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 inEngland in 1852, and it appeared first became
acquainted with the Prince at a boarding house,which was
frequented by Louis Blanc,land 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, vhich 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 in that year. I knew Mr. Mitchell
intimately. When I first made his acquaintance he was
in baldness, but since then he has acted as chief magis-
trate Hong Kong. I knew Mrs. Mitchell before her
last carriage. She was the wife of Mr. Kirby. She
had tiro children by him, but one died. In 1848 I
soleroised 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 first
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 toe part of Mrs. Mitchell. The plaintiff was not
kindly treated by her. I knew her two or three months
before the marriage. It was a short time after Mr.
Kirby left Hong Kong that we heard of his death.
Them 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 mourning after
the death of her husband, but I cannot say whether she
wore mourning at the marriage 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 bad 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 of
age. She resided in my house six weeks. Dr. Stuart
and his wife visited her occasionally at my house. Sh e
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 ; he 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 lst of September.
Between the 13th or 14th of August and the Ist of
September be 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 he 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 can hear with great ease what is said
in the adjoining room. After the Prince came, on the
let 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 corner.
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 out 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 5 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 room, 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