The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-14 00:00:00

:he case.
Mr. TIIESIGER—No, the husband was not. He was glad his
Lordship knew something of the case.
Lord DENMANT—In the former case, I remember, the Jury thought
it a proof of his being her husband, that they began to quarrel as
soon as they met.— (A laugh.)
Mr. Tnes►GEß—Where was Wilmot at the present moment ?
He was where he had been for a considerable time—in the Fleet-
prison : and there was now a petition before the Ins-lvent
Debtors' Court from him, in which he gave a bit of a
history of himself, and which his Learned Friend ought
to have given to the Jury, in order to elucidate his character.
Mr. Thesiger read a long extract from this petition, by which
it appeared the plaintiff had bee❑ three times in the Fleet Prison ;
that he had resided at a dozen or more different places; that he was
of no trade or profession ; and that he sometimes used the name of
John Wilmot only. This was the gentleman who came into Court
to vindicate his character ! Such character would be vindicated by
the smallest sum that could be mentioned, He would undertake
to show that he was a person who ought to blush to show his face in
a Court of Justice, and ought to be dismissed with reproach and
shame. His Learned Friend said the plaintiff was only 22 years of
age in 1835 This was very young indeed. It seemed that he at
that time took a lodging in Stamford-street for himself and wife,
Rachel Lamb being then his wife, at 4s. 6d. a week. At that time,
this gentleman, of no trade or profession, was an attorney's clerk!
His wife (Rachel), was there delivered of a child. This was wife "the
First." In April, :1837, he married Hannah Hodson, and was
then clerk to a person in Conduit-street. If his Learned Friend had
produced a witness, be would have proved from him ;hat he there
lived with Hannah Hodsonj and at that time the ruin of that un-
fortunate young person, Eliza Crisp, was then plotted,
and that marriage contrived, by which it was intended to
give the plaintiff the command of her property. His Learned Friend
had said Wilmot had been acquainted with her previously, in
1828 ; if so, judging from his present age, it must have been a mere
nursery affection! Miss Crisp had property to the amount of about
700/., and Wilmot pretended that he had property too, but that it
was in the south of France, and that the rents came in very slowly.
He treated the young woman extremely ill; threatened to take her
life for the purpose of compelling her to give bins money, and
eventually deserted her, leaving her afflicted with a loathsome
disease, after which he went to the embraces of Hannah Hodson,
with whom he continued to live ever since. What damages
could such a man as this claim for his character! After a few
further observations Mr. Thesiger sat down.
Maria Morgan, the first witness, stated that she is half sister to
Rachel Lamb. In 1835 she lived in Stamford-street, and after that
in Brunswick. Witness was not present at her marriage with the
I plaintiff, but theyilived together as man and wife, and she always
called Wilmot her husband. They had a child. They lived to-
gether from January or February, till the latter end of August.
Believes that'during the time she was out of a situation she lived
with her friends. Her sister is living now in a situation In Flaur-
de-lis Court. She last saw Mr. Wilmot in Fleet Prison.
Mrs. Ann Maria Evans examined by Mr. THESIGER.—Knows
Wilmot the plaintiff; he took apartments in her house in the latter
part of January, 1835. Mrs. Wilmot first looked at them : her
husband afterwards came with her, and they lived together as man
and wife. She was confined at witness's house. Mr. Boast at.
tended her. Has seenlWilmot once lateiy in the Fleet Prison about
three weeks ago.

Cross-examined by Mr. LYNN.— She came first, and afterwards
they came together. Witness only waited en her during her con-
finement. She hat very little conversation with her.
Mr. Boast is a surgeon. Knew Wilmot in 1835; he was clerk to
a solicitor. He applied to me to attend his wife, who lived in
Brunswick-street, Blackfriars road. My assistant attended her.
Cross .examined—Did not know at that time she was not his wife.
He appeared about 18 or 19 years of age.
Charles Powell—ls parish clerk of St. George's, Hanover square.
Produces registry of marriages for 1837. Finds, on sth April, an
entry of a marriage between John Alexander Wilmot and Hannah
Hodson.

Sarah Drew—Went into the service of Mrs. Hodson in 1836 in
;he King's Bench, where she was confined. She went to live in Ber.
kcley.strcet West in January following, and then removed to Sey-
mour-street. Knew Wilmot. Wilmot continued to visit her after
she left the prison.
Cross-examined—Lived with her at the time of her marriage.
They lived in Suffolk-street, where they remained very little time,
when they removed to Half Moon-street. They continued to live
together some time after the June following. She dressed her for
her marriage, but was not present at it. Never saw Mr. Hodson. Mrs.
Hodson said lie had been dead several years; that he had been
drowned.
William Drew—Was servant to Mrs. Hodson while she was in
the Bench. Lived with her afterwards. Was present at her mar-
riage with Wilmot.
Cross-examined—Wilmot was living, previous to the marriage,
with Mr. Hollybar, at 11 per week.
. Ann Knight—Her husband keeps a lodging-house. She has
worked for Mrs. Wilmot since her marriage. Is a creditor of Mr.
Wilmot. Notice was served on her lately. She lent Mrs. Wilmot
121. to save him from transportation.
Mr. Burke—ls a solicitor at Rochester. Is a creditor of Wil.
mot's. Has had notice that Wilmot intends to take the benefit of
the Act. The notice is a similar one to his. It is a printed notice.
Mrs. Jane Garratt—Lives in George-street, Portman.square.
Knows J. Wilmot and H. Hodson, who passed as his wife. They
lodged with her in the latter end of April, 1838 ,Heard Wilmot
tell his wife he had pledged his body and soul for her. This was on
3d April, three days before she was taken up. They had a dreadful
fight, Mr. and Mrs. Wilmot, and Sophia Short, about money. Does
not know whether they were quarrelling about Mr. Wilmot.
Cross.examined—ls married; they lived with her three weeks;
Sophia Short was spending the day with them.
Rogers.—ls servant of Mr. Potter, a livery-stable keeper.
Was employed to drive out Mrs. Hodson while she lived at Mrs.
Garrett's. Saw Mr. Wilmot first at Bow-street, he was directed to
drive there. Saw him afterwards in Chancery-lane; he was dis-
charged upon bail. He returned to Manchester street until he was
arrested. Ile drove down to Maidstone to take his trial accompa-
nied by Mrs. Hodson four in hand, and up again on his acquittal.
Witness went to ask him for his money while he was in the Fleet,
and Wilmot told him he would keep him out of it.
Eliza Crisp was then called, a very respectable and petty young
woman—Lives at Rochester. Had property to the amount of 7001.
or 8001. in 1838. Wilmot came to Itechester to see her at the
latter end of 1837; offered her marriage; said that he had a yin.
tage that his aunt had left him in France; that be had loved witness
previously, and he then offered her marriage, and tolay the whole of 1
his property at her feet. He took witness to a Mr. Monk, in London,
to inquire concerning the property before they were married. They
were married at Rochester on the sth of January, 1838, and imme-
diately afterwards set out for London. Wilmot only lived with wit-
ness for one week, and during that time'he communicated a disease
to her. The witness was very much affected during the whole time
she was giving her evidence.

Mr. Agar examined—ls the Governor of Maidstone-gaol. NVil-
mot was committed to his custody on the 20th of April, and was
subsequently tried at the Assizes.

Mr. LYNN, in reply, said that he never felt himself placed in
a more delicate situation. There was a duty he owed to his client,
and there was also a duty he owed to himself; and he felt he
should be borne out by his Lordship in saying that the duty
of an
advocate did not force him to adopt a line of conduct
the
which, as a gentleman, he ought not. He watchhatd
hed
case with the greatest attention, and after
been brought forward, he could not persist in calling
wbound to
uponw th. Jury
to give him a verdict for damages beyond what tnbee
y were
could feel more
grant according to the law of the country.
than he did for the situation in which the pol:Laond mildestunfortunateterm,
and
had been placed by the imprudence, to use
misconduct of the plainti all join in condemns.
plaintiff. I suing,"
sistert n o
jfu
stthi ec
ec
aoencdourcdti
nogf :oh
lawp,l a
andinti ff, b ultwbye.o.un
da rteo
pointswor n
outto to
odymi.
ot
tpeaatrnoned onGeenotf;,:rnh pitehaesn tchnet
ej
inedst i
ifincltaoat iwo nlegi is not
argumentmade oi
nu
supportl'he
an
of his assertion. iatinotnheuscdoaurldingntoot
account for it by
that appetite for notoriety which
suffiLcoiredntlly)r NadmmAirreinthramudinagcituype,
gratification at all hazards,
fohbtsehs eerve d
could
plaintiff,
only
y
come forward in a Court of Justieesee..•k
noticedd p ine n
rwt haenm)
do
ttudisgraceful
emr nt nweoru, tl
dh ann.
tnboet
nanodticwedoua'tdarial.ther be
oteicffeectautai alint
eoufwitthisof most disgusting
punishing the
mostHe
pp
rr
oe
cfeere, as the a t o (Lord
n
plaintiff. He had clearly been guilty of the commission of bigamy,

he stated was John Alexander I,lfli-...,Yf,,theson of a respectable At.
torney at Rochester. The defendants wee nalna;eri the pro-
prietor, and Mr. Robert Bell, the editor of the 11-cekly
plaintiff complaining of a libel published in that paper, and for which
the riefendtinta had ;int in a plea of justification in part. The libel
appe;ii•O t the ,olutiti.44 61 the peper referred to not cs an article
of police Intelligence, thtt part of the publication
appropriated to answers to correapondents. it stated that
Captain John Alexander Wilmot had been elan:dried before the
Dogherries of Maidstone for having married a great number of wires,
—that this Xing Solomon's propensity for a number of wires used to
be felony and a hstogii;g elatt.tr; tint that in this case the party had
been admitted to bail in the sum of ,M)i.i—that he had married
many other ladies, but only three appeared againsi lihni the re-
mairitier being kept in reserve ; and the inference was, a Matt Might
marryas many wives its lie plt,zeett and swindle them out of theirpro-
perty, provided he chose to forfeit his feaghltatnes to the amount of
4001., and that thus it appeared a man may indulge in polygamy to
the extent of three wives, at the rate of 1331. Is. Bd. per wife,
That our magistrates were extremely adroit in fixinga price on every
species of crime, and that the English had become an extremely
civilized people. This was the libel complained of. A plea of
justification had been put in by the two defendants, They stated
that the plaintiff had been married on Gth April, 1837, to a person
named Hannah Hodgson; and that, in January 1838, he had mar.
ried anothi r person named Rachel Lamb; and that he hail also
been married to a person named Elizabeth Crisp. In the pre_
vions proceeding they had suffered judgment to go by default ;
and, therefore, the simple question would be the amount of
damages. The part of the libel the defendants had not at-
tempted to justify. was the statement that the plaintiff
had married many other ladies who were "kept in reserve." He
(Mr. Lee) was instructed to state that the person named Hannah
Hodgson had been married to a gentleman in York, from whom, on
account of some disagreement, she had been separated. At that
time the defendant resided at Maidstone, where he became ac-
quainted with a Miss Crisp, who was the daughter of a brewer. In
the year 182.9 he came to town, where he married Mrs. Hodgson,
who then represented herself to be a widow. While he was living
with her a gentleman called and desired to see her in private.
High words were heard between them, and on inquiry it
proved that she was in fact his wife. Mr. Wilinot conic
quently separated from her, and went back into the country,
where he renewed his acquaintance with Miss Crisp, and shortly
after married her. On these facts the charges referred to in the
libel were founded. There was no pretence for saying that any
prorerty had been obtained by the plaintiff. The property of Miss
Crisp was a share in the brewery, and in respect to that there was
afterwards a dispute between the plaintiff and the mother of Eliza-
beth Crisp ; through the ill blood arising from that dispute he seas
taken before the magistrates, and charged with bigamy, but lie was
eventually tried and acquitted of that felony. The Learned Gen.
tleman proceeded at some length to argue against the enormity of
the Mail complained of, as not one single word of It was true.
Under circumstances so clear it was quite unnecessary for him to
trespa acn the time of the Jury. As for the pleas of justification
it was his opinion they were on the record an a mere matter of
speculation.
Lord Dcatmaat intimated that, as the publication had been ad-
mitted, the:Learned Gentleman, Mr. Ler, had nothing to prove.
Mr. LEE—No, my Lord.
Mr. THESIGER, Counsekfor the defendants, expressed his sur-
prise at the course pursued by his Learned Friend, who had
opened by stating a great number of facts, without offering proof
of any one of them, Who was John Alexander Wilmot ? The
Jury knew nothing about who he was. They had no guide what.
ever as to his character. His Learned Friend ought to have
given them sonic history of him, or have shed a few rays
of light on it from which the Jury might discover who
he was ; but he had thought it prudent to shroud Mr. Wilmot in
as much obscurity as possible, and to allow no light to fall upon him
in order that he might stand out in relief before them, and they
might see who he really was. He trusted he should be able most
clearly and satisfactorily to show this to them, and it would affbrd,
he thought, a complete justification for the defendants, and prove
that Wilmot was a person who in a Court of Justice was entitled to
mere nominal damages. The editor of the paper knew so more of
Mr. Wilmot at the time of the insertion of the paragraph
than the Jury did at this moment, and therefore could not
have been actuated by any malice against that indivi-
dual. He had merely heard of the circumstances that took place
before the magistrates, and the libel,—if libel it was,—was one
against the magistrates, and not against Mr. Wilmor, of whom he
knew nothing, and of whom he cared nothing. It was inserted
amongst a great variety of notices to correspondents, and so far was
certainly not indicative of malice; the whole object was to arraign
theconduct of the magistrates for admitting to bail on so serious a
charge. If the editor thought the magistrates had not done their
duty, he had a right to arraign them at the bar of public opinion ;
and he had merely done this with the admixture of a little
badinage.
Lord I)ewslaN here interrupted Mr. Thesiger. He slid not see
how he could prove the justification, if Mr. Hodson was alive at
the time the plaintiff was married to Mrs. Hodson. He knew of