The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-01-28 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.

C!LL V. HOGG.
Mr. SLAJ [ANT MARCIA LI. moved for a Rule to
chew cause why a new trial shordd not be granted
in this case, on the grounds that a Jury had given
their verdict in favour of the Defendant against
evidence. It vas fin actiin to recover damages for
inticing the wife of the Plaintiff to leave her has-
band ; by which his domestic happiness had been
destroyed, and his feace and comfort violated.—
Mr. GILL and his wife had lived in a state of con-
tentment for near seven years, the time since they
were married, no quarrels had disturbed their re-
pose, nor had they any reason to be displeased with
each other, until the defendant, who is a first cousin
to Mrs. Gill,carne frequently to visit at the Plaintiff's
house; during those visits they had entered into part-
nership to purchasepArt of a lottery tic ket, which came
up a prize of 11/001. ; this, without doubt, was an un-
fortunate event for the Plaintiff, as it was the source
of the different lawsuits he had since been engaged
in. His wife immediately altered her usual beha-
viour ; she wanted new clothes, complained of ill-
treatment, and at last left her husband's house to
live with the Defendant at. Hoxton. She was there
found out by a friend of the'Plaintiff's, who prevail-
ed upon her to return agaip to her husband. It had
been said, .on a former occasion, that while the
lived with the defendant; she was constantly in are
society of Miss Hogg, his sister, but that assertion
was not necessary, as the action had not been
biought for adultery, but for enticing the Plaintiff's
wife and children from his house ; this it was con-
tended had appeared by evidence ; notwithstanding
which a verdict had been given in favour of the
defendant ; the present was a cause or importanie
to the public • for what motive could induce, or
what could justify the conduct of the Defendant in
receiving the Plaintiff's wife agains the will of her
husband ; as a relation, the Defendant should not
have sheltered Mrs. Gill from her husband ; on the
contrary, it was his duty to have brought about an
accommodation. The witnesses for the Defendant
had stated, that Mrs. Gill had frequently been beat
by the Plaintiff, and that he had behaved to her in
a manner very unbecoming ' • but even in that case,
the proceedings of the Detendant could not be justi-
fied ;• he, therefore, hoped the court would consider
that the verdict had been given contrary to the evi-
dence, and grant a rule to their cause.
Lord ALI,' ANL Y referred to the whole of the evi-
dence formerly given, and observed; that the con-
duct of the Plaintiff had appeared extremely im-
proper toirards his wife ; several witnesses Laving
proved that she had been beat and ill used ; his be-
haviour to her during. a state of pregnancy was.par-
ticularly cruel, and the question that was left to-the
Jury to decide, was, whether the Plaintiff's conduct
had not induced the Defendant, from motives of
humanity, to receive Mrs. Gill into his house', or
whether he had taken her from any private motive.
The .lury believed the Defendant had no other motive
than the safety of Mrs. Gill, and accordingly gave
a verdict for the Defendant.
His Lordship observed the verdict had his entire

J ....