The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-09 00:00:00

since, and have seen the plaintiff's wife there. I have
also seen Susan and Mary Cohen, the servants, and
John Lee, the plaintiff's wife's brother.
Cross-examined by Mr. Crowder—The action was
brought last March, and this took place in June. lam
a shoemaker. The plaintiff worked at Salisbury-ter-
race when he slept at the defendant's. The plaintiff's
wife had been living in the service of the defendant for
eight years. The plaintiff was first in his service
three or four years ago. My brother's wife acted as
defendant's assistant and housekeeper, and attended to
the female patients. I know Mrs. Robinson. My bro-
ther visits her, I believe. I dont know that my bro-
ther lives with her. He sometimes lives at Salisbury-
terrace' I have been at two o'clock in the morning at
Mrs. Robinson's, and then left him there to finish the
night. lam not aware that Mrs. Robinson is a wo-
man of the town. 1 knew nothing about her before
the last two months. The plaintiff has other means of
existence beyond what Mrs. Robinson gives him. lam
not aware that they live together as man and wife. He
sleeps with her. I first knew of his connexion with her
last March, since his separation from his wife. I per-
suaded my brother to leave the defendant's house. The
plaintiffand his wife slept at the top bf the house in Bruns-
wick-square. The servants slept in the rooms below them,
and the defendant down stairs. After plaintiff left the
house, his wife remaining there, he continued to make
boxes for the defendant until February last. When the
plaintiff's wife lived at Salisbury-terrace I did not hear
her complain of his visits to Mrs. Robinson. I re-
commended my brotherltaointriffnghathdisnaocton
connexion with
Mrs. Robinsonaction.
Re
until
examined—The
plaintiff
months after his wife left him.
Mr. Meadows—I am a hairdresser at 25, Lloyd's-
row, St. J ohn's-street-road. On the 27th June I went
with ray friend Bradshaw to Hornsey. Near the River
Cottage, at five or six in the evening, I saw plaintiff
and his brother, and some others. They are all disin-
terested parties to me—complete strangers. An alter-
cation was going on. There were two females present.
Plaintiff's wife pointed to plaintiff, and said, "You are
my husband, I know." He said he had found her out
at last. The witness corroborated :the account given
by the last witness as to what had taken place, but
said that the defendant, a gentleman in spectacles, had
not come out till the end of the conversation, when he
told them not to make a disturbance, and said the
plaintiff must take his remedy.
Cross-examined—The plaintiff explained to me there
and then what were the names of the different persons.
They said an action had been commenced, and asked
for my name and address.
Mr. Bradshaw, a watchmaker, was called, and spoke
to the same facts as the last witness.

Vv
Mr. Desborough, a locksmith, who had done some
work at the River Cottage, proved that he had seen the
plaintiff's ,wife there.
Mr. Crowder then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, and characterised this as one of the most
disgraceful actions ever brought into a court of jus-
tice. It had been said by his learned friend that
evidence would be given as to what had taken place
in Brunswick-square, but neither the brother of the
plaintiff's wife, nor any one of the servants, had been
called, although one of them, at least, had been sub-
pienaed. The action was commenced in March, when
there was not the slightest proof of any criminal
intercourse between the defendant and the plaintiffs
wife, except the story told by the plaintiff's brother as
to what had taken place more than a twelvemonth
before. Not the slightest familiarity, except on that
occasion, had been noticed between them, and even this
circumstance had not been mentioned by John Beare to
his brother for several months. Either, therefore, it was
an abominable falsehood, or he considered that it amounted
to nothing. In this action, neither the plaintiff nor the
defendant could be called as witnesses, and thus it was
impossible to contradict what John Beare had stated.
But, after the communication had been made, the plain-
tiff left the house, and permitted his wife to remain
behind. If he was not to be considered a disgrace to
society, no suspicion had, therefore, been raised in his
mind. In June, 1853, the occurrence had taken place
at Hornsey, to which John Beare had spoken. With
regard to what he had said had taken place in the
morning, it was so perfectly absurd that he submitted
they could place no reliance on it. Then came the
occurrence of the evening. He could not see why it
should be supposed that it was more wrong for Mrs.
Beare to go down to Hornsey than the servant Cohen.
As she was living separated from her husband on ac-
count of the repeated misunderstandings between them,
he might perhaps have acted more prudently in not re-
ceiving her, although she had been a useful and atten-
tive servant to him for many years. It was impossible
that the defendant could have been so foolish, while this
very action was pending, to make admission which had
been spoken to as having been made on the evening of
the 27th June. Mr. liaise had merely said, according
to the statement of the witnesses called to corroborate
John Beare, that they must not make such a disturb-
ance on his premises, but must seek their remedy else-
where. Mrs. Beare's brother was still in the service of
the defendant, and it could not be supposed that he
would countenance his sister's living there in a state of
prostitution. He submitted, on all these grounds that
the defendant was entitled to their verdict.
No evidence was called for the defence.

Lord Campbell summed up, telling the jury that they
had to consider whether upon the evidence they were
convinced that before the 30th of March, when the ac-
tion had been commenced, the defendant had committed
adultery with the plaintiff's wife. Setting aside what
had taken place on the 27th of June, there would cer-
tainly have been no evidence to that effect, except what
John Beare had seen in February 1851. He must say,
he thought evidence as to indecent liberties having taken
place between the parties in such a case as this, at a
time when criminal intercourse was supposed to have
been already committed, was exceedingly improbable.
If they believed, however, what John Beare had said
with regard to what took place on the 27th of June, it
amounted to an admission, on the part of the defendant,
that he had been guilty of adultery ; but his evidence
varied from that of the two other witnesses, who were
present on the same occasion, as their account of what
passed would not prove any such admission. They must
consider whether, under all the circumstances of the case,
the criminal conversation alleged to have taken place
had been made out; and if it had they would give the
plaintiff such damages as they considered he ought to re-
ceive, if not they would find a verdict for the defendant.
The jury retired, and in about half an hour returned
and gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with 25/. damages.