The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-21 00:00:00

wziss v. nnynox.

Mr. Por.t.ocz stated that this was an action to recover da-
mages from the defendant, for a false representation which he
gave of the character and circumstances of one Miller, by which
the plaintiff was induced to give him goods to the amount of
1601. This sum he lost,. as Miller became insolvent.
Mr. SCAR LETT stated the case, as it will be found in the
evidence, but admitted that unless he could shew a fraudulent
intention on the part of the defendant, the action was'not main.
tainable. He believed that he was in a situation to shew that
the defendant gave a false representation of Miller's circuit'.
stances for the purpose of getting him into credit, and thus ob-
taining the payment of a debt which Miller owed to him.
In September, 1821, Mr. Miller having applied, by letter, to
Mr. Weiss, a surgical-instrument-maker in the Strand, for the
delivery of some goods on credit, referred for his respectability
to Mr. Brydon. The latter gentleman, on being waited upon
by a person from Mr. Weiss, represented Miller as a good man,
who could be safely trusted, and goods were accordingly de-
livered to the amount of 3201., as .:hiller had directed, to the
East-India Shipping agents, for the parpOse of being' sent
abroad. Half the money was paid, and for the remainder he
pre a bill at eighteen months. This bill was dishonoured.
Miller had twice behire this been a bankrupt, And had only a
short time before absconded, in consequence of writs being sued

out.against him by his creditors. Froth different circumstances,
it was evident that this was fully known to Mr. Brydon.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury on the part
of the defendant, and contended that, at the time the repre-
sentation was made, Mr. Brydon was ignorant of in-
solvency, and had not given it with an intention to prejudice
the plaintiff:
_ _ _

The CHIEF-JUSTICE left the question to the Jury, who
immediately returned a verdict for the defendant.

ARCHES' COURT, JAN. 20.
JOHN V. JOHN.

This was a suit of divorce, by reason of adultery brought by
Samuel John, Esq., late High Sheriff of Cornwall, against Ms
wife, Mary John.
Sir Jolts Nrcnot said, there were circumstances in the cape
which induced him to give it much greater attention than had
been anticipated, and for that purpose he had deferred his
judgment until to-day. In delivering his opinion, it was ne-
cessary to state, at some length, the evidence and the state of
the proceedings, owing to the time that had elapsed since the
case was first before the Court. The parties were married in
Cornwall on the 23d Jan. 1810, and on the 24th March, only
two months afterwards, they separated. A deed was executed
in March, 1811, by which a separate provision was made for
her, by Mr. Grimwood, her father, and her husband was se-
, cured against all claims for the support of his wife and a child,
the result of the two months' cohabitation. Immediately on
the separation she went to reside with her father, but soon
after he procured her a residence in the family of the Rev. Mr.
Palmer, Rector of Redburn, in Lincolnshire, where she re-
mained from June, 1810, until the year 1814. In the latter
part of 1813, Mr. Grimwood died, and by his will he left his
daughter (Mrs. John) an annuity of 1301. a year, and 501. a
year for the support and education of her child, and after her
death the sum of 2,0001. was secured to this child. He also
bequeathed Mr. John a legacy of 1001. She had a servant
named Margaret Green, who accommonied her from Cornwall,
and who was married while at Mr. Palmer's to a carpenter
named Smith, residing at Kirton, a small distance from Red-
burn. Smith took a house, and Mrs. John went to reside
there in October, 1814. This haute had formerly been yeti-
large, but was then divided into two tenements, one of which
was occupied by Mr. Smith, and the other by a butcher
named Huddlesdon. She remained there until the year 1818,
and then came to London. In the course of the year 1821,
the husband made inquiries concerning the wife's conduct,
and in 1824, the present suit was instituted. The reason Mr.
John gave for deferring the commencement of this suit until
so late a period was, that it was not until 1821 he heard
of the reports concerning his wife's criminality, and that he
employed solicitors to seek out the necessary evidence, which
was laid before Counsel as it was collected, until the
whole of the evidence was obtained. Now upon a review of
the evidence it was necessary to examine into the manner in
which it was collected, and what sort of colouring was given
to induce the persons to give their testimony, The two prin-
cipal witnesses were Smith and his wife, the latter of whom
had been Mrs. John's servant. Mrs. Smith said, that 31r.John
and the two Solicitors had seen her at .Gainsborough, and had
given her to understand, it was not only Mr. John's wish, but
also Mrs. John's, that a separation should take place ; that it
would be an act of compassion to the parties, and would en.
able each other to be married again—so that the impression
on her mind was that her late mistress was anxious that she
should be divorced from her husband ; she (the witness)
believed they wished her to say more than she knew, and
pressed her very closely, notwithstanding she declared
that she never knew her mistress to have been guilty of any
bad conduct; they also hinted to her " that money or ex-
pence was no object." Mr. Smith's testimony was to the
same effect; the same impressions were given, the same co-
louring was exerted. In January, 1824, the libel was given in
preferring charges that were said to have taken place in 1814,
1815. and 1816. The separation had existed for 14 years, and
during the years preceding 1814, and subsequent to 1816, ao
imputation whatever was attempted to be cast on Mrs. John's
conduct. On the whole transaction, she was certainly entitled
to the justice of the Court, that she should not be proclaimed
guilty, unless upon the clearest evidence ; and if front the lapse
of time and the generality of the evidence she had failed to
reply to the whole of the charges, the fault was not hers, but in
her husband's neglect in not stating the charges more specifi-
cally. It had been said that the witnesses were unwilling to
give their evidence, but they were the husband's witnesses, and
must be taken as such. He charged her with committing adul-
tery with Mr. George Robert Foster, who was a surgeon, in part-
nership with his. father, in the neighbourhood of Redburn, and
also with a clegyman, the Rev. Mr. Weyland, who resided in
the neighbourhood. That while she resided at Mr. Palmer's she
became acquainted with Mr. G. It. Foster and his father ; that
she often expressed great anxiety for the company of young
Foster; frequently spoke of him in terms of affection ; would
feign illness that he might be sent for; would refuse to eat all
day, in order to give a colouring to her indisposition, and would
get up in the night, when the family were asleep, and get her
food ; that on one occasion when Mrs. Palmer refused to send
for Mr. Foster she flew in a violent passion, and broke several
glasses. These charges, which certainly, if proved, exhibited
the appearance of an intercourse between the parties, but on
looking at the evidence, the whole of those circumstances were
not only not proved, but entirely disproved by Mrs. Painter
herself. It therefore threw a cloud over the transaction, and
caused a distrust in the evidence. 3lrs. Palmer added, and
she was corroborated by Mrs. Smith, that she never witnessed
any improper attachment in Mrs. John towards Mr. Foster;
they admitted that Mrs. John was in a delicate state of health,
and often required medical aid, but, on those occasions, Mr.
Foster, sen. always attended her. Mr. Foster, jun. on one
occasion attended her before she was up in the morning, but
she was then ill with a sore throat. Sir John Nichol there-
fore thought that there was no truth whatever of her having
formed an improper attachment for Mr. Foster, jun. up to the
time when she quitted Mr. Palmer's family and went to reside at
Mr. Smith's, but that she so conducted herself during that period
as to obtain the friendship of 3lr. Palmer's family and the most
respectable persons in the neighbourhood. The libel then charged,
that Mr. Foster frequently visited her when she resided at Mr.
S.'s house; that he remained there until a late hour in the morn.
ing, and that they on those occasions committed the crime of
adultery. The Learned Judge, upon a review of the evidence,
found no one circumstance substantiated by proof. Thus,
then, there was an end to the charges of adultery, as commit.
ted by Mrs. John with Mr. Foster, who was married in 1815.
The libel went on to charge, that Mrs. John committed adul-
tery. with the Rev. Mr. Weyland, while she resided at Mr.
Smith's house • that Mr. Weyland used, on various occasions,
to go to Mrs. John's bed-room at night, and remain there for a
considerable time; and that on one occasion he was found by
Margaret Smith in such a situation as to leave the inference
that the parties had contracted a criminal intercourse. Now
the evidence entirely confuted that charge; for it appeared that
Mr. Weyland used frequently to call on Mrs. John, who was
confined to her bed, and at her request, in the presence of most
respectable persons, would administer the Sacrament to her, and.
would pray to her. It appeared also, that during the time she
resided at Smith's, she was much respected by the neighbour-
hood, and that she was not only visited by Mr. Weyland, but
by Mrs. Weyland, which would infer that that Gentleman had
only a religious motive in visitir, her. The Learned judge,.
after a considerable time occupied in his comments, pronounced
against the divorce.

BIRTH.
Lately, at Park-house, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the rife of
Mr. Alderman Cookson, of a daughter.

MARRIED.

On Wednesday, the 19th inst., at Kelvedon, the Rev. John,
Bridges Stony, vicar of (heat Tey, Essex, to Martha, eldest
daughter of the Rev. Dr. Romaine, Castle-hill-lodge, Reading,
Berks. • -

On the 10th inst., at Bath, Samuel B. Barnett, Esq., youngest
son of the late Hon. S. W. Barnett, of Jamaica. to Louisa,
second daughter of the late Christopher Senior Lawrence, of
'l'ripoly, in the same island.
On the 20th inst., at Greenwich, L. Leake, Esq., of Stoke
Newington, to Mary Ann, eldest daughter of George Walpole,
Esq., of Croom's-hill.