The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-05 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

'Sittings at Nisi Fritts, before Lord DENMAN and a Spe-
cial Jury.)
CRIM. CON.—ROBERTS V. SNOW.
..... .

Sir W. FOLLETT (with whom was Mr. CHARMELS)
stated the case. It was an action brought by Henry Ro-
berts, a coachmaker, against the defendant, a surgeon, re-
siding near Stepney, for criminal conversation for the plain-
tiff's wife. Although the plaintiff was in humble circum-
stances, the case of the defendant was one of a very serious
and aggravated nature, inasmuch as he was a married man,
the father of a family, and was called upon in his profes-
sional character to attend the plaintiff's wife, who was for
some time in a bad state of health. The Learned Gentleman
here stated the facts of the case as it afterwards appeared in
evidence. It might be said that the plaintiff had not taken
proper care of his wife, having left her at one end of the
town while be remained at the other ; but his business ne-
cessarily occasioned his absence. They would recollect that
the present was not a case in which the seducer was a friend
of the family, but one of a much more aggravated nature,
because, from. the nature of the defendant's visits, there was
the most unlimited confidence reposed in him. No sus-
picion could exist in the sick chamber ; the medical at-
tendant had free leave to come and go, and being the father
of a family, made a circumstance of the present sort still
more Tipr?bable. It would be shown that the defendant
was living in rather affluent circumstances at the time this
occur Fence took place, keeping his carriage, and although
be might have thought it prudent to lay it down since the
present action was brought ; that would not, he was satis-
fied, weigh with the Jury in awarding to the plaintiff such
compensation as the serious injury inflicted upon him by
the defendant would entitle him to at their hands.
Thomas Tatham—l am a coachmaker in Hope-street,
May Fair. The plaintiff was apprenticed to a coachmaker
in Tottenham-court-road in 1808. He was married in
1830, and he then lived in the Mile-end Road. I visited
him there frequently. His wife appeared to' be about 25
years old, and they lived very happily together. Plaintiff
was then carrying on the hearth-rug business, but I believe
lie was unfortunate in it. Since then he has been engaged
for different coach-builders. It is necessary that the work
should be attended to at an early hour in the morning—
about six o'clock.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESSIGER—The plaintiff is
now about forty years old. I have often taken my meals
with him. While living in the Mile-end Road, I have
dined five or six times in the course of a year. I never
heard the plaintiff swear at his wife. The first time 1
heard of her illness was last Christmas two years. They
were then living in Ireland Row, Mile-end Road. The
plaintiff was then in prison, and took the benefit of the Act.
His wife carried on dress-making. 1 remember M. Ro-
berts living at a green-grocer's shop. It is
nearly three
years since I visited the plaintiff's house, and his wife was
then confined to her bed.
Robert Brant, jun.—l am a coachmaker carrying on
business at Hatton Garden. The plaintiff worked for us
about 12 months, and latterly be has been 9 monthq