The Sun.
London, England, 1830-12-01 00:00:00

defendant's gross ill usage of her ;. that the defendant
frequently beat her, deprived her of food, and super-
seded her place in the house by another femsle,who
acted as housekeeper. Mrs. Smyth bad continued
to live separate from her husband from the year
1821 to the present time. Proceedings, on her part,
had been Instituted at Doctors' Commons. They
were continued till May, 1828, when, on a negotia
tion between the parties, and an offer on the:part of
Mr. Smyth to allow his wife lOU a year if she
would retire to America, they-Were put an:end to..
Mr. Smyth had since withdrawn from his olTer, and
his wife had, on many occasions, during the last six
years, been in a state of absolute want.

The 'Anima's carman was called to prove the de.
livery of the coals to Mrs. Smyth, at No. 45, Upper
Berkeley-street, in March, 1829 ; but the defendant,
who attended to conduct his defence in pet son, said
he would adMit the delivery, and the price of the
coals, and also that he was of ability to pay.
John Connor gilded that he went into Mr. Smyth's
service on the 14th of Februaty, 1824. Mrs. Smyth,
who had been away, returned on that day. Mr.
Smyth at that time lived in Sloane-street, Chelsea.
He had a housekeeper, named Judy Neill, and a
young woman as maid=servant, named Betsy Miller.
Mr. and Mrs. Smyth slept together for the first
three nights, after which they quarrelled and bad se.
parate beds. Mr. Smyth used to sleep in the back
parlour, and Mrs. Smyth up stairs. Witness used
to go to Mr. Smyth's room about nine o'clock in the
morning, and generally found Mrs. Neill there. Mr.
Smyth was in bed on those occasions. Saw Mrs.
Neill sometimes on the bed, outside the clothes. On
one occasion, when witness was going in, Mrs.
Neill stopped him, and called out—" Don't come in,
John; I'll'bring your master's things." She acted
as mistress of the house, and kept the keys. Mrs.
Smyth was kept up stairs. Witness's orders were
not to let any one in or out of the house, without
Mrs. Neill's approbation. The witness went on to
trete, that on two occasions Mr. Smyth struck his
wife with his fist; that he shook and pinched her at
another time; that he set a ferocious dog at her;
that once, when she complained that some hash was
sour, he drove her up stairs, and refused to allow
her to haVe any thing to eat; that the custom was
to send up the ten-pot to her after every one else in
the house had
.done with it ; and that Mrs. Neill
was in the habit ,ef saying, in the presence of Mr.
Smyth, that that was -good enough for the
the —•prostitute. Twice the servant was
ordered to give her only an inch of candle. She was
allowed very little fire, and sometimes none at all.
On his cross-examination by the defendant, the
witness stated, that Mrs. Smyth left the house soon
after he quitted the defendant's service ; and he
went into her service in St. James's-place, and con-
tinued to live with her for three or four months.
She afterwards went to live at a boarding-house in
Pauton-square.
The defendant put several questions to the witness
for the purpose of showing that on the occasions
when lie saw Mrs. Neill in the bed-room with the
defendant, he (the defendant) was ill. The witness,
however, denied that he was aware.of any illness;
but he admitted that the defendant used to he shaved
in bed, and to have his breakfast brought to him
there. On being pressed to say whether he did not
lotow that the defendant waa unwell, the witness
said, " You told me yourself that you were mad."
Do you think I am mad P— I thought so then.
Do you think so now ?--I have 110 right to think
about it.

Did you ever bear me say that I bad had a fall
from my horse 'e
—Yes, and you said you had been
deranged in your head ever since that time. You
said you were mad, and you believed others thought
BO (00.

Did you ever see any indecent familiarities be-
tween me and Mrs. Neill ?—I thought it rather in-
decent to see her with her knees en the bed, and
her face close up against yottrs, your wife being kept
up stairs ut the time.
Did you ever see me kiss her P--No.
Was Mrs. Neill handsome ?—She was very well;
red and comely looking. •
In answer to another question, the witness said
he believed that Mrs. Neill was addicted to drinking.
Do you really believe that I had any criminal in-
tercourse with her ?—I had
.0 suspicion of it.
You swear that, by virtue of the cross ?7-Yes;
had a strong suspicion of your doing it.—( Laughter.).
Did you ever see Mrs. Neil's face and mine touch.?
—I can't say I did; you were only close together.
Did you ever communicate your suspicions to
Mrs. 'Smith ?—No ; she. first mentioned her sus.
picions to me. " Don't you remember (continued
the witness) one ntorning she came down stairs and
carded Mrs. Neill in the bed-room with .you ?---
(treat laughter.)—Mrs. Neill said, ' that --
- hits come down stairs ;' and don't you recol-
lect, utter that, that you locked Mrs. Smyth in her
room up stairs ?"—(Continued laughter.)
The defendant proceeded to ask the witness a
great many questions as to expressions supposed to
have been used by him, to Which he either gave a
positive denial, or said be did not recollect.
Lord TENTERDEN, observing that the examination
into these matters was running to a very great length,
said he supposed the defendant meant to call wit-
nesses to contradict this man Connor.

The defendant said he thought he should be abkir
to show here, as be had done in the proceedings at
Doctors' Commons, that the witness was wholly un-
worthy of credit even on his own statement, lie
could not call Mrs. Neill to contradict him, for she
was in her grave--killed by these proceedings ! •
Witness—Killed by whisky, I believe !
The defendant—Now, I ask you, by virtue of the
oath you litiv•e taken in the presence of your Maker
and your Redeemer, whether you did not on some
one occasion say to Mrs. Neill and Betsy Miller, or
in their presence, that you had never lifted a hand to
your wife ; but, your rags, if she was like
mine, you would either end her or mend her ?
The ‘ritness appeared. quite astonished at this
form of question, and declared positively, that he
never used such an expression, or any thing to that
effect.

Were you ever in her bed-room when she was
there ?—Yes ; I whs sent there by you.
Were you ever in her bed-room when she lived
at Houghton' ?—Yes ; she ,was uuwcll, and I- took
her some medicine.

On those occasions when you was in her bed-
room did she ever ahk you to scratch her back?-•--
(Qreat laughter.)--No.

Did you not hear her.say, ouce, in the presence
of Mrs. Neill, that tihe knew I would not touch ,the
finest woman in England, as I was too fond of her ?
—Wittiest (laughing)—No.
The witness went on to state, in 1113Wer to some
further qUettiont, that afar Mrs. Smyth left the
defendant's house, he (the witness) wait in the habit
of walking out with her as her servant ; and that on
some occasions, when it rained, he held fte utubritll4
over her head, and she took him by the arm.
You were quite close together On those occasions?
....-Yes; quite close._

Quite RS close us Mrs. Neill and I wore when you
saw us in bed together ?—No; not quite so closee•-•
(Laughter.)
Did I treat you with contempt or not ?—No.
What l did I not, when you came to my house
with a message' from my wife, send you away with a
flea in your ear, and call you a blackguard ?—Mir.
Smyth sent me for some things of ber's ?• and you,
seid, if over I took the knocker of your door in my
" would punish me.
IVVe a 41
lfa;4 you would
I not also call you a blackguard ?
—You might, certainly, for it Wilt 'a word that was
familiar to you.—(A laugh.)
The cross.examination of this witness was eie7
tended to a very great length. The 'principal quilt,
(which we give us a
stipoetentirriitetiaidocrlittlitoen.wthootet)ll::reaebioinveed
to
expressions
sup"
posed to have been used by Mrs. Smyth, Mrs.
Neill, the defendant, and the witness, on different
occasions. The object- seemed' to be to falsify the
iiittleSea SVidollea in Chiefiendtoshow that he was
As for as WS conid
altogether unworthy of

judge, however, he answered all the questions fairly,
and there was nothing to impeach his credit.
Richard Maybank, watch-house-keeper, at Chel-
sea, stated that in 1821, in consequence of a mes-
sage from Mr. Smyth's house, he went there on one
occasion, when he found Mrs. Smyth on her knees
in the front room, crying very much. Mr. Smyth
was standing by her side, and there was a pistol on
the table. Mrs. Smyth complained sadly of the
ill-treatment which she said she had received from
her husband. She was requested to go up stairs,
but she said she dreaded being again locked up in
the room there. With a deal to do, she at last went
up stairs, and Mr. Smyth locked her in.
Cross-examined.—This was before she was put
into the mad-house.

Do you know which party sent for you ?...-No;
the person who came said you were ill-using your
wife and killing her.
Did you not think her mad ? No—l thought her
like all other women.

Do you think all other women mad ? No—far
from it, I thought you mad.
The defendant then addressed the Jury. lie said
he had five good and sufficient defences to the
action.—(A laugh.) He should show, first, that
the debt was contracted wkile his wife was suing him
in the Ecclesiastical Court; secondly, that alimony
had been regularly paid to her under a decree of
that Court; thirdly, that at the time the credit was
given, she was living separate and apart from him,
without any justifiable cause; fourthly, that he had
paid her regularly an adequate maintenance, suitable
to his means and station ; fifthly, that coals were
not necessaries.—(Great laughter.) lie then en-
tered into details, and called witnesses to support
hie case, when Lord TENTERDEN said, as it now
appeared that the credit for the coals was given
during the time thitt the defendant was paying
alimony under a decree of the Consistory Court, he
was of opinion that the action was not maintainable.
The plaintiff was than nonsuited.
The ruse occupied the greater part of the day.

SF.CONDAIIIILS OFFICE, Nov. 30.

BREACH OF
.PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.---RUSSELL V.

WADR.
The following case, which was tried before Mr.
PurrEit, excited a great deal of interest. It was
upon a writ of inquiry for the assessment of damages
for a breach of promise of marriage. The damages
were laid at 1,0001.

Mr. 0,31.1 t, solicitor to the plaintiff, also acted as
Counsel: and Mr. CHARLES PHILLIPS wus Counsel
fur the defendant.

Mr. OGLE stated the case for his client. She
was the daughter of a respectable woman, who kept
a lodging-house, in which the defendant, a painter,
resided. From the moment the defendant entered
the house an intimacy commenced between him and
the young lady, ;and they soon became pledged, to
each other as man and. wife. The defendant ap-
peared to be most sincere in his attachment, and
that the young lady was sincere, and had the most
unbounded reliance upon his honour, was unfortu-
nately proved by the result of the intercourse. The
defendant had, or pretended to have, a curious fancy
about him with respect to issue. He seemed de-
termined not to marry any girl until he ascertained
whether she was likely to have children or not, and
the proposal of an experiment was accepted. The
matter was decided in the affirmative. The young
lady's conduct, in this instance, had for authority
the ancient and well-known practice which subsisted
in Wales; but the defendant, although he admired
the Welch custom preparatory to the indissoluble
tie, was satisfied with the test he had received, and
married the daughter of another !tidy to whom he
became a lodger. The plaintiff's feelings, upon the
occasion, were tortured in the extreme. She ha,'
always borne the most excellent and irreproachable
character, and was now the mother of a child of
which the defendant was the father,, and which, in-
stead of proving a source of unalloyed happiness
and comfort, reflected disgrace upon the unfortunate
young lady.
Mrs. Hannah Reale% mother to the plaintiff,
knew defendant about six years. He had 21. a
week as journeyman to a Mr. Lush y Law, a painter,
and also did business for himself. He came to lodge
in her house, and an intimacy at once sprung up
between him and her daughter. In March, 1828,
she found that her daughter was pregnant, and was
told by her that defendant was the father. Be-
fei.dant ellbcontinued his attentions a month after-
wards, and had since married the daughter of an-1
other landlady. Witness's daughter was confined
on the. 6th of October, 1828, and had suffered
greatly in her health in consequence of this cruel
treatment, had always maintained an irreproachable
character, and was greatly attached to the defendant.
She had never been flighty or guilty of levity: ,
Mr. OGLE asked witness whether her daughter
had not lost an advantageous offer, by. this calamity.
" Yes," said the witness, " a Mr. Bacon would
have paid his addresses."
Mr. Pittuit,s objected to this question, us well
as to many others, which Mr. Ogle, from a want of
experience, naked, in opposition to the rules of evi-
dence.

The witness, upon her cross•exarnination, stated,
that when the defendant lodged in her house he was
a journeyman painter, and that he was paid by the
week.

Mr. PntutPs—When did your.daughter tell you
that he intended to marry her l—After I' investigated
the affair of her being in the family way.
Were you present when the defendant told your
daughter why he would not marry her ?—No.
Did she not swear the child to him before the
parish officers —Yes. I was unable to keep the
child, and he paid 3e. 64. a week for its support.—
My daughter never made any' claim upon him for
money to my knowledge. I have that confidence in
her to believe that she would have communicated it
to me if she bad made any claim.
Take care, my good woman, what you say. Did
you ever see a letter in which she asked him for 600
—Never.

" What ! not that letter ?"—(llanding a letter to
her.)
Witness looked at the letter, and after a little
hesitation she admitted it was her daughter's writ-
ing. She also ,&d, upon being pressed by the
Learned Counsel, that she meant she never heard of
a claim that came to a settlement. The defentlint
had paid 51. for her daughter's coniinetnent, and W.
for things for the baby, independently of the weekly
allowance.

Mite Elizabeth Russell,. sister to the plaintiff,
stated,' 'that the defendant Went to reside et her mo-
ther's house in 1824, or 1826. She had beard him
say he CQukil earn l,t. is tiny. After he lied deserted
her sister, witness asked him his reason fur doingio;
anti he veld he• had "no reason,'.' lie never said
any thing. to .the.disparagensent Air ,bie slater on the
occasion., 114-mentioned. that lie hid 001. in a sari.
bugs'. bank. Witness never saw her sister allow any
one to take improper liberties with her, When she
'charged the defendant with being the father, he said
he was very sorry, but he would nut come to any
agreement.—(A laugh.)
This witness was cress-examined upon some minor
points, and it appeared that she had said a great
deal,upun mere hearsay.
OuLtt,then examined witnesses to prove
amongst wher things that the defendant was owner
of a house of considerable value, 'and failing in that
object, he stood' forward himself as a witness,' very
much to the 'astonishment' of Mr Phillips..
Mr. Quits deposed, that the defendant three or
four dayi ago offered, him-401. in- settlement of the
action. The offer was:titieetitlitional. Defendant.
m said, that the circustances.were very bad for himel-•
that, he knew he behaved very ill to the -young
‘votnati;—•-that be had promised her marriage, and
'not petformed his promise, for he fanried.she had
4c.,,e0. guilty of levity,--thet :he wished to, settle the
action, but !his circumstances, were indifferent, and
that be would give 404 together with costs. Wit.
nese, would Defenduni
then auk! he' would takethcbenefit of the lost:dyer's
Act; Witness tad hiM, be. uritierst mad that he halt_
a hOtilt worth -a considerable
,attest; to eehirh he re,

~::~.~.

plied that it was worth 600/., but that it was mort-
gaged for 500/.

Cross-examined—Pray have you kept any thing
back in kindness to the defendant ? Mr. Ogle—No-
thing, upon my honour.
Did you tell him that you would use every word
of this private communication against him ?—No, I
did not.

As you come forward yourself in such a manner,
your object is, I
,suppose, to enhance the damages ?
—I most undoubtedly wish to enhance the damages.
Prey, is it your custom to het information from
parties, for the purpose of g►ving evidence against
them l—Nn, I should scorn to do any thing of the
kind.

Oh ! then, it was because you failed in the evi-
dence you produced, that you offered your own ?
Certainly it was.

Mr. l'ututPs—Upott my word you have dia.
tinguished yourself us attorney, counsel, and witness.
—(Laughter.)
Mr. OGLE complained of want of courtesy upon
the part of Mr. Phillips.
In the course of the cross examination, which was
excessively severe, but upon points of no public in.
serest,

Mr. PHILLIPS asked the witness whether he did
not know that in the Secondaries' Court if a far-
thing damages ware given, the defendant would have
to pay the costs ?—Mr. Ogle replied that he really
did not know the fact. He had never once consi-
dered it. He must have read and heard of it 500,000
times, but he really never gave it a thought.
Mr. Ogle's clerk was also examined, but nothing
was elicited.

Mr. PHILLIPS then made an able address to the
Jury. He looked upon the case as a lesson to men
on the confidence they reposed in others; but he
begged to be considered as totally excepting the
general practitioners in the law from the rule he
wished to lay down. An attorney had thought
proper to undertake a cause in three different cha-
racters, and had also the mock modesty, after hav-
ing determined to try the experiment of a display in
those distinct capacities, to claim the indulgence of
the Court to his inexperience. Indulgence he cer-
tainly needed, for never had been formed so erro-
neous an estimate :Of the duties of any one of the
'characters he had stepped forward to perform. Had
there ever before appeared an instance in which a
gentleman of the law, finding that his witnesses
were unable to prove all he wanted to prove, stepped
into the box to fill up the defects himself? To be
lure, he had tried his clerk first, and that clerk had
brought to mind the story of Tim Flanagan, who
happened to be clerk to an Irish attorney, the terror
of the poor, a man who charged 6s. Bd. for a look,
and raised his price for a word in proportion. In
drawing up his briefs, that worthy limb of the law
regularly appended a note Gene " if the above is not
enough, call my clerk Tim Flanagan.'--(Loud';
laughter.)—But the Tim Flanagan of this case had
more conscience, and did not succeed in supplying
the deficiency. Ile left it for his master, who had
heard and read of a thing 500,000 times without
knowing any thing about it, to do that.—(LaugL-
ter.)—The Learned Counsel then proceeded to
comment upon the case itself.
Mr. Porrot, in summing up, stated that there
was no impeachment of Mr. Ogle's credibility, al-
though he certainly should have warned the de-
fendant of his intention to take advantage of the
communication made to him.
Thr Jury assessed the damages at 20!.

LONDON FASHIONS FOR DECEMBER.

(From the World of Position.)
WALLING LAPPS.

A high dress composed of lavender grey gros des ludes ;
the corsage is ornamented both in front and behind with
folds arranged el revantail ; the collar, which stands up
round the throat, is cut reund in long sharp dents. The
form of the sleeve is between the imbeciile and the demi
gigot. Chapeau demi capote of the material of the dress
ornamented on the inside of the brim with coquet of
vapeur gauze ribbon ; a full nceud of ribbon to correspond
is placed in front of the crown, and a tuft of ribbon. cut in
the form of an artichoke ornaments it behind. Ilalf-boots
of reps silk corresponding to the dress.