The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1808-07-28 00:00:00

CIITM CON°.
LAW INTELLIGIINCS. z .
1111VIIT OF KING'S WENCH, au ii.oliazkt Jut? 27.

&stings . Nisi Prins brAre Lur.d Pit/ Justice
ELLGNIIOROU till. und a Spetisd Jury.

' GRECISON c. SI.TAGGART. •
Mr. MARRY *TT opened the e.sise, and stated
that it wt.-I an action for dosages, brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defeuding, for a criminal
conversation with his wife.
Sir V ICA etc Giese, the Attorney-General, fol-
lowed on the same side, and stated that the. Plain-
tiff waftn Attorney of that Court, well known, and
who bare a most respectable character. He be- ,
tame acquainted with Mrs. Greisun, at Leeds, in
Yorkshire, in the year 17e-2; she was of a respect.
able family ; her name was Close ; a mutual affec-
tion took place between them, cud they were mar-
ried in the Sarno year, with the mtituel consent of
their friends. De brought her to London, and
thee lived in the most perfect harmony. Ile would
pence there never appeared a more affectionate
couple. The Defendant was a merchant of
opulence, living in the city, who could not
be unknown to the Court and Jery. in
the year 1801, the Pushing, from fatigues of ho-
miness, became ill; his physicians advised him to
take the country air. He took a country-house
at Lay tonstone ; the Defendant had a house iii the
'neighbliarhbodi sonicinutual civilities passed be-
tween them, and en so naintanee ensued. which
commenced . stetidt. The Defendant
was a widower, and had two sons, and a daughter;
his sister-in-law, Mrs. Turner, used to be at his
house, andthe Plaintiff and his wife occasionally
visited them. Phase simple visits were repaid
by visits of soother nature—mysterious ones-411e
Defendant coming to see Mrs. Gregsop at a time
the Plaintiff was gorged at London by his pro-
fessional duty, keeping thine visits from his know-
ledge, the blind, of the windows being pulled
down whenever they met, Ste. The LearnedConnsel
here stated the evidence. He then observed this
was not the firstactiou thePlaiutiff had brought; he
had brought a si miler narearisit One of his domestics,
and the Jury had given Mesa urditt for 2001. da-
mages. The Jur/ utitt think it singular, if
the
spresent Defendant hod injured the bed of the
Plaintiff, why he alseefill have brought his action
aeasett the coachman. The fact was, he never
bad any suspicion of Mrs. Deepen, until the be-
ginning of the present year, when he was informed
of her criminality with his servant. sod it was in
the prosecution of the action against him, that it
was dist-Get:red the present Defendant had
been the seducer. It.was then the earnest wish of
the Plain& that the eatiou might have been with.
drawn. and the present substituted in its place.—
Himself and his Learned Friend, Mr. Garrow, were
consulted on it, and it was their opinion, that at
that time there was not sufiicient evidence to in-
stitute an action, and they recommended the issue
of that against the coachman. On that trial it
tame out, by the cross-examination of the Defend-
ant's Counsel, that the present Defendant had
bees the seducer. The Jury might say, why bring
the ent action, when the Plaintiff had already
got averrdict ?He brings it, because he feels that
the Defendant was the seducer of kis wife's ate-
tinue—he feels that he was the pemon that
first wounded his honour —he feels that he
handed her down to the lust of a menial Der- i
'ant ; and he feels that he broke every tie that
endears mail to man. These causes have in-
duced him to bring the present action. Perhaps
it might be said that the Plaintiff first preferred to
bring his action against the coachman, because he
was poor, and not so able to defend the actioa as
the present Defendant. This could not he. He
defied the Deleadant or his Coepeel to point out
one blot in the married life of 1 e Plaintiff. Ile
would prove him to havebeee a moat indulgent and
affectionate husband. On the subjet:t of damages he
had but little to say ; iu some cues there might be
a mitigation of damages, on account of youth—
*ere might be some allowance made for the warm
passions of youth; but this was not the case of the
Defe.idant. He was not excited by any such sti-
mulus; he was aeringing, plodding, and designing
adulterer. He was a widower, and had enjoyed
the comforts oft married life. He was a father, and
ought to have 'hewn his children a betteresaruple.
He was the friend of the Plaintiff, and be abused
his friendship in the most tender point, by sedu-
cing the affect of his wife, a woman whom he
had most trittierly loved, and who returned that
affection ast.ll he Defeadant poisoned the purity of
her mild. These facto must sink deep into the
miudd of the Jury. He would leave them fur their
consideration ; awl hr only asked those to consider
themselves in the situation of the Plaintiff, and to
give damages accordiugfy.
The marriage of the Platigii and Miss Close was
admitted by Mr. Dallas.
Mr. Ceetke deviated, be was intimately no-
quAitted with the. Plaintiff and, his wife ; they al-
ways appeared to live very happily' together. He
always thought the Plaintiff Wat sk very kind has-
baud. la October last they were at his house fur
a foi!ni ;ht, 011 a visit, and there never appeared
to ire a more affeitionate couple.
The Rev. Mr. Wilson, officiatitig Minister of St.
Ifirtholomew's pariah, coulirmcd the evidence of
the tirst witness.
Mr. Lewis Leese, suriptg ynd apothecary, de-
pti-ed, that the IMeirstitf wit 'most kind husband,
ai..t it was by f's advice 'Se took the house in the

country.
Mr. Dixon knew the Plaintiff nine years ;
he was now his partner; he resided in the house
from February, ifuxi, to February, 1803 ; Mrs.
Gregson had often boasted to bicil how happy she
was, and how good her husband was to her.
Several other wituesie* spoke as to the apparent
'Section between the Plaintiff and his wife.
ACT I.—rhyming Sc',,,.
Leah Sekerdeposed, that she had formerly lived
with Mr. Small, the Plaintiff's pincer. now de-
r•-a:eil. to the year lyvd she went into the Plain-
tirrs service ; went to live at the country-house ;
raw the Defendant, and knew he had a house iu the
neighlairhoud. The Plaintiff generally went to
Landon in the week days at ei;ht o'clock in the
morning, and did not return until nine or ten at
night. roe the first three months after she hail
man the Defendant, ha came publicly to the house