The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-28 00:00:00

about four minutes, and then returned to the house,
and told her felloW-servants. .'
'Wm. Woodburne had been ten yearS in the
,sere
%dee of Mr. Gregson, and was latterly hip footman.
'Went out to the Garden at the time spoken of
the last witness, and,, after 'waiting some minutes,
he saw the Defendant quit that spot by himself, and
he immediately went away. The Defencfant never
Continued his visits so late, ;teethe time when Mr.'
Gregson returned, except
,once. ;The Witness sus
petting that there were Some imprupel- doings, left
the gate open, in order that Mr. Gregson .:might
come in without giving any notice. The Defendant,
howeVer, contrived to get away some or way other,
Without his master seeing him. He had himself Seen
the Delendahi kiss his Mistress three different times ,
at lease. He had taken one or two notess-from her
to the Defendant's house -in Broa&street. He bad
geee into the "room unexpectedly, and saw the
-Defendant and his mistress Sitting- on the sofa close
to each
Miss Matilda PhippS, a ycliifei lady only 14. years
ofage, deposed, that on ehfe°l tO2 'Of March, 1804,
• being then only ten years of age, lend a Visit to '
Mrs. Gregson, at her house in' the Coefirry. When
the Defendant, came,' she an • her J ister were sent
into the garden, but afterwards, in passing. byohe.
study-window, she i the Defendant kiss Mrs.
Gregson. It appeared to her very improper,_ and she
mentioned it to her mother When she went home.
Oae-Meredith, soh° hadbeen-at the house in the
ountry, Mahe absence of the-footman, was desired
by one of the maids to get a hut:born to light the.
Defendant home. It was a dark' night, and when
he was in the hall he saw Mrs. Gregson and the De-
fendant' come down stairs together. bad been •
before proved, that in the upper part of the house
there were no rooms for the reception of company,
but only bed-chambers, and . a small dressing-room
of Mrs. Greg-son."
Some other servants of the Plaintiff corroborated
the statement of the abate
Wooclroff, aeotherservant of the Plaintiff,
Spoke as to the transhetioneit 'the tpwrr-house, She
Corroborated the orcount.cf the visits, and tha blind
being let down. She has-'seen them sitting very
cicise' to each other on tvaW arm-Chairs. She re-
Membered one day in the beginning Of tile present
yeat; that,- during one of these visits, she beard a
of the Moving of chairsewhich continued for a
longtime. She was herself a married woman,and had
no doubt that a criminal a& had been committed at
that time. The kitchen in which she then was, was
separated from the parlour by so thin a partition, that
• every noise could be distinEtly heard. Her mistress
used, instead of ringing, to tap at the partition when
the wanted any thing. '-'V hen Mr. M'Taggart
Came out, he tv: nt into flie)-kitchen, and began to
speak to ip.,e for a few nfflitifesa and Mrs. Gregson
then eanaeont ; and the 'witness endeavoured to look ,
a. them, as s-he bad the strongest suspicions, but they
both fixed their eyes so fulliapon-herohat she could
not look at them. Her mistress immediately went up
stairs. She went into the rborn;:and saw the chairs
placed in a different part of the room, and very close .
to each other.'
On her cross-examination shesaid, that there was
a loose cover over the sore, which was not discoma
posed. Although she had the strongest iuspicions Of
aacriminal connedion having then taken place, she
did not 'mention it at the time, as she did not thiek.
that one circumstance was enough to take away her
mistress charaater.
A few witnesses being called to confirm different
parts of this statement, the case of the Plaintiff was -
closed. '
Mr: DALLAS then made. a very able speech on
the part of the Defendant. He said •he should have
hardly a word to address ,the' Jury ore the subjeet
of damages, for that upon Wee be meant th rely -
was, that the Defendant hedThnt, a true' plea on
the record when he said 'he Was not guilty of the ,
crime . imputed to hirai; :He trusted that after the
Jury had heard the oblseliations 'which it was his
duty to address to them, tliyhwould be of opinion
that the crime of adultery had- not been proved ;
and he, in his conscientious opinion, believed that
it had not been committed between these parties.
He did not mean to say that paying frequent and
Icing visits to a -married woman •in the absence of her
husband was in itself a proper thing.. He did
not mean to deny that personal familiarities, such as
kissing her, as had been sworn, was a censurable
action ; but a great deal more must be' proved
before 'any thing like adultery could be establish-
ed. As tO the visits in. the :ipresebt instance, it
was evident that if the Defendant visited Mrs. Greg-
eon at ail at the countraedrousee it Must have been
in the absence of-her husband: It had been proved
that her husband was in ahe•habit of going. to town
at eight in the morning, and •not returning till nine
or ten o'clock at night.- It could not then be sup-
posed that any one, would, come to pay visit; before
eight in the morning, or after ten -at -night.e--
kisaing her (which •had been sworn to) was,
,perhaps, a.censurable familiarity; but when it was •
recollected what sort of a woman Mrs. Gregson was
now proved to be, if was not easy to ascertain to what .
dhgree he-might have been provoked to this familiari-
ty. As to tie blinds of, the drawing-room being
down, it had been confessed by one of the witnesses,
on her cross-examination, that the slay shone- strong
_on thg. room, and the blinds were generally down
the. Treater part of the.day. His visits.had usually
taken place about six ca'cluck, when- the blinds were
ttatur.ily down, as the son atilt shone on the loom.
As for 'all that was. alleged to have passed in the,
ceuetry hcuse, lie never"'heardsecharge of 'adultery
attempted to be madeout On SLICh Si ightcircuthstances.
It. had not appeared_ that the doors were ever fasten-
ed ; servents had come in 'Unrest, them without no-
tice, and never:saw them in any indecent situation.
Once they were seen sitting together on a sofa, and
another time on; two artn-chairs, but neither time
eeeas there any thing like incleceicy in their situation. •
It wastproye(lAlat Mrs. Gregs sal. dressed herself a
little eiure when she expeCied a visitor, and that she *
was not quite so cleanly in her person
.when she ex-
&echo be alone. There were, however,ho &coin-
stances from which adultery could be Mferred. The
lreflttettcy of his visits migld•Perhaps be accounted
for on another principle. Hayieg lost his own wife,
his hOthe had lost its
.brincip retraelion, and he
- might 'ienoCently seek, 'in the eonversation of alio-
thler wointin, theae,nlea.sures which be had

been' formerly accustomed to in dornestic fife.. Ns
to -the walk in 'the shrubbery, although the parties
might be out of the view of the servants for a short
!hue, bethought it. by no means-followed, that any
thing criminal had taken-place on that occasion. It
was a little extraordinary, that those Servant maids.
who were. so attentive •to 'One part of the trans-
aAion, should not- have also ob,erved when their
mistress returned, whether her. dress was so discom-
posed, or whether it bore 'any of those marks which
might have been expected from such a scene, as they
had supposed at such a place, and under such cir-
cumstances. in fad, nohe cf those strong. cir-
cumstances were.-broughtforward upon this occasion
which were always brought forward in every similar
case, when it was attempted to establish the fa& of
adultery from circumstances;' and yet when it was
recollected the Plaintiff. was an emitftnt Solicitor,
and that almost all the witnesses were his own ser,
van t s,it could not be supposed that there was a single
circumstance omitted which could, bypossinility,
have helped out the case. The fads sworn to at the
town-house were Of the same description. No doors
were ever fastened, and the parties, were never found
in indecent situations. As to what one of the
witnesses
_swore to having hea?d from the kitchen,
it was. the most improbable story he ever heard in
his - life. Could it be supposed that any woman
who knew that the mem that she vas' in was sepa-
rated from the kitchen by so slight a partition that
every noise could be• ditindly heard, and who
herself used to rap at that partition when she want-
ed her servants, should ro far expose herself to
them as had been described by the. witnesses ?
When Mrs. Gregson came out the witness bad not
observed any disorder, in her dress. When she went
up stairs, and the witness entered the parlour, she
found the sofa not disordered, and the only "suspicious
circumstance she could find was the two arm-chairs
close together. The _Learned - Counsel dWelt at
some length on. theitnprobability of this story, or of
the aEtual commission of the crime which had been
charged against his Client. He felt so strongly that
his Client was entitled to a verdict, that he did
not know how to say any thing in mitigation of
damages, which would appear. as if he gave up the
strength of his case. If he' were to speak,- however,
about damages, he would .beg the Jury to consider
what sort of a woman this was, for whom the bus.-
band carne a second time into a Court of Justice to
demand reparation in damages for the loss till her
society. The first, verdict gave hitn a right 'to be
divorced from .this" bad. woman, and a verdict now,
ccyld *give him nothing but pecuniaiy damages. He
might mention that this was a woman who had been
married a long tithe without, having any children,
who was proved tobe given to drinking, and whom
the Defendant might have visited at first from the
most innocent 'motives, being a near neighbour, and
having_ himself lately lost his wife, whose conversa-
tion gave, his home a plea Sure while she lived, thk he
was now obliged to seek else-Where.
_ _

Lord ELLETIBOROUGH recapitulated the whole of
the evidence, and made several observations as he
proceeded. As to the personal familiarity which the
Defendant had been at different times seen to use, in
kissing Mrs. Gregson, that circurnstance.was
princi-
pally important as giving a charther to the sort of
intimacy which subsisted between them. It was
extraordinary that when he usually continued his vi-
sits so late as nine, he should never have staid to see
the husband, with whom he waSOn terms of friend-
ihip, and, who usually returned a little after nine. It
was a circumstance worthy of observation, that when
he was even walking in the shrubbery with her, and
paying so great attention' to her at one time, he'
should return froin the place he brought her to, alone
and without continuing those attentions. As to the
observation made by the Learned Counsel-for the
Defendant, of the improbability Of a, woman exposing
'herself to be overheard by her maid in the kitchen,
when she knew that every noise must be heard, it
must be. recolle&ed that at this time she had prosti-
tuted herself to the embraces of a coachrnan, and
had probably lost all regard to decency, or all
other cobsiderationa, and that caution which a
woman in other circumstances Might be sup Posed to
feel. In cases of this nature, howeVer, Juries would
not determine, on slight circumstances, that the
crime of adultery had been committed; but if the
circumstances appeared to them so strong and preg-
nant, that they could have no reasonable doubt in
their minds but that the fa& was committed, it
would be their • duty to, say so in their verdict, and
to award such reasonable damages as the nature of
the czise required. , .
_

The Jury retired .for more than two hours ; on
their return; they found for the Plaintitr—Damages
One. Shilling.

COURT OF CONIMON PLEAS; futy 27.
MALICIOUS ARREST.

WILSON V. TUItNeR.

Setjeant cooraLL for the PI intiff, =stated,
that this was an aaion to recover damages for a
'a
groundless and malicious arrest.. His client had.
been a very respetiable apothecary and surgeon at
Yoxford, in Suffolk, but had fallen into' difficulties
in consequence Ofsuffering himself to be persuaded
to engage in some commercial speculations with,a
person whom he would not then name (Johnson
the smuggler). The Defendant, Turner, had,, in
February 1806, arrestedlim for 72 11. and,kept him
in, prison for a twelvemonth, where he was almost
starved, having nothing to live upon but the prison
allowance. The Plaintiff knew nothing of Turner;
had never seen_ him in Ws life, nor ever bad any
transactions with him. His client had tised the
legal means of forcing the Defendant to come into
Court and prove, his demand, if he had any, but
Turner had not. appeared, and his client had been
discharged upon a superscdeas. _ _

Mari. Gordon, the*Deputy Filazer for the City of
London, swore to his taking the affidavit of the De-
fendant for 7211. to arrest,the Plaintiff, in
,F,ebruary,
1806. Some other witnesses prove the taking out
the capias upon this, and its execution..

John Teague, the .Keeper of the Giltspur-street
Compter, proved the confinement of Wilson upon
an arrest by Johnson, the smuggler, and upon a de-
tainer by the Defendant for 7211. He stated that the
attorney .for Turner and lohnton, and Mr. Joseph
Hill, of Rood-lane,, had somettnizs called. and said,
that Wilson might be discharged upon mutual re-
:eases between himself-and Johnson. . •

11;nac,(-1 by kieviA su) 1-1 arst rs .01. No. 4, Iktaittert-CAUrt. Dow-street;
- "k1;1-, -51-:-Q;f7.:ot No. 112 Straildl where Advhiisentents, Orders