The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-09 00:00:00

PUICE OF OIL.

Rape Oil, brown, per ton, 491. Os —Refined,sl/. ClL—Linseed Oil, 411 Os,
Liii.,eeti Oil Cake at the Mill, (1000 12/. 124—Rape Cake, per ton, 5! ss.

LORD LANGFORD V. BARRETT.
Mr. TDESSiGER stated the case. This was an action which
the plaintiff had been compelled to bring to recover damages
for the most serious injury of which a man could complain—fer
criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife. The obi ;.t of
the plaintiff, however, in this proceeding, wag to recover
damages, but to obtain a verdict, with a view to ulterior pro-
ceedings. The plaintiff was an Irish Peer, and in 818 he -was
married at St. Margaret's Church to the object of the present ac-
tion. His name wv, ;it that time Rowley ; he became acquainted
with his present wife accidentally, and at a moment when dif.
ferences existed between his father and himself. She was a
woman of great beauty and accomplishments, and in an unfor-
tunate moment of spleen and resentment he united himself
to her. Marriages of this sort were ordinarily followed by re-
pentance, but in this instance the parties lived together happily
for many years before the storm burst over their head, and
even now he believed that it was not meant on the other side
to impugn the plaintifrs character. After his father's de,“'„
the plaintiff went to the family scat of Sumtnerk:::i, in the
county of Meath, Two children were th? offspring of the
marriage, and everything promised ',:nem a life of harmony,
when the defendant VV44 introduced into the family, and in a
very short time, In one fortnight afterwards, the familiarities
of the defendant and of Lady
.Langford became observable,
and it was unnecessary 401 V to inquire whether these familia-
ritieg had been Induced by the overtures of Lady Langford to
the defendant, or whether they sprung from himself. At all
events it was clear what was the duty of the defendant. He
was in the family of the plaintiff as the tutor of the plaintiff's
son, and above all things it became him, if such overtures were
made, to flee from the temptation thus thrown in his way. The
partiality of the Lady was certainly manifested in a short time.
She recommended her husband to leave Summerhill on ac-
count of his health, and to pay frequent visits to the sea-side;
and when he was absent the most suspicious familiarities took
place between her and the defendant. They sat together
on the sofa in the parlour or drawing room, and the blinds
were drawn up, and sometimes the shutters were closed. To-
wards the end of the year a quarrel took place between them,
and the defendant then went to Dublin. The Lady sent
a messenger after him. He quitted Dublin for England,
and came to rejoin his family here. She started after him, ar-
rived at Liverpool, traversed the country, and went to North-
amptonshire, where his family resided. A reconciliation took
place between them, and it was agreed that they should meet
in London. They did so, and afterwards went to Brighton.
The defendant at last went off to America. She pursued
him, and brought him back; and they went to live at York-
cottages at Brompton. There Lady Langford had a cottage,
and close by, in the neighbourhood, at Montpelier-cottages,
resided the defendant. Her attentions to him were unre-
mitting ; she visited him constantly, and when he was attacked
by illness she was not only a frequent visitor of his chamber,
but she performed some of those offices which, even in the
hours of sickness, none but a hired nurse would be called on to
execute. The proof of adultery, in this case, would rest on
this evidence of circumstances.
Charles Kenney—l lived in the plaintiff's family for some
years. I remember the defendant coming into the
Lady Langford in a short time became very attentive to him.
Lord and Lady Langford, and Lady Langford's sister and the
defendant, used to dine together. I was at Crosby when
Lady Langford was there. He breakfasted with her once or
twice when she came down stairs. I cannot say that there
was more familiarity between them then than when plaintiff
was present. On one occasion I saw Lady Langford come
out of her little boy's room and go into her own room. De-
fendant had gone in there first. She was in her dressing-
gown, so was defendant. I thought it queer. I told some-
body about this.
_ _

liabella Macbean's testimony did not prove anything ma-
terial, and her examination was finally directed to raise the
inference that she had been tampered with.
Mrs. Monson.—l now live at York Cottages. Did live at
Montpelier Cottages, Brompton. In March, 1834, Lady Lang-
ford and her sister, Miss Rhodes, took lodgings at my cottage
for Mr. Barrett. A fortnight afterwards he came there, He
was taken ill. He did not sleep at my lodgings before he was
ill more than five nights out of a week. Ho stayed seven or
eight weeks. She lived at No. 4, York Cottages, about six
minutes' walk from my house. She came frequently to my house.
She staid sometimes till eleven o'clock at night, and Mr. Bar-
rett sometimes saw her home. She has brought wine, fruit,
brandy, and linen for him. He has sometimes come home at six
o'clock in the morning and changed his clothes, and then he
went to her cottage. Ile did this five nights out of the week.
He paid the rent, but I saw her give him the money to pay me.
I remember a quarrel between him and her. She gave me a
ring and shawl to return to him, and also a portrait it was
his portrait. He said that he was glad she had returned it, as
he did not mean to have anything more to do with her, and
that he should give it to her sister. Sho came to the house.
She said that she had purchased his shirt, watch, and seals,
and she took those things away. She said that it was
through that watch that it was found out by Lord Lang-
ford. During his illness she bought sheets, down pillows,
and other things for him ; she came frequently while he was
ill. She washed his neck and hands, and put his stockings on
for him. I have found the door locked when she was in the
room with him. I heard her say, " You may scream if you
please, but it is of no use, the door is looked, and not a soul
shall come in." She remained three hours in the room, and
after she left he called me in end told me she had torn the hair
off his head, and had annoyed him, and he desired me not to
admit her again, I have seen him sitting on the sofa, and her
sitting on the rug in front of the fire with her head on his lap.
A child was brought to the house. I have heard her say to
him, " You villain, why don't you notice your child ?" She
cut a hole through the curtains, and used to gaze on him
for an hour together when he .was asleep during his illness.
I have seen .hergo to him when be was asleep as l kiss him;
The marriage register was proved. The marriage took place
in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, in 1
This closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. BYLES addressed the Jury for the defendant. Until
the time of the defendarit's entering the house of the plain-
tiff hp had borne an irreproachable character. He had been
to the University of Cambridge, having been intended for
the Church ; and ho had afterwards become a tutor in
the family of a Mr, Metcalfe, a Gentleman of fortune, ac-
quirements, and of high character; and in that family he
had received, as he deserved, the highest praise for his con-
duct. From that family lie passed into the family of the plaintiff,
where he was appointed tutor to the plaintiff's son. There it
was that he first saw Lady Langford, a female in person and
accomplishments faultless. He should show that this ',ady
had been, to a great degree, neglected by her huslnind ; so
much, indeed, that a third person had actually
eantioned the
plaintiff, that if he was so negligent of his wife, and left her so
much in company of young man like tte defendant, that he
would be incurring the ri,A; ',lila event which did, in fact,
aftervrarda happen. In One Instance the plaintiff had called to
the defendant s attention the beautiful hair of Lady Langford,
and had then sent for her miniature and exhibited it to him,
and asked his opinion on it, and that the defendant bad an-
swered, that beautiful as the miniature was, the original was
still more highly beautiful. He should show that the two
works of Moore and Byron, " Lalla Rook!'" and " Don Juan,"
had been brought home by the plaintiff, who, presenting them
to the defendant to read to Lady Langford, desired him to
amuse her as well as he was able. He should also show that
the plaintiff had been in their company long after the supposed
criminal intimacy, and he should altogether establish a case
which would amount to connivance on the part of the husband.
The second point of the defence was, that the husband had
been guilty of repeated acts of adultery with other women.
That, again, would disqualify the husband from suing in the
present case.

The deed of separation, dated 13th Aug., 1833, was put in
and read. There was a penalty in the shape of the loss of her
claim to separate maintenance fixed on the wife if she should
attempt to compel restitution of conjugal rights.
Letters, showing the high character of the defendant, when
about to enter the plaintiff's family, were put in and read.
The writ in a former actin was delivered in December,
1833. Notice of trial was given for the Northampton Assizes
in the following year, The present.action was commenced in
July last,` The witness who proved this writ said that Mr.
Handley was attorney for Lord Langford at the time of
those proceedings, Messrs. Harmer were then made the
attorneys.
Miss Elizabeth Rhodes—l am the sister of Lady Langford.
Some time after her marriage she and her husband went to
live in Green-street. They were then known as Mr. and
Mrs. Rowley. She was then ill for a long time. During her
illness she received several anonymous communications re-
lating to Mr. Rowley's conduct. She had a brain fe,,er.
After her recovery he told her that he had dec.„tad a
woman for several weeks. This woman lived, next door.
He had first met her by accident in the -„treet. My sister
said that he must give up this w':,,nan. He at first re-
fused. She said that she w`*;uld leave him, and she did so
for a few hours. Hc; tonsented to give up this woman,
and said that 'no would send his solicitor to get his let-
te'a from her. He did so. She said that if anything of this
sort again occurred she would have a settlement. After this
they.went to Paris; while there, an unpleasant occurrence
happened. She suspected that he had formed another con-
nection, She told him that she suspected it. He went out,
and she followed him, and they came back together covered
with mud and dirt, and she said that she had dragged him out
of a house of ill-fame on the Boulevards. In eaasequeLoe of
this we soon left Paris. He acknowlodged it—said that he
was very sorry that he had wmtilded bor feelings, and would
not do it again. Alice his return to Summerhill he was ex-
troll* Pi.'4ll{,tent Obis wife. He neglected her there a great
deal—Often left her alone ; and he was there accused by her
of
da an improper intimacy with a :Mrs, frElanagan. The de-
fennt arrived at Surnmerbill in IF,3:i. There was not more
familiarity with Lady Langford and the defendant in Lord
.!angfaid's alisonae titan in 14s presence. I cautioned him
against leaving his wife so much with a young man like the
defendant. He told me that I was too fastidious, and I was
to let them do as I liked. She told him that he ought not.
_ to
Imo her so often alone with Mr. Barrett 40 ill" did that
must tate the consequences