The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-09 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY.)

HAYWARD V. BARLOW—CRIM. CON.
Sir JOHN BAYLEY having stated that the plaintiff in
this case sought damages for the loss of the society and
comfort of his wife,
Mr. ERLE stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff
was compelled to appeal to a Jury of his country for pecu-
niary redress for one of the most grievous injuries which one
man could inflict upon another—viz., the seducing of his
wife's affections, aad causing her to desert her home,
but the law allowed no other remedy. He would not
generalise upon such a. topic, because it was a case that
must of necessity come,home to the bosom and feelings
of every man, especially one who had enjoyed the comfort
and peace of his own home. It appeared that the plaintiff
was married in 1834, and had lived with his wife in the
utmost peace and harmony, until unfortunately, by some
means the defendant got introduced into the family
circle. He became a frequent visitor to the house and
was treated like a friend, but he had repaid that friend-
ship with the basest ingratitude, for he had used it for
the destruction of the domestic peace of those whose
hospitality he had
.so often shared. It would be•proved
that he had been for a long course of months, and he
might say for years, engaged in seducing the affections and
virtue of the plaintiff's wife—that he visited her at all
times of the day, when he knew that the business of the
plaintiff demanded his presence in town. The plaintiff
was a bookseller, carrying on business in Pater-
noster-row ; he resided at Chelsea, where he
kept his wife in comfort, while he was struggling
with an adverse trade. He was detained all day from
home, and was therefore unable to control and
watch the actions of his wife ; but they
lived in the utmost comfort and confidence until

the wiles of the seducer had proved successful,
and the victim abandoned her home in the May of the
present year. The defendant had put a plea upon the
record denying the marriage. That was for the purpose
of obliging him to give evidence of an unfortunate circum-
stance which' had occurred previous to the marriage of the
parties. It appeared that they had had a child born previous
to that event, but the plaintiff had made every reparation
in his power for the misfortune ; and it did not
become the defendant to set that up as any
justification of his own wrong. It would be proved that
after the marriage they lived happily together in the
utmost comfort and peace, which had been de-
stroyed by the conduct of the defendant, and he
trusted the Jury when they had heard all the circum-
stances of the case, would award ample damages as
compensation, so far as was in their power, for an in-
j ur), so great. He then called— _ _

Mr. Stamp, register clerk of Marylebone, who produced
the register of the marriage of the plaintiff and Miss
Driver, on the Bth September, in 1834.
Mr. E. Driver, brother of Mrs. Hayward, was present
at the marriage of his sister with the plaintiff. He was
a stationer. After the marriage she resided several years
in Sloane-street, and then in Whitehead-grove, Chelsea.
Witness constantly visited them until within the last
four months, and they appeared to live upon the most
friendly terms. The plaintiff treated his wife very kindly.
Cross-examined by Mr. TnEsIGER. --- Ile never
visited them since they left Sloane-street, about twelve
months ago. They called upon him sometimes, but not
together during that time. About six months ago he
met them together on board a steam boat. The reason
he did not visit them was because he thought their con-
duct was cool towards him. A nother sister was in the

habit of visiting them and staying with them a week at
a time. her name was Mrs. Sandford, and he believed
she was not in Court. He had frequently dined with
them in Sloane-street, and the plaintiff was invari-
ably kind. His sister was 20 years of age when she
was married. Their only child was between eight and
nine years of age. The plaintiff met her first at Mar-
gate, where she was staying with her mother, this was
two or three years before they were married. Did not
know that the plaintiff belonged to a Punch Club. Never
saw him in a state of intoxication, nor seen any disptite
between him and his wife.

Mrs. Driver, the mother of the last witness, and of the
wife of the plaintiff, occasionally visited them, and
stayed some weeks at a time until near the separation.
The conduct of the plaintiff was very kind—she never
witnessed any unkindness on his part; he was always,
kind, attentive, and affectionate.

Cross examined—The last visit was about March ;
she remained all the winter. She had seen the defendant
there, but the plaintiff always knew of it afterwards.
He never made any remark upon these visits, nor had
she ever made any suggestion to him that the defendant
should be forbid the house. Never heard from the
plaintiff that Mr. H. went to Epsom Races or to the
Caledonian Ball with the defendant. The plaintiff ge-
nerally kept regular hours. Never heard him Say that
he belonged to a Punch Club. Had seen him only once
the worse for liquor ; he was then quiet.
Miss Emily Smith—Had been acquainted with the
plaintiff and his wife. Visited them at Sloane-street and
Whitehead's. grove. Had continued to visit them down
to last April, and had stayed with them for weeks toge-
ther. They lived upon very affectionate terms, and
plaintiff treated his wife with much kindness. Knew the
defendant, but never heard him say what he was.
Cross-examined—Had seen Mr. Barlow there, and
had accompanied him and Mrs. Hayward two or three
times to the theatre. Did not know of their going alone
to any place of public amusement. Mr. Hayward knew
of their going to the theatre, but said he was always
satisfied when Mrs. Hayward was with her (wit-
ness). They never quarrelled in her presence, nor
were her other married acquaintances in the habit of
doing so before her. The defendant did not visit very
often when she was there, nor did he stay long.
Re-examined—Mrs. H. did sometimes complain of
being out of spirits, but for what reason she did not know.
George Spear, a lace-dealer in Fleet-street, was in the
habit of visiting plaintiff and his wife along with Mrs. S.
Their conduct was always affectionate.
Cross-examined—He believed he had upon one occa-
sion heard Mrs. H. complain of the apprentice being out
to a late hour at the Cock public-house. He did net
consider it a quarrel----it was a mere casual con-
versation. Witness occasionally visited at the Cock
along with Mr. Hayward. Occasionally did not
mean every night—he was not there sometimes for six
weeks. He did not belong to a Punch Club. He had not
met the plaintiff in the " Cock Tavern" 50 times, nor 40,
he would say not 20. Mr. Hayward resided then in
Sloane-street. He frequently called at witness's house
both with and without his wife. When he came alone

whic

he might have stayed till eleven or twelve' o'clock. lie did
not recollect meeting him at any other place. The ap-
prentice stayed with them at the Cock, because he and
plaintiff might walk home together.
Re-examined—There was no quarrel about keeping
the apprentice out late. Mrs. H. merely said it was a
shame to keep him so late. •
Jas. Moore, a partner of the plaintiff—Since
March, 1838, to March last. They were booksellers,
and plaintiff at first was traveller, but that did not oc-
cupy much of his time. He attended the business regu-
larly, and sometimes he was kept till nine o'clock.. 'Wit-
ness was married, and on Magazine-day was sometimes
detained till twelve o'clock. He and his wife visited plain-
tiff, and he uniformly treated his wife with great affection
and kindness. In March last they had the misfortune
to become bankrupt, and then the plaintiff was unable to
attend to make out his accounts, in consequence of the
absence of his wife, He had not yet obtained his cer-
tificate ; the time fur it had not yet come. Did not
know the defendant.
Phcebe Mason was a servant with the plaintiff in
Whitehead's-grove. Went there in November, 1810,
and stayed until Mrs. Haywood °went away. Had seen
the defendant often there ; lie generally inquired for
Mrs. Hayward. He called as often as twice a week, and
sometimes his visits extended to three or four hours.
They sat sometimes in the drawing-room, and at other
times in the breakfast-room. She had gone into
the latter and had seen them sitting, on the sofa,
with the blinds down. Mrs. H. told her (wit-
ness) not to come into the room when defendant was
there unless the bell rung.,' Had got letters from her
mistress directed to defendant to put in the post, and very
frequently letters came. She had orders Lever to
take in any letters to her mistress when her master
was at home. She wore a likeness of Mr. Barlow,
secretly, and had given it her to keep, so that Mr. Hay-
ward should not see it. Plaintiff generally came home
about six o'clock to dinner. Once he came home at two
o'clock, and found her mistress and Barlow just sitting
down to dinner. Mrs. Hayward was very much agitated.-
Plaintiff dined with them, and went away in about
half an hour. Barlow stopped till seven o'clock. Plain-
tiff came home soon after, and asked witness how long
defendant had stopped, she made no answer, but her
mistress said he did not stay long ; that was in
March. Had first seen the miniature in November last.
Plaintiff was uniformly kind tohis wife. Defendant's visits
continued in the same way down to May, 1841, when
her mistress paCked up her clothes. She sent witness
out for a van. On her return defendant was there, who
said he would have a coach ; the van would not be
wanted. The coach came, into which her mistress got,
and drove away. She ordered it to go somewhere in the
City-road.
Cross-examined—Mrs Hayward sometimes went with
the defendant. Not very often, and she had come home
as late as half-past eleven or twelve o'clock. Could not
say whether it was half a dozen times or more. On
those occasions she met defendant, and plaintiff knew
nothing of it till he came home. Had heard him ask
why she had not told him she was going to
the play, he would not have come home to stop by him-
self. Her master had asked her -'(witness) where her
mistress had gone. She said she believed to the play,
and that she had gone alone. He never mentioned -.Mr.
Barlow's name when making such inquiries. De-
fendant had often dined in . company with the
plaintiff when all these visits were going on. Did
not believe that they dined together after.
March, 1841. Her master sometimes came home at
twelve o'clock. Witness sat up for him, but had never
seen him intoxicated. Sometimes a little the worse for
liquor. Knew nothing of the throwing; of a decanter
on one of the late nights, nor did she ever know him
bring any one home with him.
Mrs. Rice, the 'landlady of the house in Islington
where defendant lodged until within the last fortnight.
He belonged to the Portable Gas Works. Knew Mrs. Hay-
ward, but not by that name. Defendant called her his
wife, and said they had been married three years. They
lived at her lodgings for two months as man and wife.
She used to visit him occasionally during the last two
years, then he said she was his wife, but he
did not want it known on account of money.
It was about two months since she came
to reside permanently. On these occasional visits she
never stayed later than nine o'cloCk, and they always
left together. 'She frequently stopped three or four
hours. She told witness that she had been married before,

By the JUDGE--They left her lodgings • to go abroad.
One one of these occasional visits she had a servant with
her with a cake. She said it was the wedding-cake come
too late.—(A laugh.)
Mr. THESIGER-It was late, indeed—three years after.
You appear very unsuspicious.
Witness—l am so, indeed. Had I known what was
going on they would not have slept a single night in my
house.

Mrs. Vick had formerly lived as servant with plaintiff.
Defendant ofte'i called, and On'thhe occasion Mrs. H.
took her to Mrs. Rice's liuse, where defendant lodged,
with a cake, some jam, and wine, or liquor. Had fre-
quently been out with Mrs. 11. when they met defendant.
Cross-examined.—Defendant called frequently while
bile was there, and had seen her mistress frequently walk out
with defendant. They went to the play, and when she came
home she said sometimes she had been at the play
with Miss Smith and other young ladies. She never
told her master when she was out with Mr.. Barlow or
any other gentleman. She had orders not. Many gen-
tlemen used to call and stop an hour or two when
her master was from home. Remembered her master
coming home after one o'clock, and bringing with him
a man with very bad shoes, and no stockings ; he was
very much intoxicated. She had to take his boots off,
and then he said, " Davey, here is a seat for 3 Cu," ask-
ing,her to sit upon his knee. She told her mistress next
morning. He generally came home early, except on
Magazine nights. Never saw him so much intoxi-
cated before.

By the JUDGE-The men who came to the house were
not acquaintances of plaintiff. He did not know of their
visits. It was only now and then, and they came singly.
Witness never saw any criminality between them, but
they remained sometimes hours in the room with her
alone. They were principally officers.
Mr. THESIGER (with whom was Mr. Crumpton) ad-
dressed the Jury for the defendant. These cases were
generally very painful ones for the advocate who
appeared for the defendant, and the opening
of his Learned Friend had certainly frightened
him until his Learned Friend commenced to make apo-
logies for the conduct of the plaintiff. How did his
Learned Friend set bid ?- By saying here was
the case of a seducer, wh6.for a long course of years
had been practising his arts upon the virtue of a loving
and faithful wife—who had destroyed the peace
and comfort of a long enjoyed home, and introducing
misery and wretchedness after the discovery of her
guilt. Now he would ask who was it that told his
Learned Friend that he had to make preparation in the
minds of the Jury for neglect which might have existed
on the part of the husband. Why the plaintiff himself
who was aware that it was true. However he must
say that it had been much more extensive than
even he was instructed, as shown by all the
servants who had been called, but more par-
ticularly by the last witness, whose evidence
had taken both parties by snrprise. Had his Learned
Friend had any suspicion of what she would have said, he
would never have presented her to the notice of the Jury.
After commenting upon the evidence, he asked whakda-
znagees a plaintiff was entitled to who in the very tender
years of his wife was the first to break down all the guards
of her virtue—what damages did he deserve for conduct
bad led to such unhappy results as
dose detailed by the last witness ? From all that
appeared in the cause, he (Mr. Theliger) would say that
he was wilfully blind, or he had been the solicitor of his
own dishonour. It was their duty to estimate the pro-
per amount of damages to be awarded, but under the cir-
cumstances of the case he had no doubt they would be
very small indeed.
His LORDSHIP said—Whatever reparation a man
might make to a woman by marriage, still the value of
a wife must be very much deteriorated by former con-
duct, such as was proved to have been that of the
plaintiff. If he was aware of what was going on he must
feel obliged to the first man who took her away—if not,
of what value was she ?
The Jury consulted for a few minutes, and then found
a verdict fur the plaintiff--Damages 20L

MONACHISM AT OXFORD,--Mr. Newman,
Vicar of St. Mary's the Virgin, is building several sets of
chambers for the reception of young men (candidates for
orders, or for monastic institutions in contemplation), in
his parish, at Littlenitife, And we beg to direct the
Heads of Colleges to an investigation of the fact, whether
several young men, bound by oath to celibacy and mo-
nastic vows, are not now receiving a gratuitous educa-
tion in the University from parties who have no special
interest in them. The Bishop of Oxford, where is he?—
Oxford Chronicle.

MISS FANNY RUSSELL'S CONCERT.—THIS
lady's concert took place last evening at the Queen's
Concert Rooms, Hanover-square. The whole of the seats
in the great room were occupied by visitors,_ and the pas-
sages between the seats were also crowded by those who
came late. The concert commenced with the Jubilee Over-
ture (C. M.Von Weber), after which came the Grand Cho-
rus from the Messiah, "For unto us a child is born ;" the
air (Miss M. B. Hawes) "Holy, Holy" (Redemption),
Handel, followed, and excited considerable applause.
The Recitative and Air, Miss Fanny Russell, " With
verdure clad," from Ilaydn's Creation, was excellently
executed ; and received deserved applause. The second
part of the concert was commenced with Rossini's over-
ture to Guillaume Tell, which was admirably performed,
arid drew forth universal approbation. The grand
chorus, which comprised the whole of the members of
the Professional Choral Society, was most efficient. Sir
George Smart acted as conductor ; Messrs. F. Cramer
and J. D. Loder, as leaders ; and Mr. F. Harris presided
at the organ. The concert
of the patronage it received. was well got up, and worthy
ILLNESS OF MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD,
M.P.—We are deeply concerned to state, that Mr. Craw-
ford is at present suffering from an attack of typhus
fever at Crawfordsburn. We believe, however, that the
symptoms of the disease have somewhat abated ; and that
there is ground to hope for the Hon. Gentleman's speedy
recovery.—Northern Whig.
THE VICTORIA PARK.—On Wednesday last
a meeting of market-gardeners took place at the Three
Colts, Bethnal-green. The object of the meeting was to
inform the market-gardeners at what time their laud
might be required for the Victoria Park. Messrs.
Woodcock, Greig, Lyton, Caller, Fitch, Turner, Litton,
Bullock, Minter, and Wells, attended. A letter from the
Earl of Lincoln, Chief Commissioner of the Woods and
Forests, was read by Lieut. Nugent Macnamara. The
communication from his Lordship appeared to afford sa-
tisfaction, and after a vote of thanks to his Lordship for
his courtesy, and to Lieut. Macnamara for his attention
to their interests, the meeting, which was only a preli-
minary one, adjourned until next month.