Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-18 00:00:00

01'1 E SIVE TRIALS,

Perhaps, on the whole, it is as well:that the action for
crim. con. should have got to this. There seems to be
some moral law that abuses should ctilasinate before they
are extinguished. The bladder must swell to all but
impossible dimensions before it bursts. Before an ulcer
discharges itself, it must have secreted its maximum of
corruption. In " Lyle v. Herbert," the old abuse dies
game. The concluding action for trim. con. has the dirty
eistinction of being the very dirtiest of its foul kind.'
The last. British husband who pleads his agonised feelings
at the loss of his wife's society and virtue, and mouths
shout the seducer's treachery, is solaced by the sympathy
of a jury of husbands. who appraise his wrongs at the
very moderate figure of one farthing. When the profits
of collusion have dwindled clown to the lowest coin of the
realm, Cornutus will find that to invest in a wife's adultry
will not pay expenses. After subsidising the ingenious
services of Mr. Taylor, the expert mechanician, and
after allewing for the banquet of pickled salmon and
gin-and-water with which the knowledge of his wife's
infamy was celebrated, we should say that Mr. Lyle
is considerably out of pocket. by the speculation. Perhaps
it is a superfluous plots? of legislation to have abolished
this disgraceful action ; for it could scarcely, in any case,
have survived the success which it has finally attained in
Lyle v. Herbert. It dies in the moment cf its most
perfect triumph. What most surprises bystanders in
these offensive trials is the way in which they exhibit the
laxity with which professional advisers regulate their
duties to their clients. Quite apart from the complaint
that public morality is offended by the notoriety which
the newspapers give to the details of indecency—which is
a separate question—we must say that solicitors, and we
suppose barristers might, if they pleased, stop many of
these disgraceful trials. With what legal expectations
could the professional advisers of Mr: Lyle have brought
the late action into court? It wes simply impossible that
he could recover damages on the evidence of the two
Taylors; and as regards a divorce, neither Doctors'
Commons nor the House of Lords would have listened for
a moment to such a case. Within these list few days,
several ca!es have been tried in which we think that
eroper professional advice must either not have been
tendered or been disregarded. Two tradesmen have
recently been endeavouring to extend their business with
little apparent reference to ethical considerations, and la
both instances have failed in their object. Public feeling
has been outraged by the revelations in the trials of
Clerk v. Pottinger, and Williams v. De Vilbray. Both
cases involve the same points; and if they are to be con-
sidered typical of the mode in which London tradesmen
conduct their affairs, they do little credit either to them-
selves or to their professional advisers. It is not very easy
to distinguish the transactions in question from specula-
tions on the profits of immorality A furniture-dealer
supplies goods to a female who seems to oscillate between
the classes which in France are technical;y distinguished
as the femme libre and the femme entretenue ; and he
brings his action against a titled " friend" of this young
woman, not only for thareal value of the articles, but for
an extravagant profit besides. Incidentally it comes out
that jewellers are to be found in London, who charge
.4120 per cent. per annum for goods supplied to " unfor-
tunate girls." In another case, Messrs. Williams and
Saiverhy, the proprietors of a large and conspicuous shop
in Oxrord-street, extend their connexion by permitting
their manager to induce " gay W 0111.41" to purchase .€52
worth of silk dresses, on the speculation that rich
" friends" will be found to ply for goods forced off in this
way upon the credit of a prostitute. Such, at least, was
the defence to the action brought by Messrs. Williams and
• Sowerby against the " tall and elegantly dressed French
woman," their disreputable customer. The jury. by their
verdict, intimated their belief that the firm did, by their
manager, induce the woman De Vilbray to purchase goods
for the undisguised objet of plying more successfully her
unhappy calling. Tnese things, we repest it, are not
satisfactory evidences of the healthy state of commercial
morality. That such actions are unsuccessful is not more
creditable to juries and to the law, than it is diPoreditable
to certain members of the legal profession that they should
be brought iuto court at all.—Saturday Review.