The Sun.
London, England, 1812-02-29 00:00:00

MOORE V. MOORE.

This was a proceednig for a divorre, instituted by
Richard Moore, Esq. of Long Meltord, Suffolk,
against his -Wife, Mis. Sidney Arabella Moore, on
the ground of adultery.
It appeared in evidence, that the parties were
nee-ried in the year 1796. They lived very happily
together till the introduaion of a Mr. John Miller
into the family, as steward arid assistant to Mr.
Moore, in his farming concerns, in the spring of
1810 ; shortly after which, the servants in the fa
roily observed a great familiarity of conduce betx'veen
Mrs. Moore and Mr. Miller, particularly in Mr.
Moore's absence, on which occasions they were
frequently closetted alone for a considerable- time
together ; and were observed kissing and using
fond expressions towards each other. Upon one
occasion, when Mr. Moore Bias from home, Mrs.
Moore-desired a spare bed to be got ready, saying
she would sleep in it instead of her own, in order
to air it ; and likewise directed a china closet ad-
joining the bed-room to he -cleared out. The •
suspicions of the servants . being excited by these
Unusual preparations, added to what they had pre-
viously observed, they determined to watch Mrs.
Moore's conduce that day very c!osely. Her mother
and Mr. Miller having dined with her, in the even-
ing, about ten o'clock, one of the servants looking
through the key-hole of a doer commanding a view
of the staircase, saw Mrs. Moore come out of 'the
drawing-room, and, after looking to see it any one
was near her, go softly op stairs„b,_-ckoninv, to some
one to follow, and in a tew moments Mr. Miller
stole softly after her. She came down again soon
,aiterwares, and returned into the drawing-room :
teo of the servants then went ap stairs, "and
searched all the rooms, but without finding Mr.
Miller. Tne china closet alone withstood their
state!), being locked, which: was a very unusual
circumstance, and they ' missed one of the chairs
from the adjoining room. Mrs. Moore's -mother
having taken her leave, she retired to
.her dressing-
room, and from thence to the spare bed-room she •
had prepared for her. The servants then listened,
and heard a creaking heavy step, like that of a man
with boots on, go from the china closet-to- Mrs.
Moore's room. They continued watching for a
considerable; time, but finding no one return from
the room, they retired for the night. The. foot-
man took an opportunity the next day to raise a
ladder against the china-closet window, and, upon
looking into it, he discovered the chair that was
missed_ the preceding- day. These circumstances
weie afterwards communicated to Mr. Moore, by
the Servants ; he immediately had their evidence
taken before a Magistrate, and 'brought an aEtion
against Mr, 'Miler, in. which he recovered heavy
damages, and he then commenced the present suit.
No evidence • was offered in opposition to the
charge: the, only defence set up was, that the evi-
dence was only circumstantial, and that of the
slightest nature, being nothing more than the mere
surmise of the servants, who were young, and there-
fore liable to be easily deceived by .appearances.
It was likewise urged, that the servants not disclos-
ing the transa&ion to Mr. Moore, for a consider-
time afterwards, and his then -obtaining their oaths
before a Magistrate, to hold in terrorem over them,
were circumstances tending to throw a great dis-
credit over their evidence ; and, therefore, with all
these considerations combined,. the proof was not
Sufficient to justify -the Court in venting a divorce
between the parties, after an uninterrupted happy
intercourse of 14 years.

The Learned Judge, (Dr. ARNOtn, surrogate of
Sir WM. SCOTT, and presiding tor him, in his ab-
absence at the Admiralty Sessions), observed that
the evidence had been objected to as. insufficient,
because further facts had not been pointed out
which would have made it more conclusive; the
question was nor, however, whether all the evi-'
dence possible had been adduced; but whether what
adually had been, waS sufficient to sustain the
charge. Evidence of fads like these in the present
case was in its very nature mostly circumstantial,
positive evidence being seldom to be expeded, and
it was therefore sufficient it of well a nature as to
raise the presumption of guilt. He then recapitu-
lated the principal points at considerable length,
from which all the witnesses inferred the actual
commission of the crime; and observed, it would
require a great 6gree of scepticism in' any one, not
to arrive at the same conclusion. - He did not think
there was any thing to shew they, had been tamper-
ed with, or to affed their evidence, in any suffi-
cient 'degree. With the result of that evidence,
therefore, in his mind, it only remained for him to
pronounce the husband emitled to the remedy he
svight, and the divorce was accordingly pronounc-
ed for.