The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-17 00:00:00

•
during her illness about twice a with. She was wafted to
'her bed nine days, and, the defendant went to wisher Omar
41—* L; :inteumet At ether times witness had • Aira
at grit Roosou's bed-resan window. She en.* reatheed an
levitation frees Mr. Reding to senotepiney We* and elm
Babson to the theatre, but she declined. to go. Mr. audio,
Ina with Mrs. Rohm the whole of the day that she 'eh
her house. Mn Rube, 011 ae.lie end letters to her servant,
from tins to time, to oe Pus, Into the peat
• Emma Smith, the le; rant, was here called to prove that
she was in the habit of taking letters from Mrs. Robson to
the Post-ofilce.
• Mrs. Ore Rt^ sued—She had observed that some of the
letters were steed to " Mr. Ruding, Salvador-house,
B...ishoPurase-" Mr. Reding told her on one armies that
suseitul"-en Vas expected home from India. Mr. Ending
nosed'.,, see he was the benefactor and friend of Mrs. Rob-
fiels and that he hail nursed her in her iorancy.—Cross-exa-
eabied : Witness knew that Mrs. Robson sold her outfit,
which was lunacies' for her voyage to India. Mrs. Robson
had glen musical talent, and was in the habit of giving les-
ions. Mr. 'tutting wu also fond of music, and played the
flute. During the year 1841 Mrs. ROll4Oll was in delicate
health, slid Mr. Pestle used to visit her. She did not recol-
lect that Mr. Peede went by any. other name. Sh
Redid not
recollect anybody pawing evenings with Mrs. except Mr. Radasg.
Mr. CharleeDruse, a solicitor, proved that the defendant's
place of bunny& WAS Salvador-house, Bishopsgate.
Emma Smith recalled : She was servant to Mrs. Green
from A rip to Nov., 1841. Mn'. Robson lived there during
the whole of that time. The witness went on to state that
Mr. Ruding used to resit Mrs. Robson twice or three times a
week. She was eneasionally denied to fetch marmalade;
fresh butter, and other things, for which she received mosey
from Mr. Reding. On one occasion Mr. Reding cooked a
mutton chop on the drawing-room lire. When she went to
the bottom of the garden she used to see Mr. Ruding at Mrs.
Robwin's heln,um window washing hi. hinds. She received
directions, wle n Mr. Reding watt in the house not to go into
Mrs. Roloson'e room without knocking, bat witness paid no
attention to this ceder. Mrs. Robison end Mr. Reeding used
to sit toge, h. r "just lake man and wife"—(laughter)—oas
set on one side of the table and the other on the opposite ,
side. Mr. Roiling called her " Marian, my dear." She did
not know what time Mr. flu fine used to go away. One
Sunday afternoon Mr. Rutting called and asked if Mrs.
Robson was at home. On being told she was out, Mr.
Reding replied, " Oh, the hus.ey, she is at home, but she
always says she is out." The witness then gave evidence as
to her being directed to fetch the doctor on the occasion of
Mrs. Robsou's being taken ill in the night-time, and she
stated that on tie, following morning Mr. Reding Called and
went into her bed-room.
Mr. A. Pcede, a sue!eon, practising at Dartford, said he
became acquainted with sirs. Robsun in the year 1840, when
he was living at Lissen-grove and when she lived at the
house of Mr. Bidden, whose :laughte r was witness's wife,
Mrs. Raleniu rtmetirnes call- d him by his Christian name,
as he was very intimate with the family. He remem-
bered being sent for one night in the summer of
the year 1841, to attend Mrs. Robson. He found
nothing about the room or the bed which might not have
been accounted for by an ordinary occurrence. The im-
n-ssien upon his mind afterwards was that a miscarriage
had taken place. There were some cloths there, which he
took away in his pocket. trope-examined : Witness could
not say wnether he had ever gone by the name of Sydney,
or Hamilton. lie once lived in Woodstock-street, as assistant
to a person who all' d himself Hamiltoe. Witness took the
house fur Mr. Hamilton, and he lived and slept there. He
went away in debt to the landlord, and he had never been
able to pay the amount. He received two guineas for his
attendance upon Moe Robson during the illness he had
spoken of. fie hail supped with Mrs. Robson four or five
times, but he had tierce remained with her later than ten
o'clock, except once, when Mr. Ruding sat there also.—
Ann Little, a monthly nurse, gave evidence corroborating
the testimony of Mrs. Green and Emma Smith.—Ann
Smith said she was a monthly nurse to Mrs. Green in the
spring of 1843, and she heard Mr. ltuding say that any
letters addressed to Mrs. Robson were to be forwarded to
Wm.
Maria Rel-son (or Riley), sister of the line Major Robert,
said she rem, ushered the marriage of Alexander Hobson
and Maw Marian bliddleton. When the plaintiff returned
from India, she was living at Hampstead, and he came to
reside with her. Mrs. Robson also lived there for a short
time. Witness observed that their manner towards each
other was very dill rent to what it had been formerly.
After Mrs. Robson hid left the hou=e, some letters were
found in a box beltieging to her. (These were the letters
which the iesrned counsel adet red to in his opening address,
and they were taken as rend in evidence.) This was the
plaint iff's case.
Sir F. Thesiger, in addressing the jury for the defendant,
said it was very touch to he regretted teat by our law it was
impossible for a husband to obloin a divorce without going
through the ordeal of a public trial before a jury. This was
the anowelowe—he had almost said degraded—position in
which a man WAS placed who sought to be divorced from his
wife. lie was obliged to lay before a jury all those feelings
which he ought to keep closely within hie own heart, to
prove the ,rjury he has sudden', and to ask for compensa-
tion in iten.ares. It unfortunately hammed on some occa-
sions that, from the eagerness with which a husband pur-
sues his o. ject, circumstances may be accumulated together
to attach suspicion to a pat ticular party, and that upon such
foundation may be built a cuse of criminal intercourse,
which it was essential on the part of the husband
should he made clear to the jury, in order to
enable him to carry out his ultimate views. The
circumstances of such cane as the present varied ma-
terially in their extent, and, in some instances, the facts
were of a much more serious nature than in others.
They were now dealing with a case in which there were no
aggravating circumstances, nothing to excite any feeling of
indignation against the defendant; no hospitality violated,
no friendship injured, no domestic peace, as far as the home
was conet rned, invaded--nothing hut the simple case of the
defendant's having, as was alleged, indulged in a criminal
intercourse with the plaintiff's wife on which fact the plain-
tiff bad a right by law to found his charge against the de.
fendant, end to obtain the verdict of the jury with damages.
He (Sir F. Thesiger) thought they would be of opinion that
if, in theultimate disch ego of their duty, they should find
a verdict unfavourable to the defendant, they would feel
that there were many mitigating circumstances in this ease,
and that the plainriff was not entitled to substantial damages.
If, as his h arned friend, Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, had stated,
a divorce-was the ultimate object of the plaintiff in bringing
this action, nominal damages would be sufficient for that
purpose. Considering himself deeply aggrieved, he had
resolved to obtain redress, and had selected the defendant for
his aim. It lsehovcd the plaintiff, therefore, to bring forward
the most clear and cogent evidence of his euilt, before he
could expect a jury to find a verdict against him. The jury
Would now see what these parties were. The plaintiff was
the illegitimate child of a breve soldier, and he was left in a
dependent condition, having no means of advancing his for-
tunes in life.'"'ln order to facilitate his means of getting for-
ward, an intimacy was effected between him and Miss Mid.
dleton, a young lady who had been left to the care of his
stepmother. The result was, that a marriage took place
under circumstances which reflected discredit upon those
members of the plaintiff's family who had conducted them-
selves in the manner detailed in evidence. The learned coun-
sel then proceeded to coMment.uPon the evidence, and con-
tended that there was no proof that the odttltay had been
committed by the defendant; but that if the jury should be
of the contrary opinion, the plaintiff was not entitled, under
all the circumstances of the case, to more than the smallest
amount of damages.
The learned judge having summed up the case, the jury
returned a verdict Inc the plaintiff.—Damages 501.
'The court sat till past 8 o'clock.