The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-09 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Drc.7.

A BARRISTER'S WIG.—RAVENSCROFT V. ARCHBOLD.
The plaintiff in this case is a head and wig dresser, residing
in Serle-street, Lincoln's-inn.fields; the defendant is a bar-
rister. The action was brought for works, labours, and ser-
vices done by the plaintiff for the defendant, in dressing his
professional wig on divers occasions within three or four years..
The sum claimed to be due by defendant was 131. 10s.
Mr. Sergeant ONsLow stated the case to the Jury. It was,
he observed, the practice with the Gentlemen of the Bar to
leave their wigs at Guildhall or Westminster-hall after the close
of their duties each day, and it was the custom with persons in
the situation of the plaintiff to send for them to either place,
and have them ready dressed when and where the next profes.
sional business required. Mr. Ravenseroft sent for the wigs of
his customer thrice a week, and charged for each dressing
something about threepence halfpenny—no unreasonable
charge, when the labour done and the distance which he had
to send, were considered. It would be proved that plaintiff
had continued to put the defendant's wig in order, thrice a
week, for a period from 1817 to 1821. For this he now brought
his action, and he (Mr. Sergeant Onslow) was at a loss to know
what resistance could be made to so reasonable a claim.
The proof of the various dressings of the wig having been
gone through,
Mr. Serjeant TADDY addressed the Jury for the defendant.
The plaintiff's claim, he observed, was resisted on these
grounds—first, that he had not dressed the wig for the time
specified, the defendant having resided out of the country
for a great part of the time, when his professional wig
could be ef no !Particular service to him, and when, there..
fore, the plaintiff could not be prepared to dress it; the se-
cond ground was, that of the sum claimed, 3/. Os. was due to,
and only recoverable by the plaintiff's assignees, he having
become a bankrupt in the early part of their connection,
when his credits became the property of his 'assignees. 'lt
would also be proved, that another hairdresser had dressed

the plaintiff's wig for a part of the time mentioned in the
plaintiff's declaration. He {Serjeant 'Paddy) could not concur
in the position laid down by his Learned Friend (Serjeant
Onslow), that it was the uniform custom with gentlemen
at the bar to have their wigs dressed three times a week.
That must depend not only on the taste, but on the extent of
business of each individual ; for it was well known that many
gentlemen, particularly in the early part of their professional
career, had not those frequent occasions for their wigs which
afterwards occurred, and therefore they avoided incurring so
unnecessary an expense. " The case," continued the Learned
Sergeant, " is, no doubt, different with my brother Onslow.
He has his wig dressed every day; and, on the present occasion,
I may presume that Mr. Ravenscroft has taken' articular pains
to set his wig off to such advantage, as to be equally a credit and
ornament to the dresser and the wearer. lam glad to see my
Learned Friend look so well in it. I am always pleased to see him
in excellent condition, even to the wig. It will, I have no doubt,
continue an ornament to him even after death. I say this in
the supposition, that in his case will be kept up the practice
adopted in that of some of his ancestors, whose images I have
seen in Guildford church-yard with full flowing perukes,
" Well buckled on in Parian stone;"
and I trust that my learned brother (though I hope at a very
distant day) will shine among them, the rival even of that ce-
lebrated one, Mr. Speaker Onslow, in the full flowing marble
wig of the sculptor. Leaving this subject, I submit that my
Learned Friend has not made out his demand, that he is not
entitled to recover for the whole time claimed, nor for the sum
which ought to belong to his assignees."
Mr. Shuter, a solicitor, proved the commission of bank-
ruptcy against the plaintiff in 1317. On his cross-examination,
he admitted that Mr. Ravenscroft had paid debts due to him
by sevaral barristers, to prevent their being called on by the
assignees, and thereby the chance of losing their funire custom.
A hair-dresser proved that fora part of the time mentioned
he had dressed the defendant's wig.
Mr. Serjeant OsfsLovr replied.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS, in summing up, expressed his
deep regret that a Gentleman, so well known as the defendant,
the author of many learned and ingenious treatises, which were
always spoken'of by the Bench in terms of deserved respect,
should be exposed to such an action as the present. However,
the Jury had but one duty to perform, which was, to abide by
the justice of the case. That, he conceived, was at the side of
the plaintiff.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the whole
amount claimed.
FEES IN CIIANCEIVY.-PICACOOK V. W. K. JENKINS.

Mr. Serjeant PELL stated this case to the Jury. It was
brought under the following circumstances :---The defendant,
Wm.:K. Jenkins, Esq., had a suit in Chancery, in which he
was the plaintiff, against Sir 'E. Sandy's, the High Sheriff of
Gloucestershire. In the courselof that proceeding, Sir E. Sand's
was ordered to be taken into custody tbr a contempt of Court in
not putting in an answer. In consequence of this order, Mr.
Peacock, the plaintiff; who is the messenger of pursuivant of
the Court of Chancery, took Sir Edwin into custody, in which
he continued for 531 days, viz. from the 6th of February, 1819,
to the 19th of .July, 1821. For fees of custody and other ex-
penses, amounting to 1661. Os. &1., and a further sum of 121.
lfis. Bd., the plaintiff brought this action against Mr. Jenkins,
who was the plaintiff in the suit in Chancery on the ground
that as the former defendant, Sir E. Sandys, had not paid
them, the present defendant was liable.
Stephen Vesey, the clerk to the plaintiff, proved the arrest of
Sir E. Sandy's, under a warrant of the Lord Chancellor ad-
dressed to him (plaintiff.) He
.was in actual custody for three
weeks, but was then allowed to go into Gloucestershire. This
liberty was granted by the written authority of Mr. Leblanc,
the Solicitor in Chancery for the present defendant, which stat-
ed to this effect :—" You may discharge Sir Edwin Sandys on
the payment of his fees." Sir E. Sandys did not pay his fees,
but was nevertheless allowed to go at large. lie was at large
for a considerable time, but witness considered him still as no-
minally in custody, as he was not discharged by the Court.—
Witness was the deputy appointed to keep Sir E. Sandys in
custody. He would not have discharged him but for the au-
thority given by the defendant's solicitor.
Another witness a clerk to the plaintiff, proved the custody
and discharge of Sir E. Sandys. On the plaintiff's application
to Sir E. Sandys for his fees, he did not receive them. He then
applied to the present defendant (as the plaintiff in the forma
case), but he refused to pay any, on the ground that Sir E.
Sandys alone was liable, and that if the plaintiff discharged him
without having received his fees, he was to blame himself for
the loss. An application had been made to the Court of Chan-
cery on the subject, but that Court refused to interfere, adding
that the plaintiff's remedy, if any, was by action against the
defendant, in whose suit Sir E. Sandys was committed
Butt, Esq., the Deputy Serjeant at Arms of the Court of
Chancery, proved that according to the practice of that Court,
for the 23 years that he was in office, the plaintiff in a cause was
called upon for the fees of a commitment for contempt_ when the
defendant did not pay them. On his cross-examination, he said,
that when a party was committed for con tempt,he was notregularly
discharged until a motion to that effect was made in Court, and
then it was only on payment of fees It was not, however, un-
frequent, that a party committed in contempt was discharged
. by a private arrangement between the parties out of Court, and
in that case the Court heard nothing more about it. In such a
case die fees were generally arranged by one party or the other
before the discharge.
Mr. Serjeant LENS was addressing the Court for the de-
fendant, when it was agreed that a verdict should be taken for
the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court in Banco upon
the question, whether, under the circumstances, the defendant
was liable for the fees, and if so, whether for the fees accruing
in the three weeks of actual custody, or for the whole term of
531 days.

COURT OF THE DEAN AND CHAPTER OF ST.
PAUL'S, DECT:MBER 7.
ADAMS v. ADA)IB.

This was a suit of separation, by reason of adultery,
brought by the husband against his wife.
Dr. BURNABY opened the pleadings on the part of Mrs.
Adams. The evidence having been read,
Dr. Lutist iN6TON addressed the Court on behalf of the hus-
band. His learned friend (Dr. Burnaby) seemed in this case
disposed to rely on the insufficiency of the proof of the adultery
alleged against Mrs. Adams; but he thought the Court would
consider that adultery was necessary to be inferred from the
continued intercourse which the evidence showed to have sub-
sisted between her and a Mr. Potter. Indeed, there were three
distinct courses of transactions from which the Court would ar-
rive at this conclusion. That Mrs. Adams on one occasion
committed adultery with Mr. George Potter, was proved by a
witness of the name of Ashden. Ile observed one afternoon
Mrs. Adams waiting on Cornhill, and, as he presumed, for her
husband ; but, to his great surprise, a gentleman totally un-
known to him (the witness) came up to Mrs. Adams, took her
arm, and by a circuitous sort of route (for the parties seemed
sensible that they were watched) accompanied her to Elbow-
lane, where they entered a notorious brothel. If there was
;waling to impeach the credit of Ashden, as the Counsel con-
tended there was not, the Court must be satisfied with the strong
presumptive proof on this point. But another witness, Char-
lotte Bond, deposed to facts that too strongly corroborated the .
other testimony to leave a doubt upon it. It had been laid
down by a series of authorities, which it was not within the
power of his Learned-Friend to dispute, that in order to prove
adultury, it was not necessary to specify particular dates, and a
variety of places ; but that if all the circumstances, as in this
case, and proximate acts tended to establish a sufficient, case of
suspicion, that was enough for all legal purposes. This was
more especially ruled in " Elwes v. Elwes" and " Lo'eden v.
Loveden," where the late Judge of the Consistory Court said,
" it is a consequence of this rule that it is not necesary to prove
the fact of adultery in time and place." The next course of
incidents was that which was involved in the proof, that Mrs
Adams resided for some time in Crosby-row, Kingsland, at a.
house in which Mr. George Potter was also a lodger ; having
a room with a turn-up bed in it ; that here he lived for fifteen
months, during which period he was almost every day visited
by a Lady, .whom he described as his cousin ; and of whose
identity with Mrs. Adams, sufficient proof would be brought
before the Court. Now, for what other purposes, but those
of 41 criminal connexion, those visits could be paid, it would
be difficult to guess : for it was deposed, that she not only
continued with him alone in his room for many hours to-
gether; but would sometimes call upon him three times in
a day ; 4ind Potter sometimes left letters for her, addressed to
her as " Mrs. Stanhope." The third case was this— it was
shewn that Mr. G. Potter, being confined for some time in
Whitecross-street prison, was repeatedly visited there by this
lady; and her servant deposed to Mrs. Adam's habit oileav-
ing her house of a morning, soon after Mr. Adams had 'gone
out to his business, -aed taking with lier variotts articles of

PRICE SEVEN PENCE.

food and provision, such as-wine, -plums,llgs, &c. (in a beak;
lent to her by the deponent), and
,not returning until a late
hour of theafternoon. Witness added, that her mistress, on
those occasions, used to dress herself in her best, and to take
off the clothes she had ,so gone out in when she returnel
home : having told to witness, by way of accounting for INS
conduct, a long story about a Mr. and Mrs.. -Donolly, whom
she described as very old friends of her oivn, but as being
disliked by her husband. These persons, she told het, isar-
want, were in reduced circumstances; and it was to theM
she took, for the benefit of the unsuspecting Mr. Adams,
his neck-kerchiefs, stockings, and shirts. It was hardly. ttee-
cessary to say that no such person as Mr. and Mrs. Downy
existed—the real party being this Mr. Potter. Here, them,
were strong additional grounds for presuming the -adtilrery
which was charged. The assistant-keeper of the prison de-
posed, that while Potter remained there, he Was visited altuvet
daily by Mrs. Adams, whom he used to call his wife. Now
the plea set up on the other side did admit that Mrs. Adam*
used to go and visit Potter in prison, but denied all criminality
on that account.. The Court, however, would scarcely know
how to reject so natural an inference. But it was proved,
moreover, that Mrs. Adams and this man were frequentlyA en
together in the prison, when she had her arms round his neck,
and he had his round her waist ; and yet the Learned Gentle-
men on the other side would wish to persuade the Court that
there was no adultery in the case !—that these indecent fa.
miliarities were the result of a mere Platonic attachment, for-
sooth, between the parties !---That no improper intercourse sub-
sisted between them, although she carried him a considerable
part of her husband's wardrobe, and a reasonable proportion of
her husband's larder too ! There was in the prison a partial.
lar recess, in which the actual commission of the adultery most
probably occurred; but for the reasons he had already submitted
to the Court, the Learned Counsel contended it was unnecessary
for him to prove the charge in any one particular place, the pre:
sumptions being so very strong in support of the continued
illicit intercourse. Similar opportunities for the consumma-
tion of the crime had been afforded to, and most probably ac-
cepted by, the parties in the porter's lodge and the surgery of
the prison. Two letters, which were proved by Mrs. K. John:
son, the sister of Mrs. Adams, to have been intercepted, were ad-
mitted by Mrs. Adams herself to have been intended for her.
They were in the handwriting of Potter ; and No. 2 began thus
" Destroy this immediately, before you get home." So here was
a correspondence secretly, by letter, between Mrs. Adams and
Mr. Potter. It was addressed to "Mrs. Stanhope, Post-office,
Borough." (This lettter was an odd mixture of reproach and ex-
postulation : after recapitulating the distresses incident on 'the
lady's want of punctuality in not keeping an appointment she had
made with the writer, and descanting on the miseries of a bad
pair of shoes, a ret night, and a broken assignation, it entreated
the favour of a speedy interview, and of some relief in the mean
time). In the other letter Mr. Potter expressed himself jealous
lest the lady's favours had not been confined to himself. (This
epistle reproached her with having been dragged into ginshops
by female friends, who madeher pay for them that which should
have been reserved for the writer ; and assured her, that " if
she continued true to him, he would most certainly stand by
her.") True ?—to whom ? why, not, as the Court must per.
fectly well see, to Mr. Adams, her husband ; but to Mr. George
Potter, her paramour. It would be difficult, indeed, for the
lady's counsel to contend that these letters were mere promises
of future adultery, rather than recognitions of past incontinence.
The moral conviction of the Court must be, that the criminal
connexion had really subsisted between the parties; and it-
would therefore hold the husband entitled to his prayer for
separation. On his part there had been nothing like collusion
or consent to his own wrong; for it was on the 27th of July,
1821, that Mrs. Adams was detected pawning the clothes of
her husband, who thereupon sent her back to her sister's, being
then ignorant of her adultery. This was not discoveredb y him
until August, and then he refused to take her back, and insti-
tuted proceedings against her.
Dr. DODSON followed on the same side.
Drs. BURNABY and JESSE ADAMS, on the part of Mrs.
Adams, relied on the total absence, as they thought, of all di-
rect proof, and still snore of all probable circumstance in this,
case. These parties, Mr. and Mrs. Adams, were married in
1808, and lived together, as it was admitted on the other side,
until 1818, in the most perfect harmony ; the latter period being
that at which the adulterous intercourse now charged against
her was said to have commenced. It was said to have conti..
nued until 182), and to have remained undiscovered by the
husband until a late period of that year. 'tiny, could it be
believed, that for a period of three years, and from day to day,
these criminal intercourses should have been carrying on, in
places the most unlikely and uncouth. and, as it seemed that
the other side would infer, almost in the presence of 40 or 50
persons ? As to the visits paid by Mrs. Adams to Mr. Potter,
they might be indiscreet ands improper; but it was going a
great way indeed to infer any thing of a guilty complexion
,rota them. In the case of " Williams and Williams," in
which " Elliott and Elliot" Was particularly referred to, Sir
William Scott said, " though the Court may think these
virds paid by a married woman to a single man very improper,
yet it must be convinced, in its legal judgment, that the wo-
man has passed the boundaries, not only of delicacy, but of
duty." The Learned Counsel then adverted to another case,
noted in " Williams and Williams," namely, " Ricketts and
Taylor," also decided by Sir W. Scott, when Judge of the
Consistory Court; and they concluded by submitting, that no
ground was laid to found the husband's prayer, and that Mrs.
Adams, therefore, ought to be dismissed from all further ob-
servance of the suit. Judgment postponed.