The National Register.
London, England, 1821-12-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'. BENCH, SATURDAY, DEC.'S.
vitas. cost.—WRIGHT, a. WRIGHT.r
The Lord Chief Justice took Ina seat at intif past nine
this morning, and this ease was called on. Mr. Searles,
Mr. Dcn and Mr. F. Pollock, were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Gurney and two ether Cutinsel for the delendant.
Mr. Scarleft stated the case to the Jury. It was an ac-
tion brought by the plaintiff, Mr. William Wright, a re-
speclable tavern keeper, is Itaiellff-highway, against Mr.
John Wright, a linen draper and bombazine met chant, at
Norwich. Mrs. Wright a young woman of handsome per-
son, and prior to that dote had acted with the utmost pro-
priety as a wife and mother. She had two yoneur chit.
dren by the plaintiff. The following witnesses were tken
called,
Mrs. Mary Stewart, was a relation of Mrs. Wright,
whose father was coroner for the cattily of Norfolk.—
Mrs. Wright had two children, one about six years of age,
and the other three and a half. The plaintiff's wife
assisted him in his business, and she never saw her con-
duct others ise than marked by proptiety.
Harriett flankes lived as servant of all-work with the
plaintiff, since last September twelve month; and saw
the defendant for the first time there last March, when he
came in late in the evening, and slept at the house. On
another day he came and staid till 12 o'clock; lie supped
with her master, and she set veil him at the table. About
three o'clock on the billowing day, he came and dined at
the house; she oser-heard him express a desire to her
master to go to the play; her master objected, as lie said
it was late; but a coach was sent ler, and both he and her
master went away in it. Witness had orders from Alta.
Wright to get the spare bed ready for him (defendant) ou
that slight. The two men (pl . 'Wand defendant) went
to the play about half past eight o'clock, but shout half
past nine o'clock the defendant returned alone, and she
then first saw Mr. Wright, the defendant, in the kitchen,
kissing her mi-tress, and his hand down her 1it150114. On
being disturbed by witness, they both withdrew into the
parlour. ( Het e witness described the localities of the
passage and liar !sailing to the parlour.) Her mistress's
frown was open in the front when she observed the de.
fondant with her iii the kitchen. Witness aftcrwai dr, in
about half an hour, saw them in the parlour—it was then
ten o'clock, hint the time of shuttling the bar W.ll not until
eleven; thi y were then in near the same position as when
site saw them in the kitchen. They were standing toge-
ther near the mantle piece, butt they moved away on see-
ing her—the defendant on one side of the tire, anti her
mistress at the other In about ten minutes afterwards,
she observed her mistress go into the yard behind the
kitchen. Witness met her coming front the yard to an-
swer her master, who had rung the dour bell; she let Mi.
Wright in.

IT. Wiggins was it servant or cellar man to Mr. Wright
fur two years. He knew the defendant, who occasionally
visited in the Moose ; It. recollected his coming in the
month of March oil last year. It was witties,es business
to shut the situp and passage doors. lie rneloobered the
bar maid (last witness) being ordered by Mrs. Woight to
go to bed. Witness (who slept in the house) relic:hoed
in the kitchen with the other maid. After last witness
weal to bed—

Mr. Scarlett,—" Rut you need not tell its what passed
between you and the maid in the kitel.en."—(a laugh).
The witness then proceeded, and said, that while in
the kitchen, he heard a noise as if the chairs were n•ov-
lug about in the psi lour. He told the stevaut maid that
he would go and see what they were " doing on.—
Ile pulled off his shoe+, and walked along the passage
to the parlour as softly as he could. 'Witness went
round towards the bar, whore there weir no Sighs;
the door from the bar into the patiour was open : ht t
Ism It on a mat ultieh was at the door, and peeped in
the door, !deli was a-jar. (Here witness described the
position iii wheels lit, saw his mistress and the d:•tendaut iu
tile parlour when lie pre ped in, and which left no donbt of
the fact of adultery )
Mr. 6nrsity then rose, anti adlresseti the Jury for the
defendant. It aupeared, if the evidence were trne, that
in March, 1820, the platittitrato! defendant dined together
at the house of the fusilier; they- then went to the theatre,
soon after which the defendant returned twine, and was
seen in the parlour of Mrs. Wright. They had heard hoot
the witnesses that Mt R. Wright, atter the scene its the par-
low, passed oust along the kitchen and yard, under the
eves Of her sec% ant, with her dress all distil itei ed, and !mil
one of them to assist in arranging it, Illjat itee'e•aty was
there fin het acute;; in a matint r so as to invite tibsce sa-
hiull, it sl.e hail been guilty el' the crime impaled to her,
when she could undiscovered, and without inlet ruption or
observation, have adjusted her dress in the pirlonr ? It
the jury tholi.:111 1111.4 was. a case for damages, b-• was sin,
they w odd dunk n ills hint, that the sinai;est thonagcs
would be finite sulbrii•ut for such a transaction.

Lord (•Itlef Justice Abbott, in charging the Jury, said,
that the first question they had to consider whether
they believe.' the adultery had been committed. If they
believed the la itheAs IVigginti, then upon that point these
could be no doubt, for ott his testimony the• proof rested,
:he other uitto•oilieS merely speaking to acts of impropri.
et., but nut amounting to the principal act. With respect
to ille question of damages, they Vll.lllld consider the cir-
cumstances dispas►ionate•ly, and apportion the damages
which they deemed applicable to a ease of this character.
lite Jury consulted together fur about five minutes, and
tile,. 14 turned it verdict fur the plaintiff-I)antages, One
Hundred Peunds.

IGHEOUR AND ANOTHER V. TIIC EARL OF WESTMEATH.

Mr. Gurney stated, that this W Ali an action against ;We.
nuble to iselitl.llll to recover the sum of 351. for gooda s .id
and tit-heeled —The defendant had paid 31. into Cut.,',
and the plaintiff now sought to recover the balance. 'fair
defence set up was, that the artielua in question were
turnisheil 11i Laliy It'e•tuteatlt after her separation 60111
husband. The plaintiffs had been tradesmen to his
Int &hip pi Pk iOllll to his separation fiout his lady, and the
31. paid into Court was fur articles tilt iiislied previous to
that event taking place. Nuw, Its should show, that W-
-014)1104 Lotd mud Lady It esuneatia lived separate, still
there had been no I. 441 deed of separation executed l►t.
rest tin to, nor dud Inrd•ltip allow her ladyship a
aeparate maintenance. He had even visited her et her
lodgings In St. James's-place, etude these articles were
furnished to her lie ecognised her living there, and as
be (Mr. Horne)) contended, was liable to pay far Nacos-
satire fin Malted to her, though Irving separate,
A witness was then called to !wove the work done.
Hcr ladyship's atieuslaat was thou called, and examined