The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-23 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT. —LiveßPoot, ...A.TeatST 21.
(Nisi Prius Court.)
CON.—F.VANS V. ROBINSON.
Mr. Ormwold Lloyd Evans was the plaintiff, and Mr.
Robert Ansley Robinson the defendant ; and the plaintiff
complained that the defendant bad had criminal conver-
sation with his wife. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Serjeent Wilkins, and Mr. Asp-
land for the plaintiff ; Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Ather-
ton. Q.C., for the defendant.
Mr. Knowles, in laying the case before the jury, said
—The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Ormwold Lloyd
Evans, a gentleman of good fortune and good family in
the county of Gloucester. On the death of his father,
who was a magistrate of the county, he inherited the
property which he now enjoys, his place of residence for
some years having been at Cheltenham, situated in that
county. In November, 1850, the plaintiff was united in
marriage with a young lady named Carrington, the
daughter of a gentleman who has filled the office of
Judge of the Island of Ceylon, but who, since his retire-
ment, has lived with his family at Cheltenham. The
plaintiff was at that tame about 32 years of age, and his
wife was some five or six years younger. They had
known each other some time. Miss Carrington was a
young lady of considerable accomplishments, and any
one looking at their condition at the time they were
married would have predicted a long course of happiness;
and certainly no one would have been prepared for the
disappointment which was destined speedily to follow.
They went abroad, to Paris, for a short time, for nine or
ten days only ; and on their return they lived for a short
time at Leicester, Mr. Evans being fond of hunting, and
the county of Leicester affording great conyemence for
persons taking an interest in that sport. A differ-
ence gradually arose between them, based on
these grounds. Before the marriage it had be, ,n
arranged that they should live in the house occupied by
the plaintiff's mother. After the marriage, Mrs. Evans
seemed averse to this arrangement, to which she ob-
jected, and the matter caused considerable disagreement
between them, so much so, that when in March they
left Leicester to go back to Cheltenham, the lady, in the
first instance, went upon a visit to her father, while the
plaintiff went to his own house. An attempt was made
at reconciliation, which unfortunately did not succeed
for in April of that year, and within a few months after
their marriage, this young couple agreed that in future
they would live separated, he makiug an allo sance am-
ple and sufficient for her wants—the allowance amount-
ing to 2501. a year during his mother's life, and 3501.
after her death ; and, if she survived her husband, she
was to have a jointure of 5001., on the terms of the mar-
riage settlement. At the time of the separation she was
pregnant, although it was unknown to either herself or
her husband ; for eight monthis after the separation she
was delivered of a still-born child. The defendant was
a resident of Cheltenham, and was a man of good for-
tune. He was a married man, and had that security
, which is generally supposed to belong to a man of ma-
ture time of life, for he was turned 50. He was, or
professed to be, the old and well-tried friend of the
family to which this lady belonged. He had known her
family for some time, and had unrestricted entrance to
it. For some time after the separation there appears to
have been no cause of complaint, for when it came to the
ears of the plaintiff that the defendant was walking out
with his wife in a style of familiarity which would have
been suspicious in a single man, he attributed it to that
old acquaintanceship which exist d between the families,
and it gave his mind no disquiet on the subject. But
when it came to his ears, as it did in June last year,
that his wife had gone to London, attended oily by
her maid, where they had resided in lodgings by them-
selves for the space of a fortnight, having no other
member of her own family with her, he did feel called
upon to address a word of remonstrance to her father,
which, however, was unattended to by him. In the
course of the present year that visit to London was re-
peated. The lady again went to London in the month
of July, taking lodgings Bryanstoime-street, Portman-
square. The plaintiff, having heard of the acuteness of
Field, the detective officer, whose skill had been pro-
perly illustrated in a trial that had recently terminated,
engaged him to take such measures as his own expe-
rience would suggest for the purpose of coming to the
truth of the matter, and of unveiling the objects of the
defendant, if lie had any. Field went to work. He saw
Mrs. King, the ownerof the house at which the plaintiff's
wife was lodging. She refused herself to be engaged in
the investigation ; and he then applied to a person
named Grocott, a woman who will be a witness to-day.
Mrs. King wanted a cook, and Mrs. Grocutt was intro-
duced into the house in that capacity, and she had some
opportunity of observing the motions of these parties.
The rooms occupied by the plaintiff's wife were on the
first floor, and consisted of a drawing room amid a bed-
room behind. There was also a bed-room above, in the
second floor, and an attic for the maid. The object of
Grocott and Field was to be able, by some contrivance,
to have a view of the drawing-room without betraying
themselves to the defendant and Mrs. Evans. By
Grocott's account it would be seen that for two or three
days the defendant came regularly ; but Mrs. Grocott
not being in the room, could do no more than record
that the defendant came. At last Field gave her a
gimlet, and desired her to bore a hole in the panel of
the folding-door between the bed-room and the sit-
tieg-room. She did so. The defendant came as
usual. Mr. Melline, according to his general custom,
went out of the house ; and Mrs. Grocott set herself
to watch. The learned counsel then gave a Flummery
of Grocott's evidence, as afterwards detailed, and
having glanced at the probable line of defence which
srmuld be set up, namely, that the whole story was a
fabrication, the learned gentleman said he would give
way to Mr. Seii-ant Wilkins, who would proceed to
call evidence. Before he did so, however, he (Mr
Knowles) corrected a statement he had made in opening
the case. He found, by a reperusal of the deed of
settlement, that by one of the stipulations the plaintiff's
wife could live where she pleased, and that she was not,
therefore, obliged to remain under her father's roof.
Mr. William Edwards Lawrence called and examined
by Serjtant Wilkins—Reside at the Greenway, Chet
tardier'', and am a magistrate of Gloucester. Witnessed
the marriage of the defendant on the 14th of November,
1850, with Miss Carrington. The defendant is a magic-
, trate and deputy-lieutenant of the county of Gloucester.
He is a married man, and has been living separate from
his wife nearly a year and a half. Have been for
several years acquainted with the family of the plaintiff's
wife. Had occasionally seen the defendant in company
•with the plaintiff's wife. Her husband settled upon her
a marriage settlement of 5001. a year.
By Mr. Watson, Q.C.—The defendant has lived many
years at Cheltenham, and has a son grown up. Mr.
Carrington, the father of the young lady, has a son
grown up and a younger son, arid another daughter.
Don't know that there is a third daughter. Have known
the defendant sixteen years, during which time he has
been the intimate friend and constant visitor with the
family of Mr. Carrington. He visited there when Mrs.
Lloyd Evans was a child. May have seen the defendant
walking with the father of the plaintiff's wife before and
after their marriage ; and also with the mother and her
daughter. Don't know that the defendant introduced
the plaintiff to the family. Never was in the society
of the plaintiff after the marriage. Went to Lon-
don to attend the marriage. Have heard that Mr.
Carrington gave him 1,0001. on the marriage. Did not
know that he had spent it all. Didn't know that plain-
tiff's property was mortgaged to its full value. Had
heard that the plaintiff took his wife with his hunters
to lodgings in Leicester, on his return from the marriage
tour. Did not hear that he dismissed her lady's maid.
Was informed that, after the plaintiff came hack from
Cheltenham, she was averse to living with his mother.
Never knew that the plaintiff had said he would not
allow his wite to live with him again, because she would
not submit to his terms to live with his mother. Never
knew that she returned to his house and begged and
prayed to live with him, but he would not allaw her.
Plaintiff's father lived at Tewkesbury, and believed he
was a chemist and druggist. He was a spurting gentle-
man, and went to the bust at Leicester. His mother
lived at Cheltenham. Knew his father a little. Don't
know that his mother had been a barmaid at au intr.
By Mr. Knowles—Forget whether Mr. Evans, sen.,
was a magistrate. At the time the plaintiff told me
about taking his wife to Leicester, lie told me it was
part of the arrangement before the marriage ; as also
was the agreement to live with his mother, who is 81
years of age, not fit to live by herself, being partially
blind. Knows the house where hilamother lives. It is
a gentleman's house, arid fit to take any lady to.
Time marriage settlement, giving a jointure of 5001. a
year to the wife, was put in.
The deed of separation, dated 10th May, 1851, was
put in. It settled 2501. upon her until toe plaintiff's
mother's death, and 3501. a year afterwards, and there
was a stipulation that she might live where she pleased.
Mr. Edward Mitchell, of Cheltenham, living next door
to Mr. Carrington, knew the plaintiff and his wife be-.
fore their separation. Remembered after the marriage
when Mr. Evans was living at her father's house.
Observed nothing more between the defendant and Mrs.
Evans than the great intimacy which could exist among
friends. I saw nothing to induce suspicion of immora-
lity, but there was certainly suspicion of impropriety.
Never,made any remonstrance with Mr. Carriugtun's
family.
By Mr. Watson —Knew Mr. Carrington, and still
visited with his family. Knew the defendant mince
being acquainted with Mr. Ca.rrington's family, and had
been a constant visitor there. Remembered -Mrs.
Evaus's confinement in December, 1851. She was in
a low state after then.
Mrs. Selma Taylor, widow, living at Leicester since
1851, said she let apartments. In 1850 the plaintiff,
Mr. Evans, and Mrs. Evans, came to her hou-e and
lodged with her until March, 1851. During that time
his conduct to her was kind. He had a carriage occa-
sionally.
By Mr. Watson—l think he paid me three guineas
and a half. They had three sleeping-rooms and a sit-
ting room. He had from five to seven horses, and
hunted five days out of the seven. Went out from nine
to ten in the morning, and frequently home by five in
the evening. Used to go into the room in the morning
to take the order for dinner. lie would ask her what
she would have, and she would sometimes answer in a
manner which she would not expect from a now-married
lady. She sometimes said " I don't care." There were
many ways in which a new-married person would answer.
Sometimes he would bring the carriage for her, and she
would not go out. At other times she would get rather
hasty, and he would try to quiet her down. Once this
occurred in consequence of a quarrel with me and time
maid. Witness told plaintiff, and he said she should not
be annoyed, and at her instigation the maid was turned
away. That was in February. Mrs. Evans told Mr.
Evans that she would not have another maid. They
quarrelled about it, and Mrs. Evans said she would not
believe me ; and Mr. Evans tried to quiet them. Wit-
ness Did Dace s
unneverasay shethidtahtatmr tEhyoaungohtwtsha not
were not married,
so touch a lady •