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

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 shirt. 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 bad 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, tha
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 during 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 give me notice. He had com-
menced legal proceedings against me in respect of this
transaction. They were commenced in September. I
know Mrs. Nute, who 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. The 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 10,0001. 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. Macaulay 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 had 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 after she left Mrs. Legg's, were
then called, and they deposed to he; being frequently
visited by the defendant at their houses. A pawn-
broker proved that the Prince had pledged at his shop
Mrs. Mitchell's gold watch, which was a present from
her husband, for ten guineas. The object of this evi-
dence was to show 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, after a few minutes deliberation, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 7501.