The Sun.
London, England, 1822-08-03 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-YORK ASSIZES, JULY 31.

CRIM. CON.-SPECIAL JURY.
WORRELL V. SANDERSON.

Mr. SCARLEVF stated, that the plaintiff, John. Worrell,
Esq., a. Lieutenant in his Majesty's Navy, brought his action
against the defendant, William Saundersom, who is a school-
master at Leeds, to recover a compensation in damages for the
seduction of the plaintiff's Wife. No damages were laid in the
declaration,because (observed the Learned Counsel) the damages
could best be measured by the, injury sustained. The Learned
Counsel prefaced his address by challenging the most vigilant
suspicion and jealousy of the circumstantial evidence which he
should adduce. The plaintiff (Lieutenant Worrell), after
serving many years as a Lieutenant in the Navy, and be-
ing disappointed in his hopes of promotion, had thought pro-
per to retire from the service upon a small independent in-
come, just sufficient to support him in the rank of a Gentle-
man, to which he was entitled by birth, education, and profes-
sion. Prior to this, in the year 1800, he lived in the neighbour-
hood of Portsmouth, where he became acquainted with the
Lady whose unfortunate glienation of connubial affections
was the subject of this action. She was the object of his, ear.
liest love, and afterwards became his wife. They were mar-
ried in Hampshire in 1800, and their union for many years was
marked by the most tender and mutual affection ; three chil-
dren were the happy fruits of wedlock. Previous to this Gen-
tleman quitting the Navy, and subsequently to that period,
the Lady had brought him three others, five of which. children,
sons and daughters, are now living.. After he quitted Ports-
mouth he came to reside near Hull, in 1807, and from the time
of their marriage in 1800 to 1815, no man had better reason to
be satisfied, for no woman could be more affectionate bath as
a wife and a mother, and no man more happy as a husband. In
1812, their children requiring education, choice was made of a
school at Aberford, and the defendant, although a stranger to
Mr. and Mrs. Worrell, yet the circumstance of sending their
children to Mr. Saunderson, who kept a school at that place,
produced 'an acquaintance between the .Defendant and the
Plaintiff's wife. That acquaintance between the family of
the Plaintiff and the Defendant (who is himself a married man
with four children) gradually improved. The Plaintiff, for
some reason, about the year 1814 or 15, thought proper to re-
move his family from the neighbourhood of Hull to Leeds ;
soon afterwards Saunderson thought proper to remove his
school to Castleton-house, which is about three miles from
Leeds, whether with the intention of pursuing the unhappy
object of his unlawful attachment, did not exactly appear,
but so it was, and the children of the plaintiff, two boys, re-
mained at his school till the year 1817. Between 1815 and 16,
after the plaintiff and his family came to Leeds, circumstances
of suspicion arose in the mind of the plaintiff, who felt his
domestic felicity interrupted, the cause of which had doubt-
less for some time previously existed, as would be apparent
from circumstances which would be left to the judgment of the
Jury. The plantiff now began to entertain strong suspicion
that his wife's affections had been seduced by the defendant,
but which were deemed insufficient to justify his bringing the
defendant before a Jury. The defendant's visits became more
frequent to the Lady, especially at intervals of the husband's
absence from his house ; these circumstances of suspicion,
although such as to fully warrant a separation from his wife,
were yet deemed not sufficient, when it it became necessary to
consult his legal adviser as to what 'evidence was necessary
to substantiate adultery to the satisfaction of a, Jury. It was
one thing to say what evidence would satisfy a Court of Jus-
tice, and another what would warrant separation between
the parties. It was not until a very recent period subsequent
to the separation, which took place on the plaintiff agreeing
to allow her 801. per annum for her maintenance, on condition
that she delivered up all letters that had passed between her
and the defendant, which she averred she then did ; so that the
plaintiff's attorney, now in Court, was enabled to produce that
evidence which it was hoped would prove conclusive. This
short outline would explain why the action was not commenced
when the plaintiff separated from his wife in 1816. The plain.
tiff having occasion to go to London in 1815, and being a few
weeks absent on private business, the defendant had become a
constant visitor to his wife, which somehow connected itself
with the birth of her last child in 1816, though under circum-
stances impossible to be proved. Many occurrences might
pass between husband and wife, which could not be brought
before a Court of Justice. There are irresistible proofs of the
alienation of a wife's affections to satisfy the husband, which
would not satisfy a Jury ; such as her not showing the same
attention to her husband and her family as she had done before.
Now, a letter was discovered, in the defendant's hand-writing,
under circumstances extremely mysterious, to which the plain-
tiff's mind attached the strongest suspicion. That letter,
although it might not satisfy the Jury, yet satisfied the hus-
band that his wife's affections had been seduced. Those who
were conversant with human nature, could best know what
circumstances would excite jealousy where love had once
possessed the breast ; and how impossible, when those
suspicions were once excited, that a Gentleman could live
under the same roof with a woman who, had dishonoured his
bed, although, perhaps, he could not produce evidence of that
fact to satisfy a Court of Justice. The plaintiff knowing he
could not substantiate his charge of adultery, yet-thinking he
could no loriget submit to the painful situation in which he felt
himself placed? determined to separate from his wife, in order
that he might judge from her future conduct _how far he might
rely upon these suspicions with which his mind was unhappily
impressed. It was finally agreed that from henceforth they
should live apart, she going to reside at Aberford, and her
husband at Thorparch ; and that the youngest child, born the
preceding year, should accompany her. The special condition
of her allowance of 801. was, that she should give up all letters
of Mr. Saunderson's ; but he had so cautiously expressed him-'
self in all those letters but one which subsequently fell into the
hands of the husband, as to make it impossible that those let-
ters alone could be made the subject of evidence in a Court of
Justice. In reading the first of these letters, the Jury would
be ready to admit, that no situation could be more miserable,
than that of a husband having ground of suspicion to form
conviction on his own mind, of a nature so imperfect as to be
told, on consulting his lawyer, that it was impossible to bring
forward that circumstantial evidence, but at the risk of preju-
dicing his children, and aggravating his own misery.

Mr. Sergeant Hum.ocic for the defendant, contended that if
the plaintiff had abandoned his wife,to the care of the de-
fendant, under a knowledge or belief of criminal, connexion,
without seeking to remove hef from thence, he was not en-
titled to any compensation. His Friend had represented the
parties to have lived in that state of connubial bliss and happi-
ness until interrupted by this lady, dropping as it were like
ripe fruit into the hands ofthe spoiler. Was this consistent with
the case wherein the plaintiff had either deserted his wife from
unjust cause of suspicion, or, knowing the criminal connexion
between her and the defendant, had connived at it by leaving
and abandoning her to his protection ? The Learned Serjeant
commented upon a correspondence between the plaintiff and
defendant shout a Bill'which the wife had drawn for her sa-
lary upon the husband, and which could only be negociated
by the defendant's endorsement, the plaintiff, it appeared, hav-
ing published a notice in the country papers, that he would not
be answerable fo,r his wife's debts. _

Mr. SCARLETT replied to this documentary evidence.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up, the Jury
retired for half an hour.

Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 501.
'BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
FRANCE V. POWELL.

This case occupied the one Court at the same time that the
case above given occupied the other. The parties had, been
serving at the same time in the Tontine Inn Sheffield, where
promises were mutually plighted in a neighbour's house. The
plaintiff afterwards went to London, where she now acts as
servant maid in Finsbury-square. The defendant, more fortu-
nate, received a legacy of 3,0001. in the a per Cent. Consols,
and abandoned his office of post-boy. The fortune seemed to
make his former promises more interesting, at least to the
lady. He, however, married another, and an attorney:came
from London to recover damages by way of compensation to
his first and forsaken love. The habits of life and style of
elocution of the witnesses gave much relief to the formalities of
a judicial proceeding. Mr. TINDALL led for the plaintiff, and
Mr. WILLIAMS for the defendant—Verdict for the plaintiff,
Damages 1001..

GUILDFORD, AUG 1.-CROWN SIRE.

MANSLAUGHTER.

John Forbes nerzolds, a young gentleman of respectable ap--
pearance, was indicted for feloniously killing and slaying Ri-
chard Simmons, at Carshalton, on the 29th of June last.
The case proved, in evidence on the part of the prosecution
was this :—The prisoner, a young man about 23 years of age,
was in partnership with his uncle, Mr. Jacob Reynolds, one of
the Society of Friends, and carried on the business of a linen-
bleacher at Carshalton ; the deceased was a man aged about7s,
by business a master bricklayer, -and of considerable substance.
The deceased had been in the habit of doing work in his trade
for Messrs. Reynolds. On the 29th of June he went to the pri-
soner's country-house to demand a sum of about 271. due for
bricklayers' work done. He saw the prisoner, andin a taunt.
ing tone repeated two or three times, Now, Sir, state your
time." It was stated, on the part of the prosecution, that there
had been an agreement to pay the deceased every month for
such work as he might do from time to time. The prisoner,
offended at the mode of address abovementioned, told the de-
ceased that he should not be paid till Christmas ; upon which
I the deceased called him a d—d rogue, and used ether