The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

SECONDARIES' OFFICE, JAN. 26.
MOWER. V. HODSON.
This day a Jury was summdhed, before Mr.
POTTER, to assess the damages in a case of crirnina
conversation, judgment hating been allowed to go
by default. The damages were laid at 3,0001.
Mr. Serjeant SPANKIE stated that the plaintiff
was a gentleman who held a civil situation in India,
under the East India Company, and had married a
lady, some years ago, by whom he had several
children. In consequence of the ill health of the
lady she was obliged to come to this country in the
year 1826, and in England she became acquainted
with Mr. Hodson, a gentleman of fortune and high
respectability, having first been introduced to that
gentleman's mother and sisters. The plaintiff had
always lived upon terms of the greatest affection
with his wife, and their last parting in India most
powerfully testified that the attachment was mutual
and sincere. Such were the embarrassments of the
plaintiff in India, that he could not, without the po-
sitive destruction of his circumstances, have accom-
panied his wife to this country. Most probably the
fact of her having come from India unprotected by her
husband would be dwelt upon as a proof of neglect
upon the part of the husband, calculated to depreciate
his claims to large damages; but it would be proved
that, if Mr. Trower had left India, his situation must
have been filled by another; and that situation pro-
ducing between 4,0001. and 5,000/. a year, the
sacrifice must, to a man ulready considerably in-
volved in difficulties, have proved nothing less than
fatal. The Learned Serjeant then proceeded to de-
scribe the usual effect of the seduction of a man's
wife to the injured party. He admitted, at the same
time, that he was not instructed to say one word
against the defendant's character or moral conduct
anterior to the unfortunate transaction which formed
the ground of the present action; and there had
been no acquaintance between the plaintiff and de-
fendant. The Learned Serjeant then adverted, in
an eloquent manner, to the advantage taken of the
unprotected condition of the lady, and concluded by
calling upon the Jury to give the plaintiff such
damages as would operate in showing that there
was a strong sympathy in the minds of British
Juries for men whom circumstances compelled to
be separate from their wives.
Doctor Ward proved the marriage between the
plaintiff and his wife, and that they always lived on
the most affectionate terms together.
Mr. Mangles deposed that he knew the plainti ff
and his wife, and that they always lived on the best,
terms. The parting between them, when Mrs.
Trower was quitting India, was most affecting.
Mr. Trower could not possibly accompany his wife,
as, if he had ventured to do so, his place, which
was worth 4,0001. or 5,000/. a year, would have
been forfeited. Mr. Trower was in embarrassed
circumstances, and could not have afforded such a

loss.
Mr. J. Taylor, solicitor to the East India Com-
pany at Calcutta, also bore testimony to the impos-
possibility of Mr. Trower accompanying his wife to
England.
Mary Price deposed that she accompanied Mrs.
Trower front India to this country, as children's
maid. Had lived in the family a considerable time,
and always observed the most affectionate conduct
on the p.trt of husband and wife. In London Mrs.
Trower became acquainted with Mrs. Hodson, the
defendant's mother, and his sisters, and himself.
-They reciprocally visited. Mrs. Trower went to
Italy afterwards, where she met the defendant and
the family,. and they returned to England together.
Witness observed nothing improper between Mrs.
Trower and defendant in Italy. Mrs. Trower,
afterwards went to Sittingbourne, where the de-
fendant joined her. From thence they went to
Canterbury, where they slept in the same bed toge-
ther. They went after that to France, and witness
left them at Paris living together as man and wife.
Charles Field, butler to the defendant from the
year 1821 to 1829, gave evidence of the intimacy
between his master and Mrs. Trower, after the re-
turn of the latter from the continent. His master
kept several servants and carriages, and lived like a
man of fortune. He. was about 37 years of age, and
Mrs. Trower was about 40.
A clerk to the defendant's agents deposed that he
collected about 2,0001. a year in rents for the de-
fendant.
A clerk to the plaintiff's agent proved that Mr.
Trower allowed his wife from 1,300/. ttr 1,7001.

a year.
Mr. • ADOLPHUS (for defendant)—The children
have to be maintained and educated out of that al-
lowance ?—Yes.
Did Mrs. Trower ever draw any of the allowance
after her intimacy with the defendant ?—Never.
Mr. Sceerrtganaeintyt. S PNAvNeIC S
mean thoe
mn eacveer anopplied i after-
wards,imputation
of the kind upon the defendant.
Mr. ADOLPHUS said that, from the most ancient
and fatal crim. con. upon record—that of Helen v.
Argos—down to that last tried at Westminster, in
which a shilling had been awarded as adequate da-
mages to a plaintiff—the injury had been always in.
iisted upon as the greatest a man could possibly sus-
tain at the hands of another, whatever might be the
circumstances. He, however, must be allowed to
say that there were strong shades of difference be-
tween different cases. There certainly was nothing
in the present case calculated to show the claim of
the plaintiff to large damages in this case. His wife
had been separated from him for a great length of
time ; had been at liberty to do as she pleased ; was
wholly unrestricted ; had reached those years