs. Windham's
service in 1861 and 1862. I was with her at Bilborough-
house, St. John's-wood, at Manchester. Newcastle, Claren-
don-gardens, and other places. I was in her service before
her marriage, when she was under the protection of a
gentleman. The first time I saw her after her marriage
was at the Easton Hotel. She afterwards went to Glasgow.
I went into her service when she returned to Bilborough-
house. She kept a French servant, John Foyle, who
acted as footman, myself, and there was a cook for a short
time. I attended on her. The first or second day I was
sent for to light a fire in the bedroom. She and Giuglini
were in bed togther at the time. He lived in the house for
a fortnight or three weeks.
Mr. Iluddleston—Where did you say you saw them?
Mr. Baron Martin—You have got them in bed together,
what do you want more ? (Laughter.)
Mr. Keane—How often did yon see them in bed together?
Witness—Every night.
Did they appear to be living as man and wife?
Witness—l believe so. (Laughter.) They did the tams
at Liverpool and Manchester. When she lived at Clarendon-
gardens Giuglini came at night and left in the morning.
In what part of the house used he to spend the night!
Witness—ln the bedroom. (Laughter.)
And did you see them together as man and wife in the
house? . . . _ _

Wamea—l suppose so. I saw them in bed together.
That lasted up to the time of Mrs. Windham going to
Felbrigg-hall on the Bth February. I have not lived with
her since.

—.
Cross-examined—l went to Felbrigg-ball with her.
John Foyle did not. He was Mrs. Windham's servant. I
did not mention to any one that she was living with
Giuglini. I was not asked.
John Foyle deposed—l went with Mrs. Windham in 1856,
when she was Miss Willoughby. I acted as her coachman,
and drove her about town. She was then living in Orchard-
street under the protection of a gentleman. I first knew
Giuglini from his visiting her these. Before her marriage
I used to drive her to Somers-terrace, Brampton, where
Giuglini resided. I recollect the marriage taking place in
1861, a week or a fortnight after I saw her at the Easton
Hotel. 1 then went into her service again, and
at her direction I went to Mr. Poole's, and was mea-
sured for my clothes. I went with her to Bilborough-
house ; Giuglini came there to live. Mrs. Windham was
living with Giuglini at the time of the lunacy inquiry.
Mrs. Windham accompanied Giuglini on a professional tour.
I was left in charge o the house. I have taken bills up to
the bedroom, and seen them in bed together as man and
wife. It wee the same at Clarendon-gardens. Giuglini
used to go out in the brougham with her. I never saw the
defendant at Bilborough-house or Clarendon-gardens.
Mrs. Dicker was recalled—l never saw Mr. Windham at
either of the ab3ve places.
The deed was then put in by which Mrs. Windham was
entitled to an income of 8601. a year.
This was the defendant's one.

Mr. Baron Martin said that being so, he was prepared to
ten the jury that if they believed the defendant a witnesses
be was entitled to the verdict.
Mr. Huddlestoo said in that case it would be idle for him
to struggle with the case further. Assuming adultery had
been committed, would not the condonation in Westbourne-
terrace make the defendant liable? The conversation
that he proved on the 2dth of February was a recognition of
the wife's authority to pledge her husband's credit.
Mr. Baron Martin said that probably in the case of a kept
woman it might, but not in that of a wife.
Mr. Huddleston said then probably his lordship would
give him an o rtuoity of challenging that ruling.
Mr. Baron Martin said he did not want leave. Ile could
move without it. Be should direct the jury that by law a
married woman could to a certain extent biod her husband,
but if she were living apart from him and committed adul-
tery she absolutely destroyed her agency and ceased to have
any power to bind her husband, and every contract she
made under those circumstances was void as against the
husband. Condonation bad no effect, for the contract
arises here at the moment it was made and the work
and labour done, and anything that subsequently weed
between the plaintiff and defendant could not at all affect
his liability. In point of law be never was liable, and it
was not only law, but reason and common sense.
The jury then returned a verdict for the defendant.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.—Dec. 1.
Sitting in Error.—(Before Justices Wiegman, Williams,
Crompton, Willem, and Blackburn.)