The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-08 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before Lord Camp
bell and a Special Jury.)

MITCHELL V. THE PRINCE OF ARMENIA.-CRIM. CON.
This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages from the defendant, the Prince of Armenia, for
an alleged criminal intercourse with the plaintiff's wife.
The counsel for the plaintiff were Mr. E. James, Mr.
Wordsworth, and Mr. T. Caird ; and for the defendant
Mr. Macaulay and Mr. T. J. Clark.
Mr. E. James, in opening the case, stated that the
plaintiff, Mr. W. H. Mitchell, had formerly been a mer-
chant, at Amoy, on the north east coast of China, but
was now sheriff and chief magistrate at Hong Kong,
which position he had held for eight years, his salary
being 1,0001. a-year. The defendant was the Sovereign
Prince of Armenia, and he had lived in this country for
many years, and according to his own account, was pos-
sessed of considerable means. The lady who was the sub-
ject of the enquiry was a widow when she married the
plaintiff, a person of great education and accomplish-
ments, and of great beauty. She had been the wife
of Mr. Kirby, and she came with him from Aus-
tralia to Hong Kong. While there Mr. Kirby
left her, and proceeded alone to England, where
he died. Shortly afterwards plaintiff met the widow,
and an intimacy sprung up between them, which re-
sulted in their becoming man and wife in the year 1848.
The marriage took place at Hong Kong. Mrs. Mit-
chell had a female child by her former husband, and in
1851 she obtained the consent of Mr. Mitchell to go to
England with her daughter, and he entrusted them to
the care of Dr. Stuart and Mrs. Stuart, his intimate
friends, who were then about to sail for this country.
She arrived inE ngland in 1852, an d it appeared first becam e
acquainted with the Prince at a boarding house, which was
frequented by Louis Blanc,'and some other of the politi-
cal refugees, with whom he was in the habit of associating.
The learned counsel then entered into the details of the
case' which will be found in the evidence, and said he
should prove not only that a guilty intercourse took place
between them once or twice, but that such intercourse
was continued for months and months.
The following witnesses were then called :
The Rev. Vincent J. Staunton examined—l am a
clergyman of the Methodist Church. In 1848 I was
colonial chaplain at Hong Kong. I and my wife were
both at Hong Kong M that year. I knew Mr. Mitchell
_ _

intimately. When I first made his acquaintance he was
in business, but since then he has aced as chief

trate of Hong Kong. I knew Mrs. Mitchell before her
last marriage. She was the wife of Mr. Kirby. She
had two children by him, but one died. In 1848 I
solemised the marriage of Mrs. Kirby and Mr. Mitchell.
We received her into our house a week before the mar-
riage. Her husband having died, she was then in dis-
tress and had not a suitable residence. After the mar-
riage they went to Macao. They moved in the fir
society in Hong Kong. I observed great kindness and
amiability on the part of Mr. Mitchell to his wife.
Cross-examined—There was not. the same amiability
on the part of Mrs. Mitchell. The plaintiff was not
kindly treated by her. I knew her two or three months
before the marriage. It wv.s a short time after Mr.
Kirby left Hong Eong that we heard of his death.
There may have been twelve months between his de-
parture and the marriage. I left Hong Kong three
years ago, and left Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell there. Mr.
Mitchell is in England now. I have seen him. I also
saw Mrs. Mitchell a few days ago.
Re-examined.—l called upon Mrs. Mitchell at her
lodgings.
By Lord Campbell.—She went into mourninc, after
the death of her husband, but I cannot say whether she
wore mourning at the mari...a,ge or not.
By Mr. James--I should suppose the petitioner is 35,
and Mrs. Mitchell is about 30.

Mrs. Mary Legg examined—l reside at 6, Burton-
crescent, and I am the widow of the late Mr. Legg, who
was formerly consul at Amoy, on the north-east coast of
China. I knew Mr, Mitchell when he was living at
Amoy. I received a letter from him when I was in
London, announcing the arrival of his wife in England.
(The letter was here put in and read. In it the peti-
tioner spoke of his wife in terms of affection, and re-
quested witness to give her accommodation in her house.)
Mrs. Mitchell and her little girl arrived in May,
1853. I had prepared rooms for them in con-
sequence of that letter. She came in company with Dr.
Stuart and his wife. Mr. Stuart is about 50 years or
age. She resided in my house six weeks. Dr. Stuart
and his wife visited her occasionally at my house. She
removed in June to 35, Weymouth-street, which is a
boarding-house. She visited me sometimes afterwards,
but not often. Up to this time I knew nothing of the
Prince of Armenia, and her conduct in my house was
perfectly correct.
Cross-examined—My son and myself were the only
persons who lived in the house besides Mrs. Mitchell
and her daughter. I expected she would have been a
permanent inmate. She said she thought it would be
economical to go to a boarding-house; that was the only
reason she gave for leaving. Mr. Angell sometimes
visited her ; he lives at Greenwich ; lie is not a married
man. She had no acquaintances in London to my
knowledge.
Re-examined—l received a remittance from Mr.
Mitchell when his wife came to my house, but I cannot
recollect the amount.

Mrs. Mullings examined—l reside at 35, Weymouth-
street, Portland-place. I keep a boarding-house there.
I am the widow of Captain Mullings, of the Victory.
(Here the witness seemed affected, and ran out of court
on the mention of the name of her husband, who, it
afterwards transpired, was brutally murdered by a crew
of coolies on the coast of China. In a few minutes she
returned and was accommodated with a seat.) I went
to 35, Weymouth-street, on the 11th of August last.
The house was formerly kept by another person.
When-I took possession of it I-found Mrs. Mitchell and
her daughter were inmates. There was a gentleman
named Pardo and his family, and another named
Cooper also in the house. Mrs. Mitchell remained
at the house from the 11th of August to 12th of
September. I believe she came first sometime
in June. She occupied a bed-room on the second
floor • it was a front room. I thought it was too small,
and I put her into the back room on the drawing-room
floor. The Prince of Armenia came to the house two
or three days after the 11th of August. He called to
see Mrs. Mitchell and Mr. Pardo. That was the first
time I ever saw him. He afterwards came to board
and lodge with me—that was on the Ist of September.
Between the 13th cr 14th of August and the Ist of
September he came nearly every day. I have seen him
and Mrs. Mitchell together. He selected a room on
the second floor. I had previously shown him one on the
first floor, but he said he wanted a room in front
and where there was more air. The room be selected
was on the same floor as the one formerly occupied by
Mrs. Mitchell. They are close together, the doors are
contiguous, and the partition between them is very
thin. A person cat hear with great ease what is said
in the adjoining room. After the Prince came, on the
Ist of September, Mrs. Mitchell went back to the room
she originally occupied, and she continued to occupy it
until she left. This was an inferior room to the one
below. Previous to the defendant coming Mrs. Mitchell
sat to my right at dinner. The Prince sat near the
door—that being the position for the latest comer.
When he came Mrs. Mitchell changed her place, be-
cause she said it was too warm, and she sat next the
defendant. (A laugh.) I considered his attentions
were not such as a married woman was entitled to receive
from a single man. The prince was constantly telling
her she was very beautiful and had very beautiful hair.
(A laugh.) They went ont occasionally with Dr. Stuart
and his wife. Mrs. Mitchell and the defendant went
out by themselves—sometimes before dinner, sometimes
after, and sometimes late in the evening. They seldom
remained out after ten o'clock. In consequence of
the levity of Mrs. Mitchell's conduct I made some
complaint to her. I remember one evening the defen-
dant and Mrs. Mitchell coming home after they had
been to a bootmaker's. I had at that time Sarah Sich
in my service. She was the housemaid, and occasionally
waited at dinner. In Sept. I was told something by
Sich. I remember making some observation at table
about the impropriety of Mrs. Mitchell's conduct. This
was in the presence of Sich, who could hear what I said.
One Sunday morning before o'clock I heard a child

crying. I wentup stairs, and found Mrs. Mitchell's child
crying on the drawing-room landing. Dr. Stuart and wife
were then lodging with me. Something was said to me by
the child. I then went to Dr. Stuart's bed-room' on
the ground floor, and I told him what the child had
said. The Dr. then came up, and I and he went to
Mrs. Mitchell's door first. I went into her reom, but
she was not there. I then knocked at the prince's door.
I asked him if Mrs. Mitchell was there, and he said no.
Upon that I went down stairs, and came up again in
five minutes. Dr. Stuart was with me on that occa-
sion. I again knocked at the defendant's door.
He said she was not there, but was upstairs.
I went upstairs and left the Dr. at her door. I did not
find her upstairs. I allude to the attics at the top of the
house. I searched in my own children's room, and also
in the water-closet ; but I could not find her. I then
went again to her door where the Dr. had remained.
We stood there 5 or 6 minutes, as the Dr. said he heard
talking. At the expiration of that time the Prince
opened the door, and asked if I had found Mrs. Mitchell.
I said "No ; but there she is." At that moment I
pointed to her. She was at his back going out
of his room into her- own. She was in her night
dress. The Prince was in his shit The Prince
then went into his room and shut the door. Dr.
Stuart said something to Mrs. Mitchell, and she
said she would destroy herself. In the course of the
day—an hour after the occurrence—she sent for me to
her room, and I had some conversation with her. She
and her daughter left my house between eleven and
twelve the same day. Before she left the Prince went
out of the house and came in two or three times.

Lord Campbell observed that, according to the doc-
trine of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and according to
common sense, the evidence of this witness proved a
guilty intercourse, if the jury believed it, and if it was
not shaken on cross-examination.

Mr. Macaulay—l intend to cross-examine her, my
lord.

Lord Campbell—lt is -very necessary, I think, that
she should be cross-examined.
Examination continued—The last bill for Mrs. Mit-
chell and her child's board and lodging was paid by the
prince. Stuart and his wife remained three weeks in my
house. They are now in Ceylon.

Cross-examined—The last time I saw Dr. Stuart and
his wife was in February, this year. It is about a fort-
night or three weeks ago that I first saw Mr. Mitchell.
It was on a Sunday that Mrs. Mitchell left my house
the same day on which I saw her come out of
the prince's room. The prince remained at my
house after she left, namely, until the Ist of
September, and durilig that time he sometimes dined at
the table. I refused sometimes to sit with him. I gave
him notice to leave, and desired him to leave on several
occasions. He did not g_ve me notice. He had com-
menced legal proceedings against me in respect of this
transaction. They were commenced in September. I
know Mrs. Nute, ytho is a neighbour. She boards
at my table. I did not send her to the defendant on
the subject of the report I made. I did not tell her
that it was not true. Mrs. Mitchell had certainly not
been ill on the day previous to the occurrence. I
will undertake to swear that she was at din-
ner with the other guests on that day, and that she was
also in the drawing-room in the evening. When I asked
if Mrs. Mitchell was in the Prince's room, the Prince
did not say " Are you mad ?" I have no child subject
to fits. I have several daughters. Tfie eldest is 22.
I am quite sure that the Prince did not say Mrs. Mit-
chell was up stairs with my daughter. I looked into
the attio where my three children slept, but she was not
there. I did not speak to the children.
Re-examined—The Prince said I could not turn him
out, as he had taken his apartments for a month.
By Mr. Macaulay—l did not say to him that I had
not seen Mrs. Mitchell in his room : he wished me to
believe I had not seen her. He said I had dust in my
eyes ; that it was useless for a person who kept lodgings
and had seven children to say she had seen the matter,
and he mentioned he had got 10,000 i. at his command.
(A laugh.) Mr. Pardo and family are abroad.
Sarah Sich, the housemaid of the last witness, and a
married woman, said—l remember a man bringing
some boots for Mrs. Mitchell. She generally had
her breakfast in bed. The boots came between
11 and 12, about a week after the prince came to
the house. I went up stairs to Mrs. Mitchell's
bed-room, on the second floor, but I did not find her
there. I then came down to the drawing-room. I
knocked twice at the door, but there was no answer.
I then went in, and saw the Prince, and Mrs. Mitchell
throwing down her petticoats. There was a couch in the
room. This led me to believe there had been a connec-
tion between them. The Prince's dress was disordered.
He caught up a book, and held it before him.
This was on a Wednesday. I did not mention
this to my mistress until I heard some remark at the
dinner-table on the following day in reference to the
conduct of Mrs. Mitchell. I then told my mistress
what I had seen.

Cross-examined—That was the public room, and was
used by all the guests.
Re examined—There was no one else in the drawing-
room but the Prince and Mrs. Mitchell. It was not
much frequented by the guests at that time in the
morning.
Lord Campbell inquired whether Mr. Macaulay
intended to contradict this witness.
Mr. Macaulay said he did not.
Mr. E. James intimated that he proposed to give
some further evidence in reference to the point of
damages.

Lord Campbell thought the sooner they put an end
to so painful an inquiry the better.
Mr. Macau'ay trusted it was not the intention of the
plaintiff to further expose his wife.
Mr. E. James said that was very far from the wish of
the plaintiff, but it was necessary that some additional
evidence should be adduced to enable the jury to esti-
mate the amount of damages to which he was entitled.
Lord Campbell could see no use for any further evi-
dence.

Mr. E. James would then content himself with exa-
mining only one or two witnesses more, but he was
anxious it should be understood that he could prove all
the facts he sal mentioned in his opening statement, and
that he was ready to produce any witnesses the defendant
might suggest.
Two other lodging-house keepers, in whose house
Mrs. Mitchell lodged a:ter she left Mrs. Legg's, were
then called, and they deposed to her being frequently-
visited by the defendant at their houses. A pawn-
broke;• proved that the Prince had pledged at his shop
Mrs. Mitchell's gold wr.,;;ch, which was a present from
her husband, for ten gdineas. The object of this evi-
dence was to scow that the defendant had availed him-
self of her money and property for his own purposes.
A clerk of the Oriental Bank was then about to be
examined, to prove that remittances were regularly
sent by the plaintiff to his wife in London for her main-
tenance, but his examination was stopped by
Lord Campbell, who said this evidence was wholly un-
necessary, as it appeared that the plaintiff had conducted
himself with the most perfect propriety.
Mr. Macaulay then addressed the jury in mitigation
of damages.
The jury, vfter a few minutes deliberation; returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 7501.