The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-25 00:00:00

Raba ilntellisence.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-SATUTIDAT.
Pans.—Bums Sni 7. Pouocc, C. 8., AND A MIDDL/AIS SPECIAL

NOTTIDOE V. RIPLIT AND iNOTRER.-ELTRLORDINATLY

Datums,.
Mr. Cockburn, Q.O , and Mr. M. Smith, were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Sir F. Thesiger, Q C., Mr. Crowder, Q.O , and
Mr. B nill represented the defendants.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for assaulting the plaintiff, and causing her to be confined in
a lunatic asylum, under the pretence that she was insane,
when, in fact. she was at the time in a perfectly sound state
of mind. The defendants pleaded not guilty and a
justification, alleging that the plaintiff was • lu-
natic, and that it was dangerous for herself and
others she should be at large. From the opening
statement it appeared that the plaintiff, • spinster of middle
age, had been confined in a lunatic asylum by the do-
te, dente, who were nearly related to her, the one firing her
brother, and the other her brother-In-law. She had been
kept there for a considerable time, unknown to the other
members of her farni!y, and so far as the defendants' object
could be connived, the only conSlui in was that they in-
tended to have the lady kept incarcerated for life. She
possessed In her own tight property in the funds to the
amount of 6,0001., and about the close of 1816 was living
with her mother at Rose-hill, in Suffolk. She had three
sister who were married to gentlemen of the name of Feu,
Toolig, and Cobb. For two of her sisters, Miss
Nottidge, the plaintiff, had a special attachment, and
about the month of September or October, 1840, she
visited them at Weymouth. Afterstaying a short time with
them at Taunton and Exeter, they flintily took up their
residence together at Spazton or Charlidge. It so happened
that the plaintiff's brother-in law had adopted some of the
peculiar notions on religious subjects, prevalent amongst
the numerous sects and religions communities in that part
lof the country. The net to which they attached them: elves
had been called " Lampeters," but of late they denomin-
Med themselves " Apagamone," or "the Abode of Love."
Having fixed their residence at the little village of Char-
lidge, the plaintiff accompanied her sistersand took lodg-
Res he berself in a cottage near them. Whilst there in the
math of November, 1846, the defendant, Mr. Rip-
ley, who was the plaintiff's brother in-law, and lived
in Great Tower-street, in the city of London, proceeded to
the cottage accompanied by two other gentlemen, and, hav-
ing obtained an entrance at the back of the premises, they
laid hold of the lady, and forcibly. dragged her out of her
room. Notwithstanding her resistance and screams, they
forced her into • carriage, wilt out either bonnet, or shawl,
or shoes, and bad her driven off as fast as it was possible.
On their arrival in London, they placed her in a lunatic
asylum kept by Dr. Stilwell, where she was detained from
that time until January, 1848, when she mirseulously suc-
ceeding In effecting her escape. Having written to her
friends at Charlidge, Mr. Cobb, one of her brothers-in
law, immediately came to London. Ile t'.ok her to
the railway, with the intention of accompanying her hick
Charlidge, but, on their arrival at the Farringdon-road
station, one of Dr. Stilwell's keepers met them there, aid
insisted upon taking the plaintiff back to the asylum. Mr.
Cobb, who was obl gad to yield, accompanied them, but
on reaching the asylum he was refused permiarion to speak
to the plaintiff ; he was turned out, and she was detaiced.
An application was soon afterwards made to the Coln-
mirionen of Lunacy, who immediately instituted an in-
quiry, and the result was the plaintiff wts at once released.
These were the circumstances under whi^h e lerroid
counsel celled upon the jury to award the plaintiff ample

damages.
One of the witnesses called to prove these facts stated that
there were a large number of persons living in "The Abode
of Love." At the top of the building there was s Beg on
which were painted " a lion and a lamb," and a scroll with
the words "Oh hail, holy love."
Joan Waterman stated that the plaintiff arid a Mrs. Prince
had lodged in her house. In the month of November, 1848,1
two gentlemen came there and dragged the plaintiff out of
the house without bonnet or shawl, and only. with carpet
slippers. Miss Nottidge was a very, nice, quiet lady, and
had been three weeks lodging. there. Witness had seen
nothing about her manners to induce her to think she was
dangerous to herself or to any one else.
Eliza Waterman, who was daughter of the last witness, and
bad been employed in waiting upon the plaintiff and Mrs.
Prince, said Mies Nottidge =alleged the hoes ekeeping buss
nem, and was anything but a mad woman. She was very
quiet and gentle in her manners. The witness then corrobo-
rated the statement made as to the :winner in which Miss
Nottidge had been obliged to leave her lodgings by the two
gentlemen.
Cross-examined—l never had a great deal of conversation
with the plaintiff. I never heard her say who she tnought
Mr. Prince, one of the gentlemen who lived in " The abode
of Leve," was ; or anything about " the Lord wanting
mosey," or that she had had ' warnings from the spirit."
It having been admitted that the defendants were the per-
use by whom the plaintiff was taken away,
Mr. Louis Price was called—He married one of the plain
tiff's sisters in 1846, and had known her since 1844. Miss
Nottidge, the plaintiff, was staying with her sister at Wey-
mouth. They afterwards removed co Bridgewater. Another
sister was married to Mr. Cobb. They all went to Charliege
eventually. Witness with his wife, and Mr. and Mrs. Cobb,
dwell together in the " Agspemone." They look non them-
selves as • a private family, entertaising religious opinions
et their own. The plaintiff concurred in these opinions.
There war no unsoundness of mind whatever about her. She
was very quiet, gentle, and lsely.like. She vr:x taken away
ia November, 1848, and her sisters did not discover where
she was until last year. Mr. Cobb and willess went to
Leaden, in consequence of the miserable condition in which
Miss Nottidge had written to them she was in. The matter
was brought under the notice of the commissioners in April,
1848, and the plaintiff was discharged soon afterwards.
Crag examined—Their institution was not a religious so-
ciety or association. It was considered a " private family."
At one time they called themselves " The Lampeter Bre-
thren ;" but they do not no. call themselves by any parti-
cular name. ".fhe family" existed for • year or two.
They used previously to So about the country together, and
preached in the open air if they could not get a house fur
die purpose. They considered God as the bead of their
" family,' and no one under him. It was no part of their
belief that God was manifested in the flesh of any ene
amongst them. They sanctioned no such blasphemy,
and paid no peculiar homage to Mr. Prince. If a person
said he was God incarnate, witness would consider him of
useetad mind, or at all events that he was labouring under
a eisharisa. Witness was ordained a priest of the church of
Enema, and had a curacy in South Wales. Mr. Prince
was also a clergyman of the church of England. lie
lad been a curate at Stoke, in Suffolk, near the residence o:
the plaintiff's mother. Witness was dismissed from hie
curacy by the bishop, bat he did not know of his own know-
ledge that Mr. Prince was also dromiseed. Mr. Thomas and
Mr. Starkie, who were also members of " the family," have
been ordained. The former was a deacon of the church of
England, and the latter bad been rector of Charlidge, but he
had ceased to be so for some years. Witness bad no money, I
nee had the other mereb,rs of " the family" until they mar-
ried the plaintiff's three sisters. The curacy in Wales was
worth 701. a year. The plaintiff's attorney (Mr. Rouse) was
one of " the family," and lived at the " Agape-
move." There were fifty or sixty inmates there.
They kept herpes and carriages, and heed in good style.
There had been a chapel there, but it was converted into a
dwelling. Some of their friends were in the Bank. They
abjured prayer altogether as a religion. They prayed by
offering up pra,ses to God by. a life of goodness, and by other
manifestations such as singing and healthy exercises. One
of those " healthy exercises" was the game of " hockey."
(Laughter.) They considered ail they did was for the glory
of God, and that that was his commandment. When they
eat or drank, En, they con ider-d they were glorifying God.
Every one did as he pleased on the Sunday—there was no
difference made by " the firmly" on that day from one I
other. They all, males and females, played at " hockey."
Witness married the plaintiff's sister Harriet, Mr. Thomas
married Agnes, and Mr. Cobb married Clara. They were
elXmarried, on the same day, at Swansea. There were five
sisters. Witness had not then been in the habit of preach-
ifies the seashore, for he was a clergyman of the Church cf
Bier Pollock—lf it be true "ones a priest for ever a
priest," you are still of the church of England.
Cross examination continued—He had lint seen his wife
at Brighton in 1844. Never went to her mother's house,
bat corresponded with her. Mrs. Prince was about forty, and
MY older than the plaintiff. Was not aware that Mr. Prince
had told Mrs. Cobb and Mrs. Thomas, previous to their mar-
riage, that it was the will of God they should marry their
present husbands. The ladies were accompanied ley two
of "the family," and the day after every arrangement
sou aomplet for their marriages. The day upon
which the ceremony was to have been performed wit-
ness dined with Mr. Prince, but he dad net say to
witness that the three Misses Nottidge had consented
"in obedience to the will of God" to marry their present
husbands. Could not remember that anything was sail
more than that they intended to marry. Each of them said
so. Could not remember on its having been prepaid the
seremony should take place at Brighton, that it was said

Wales woull be better, as Mn Nottidge, the ladies' mother,
was then at Brighton. Was not aware that either of the
ladies had objected to the ei ny being performed until
their mother had been communicated with. Red never
heard it said to them, that they should read the '• Beek of
Jonah," and that they would ihen see the consequences of
disobeying " God's commands." There were no merriage
settlements made. Bach of the ladies had 6,0001. Witness I
received his share. The Misses Nottidge hid come to see
the chapel at Charlldge opened. After that ceremony, the
plaintiff and one of her timers returned to Brighton.
Witness's tile and Mrs. Thomas also went to Wu HUI for
their clothes. In about aaei k they returned, and all the
parties then went to Swansea, where they were married.
Mr. Prince does not assume the Umlaute " Amen." He
frequently put that weed at the end of his letters, but not as
his signature. Could not swear those documents (papers
handed to witness) were in Mr. Prince's writing, though
they reseualled it. The plaintiff dwelt in the "Ageasemone"
ince, her release fr..an the lunatic asylum. When she re-
turned she made over all her property to Mr. Prince, to pro-
tect it from the defendants, or any other persons. She said
her property was in the bank in het own name; but witness'
could not say whether et had ,into been transferred to Mr.
Prince, Was not aware that the plaintiff hail had a note
signed " Amen," and stitirg that "the Lord had need ot
501. for his glory"—ehe gave the money. Each person had
his separate property in "the family." The expenses were
paid by the managers. Whoever wanted money could
have it.
Sir F. Thesiger—What a very pleasant establishment.
(Laughter.) Prey, is these a vecancy ? (Renewed
laughter.) Perhaps you can tell me who is to pay the ex-
penses of this action ?
Witness—The plaictiff is responsible for them. Her
money is in the Bank, in Mr. Priece's name, but she can
have anything she likes.
Sir F. Thesiger—Well, now, perhaps you would tell me
whether you have got any bloodhounds in the establishment.
Witness—Yes, we have. (Laughter.) We can take then
mat when we like. They were not loos: when the attorney's
clerk was there. (Laughter.) The doors were not locked
to prevent him from coming in, any more than any ore
else. The place is surrounded by a high wa'l. I don't
knew that the subprenses were thrown over it. The
plaintiff does not play at " Hockey." S‘.e sometimes rides
out in the carriage. "The family" did not el kneel down
is a circle round Mr. Prince. He was at Weymouth when
Mrs. Prieto nerd the plaintiff were lodging to;ether at
Watarman's house.
Re-examined.—l was dismissed from mylcuraey in tense-
quence of basing held meetings for religious purposes, of
which the bishop had not approved. That was in 1844 or 1815.
Onr singing and instrumental music are always of a sacred
character. There are hundreds of the same community he
sides our " family." We all take our meals together in the
same room. The plaintiff's property was assigned to Mr.
Prince, and lodged in his name, in order to prevent the de-
fendants fr, m meddling with It.
Mr. William Cobb examined.—Was a civil engineer, an I
had • d une of the plaintiff's elation. Had mown the
Misses Nottidge since 1844. The plaintiff was always per-
fectly free from madness, and treated as a vane person. After
she was taken back to the asylum, witee4 requested to be
permitted to have an interview with her; but it was refused,
and he was turned out of doors. The matter was then
brought under the consideration of the commissioners of

Cross-examined—Thera was no settlement opan the mar-
riages of the Misses Nottidge. They had 6,0001. each. Wit-
ness did not know that they had also au interest to the
amount of some 4,0001 eech en the death of tteir mother.
It was during the two days the ladies were with their sister,
Mrs. Prince, the marriages were agreed upon. Wheels never
prayed. " The family " looked el to Mr. Prince with
respect, but they lo,ked upon Gtil alone with venera-
time or reverence. The plaintiff did not look upon
Mr. Prince u God, hut she told witness that
some one at the lunatic asylum had told her that she had
said so. It was not true, for she did not believe Mr. Prince
was God. The plaintiff had that conversation with witness
at the railway station, when she was reconreyed to the
asylum. Had never beard the plaintiff say she looked upon
Mr. Prince as God, or any thit g of the kind. They celled
each other " brothers," but never called Mr. Prince
" Brother Amen." They never assumed holy names.
At this staae of the ease it was adjourned to this (Monday)
morning.