The National Register.
London, England, 1818-02-16 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 13.

-...1M....-

CRIM. CON.—FRAxcis V. t IL[U.

The plaintiff; who hOths a respectable situation in
the General Post Office, brow i,lit his action against the
defendant, a medical nem, to recover a compensation in
damages for an injury sustained, in consegnence of Lav-
ing his wife debauched and carried away from his house.
by the defendant.
We are sorry to state, that this was 'a
most distress-
ing instance of Profligacy.
It appeared, from the statentent of Mt. Set leant
VaulOan, as Weil as from the evidence, that Mrs. Fran-
.cis, a beautiful and accomplished woman, was married
in 1807 to the plaintiff, a young Gentleman of respect-
able connections. It was a love match, and they con-
tinued to live happy together down to 1817, when the
lamentable occurrence took place, which became the
subject of this action. They had two children, and
down to the time of his wife's elopement he was con-
sidered a kind, affectionate, indulgent, and atten-
dye husband, fOnd indeed, almost to excess, of his wife
and children. Mrs. Francis, some time ago, became
subject to lowness of spirits and a diseased mind, and
the defendant, as a professional man, whose age and
appearance could excite no suspicion in the most pru-
dent husband, pretended to prescribe for the lady sof-
fering under her mental disorder. He did prescribe,
but his operation was observed by the plaintiff's family
to have the effect of aggravating the calamity. His
conduct appeared clearly to the plaintiff's brother-in-
law to be an attempt to tamper with her mind, in
order to get possession of her affection and person. Hav-
ing communicated his suspicions, and some indecencies
which had been noticed to the plaintiff, Mrs. Francis
was removed to the e,miltry. She was then in a worse
state of mind, and no doubt was entertained that the
defmdant continued his endeavour clandestinely to im-
press upon her mental sensibility ideas favourable to his
plan of carrying on an adulterous intercourse. Mrs.
Francis was again conveyed to town, and very shortly
after she eloped from her hush.ind's house, 49, Char-
lotte-street, Portland-place, and was seen walking in
the street arm in arm with the defendant.

Mr. Banks, of Tonbridge Wells, who married the
plaintiffs sister, met the defendant, and seeing a
brooch in his frill which he had given to Mr. Francis,
he procured a constable, and charged him in custody
lie was taken to Union Hsll for examination, and while
under detention was arrested for 501. He then wrote
a letter to Mre. Francis, addressed to a house in Join-
ers'-street, Blackfriars, in which be had taken lodgings
for himself and the plaintiff's wife in the name of Mr.
and Mrs Seymour. The letter and others were inter-
cepted. -
It then appeared, by the evidence of a servant girl,
that the defendant and the plaintiff's wife occupied
the same bed, living together under the name of Sey-
mour, and in short the adultery was clearly proved.
The letters were read in Court, in one of which he
expressed that ;le was the happiest man living, in con-
sequence of his having been received into the plain-
tiff s family, which he described to be a most amiable
family. In another letter the defendant said—" To-
morrow morning am I to see thee ? I wish you could
Anna r Oh ! uiy dear, dearest Anna, get a meetini,
from me heart. I don't know when I shall see you—
will a few days' absence shake me from your remem-
brance ?" The defendant stated in other passages, that
he •,vas in indigent circumstances, depending only on
the uncertain supply f.e received from writings which
he sent to the press. To conclude the ease, we have
only to add, that the plaintiff, convinced that his wife
had erred under mental infirmity, and that the defen-
dant alone had been ro4lly depraved, consented to re-
ceive her again, and brought his action to recover da-
damages commensurate to the injury lie had sustained.
After the above statement had been proved.
_

Mr. Andrews for the defendant, said he had to ad-
dress the Jury under great disadvantages. He 'lid
not rise with a view to get rid of the evidence proving
the adulterous intercourse, but to bring their mind to
cool consideration of the Elm The plaintiff had prov-
ed, by receiving back his wife, that he had not marred
that loss which a man would feel who was totally de-
prived of a wife. The defendant was a man totally
withtiut property. The circumstance of having no
means of subsistence, being then in a goal, would doubt-
less have great weiglit with the Jury in awarding da-
mages. It had been said if he could not pay with his
purse he ought to pay in his person, but perhaps the
Jury would consider it a severe visitation to confine the
defendant for five years to a goal. He would not be
discharged in the Insolvent Debtor's Court from a debt
incurred by the verdict of the Jury, in such a case as
this, within the space of five years. He stood in a pe-
culiar situation ; for the common subjects of the King
there was a limited time for discharge. Net so
with the defendant. If the Jury gave a verdict against
him for large damages, fhe years he might remain in
confinement to expiate the offe.nee. The Learned
Counsel contended that the Jury ought to give light
and temperate damages only.
Mr. Justice Dallas recapitulated thir evidence, and
the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Diunsges.
5001.