The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-01 00:00:00

MORNING SU. N

selected to draw upon Loup, Godbere, at, 'd Company.
The defendant did so to the amount of 2671, Which bill
was duly paid. In the December following seine nego-
tiations took place respecting another lot of Lite hand-
kerchiefs. They were sold, and amounted to 412 L 108.;
the goods were again sent to Loup, Godbere, and f 3:1131..
pany. Application was frequently made for the bill
agreed to be given in payment, but excusas
were made, and it was not given. The plaintiff' mad.
complaints to Messrs. Loup and Co., which seer ned to
give offence to the defendant, for he wrote from Man-
chester asking whether he was to be considered as the
principal or as agent ; they knew that he had only- 1 per
cent., and ought not to be troubled on the matter ; and
as they had made themselves so busy calling upon _Loup
and Co., they Might draw upon them. A bill was then
drawn by the plaintiff upon Loup and Co., but, after
accepting it, they refused to give it up, except
through the defendant. Upon the bill arriving
at maturity, Loup and Co. were bankrupts ; it was
of course not paid, and the plaintiff now
sought to mike the defendant pay it, as most undoubtedly
he was throughout treated as-principal in both transac-
tions ; and he had no doubt, under the authority and ad-
vice of his Lordship. they would find for the plaintiff.
John Seville, clerk to the, plaintiff, proved the facts as
stated by the Learned Counsel, every possible objection
being taken by Mr. Watson, Counsel for the defendant.
The order for the goods was in these terms—" Gentle-
men, I can sell 1,500 pieces of handkerchiefs at ss. 6d.—
four months' bill from Ist December—if you will allow
me 9-t- per cent. commission. You can invoice the goods
to the parties in your own names." In his cross-exami-
nation he said the defendant had only a counting-house
in London, and he had been paid 11. per cent. on both
transactions ; he had not called for the other 11 per
cent., which was agreed to be given him.
Mr. RICHARDS called for a copy of the invoice sent
to Harrison in December.

Mr. WATsoNcoainc,i ; they never hid it.
It was proved to have been delivered, and a copy put
in and read.

James Smith, in the employ of the plaintiff, had made
repeated applications to Harrison about the goods. Ha
saw him on one occasion, and he told him to tell the
plaintiff he would be sure to have the bill to-morrow.
George Shepperd delivered the goods to Loup and
Co. ; gave a delivery order w ith them, on which they
wrote a receipt. It was proposed to read the order and

receipt.
Mr. WATSON objected ; it was a matter altogether
behind their back.
After much sparring between the Counsel, the other
two letters, completing the correspondence upon which
the sale was founded were produced ; they showed that
the goods had been sold by defendant on a commission
of 2 per cent., and he again repeated that the invoice was
to be made out to Loup and Co.
His Lonnsnie refused to receive in evidence the deli-
very order, and the receipt of Loup and Co.
Mr. WATSON submitted that the plaintiff must be non-
suited—it was clear upon the letters that it was a strong
case of principal and agent.
Mr. litcHAnDs—The first business done between the
parties was clearly a sale, and it was in evidence that
all future transactions between then were to be on the
same footing. It was therefore clearly a sale, the in-
voice was made out to Morrison, and delivered to him
at the time of sale, and kept by him until after
the bankrupty of Loup and Co. Had it been a sale upon
commission, why should the defendant feel angry at the
plaintiff making tiMself busy with Loup and Co.
Could he find fault with him dealing or making him-
self busy with parties whom he considered as the prin-
cipals in the transaction. It was clear, then, that he
asked whether he was principal or agent, because of the
plaintiff interfering with Loup and Co., and asking why
th©y had not given Harrison the bill.
His LORDSHIP refused to withdraw the case from the
Jury, but he reserved leave to defendant's Counsel to
move to enter a nonsuit.

Mr. WATSON then addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, relying upon the letters.
His LORDSHIP summed up at great length, and
strongly in favour of the defendant, and the Jury imme-
diately found accordingly.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Nov. 29.
Before Under• Sheriff BURCHELL and a Common Jury.)

SEWELL V. FARMER.
CnIM. CON.—DADIAGES, 2,oool.—This was an action
brought to recover compensation in damages for criminal
conversation with the plaintiff's wife. The damages
were laid in the declaration a 2,0001.
Mr. Stock and Mr. Butt appeared for the plaintiff, and
the defendant, who had suffered judgment to go by de-

fault, was not represented in Court. -
Mr. STOCK having briefly opened the pleadings,
Mr. Burr observed, that the Jury had already col-
lected from his Learned Friend the nature of this in-
quiry, and that they would have to direct their attention
to the amount of compensation which the plaintiff was
entitled to receive fer the very serious injury which the
defendant had inflicted upon him. He regretted to say
that this was one of those actions of which gentlemen in
their station had of late been too familiar with ; but
without exaggerating the many aggravated circumstances

with which the present actionlwassurrounded, he would

proceed to state the case briefl4, to them. The plaintiff,
'Thomas Sewell, is a Captain in the Bengal Native In-
fantry, and also holds a Staff appointment in India. The
defendant is a gentleman of no profession, and about
seven or eight years ago he went out to India with re-
commendations to the house of Mackintosh and Com-

pany, extensive merchants at Calcutta, with which he
subsequently became connected. The house, however,
soon after failed, and the defendant, having some talent
for acting, he obtained the situation of Secretary to the
Calcutta Amateur Theatre, which was supported by the
officers, and at which they were in the habit of getting
up amateur performances. The defendant frequently
took a part in the plays that were performed, and upon
one occasion he received an injury upon his head from
the sword of a friend of the plaintiff. In consequence
of that misfortune the plaintiff paid the defendant great
attentionstand extended to him the most generous
hospitality ; and he continued to visit the plain-
tiff, and to be received into his family for
five or six years. It might be necessary to
mention that the wife of Captain Sewell, Margaret Su-
sannah Sewell, is the daughter of Major James Hay of
the 66th Regiment of Native Infantry, and that at the
time of her marriage with the plaintiff she was about
eighteen or nineteen years of age, and he was between
twenty-nine and thirty. The union took place by the
consent of all parties, and promised the greatest bless-
ings. For about ten years they lived in India upon the
best of terms, and the fruits of their marriage were four
children, namely two boys of the respective ages of
about eleven and ten, and two girls about nine and eight
years of age. The marriage took place on the 6th of
May, 1828. The lady had been born in the East Indies,
but had been sent to England when very young, and
after receiving her education in this country, she re-
turned to her father in Calcutta in 1826, with whom she
continued until her marriage with the plaintiff. In the
year 1838 she was ordered into this country for the bene-
fit of her health, and she sailed for England about the
middle of that year with her two daughters, the plain-
tiff's sons having been previously sent to this country to
be educated, a practice that was common amongst Eng-
lish residents in India in consequence of the unhealthy
and dangerous effect which that climate produced upon
children of tender age. Up to the departure of the
plaintiff's wife, nothing had occurred in India to:give him
the least suspicion that she was faithless, that her purity
had been assailed, and that her affections were shaken.
Upon her arrival in England, she went to reside with
her uncle, Mr. Kerr, of Oxford-terrace, and here he
(Mr. Butt) might remark, by way of showing the con-
fidence which her husband placed in her—the affection
and regard which he had for her, that he allowed her
during her absence from him no less a sum than 8001.
per year, and which he afterwards increased to 9001. So
large an allowance was more perhaps than he could
afford, but he was desirous of making her ample provi-
sion. Mrs. Sewell had not been many days at the house
of Mr. Kerr, when she quarrelled with him for reasons
hthat
eafterwards appeared
she
had beeno buvnidoeurs ,thaen de
eye,
e quittedthe
ear, t
andhe
the guardianship, as it were, of a respectable man,
and a near relation. She then took a furnished house
at 26, George-street, Manchester-square, from which
it appeared she had removed to Blandfo'rd-street, and
subsequently to Charlotte-street, Portland place. It
Eng-
land previous
at to the would be proved that the defendant, who came to Eng-
India, had, the taheeveral departure of Mrs. Sewell from
placesat which
in London, carried on anadulterous intercourse with Mrs.
Sewell ;that he had kindness ofthe Pain-
forgotten the
she had resided
tiff, and outraged every tie of gratitude that ought to
have bound him to Captain Sewell—not only those ties
that related to the higher observances of life, but those
also of a secondary degree. At length, however, ru-
mmionroalshfeeetlinol to ex-
reached the husband's ear that his wife Ir.s
conducting herself improperly, and he immediately
stituted an inquiry, and soon found that such
children
po
were but too true ; that the comforts
ofe his
arrupted ;
were neglected, and that their morals
and it was, continued the Learned Counsel,
day's experience, that when once a
woman
conisideration
in their ca
broke every
a
sacred obligation all those of a
in this
followed in succ,ession;
unhappy woman s mind fell henceaw
in a short space of time
cessive drinking, and became
degradation and profli-
a most lamentable instance of
charges fell against the
gacy. The weight of all these
he (Mr.
and fathers,
away
when
defendant, and, both as husbands
Butt) trusted the Jury would properly estimate what
punish such de-
amount of damages could adequately
de-
pravity. There was not one mitigating circumstance—
notlNt of
• by to pa e the conductthe
one point here
defendant. With reference to the means of the latter,
he would observe that it had been laid down by one
of the most eminent Judges of the land, that in the as-
sessment of damages in cases of this description, Juries
were not to consider the means of the defendant, but
what would compensate the plaintiff. One remark he
would make on the unhappy situation of the children.
Had the mother died before she had fallen from her high
position in society ; had she died prematurely, yet in the
possession of her fair fame, they would have merely
have had to have mourned her as a virtuous mother, and
deplored her loss as affectionate children naturally
would do. Painful indeed was the contrast ! In this sad
scene of degradation and of debauchery into which that
mother had fallen, the children had not only lost their
natural protector, but would in after years be covered
with her shame, and must alike suffer with the plaintiff.
He would mention one fact more. It was that the de-
fendant had from time to time obtained large sums of
money from the plaintiff's wife for his own purposes, and
to aid himself in carrrying on this system of debauchery
with the wife of the plaintiff. He should put into evi-
dence severalletters written by Mrs. Sewell and the de-
fendant to the plaintiff, which would present such an in-
stance of hypocrisy and disgraceful duplicity as had
rarely before been disclosed in a Court of Justice. Un-
der these circumstances, it would be for the Jury to say
what damages would sufficiently express their abhor'
rence of the despicable conduct of the defendant.