The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-05 00:00:00

!lime circumstances, which left no doubt that the criminal
intercourse had taken place.] On the Wednesday follow-
ing Roberts came and looked through the hole. He seemed
dreadfully agitated, and ran down stairs, and attempted to
Open the door. It was fastened, and Roberts burst it in.
The servant who was on the landing-place screamed.
Roberts was very violent, and Snow pleaded his innocence,
but I said I had witnessed his conduct through that hole.
Snow then left. When I entered the room both Mrs.
Roberts and the servant cried out " That's the traitor."
Cross-examined by Mr. THESSIGER—I left my house
early one morning►, taking some of my goods, but I left
enough to pay the distress that had been put in. I gave
my apprentice Payne his indentures a week before I saw
these things, because he was about to run away, and he
was so intimate with Mrs. Roberts' servant, we could not
discover anything while he was in the house. Mr. Snow
has brought an action against me for defamation, and I
pleaded the truth to it. I understand the action has been
discontinued.

Emma Willis Martin lodged in Rislingbury's house.
After the discovery had been made, witness was with Mrs.
Roberts in the room, and she swore at the hole, and took a
poker to break it, but witness prevented her. Three days
before, witness saw an eye looking down through the bole,
which she afterwards learned to be Mr. Rislingbury, but
she did not mention it to any person. I did not tell Mrs.
Roberts, because I thought justice was being done. lam
a sister to Martin, the under treasurer of the Temple. Mr.
Rislingbury had previously told me that he had made a hole,
and that he was watching Mrs. Roberts and Mr. Snows'
conduct.

Mr. Rislingbury re-examined--The defendant's attorney
and another person came to his house to look at the hole.
Mr. THESSIGEA addressed the jury for the defendant.
He addressed them with the greatest anxiety, inasmuch as
it was not the question of pecuniary compensation alone
that affected the defendant, but his character, and his very
existence as a professional man was involved in the case.
Not alone was the character of the defendant, who was in
most extensive practice, and the father of a large family,
affected by what the decision of the jury Fight be, but
also the character of the plaintiff's wife, against whom a
foul slander had been uttered. Here was a man of
the mature age of thirty-six, marrying a girl of eighteen,
and the evidence as to the manner in which they lived to-
gether, was the most unsatisfactory and questionable that
could well be offered. They were all casual acquaintances.
and no member of either the plaintiff or his wife's family
were examined, who could tell really how they did live
together. From what was stated, it would appear that the
plaintiff never lived as a husband ought to live with his
wife, and had evinced the greatest indisposition to cohabit
with her. Yet this was the man who called upon them to
give heavy damages for the loss of the comfort and society
of his wife. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded, at
considerable length, to comment upon the evidence of the
several witnesses for the prosecution, and in a very ingenious
manner vindicated the conduct of the defendant during
his attendance upon Mrs. Roberts.
The verdict had not been returned, when we went to press.