The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 3.
(Before Mr. Under•SherilThuecueee.)
CRIM. CON.—HOGHTON V. WIGNEY.
This was an action to recover compensation for
criminal conversation. Judgment was allowed to go
by default, and a writ of inquiry was executed to
assess the damages.
" Mr. H. F. HODGSON opeßed the pleadings. The
plaintiff was Henry Hoghton, who complained that
the defendant, Clarence 'Wigney, had seduced his
wife, Louisa Josephine Hoghton. The damages were
laid at 10,0001.
Sir F. THEMES stated the case. He never rose
to perform his duty in a case like the present without
feeling oppressed at the degradation of the injured
party, who was compelled to expose the cruel wrongs
be had suffered. Every one could perceive that it
was by the act of the adulterer that the happiness of
the husband was destroyed, and yet it was the
husband who had to detail his wrongs, knowing at
the same time, as they all' did, how utterly weak, how
entirely powerless the law was to afford an adequate
redress. By taking adultery out of the list of penal
offences, and making it a matter on which an action
was to be brought to recover compensation, they
were apt to lose sight of the enormity of
the offence. The miserably imperfect remedy
afforded by the law was to give pecuniary satisfaction
to the husband, who had to endure the degradation of
coming before a jury and submitting to what was
galling to every honourable mind—exposing the
wrongs he had suffered. It was impossible not to
know that there were feelings and affections deeply
seated in the heart, and only more deep and lasting
because they were kept secret. Before the law
would permit the marriage contract to be dissolved
the injured one was required to lay bare the wounds
of hi 3 heart, :not to the soothing hand of friendship,
but to the vulgar gaze—wounds which it would have
been his desire to conceal. Among the multiplied
miseries produced by the act of the adulterer, it
struck him as not the least painful that the husband
should he obliged to come into court or to allow the
deliquent to escape. With the feelings he had ex-
pressed, he would bring the facts of a very painful
case before the jury. The plaintiff, Mr. Hoghton,
now only twenty-eight years of age was the eldest
son of Sir Henry Hoghton, Bart. In 1842, on the
plaintiff coming of age, he became entitled to con-
siderable estates in the county of Lancaster. He be-
came acquainted with the subject of the present
action, Miss Louisa Josephine Saunders, who was
only seventeen and possessed of great personal attrac-
tions, under the care of her mother. Mr. Hoghton
followed her to Boulogne in June of the same year,
proposed and was accepted. It was due to Mrs.
Saunders to say that on account of the youth of her
daughter she objected to the union until two or three
years had expired ; her scruples were, however, over-
come, and in August of the same year Mr. Hoghton
returned to make arrangements for the marriage.
Mr. Hoghton had made a liberal settlement on his
wife, as " pin money" 2001. a year, and if sbe survived
him a jointure of 1,5001. a year ; for the children,
other than the eldest son, who would be entitled to the
family estates in Lancaster, 10,000/. in case of
one child, 20,0001. in the event of two, and 30,0001.
in case of a third child. The marriage took place
•on the 14th of August, 1845, with the consent and
approbation of all parties. The young couple pro-
ceeded to the continent, where they remained some
time, and in June, 1846, Mr. Hoghton purchased
an estate at Hafod,", in South Wales, of the Duke of
Newcastle, whither they went to reside. They were
visited by families in the neighbourhood, and lived
in great affection. Mr. Hoghton was a kind and in-
dulgent husband ; his wife had his entire confidence ;
and when he was ill and visited another place she
tended him with the most affectionate solicitude. In
the spring of 1847 they returned to their seat, and,
whilst alterations were made, came to London. They
resided at the Brunswick Hotel, Hanover-square,
and afterwards at Mivart's, until the fatal acquain-
tance with the defendant, and which led to the pre-
sent action. The defendant was the son of a gentle-
man who was formerly a banker at Brighton, and he
was an officer in the service of the East
India Company. It seemed that on April
the 9th, a day which would always be re•
membered as the one before the Chartist demonstra-
tion occurred, an arrangement had been made
between Mrs. Hoghton and Mrs. Pugh, the lady of
the Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire, to
go to Greenwich. On arriving at Hungerford-stairs,
the defendant, who was unknown to Mr. Hoghton,
presented himself. He was introduced by Mrs. Pugh,
and having, as was understood, missed his party, he
was invited to join their party. On the next day he
called on Mr. Hoghton, and they drove about to
notice the Chartist demonstration. On the 17th of
the same month Mr. Hoghton was called into Lan-
caster, and his wife was left, visited by her mother
and sufficiently protected. It would be impossible
for him to trace the parties throughout their course
until the fatal consummation. It would appear that
the defendant met Mrs. Hoghton in the Park and
Kensington-gardens, and the man servant observed
assignations made to meet at the Zoological-gardens
and other places; and here he (Sir F. Thesiger) ought
to pause. It was not in the power of the defendant
to say that he had committed his crime by any
sudden temptation, but it was an act deliberately
settled to effect the seduction of the plaintiff's
wife. After Mr. Hoghton's return to town nothing
occurred to awaken his suspicion. It would appear,
however, that the defendant, by his arts, so prepared
and so perseveringly applied, had so woven his chain
round the unhappy woman, that he was soon after-
wards enabled to carry her off, never to return to
that home and happiness she had once enjoyed. It
was on Wednesday, the 21st of June last, this fatal
step was taken. The family was to leave town on
the 21st of June. Preparations were made, and on
the morning of the day before Mrs. Hoghton's maid
was allowed to go to Bristol. Mrs.°Hoghton had in-
formed her husband that he had an invitation to dine
that evening with Sir Archibald M'Clay, and that
she would go to a friend at Langham-place to
tea. The invitation to dinner was for the 21st of
June, and whether it was designedly represented
by Mrs. Hoghton to be on the day before he would
not stop to inquire. After Mrs. Hoghton was set
down at Langham-place the carriage returned to
take Mr. Hoghton to dinner, when the mistake
was discovered that the invitation was for the day
following. Mr. Hoghton desired his servant to drive
him to the University Hotel, Suffolk-street, where
he would dine. The servant had his suspicions ex-
cited, and he hurried back to Mivart's, and his sus-
picions were confirmed. He hastened to his master,
and on their return it was too clear to be doubted
that Mrs. Hoghton had eloped with the defendant.
Hoghton was deeply affected ; he could not re-
main another night at Mivart's, and removed to an-
other hotel. He consulted his solicitor, and it was
ascertained that the parties had left by train for Dover
and had gone to Ostend, afterwards to Brussels and to
Wiesbaden on the Rhine, whither Hirst, the servant,
and Leadbetter, the police-officer, found them passing
as Mr. and Mrs. Wilmot. They remained some time
on the continent, and afterwards returned to Lon-
don ' • and on the 20th of October last the guilty pair
embarked for India, where they had now probably
arrived. He (Sir F. Thesiger) had not yet done
with the painful details. Mrs. Hoghton was in
the family-way by her husband, and in a few short
months the union would have been strengthened by
the birth of a child. What were now the prospects
of the child ? Hearts warmed with love would have
received it, but now the hands of a guilty mother
would be the first to hold it, and its first home would
be amidst guilt and shame--the tenderest offices
stifled, and the first smile of innocence bring to the
remembrance of the mother the misery she had
brought on herself and her helpless child. Could
anything compensate the plaintiff for the loss he had
sustained ? Twice the amount limited by the deela-
ration would be no compensation. He (Sir Frede-
rick Thesiger) asked himself what will be the pallia-
tion offered for such atrocious conduct ? Would it be
attributed to excess of " love ?" If that sacred name
was prostituted to cover a guilty passion, then might
the common robberjustlfv his conduct by his desire to
gratify the indulgence of his passion for plunder.
Again, he asked himself what excuse could be offered,
and he remembered the ample settlement made by
the plaintiff on his wife; she having no fortune of her
own, and it had suggested itself to him that it was
the desire to possess the fortune of the woman that
the defendant had seduced the wife. The jury could
only afford pecuniary satisfaction for the irreparable
injury, and it would be urged that he was unable to
pay. But was that any excuse for his conduct?
The action was for the great injury inflicted. Al-
though the duty of the jury was to compensate, and
not to punish, if their verdict should seriously affect
the defendant, it would perhaps make him, as well as
the partner of his guilt, feel, though he could not
sufficiently atone, for the atrocious injury he
.had
inflicted.
Mr. John Wilson Patten, M.P. ; the Rev. Arthur
Truman; Mr. Flowerden, steward to the plaintiff;
Mrs. Pugh, the lady of Mr. Pugh, M.P.; George
Hirst, the servant; and a Mrs. Newman, were called
on the part of the plaintiff, and established the prin-
cipal facts detailed by Mr. Thesiger. The marriage
settlement was put in, after an objection to its ad-
missibility on the part of the defendant. The witnesses
described the affectionate terms on which the plaintiff
and- his wife lived. The servant said he did not
mention his suspicions because he thought it would
make his master and mistress unhappy for life. It
apPeared that a Mr. Thompson had uttered some
slander against Mrs. Hoghton, and a criminal infor-
mation was filed, and he was abroad. The circum-
stance made no alteration in the affections of the
plaintiff. Mrs. Newman, who resided in Welbeck-
street, proved that Mrs. lioghton and the defendant
resided in her house under the name of Wilmot. In
her judgment Mrs. Iloghton was six months advanced
in pregnancy.