The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-05 00:00:00

THE BRITIS

PRESS.

tholower part of Aire. Pedley's person ; it was outside her clothes,
filways thought the plaintiff and his wife lived happily together.
Crolis-exainined-1 never saw any person take any liberties
with Mrs. Peltier, or kiPe her, but the defendant. I revel
saw the plaintiff strike his wife, nor heard hits say that he had
struck her.
Thomas Corby examined—l keep a lirery-stable t I have had
conversations with the defendant respecting the plaintiff and his
wife. He told me one evening that he was going to give Mu.
Pedley n ride, end that alto would give him [we cannot repeat the
expreettion.l On another occasion be said to me, I ion going over
to Penley's wile to-night. as soon no he goes to bed. He generally
goes to bed about ten o'clock, steel always know the time by Pee-
ing the light in hie hed-room. The neat morning he told me that
he had remained at PeNey's till three o'clock in the morniag,and
that Pedley was such an ass.—th is quite impossible to repeal. the
horrible expresaion.l
Cress-eaanlined—l served the defendant with the copy of a writ
about four months ago. but did not moetwel with the action.
About two months ago I was in the mom of a pittillethouee, in the
evening, where there were a conidelerehle number of persons pre-
sent : the defendant was there, and sung a song t the plaintiff
came in and sung also.
lie.examined—l believe the plaintiff did not know that the de-
fendant was in the mom when he canine into it. lie staid but about
five minutes he was much pressed before he sung the song ; he
did not go near the defendent, nor was he one of those who pressed
him to sing. It is probabie tic did not FCC the defendant when he
firoteame into the morn.
DaMel itl•Cabe—T have lived as shornan with the plaintiff
from June List to the present time; the plaintiff and his wife ap-
peared to lite very lovingly together. Mr. Burch frequently came
to the house. and dined with them as a friend ; Mr. Pedley gene.
rally went to bed about ten o'clock, as he got up early to go to
I Billingsgate; I have seen Mr. Burch frequently shake hands with
11r. Pedley, and big him good night, when Mr. Pedley was going
to heal, and after he hail gone to bed, come over again, and sit
with Mrs. Pedley; I generally left the shop about twelve o'clock,
sometimes sooner. Mr. forth has frequently been with Mrs. Ped.
ley in the parlour when I went away for the night. I never told I
Mr. Pedley that the defendant used to come over after he had gone I
to bed, and stay with Mrs. Pettier, till he inquired of me, after '
Mrs. Pedley had gone away.
Croes-examined—l never saw Mr.Pedley gn to bed and leave
Burch or any other man with his wife. Mr. Pedley went to one
horse-race and one fight. since I came to hint in June last. Mrs.
Morgan was at Mr. Pedley's on a visit for a fortnight, in June last.
I do not know whether she slept in the same room with Mr. and
Mrs. Palley, or in the parlour.
Irroome was called.
The Dom: Cuter Jett Ties observed to Mr.ffergrintVeughan,
that hothnught it was unnecessary to call any other witnesses to
prove the adultery.
Mr. Sergeant VATIGIRAFf said he only called Ole present witness
because he was another ahopmati of the plaintiff's, and if he did not
call him, it might he said he Mel kept hint back.
Loin CalrF Jthirtev—Well, you may put him in the box,
and let them cross-examine him if they phrase.
The witness we, then sworn; and the defenilant's Counsel Raked
him whether he hail ever peen the plaintiff strike Ms wife, or
knew them to quarrel ; to which he declared positively that be
never had.

This WAS the plain.iff's case.
Mr. Sergeant Speetwie addressed the Jury for the defendant.
He was surprised when he heard his Learned *Friend au this was
his ease. It wee certainly a case which lie could wish had never
• been brought into a Court of Justice. Indeed it was most desir-
able that, for the nuke Of public decency and rood morale, there could
be some restraint put to such cases. His friend had alluded
to the case of yesterday; but that was a case marked with such
treachery and baseness as called tbrth the strongest feelings of die.
• gust and horror against the seduction end perfidy that had been
' practised. Yesterday's case was that of deep tragedy, but this
day's was one of farcical buffoonery. There was nothing ben of
artful sedndion, leading to the heartless abandonment of a family.
It wise case which even did not afford his friend an opportunity
for the indulgence of his luxurious imagination, nor even for the
indulgence of a single quotation from Shakspeare, or any other fa-
vourite poet, which, on other occasions, he was in the habit of
using with so touch effect ; but, in this case, Übe wished to indulge
in qnoution or poetry, he would be obliged to resort to the New.
erne Calendar, sr St. Giles's Pastorale (a laugh). Hie friend was
wise to repress any indulgence in observatioo, and leave the cue
to rest on the facts. He appeared, indeed, to slinnk from the men.
bast of the plaintiff's vocation, and instead of saying that he kept
an oyster shop, had recourse to the circumlocution of saying he was
' a dealer in Isbell-that. The case was brought before the Jury as
bare of all circumstances by which they might form an opinion of
the state of domestic happiness in which the plaintiff lived with his
wife, and the lees he had sustained by being separated from her, as
could be cooceived. God forbid he should say that the happiness
and feelings of p3rsons in any class of society should be violated
with impunity ; but every husband was bound to discharge the du-
ties which God and nature imposed on him, by the proper protec.
' lion of his wife. Great evil was to be apprehended from Juries
giving es cessive damages, which, instead of being consolation for
the loss of his wife's society, might make it a matter of congratula-
tion, that he had ever experienced a loss which was so much over-
paid. The only evideere of the defendant's erimittaltty was given
by persona who could not speak to any conclueiye fact. It was true
some of the witnesses had said enough for large inferences, but the
Jury were told that he would be traced with the plaintiffs wife to
the door of a brothel; that they were seen through a key-hole, tee.
' Instead of which, evidence had been given that his poor, vain,
I petulant client had boasted of having received favours from the
plaintiff's wife. Now his rule was never to believe the man who
nukes such a boast; becauee if the fact were so, that Renee of
honottr that newer entirely deserts human nature would prevent
his disclosing it. When favours of this nature were really received, I
they were never boasted of. Ore witness, a youth, had told them
that the defendant had shown him a 1,0001. note; but that was a
foolish beast to a credulous boy. One enuld rot live in this town
without hearing from others that there was such a street as
Chandos-street; but elthough it had been opened to them that his
client and the plaintiff's wife would be seen there st a house with
a key, the only evidence given was, that they had been seen in a
gig in Chancery-lane. There was a sort of delicacy observed by
hie frien is in the examination of their witnesses; and when he saw
a curtain hang up between the Jury and the evidence, it struck
him that it might be for the purpose of concealing that there was
nothing beheld. A witneis had stated, that the defendant had
boosted. in vulgar language, of his intimacy with the plaintiff's
wife, but it was evidently an idle boast, that meant nothing, and •
only proved that hits client was a man of loose talk, but not of
criminal conversation (a laugh). The plaintiff's oyster shop was
the natural resort of loose fish. Ills friend, Sergeant Vaughan, I
had said, that the defendant proposal to give the plain. •
tiff's wife a drive out, to refresh her before the ?walnut!' of the
eveninge but there was no eviderse from which they were to con.
elude that criminal intercourse had taken place during those
drives. A Learned Judge of that Court had said that a boast made
lot jest was not to be taken in evidence against him who used it;
and vats it likely that the defendant would have said gravel!'
what would Rx him with damages in an action ? In all his ex-
perience of saxes of this nature he had never seen such a lack of
evidence to prove that the parties lived happily togelher. Instead
. of calling the clerk of Mr. Nedbv, why not call Mr. Nedby, who,
from the circumstance of his living in the same house, must
have been able to speak to that important point ? Why not
eall Mrs. Morgan, to whom he had alluded ? It would be an un-
due disparagement of the clue of onc'ety in which the plaintiff
`lives, to suppose, that if they lived happily together, they could
not call persons of their own clam of moral and religious feelings,
to speak to their state of life. The evidence of one such female
friend would outweigh a regiment of such witnesses as were pro..
duced. As far Mrs. Ann Page, she might as well, like her name-
sake in the play. have said " Mum," as the evidence she had
given. His friend hail told them that the lady in question was
handsome; but the Mies in these cases were always represented
handsome, as if' their favour was a great distinction to be paid for
at any price, by the foolish men to whom it wan granted ; just
as it was said that the fascination of Captain Macheath's character
had excited young men to imitation, at the risk of being hanged at
Tyburn.
The Loin Cent F JITSTICE—it would not be sufficient to run
the risk; they saeold undergo the punishment.
Mr. S,:rip.s:tt S PA NLII: c lies been said that the Imitation has
been even carried that length. It was not a good mode ofereloaing
the society of a wife. fora Imettand to he getting up just as hie
wife was goieg to bed ; that was, for terrestrial beings, rather too
close ah I nitation of the heavenly bodies, ore of which rose when
tho other set. It was not a proper puformance of the duty
of a husband in the due protection of his wife. He had been
brought up at the feat of that °mallet, Mr. Chitty, and by him
e had been taught that defect of fences might be piee ded in justi.
fication of a trespass. The plaintiff in this meld! his handsome
wile sitting in aa oyster shop till between twelve and one o'clock.
with a gas.'ight before her to render the attraction greater, while
her husband use sleepirg in the cock-loft. He rho uld not
have left his wife in the midst of nyeters, spruce, and prgrr-
beer ; if a lady., left in such a situation, with a gaslight to
attract, a poor fellow ran every risk of supposing that it was a place
where oysters and love might be indulged in to satiety. The has.
band does not perform his duty who leads his wife into temptation.
A great philosopher, and indeed, common sense, said, " If you
wish to keep your family pure, you until protect them from the
temptation to become impure."' He could not see what society the
plaintiff had lost; lie and hie sire. it appeared, seldom came toge.
cher, and this yes evidently the • plaintiff's own feeling ; for what
could they think of a husband who could 'remain singing in a pub-
lic-house with a man who had deprived him of his wife? if he
welt a meteor any delicacy, he would have fled from such a scene
as from a serpent, tasked of enjoying the defendant's song, and
giving hirown In return. That one set spoke volumes of the feel-
tog of the plaintiff towards his wite—he showed he was not the pro-''
teeior of his wife's chastity, nor felt its lees. When the Jury gave •
deranges, it should be to a man who was injured, and felt the inju- ,
Tv ; but it wee defrauding virtue to give to vice that mud that be-
tonged to virtue only. There was nothing in this case that could I
lament the most munificent giver of damages in giving compensa-
tion to the plaintiff', who, it eid not appear, had really suffered any
Injury. If men had such wives as the plaintiff-a, they were hound,
even the the sake of others, to pay attention to their conduct. Ant I
If Juries did tint discriminate between the different claims of plain.
tiffs In (such Isaacs, thy wrul,l sine Westminster-hall into a bro-
ker% shop, where wives would be sold under the solemn adjudica-
tion of a Court of Law, Metes(' of helm whistled off at Smithfield
with a halter shout. their Decks. The defendants in such actions
resembled the foolish man mentioned is the Proverbs, to whom the
wife sees, bread cateu in secret is sweat, but, it is added, her aeon
are in the depths of hell. if theJurt had sons or brothers, could
they conceive a greater miifortuoe In life, than a young mutt to he

brought into Court under such calamitous circumstances—his cha-
racter degraded, and his prospects darkened ? If, in addition to all
this, they were to give damages, they would aggravate misfortune
into complete ruin ; and was he to get reparation in damages, who
had exposed his wife ie the most regardless manner, to the ruin of
a young man on his entrance into the world, and had only found
that her society was of any value to hint when he came to demand
its price in a Court of LAW ?
The LORD CIIIF.FJuST re e, in charging the Jury, observed,that
in many cases there was no better test than ridicule, because, if the
cause was really ridiculous it made it appear so; but if there
was nothing ridiculous in the cause, the use of it must aggro.
vale the damages it was intended to diminish. One observation he
would make in the outset, that if Corby's evidence was true,
whatever damages they should give, no man would think it too
much for the scandalous, the infamous conduct of the defendant.
The first question for their consideration was, had the adultery
been committed ? On that paint he thought the evidence
so full, that he had prevented the production of more, to
prevent the reperitfon of disgusting details. The defendant had
been proved to have taken the most scandalous liberties with the
plaintiff's wife; and it had also been proved that the de.
fendant had made use of expressions which could leave no doubt
on any man's mind. Corby had deposed to expressions used by
the defendant the most beastly that could be uttered. The
adultery being fully proved. the only question was, the
amount of damages? The evidence of several witnesses proved
that the plaintiff and 611 wife had lived very happily.--
The servants, as well as other witnesses, had been cress-ex.
amined as to whether the plaintiff had not been brute enough
to strike his wife. They had all declared that he had not, which
showed that the imputation was a wicked contrivance. If, when '
the plaintiff' had retired to bed, he had left the defendant with
his wife, be should, in that case, whine them to give small da.
magem ; but it was proved that the defendant always went away
before the plaintiff retired. and returned when he was satisfied he
could do it without the plaintiff's knowledge. An attempt had
been made to prove that Mrs. Morgan had slept in the same room
with the plaintifi'and his wife, but there was no evidence of that
being the fact, and it wits fair to presume that site slept in the
parlour. Another fart had been proved in reduction of damages,
that the plaintiff had gone once to a horse race, and once to a
fight. With respect to the former, be could not gee that any moral
blame shold be imputed to the plaintiff. It would certainly be a
bad practice for a tradesman to go to horse.races, but he did not
think that a tradesman who was assiduous in his business, could
forfeit any portion of 'his claim to the respect of society by an oc-
casional indulgence in such a recreation. With respect to his
having gone to a tight, he thought the ease was different, and he
greatly lamented that tradesmen had the example of persons in
higher stations to countenance them in that brutal, disgraceful, and
cowardly practice. Nothing, he thought, could be snore dis-
honourable to the character of Englishmen, than to look on with
satisfaction at danger which they did not share, and arbich was not
encountered for any necessary or honourable purpose. It had been
proved that the plaintiff went into a company, and drank and sang
where the defendant was present. There was no evidence that he
knew the defendaht was there when he entered fhe thorn ; but still
he should ha* retired as soon to it became known to him. It
showed he clidVint ati as lie ought, when he could be jovial and
sing in the pinery« of the destroyer of his wife's honour. Nothing,
however, could he an bad as the delbridant's conduct. His coming
to Court that day showed that he was a person likely to use such
language as had burn deposed to by the witness, and weld bear to
near the investigation of a case of which his own most disgraceful I
conduct was the subject. The next question was, what had the
plaintiff lost ? There could be nothing mid against his being as
rand of his wife in June as his was before, because he was not
thenacquainted with ber ; but what could they think of
the women who mold appear equally. loving to her husband, after
having dehesed herself by a connexion with such a beast as the
defendant ? And they were to remember that it was the value of
her society they were to estimate. On a due consideration of the
whole of the case they would award such damages as in their con-
sciences they thought right; and whatever damages they gave, no
one would pity the defendant.
The Jury were a few minutes in consultation, when
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, I forgot to mention, that
with respect to the defendant's ability to pay damages, it has been
proved that he said the stock in his shop was worth 2,0001. and that
it was a 1,0904 note he showed the witness.

Foreman of the Jury—My Lord, he might hare owed a great
deal of money at the time.
The LonD CntEr JUSTICE—True, he might; that's a sen-
sible observation.

The Jury, atter a few minutes' consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 380/.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICC—That is a very proper verdict;
I highly approve of it.
Foreman of the Jury-3ly Lord, we were afraid he would net
be able to pay more.

COURT OF ARCHES, SATURDAY, DEC. 3.

HALL v. HALL.

This was a suit of divorce brought by the wife against the hus-
band, upon the ground of adultery. The case had been tried in
the Consistory Court, when sentence was pronounced in favour of
the wife. Upon that sentence an appeal was brought by the hue.
band ; and the qnestion now came before the Court in the form
of an exceptive allegation, put in under the following circum-
stances :
In the original suit the deposition of a material witness, named 1
Ann Tuckey, was admitted ; and subsequent to the sentence being
pronounced, Mr. Ball made application to have an exceptive alle-
gation admitted, founded upon facts which had come to his know.
ledge subsequent to the proceedings. This application having
been granted, the allegation of a person named Garratt was admit.
ted, who deposed that he had heard declarations from Turkey which
went to prove that she cherished malicious feelings. and had vowed to
injure the person with whom Mr. Ball was accused of having com-
mitted adultery. Interrogatories were put to this witness relative
to certain declarations he was said to have made : to these interro-
gatories he gave a negative ; and further exceptive allegations were
now offered by Mrs. Ball, to the effect that Garrett, in denying
those declarations, "bath untruly deposed."
Dr. JENNER moved that the exceptive allegations to impeach
the witness Garraa's testimony should be admitted.
Dr. Burt/tsar objected to the admission of the exceptive allege.
titans, upon the ground that the interrogatories put to Garratt were I
improperly put in such a stage of the proceedings. The original
interrogatories put to Garrett were—" Did you not open. the gates of
the Mockwell brewery so late as eleven o'clock at night, to let out
Miss Penney, Mrs. Ball being then absent ?" " Don't you know
that Min Penny has come to the brewery, and remained there all
day ?" " Have you not known the people cry out, as Miss Pen-
ney passed in and nut of the brewery, • there gore that e•---g' "
To these interrogatories Garrett replied in the negative. The
Learned Doctor now contended that these interrogatories were
put in an improper form ; they should have been put thus—" Did
you ever declare that you had opened the gates of the brewery,"
&e. The Learned Doctor, in conclusion, contended that it was not
competent to admit Interrogatories on exceptive allegations in this
manner, and that it was a defect that the declarations of other wit.
noses were not put in.
Dr. PHILLIMORE followed at the same side, and argued that
improper interrogatories had been permitted, after publication, and
that the contradiction to Garrntt's testimony was not sufficiently
specific. The declarations alleged to have been made by him were said
have beep made in the months of July and August. at the house of
a person in Stockwell, Surrey, and at other times. Such allegations
were much too general, and on these grounds he contended that
the exceptive allegations should not be admitted.
Dr. JENNER, in reply, insisted that the Court should not shut
out any testimony that went to prove the inconsistency of Garratt's
deposition, and that the allegations now offered were a direct nega-
tive to his testimony.
Dr. LttsuirroTOX was engaged at the same side, but declined
offering anything in addition to the arguments of his Learned
Friend (Dr. Jenner).
Sir JOHN' Niertor.t. said, that as it was considered material
to impeach the evidence of Tuckey, by roving her declarations,
the Court must also bold it material, it' the exceptive allegations
containing Oarratt's testimony could be impeached by anything
of sting the credit of that witness. As to the degree in which
Gateau's testimony may be affected, if the declarations alleged to
be made by him were proved, that was a question for future con-
sideration, and dependent on circumstances. Upon every rale of
pleading ht thought the exceptive allegation was admissible, and
that the Court would be shutting out justice by refusing to admit
it. It would certainly be desirable that that part of the allegation
'honk' be reformed, in which it was pleaded that the witness Gar.
raft lead made certain declarations, in July and August, at Stock-
well, and at other linter.
Exceptive allegation admitted.