The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-03 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Dec. 1.

SMITH v. WALPOLE.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange for the
sum of 2001, brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman,
living in the Albany, against the acceptor, Mr. Edward
Walpole. The bill was drawn in October, 1838, by a
person named Griffith, and the defendant pleaded that it.
was an accommodation bill, for which he had never re-
ceived consideration, and secondly, that when it became
due it was not in the hands of plaintiff but of a gentle-
man named Curry.
Mr. Lambert—ln 1839 I was solicitor to Mr. Curry,
a military gentleman, and in the latter end of that year
I had placed in my hands, by him, a bill for 2001., dated
October, 1838. I presented it for payment, and it
was dishonoured. I wrote to defendant about it.
Mr. Smith applied to me about the bill some
months after it became due. I told him that Mr.
Curry had told me that he had given only 171. for the
bill to a Mr. Goldshire. I ultimately agreed to let him
have the bill for 171. An agreement was drawn up,
dated Sept. 14, 1840, between myself and Mr. Smith, in
which it was alleged that the bill belonged to Smith, and
that, in consideration of the sum of 171., the bill should be
delivered up to him, which was accordingly done. I
was acting as the agent of Lieut. Curry, and it was
agreed that Mr. Smith should not sue Lieut. Curry for
two years. Smith said he had had a great many bill
transactions with Griffith, and had lost a good deal of
money by him.
It was then proposed on the part of the defendant to
read the agreement, but Counsel for the plaintiff objected,
on the ground that such a document could not be given
in evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount claimed.
YATES V. ASTON. _ _ _

This was an action to recover a sum of 1,5001. with
interest, being money lent to the defendant and his
brother. It appeared that in 1823 a gentleman named
Black, advanced a sum of 1,2001. on mortgage to the
defendants. In 1833 Mr. Black wishing to obtain back
his principal, applied to the defendants, who being
unable to pay the money, called upon the plaintiff
to advance them that sum, with an additional sum of
3001., which the defendants required. Mr. Yates
agreed to advance 1,5001. for that purpose, and accor-
dingly Mr. Yates paid off the mortgage with interest and
costs, amounting to 1,4001. and odd, and handed the ba-
lance, 621., to the defendant's solicitor. That took place
in the year 1833, and the interest was regularly paid by
the defendants up to November, 1836. The defendants
pleaded that they were never indebted, and also the sta-
tute of limitations.
Plaintiff's solicitor proved the advance of the money
to the defendant. and the drawing up of the agreement,
and also, that in August, 1836, he received 71. 10s. in-
terest, from the defendant William Aston.
Mr. KELLY for the defendant, submitted that the
plaintiff could not recover in an action under the present
form. The action was in debt, and for money lent, in-
stead of having declared upon the deed.
After some discussion between Counsel, it was agreed
to take a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed, with
interest, amounting to 1,9521., and to prepare a special
case for the opinion of the full Court.

CRIM. CON.-ORFEUR V. WATKINS.

Mr. KELLY (with whom was Mr. Hoggins) stated the
case. The plaintiff complained against the defendant of
the deepest injury man could inflict upon man—that his
happiness was totally destroyed, and he left the father of
seven children, who could no longer enjoy the affection
and love of their mother, and who could never again men-
tion her name without a blush. It was for that injury that
the plaintiff now sought compensation at the hands of
the Jury. The plaintiff was in a situation of life which
enabled him to support his wife and family in comfort
and respectability. He was the part-owner and captain
of a vessel called the Leda, trading to the Mediter-
ranean. He married his wife in 1825, when she was
about eighteen, and he himself about twenty-seven. They
were married with the consent of her parents and friends,
and she was aware of his profession, and that it would
call him away from home for months at a time. In
November, 1840, he was at home, after the conclusion of
his fourth or fifth voyage. They had always lived
in the most affectionate and happy manner ; the eldest
boy was now sixteen years of age, and there were several
daughters, the eldest of whom was about twelve, and the
youngest about two. They resided in East-lane, Ber-
mondsey. On the 17th of November, 1840, the plaintiff
sailed to the Levant, on board the Leda, his eldest
son accompanying him. During his absence he
had several letters from his wife, couched in the
usual terms of affection ; but on his return, in the
month of August last he received a letter of a very ex-
traordinary nature. Before he read that letter, how-
ever, he would show the terms of affection on which he
lived with his wife, as shown in the letters addressed to
him by his wife. [The Learned Counsel here read ex-
tracts from some of the letters, which were couched in a
very affectionate strain.] However, on the arrival of the
plaintiff at Falmouth, he received a letter, which he
would now read to the Jury.
Mr. TRESIGER, for the defendant, objected to the
letter being read until it was shown that a criminal inter-
course had previously taken place between the plaintiff's
wife and the defendant.
Mr. KELLY would contend that he was entitled to read
the letter. :Its object was to blind the husband, and to
impose upon him a child which was not his own. He was
prepared to make the letter evidence in the cause.
The COURT did not think the letter could be read at
present.
Mr. KELLY then proceeded. He believed there could
be no doubt of the facts which he should lay before them,
for the purpose of establishing his case. Plaintiff had left
England at the latter end of November, and the letter at
Falmouth apprised him that she had been confined on
the 15th of August, and what created the strongest
suspicion in his mind was that in all the letters
she had addressed to him while he was abroad
she had never mentioned a word of her being
enciente. The plaintiff came to London imme-
diately, and after a great many shifts and evasions, he
ascertained that his wife had left her home, and that in-
stead of her being confined on the 15th August, she was
not confined till the 3d of October. The defendant, of
whom he wished to say but little, was a young man who
Ind been for some years on the most intimate terms with
the family of the plaintiff. He would pass over the fami-
liarities which would be proved more directly in evi-
dence, and which would leave no doubt on the minds of
the Jury that the criminal intercourse had taken place
betwen the parties. The only remaining question was
the amount of damages. If it was shown that the plain.
tiff ill-treated his wife, :that he had left [her short of
money, or had ever left her, unless when compelled by
his duty, that would, of course, lessen their amount ; but
if that could not be shown, then he would leave it to the
Jury to say what damages that man should pay who had
inflicted so deep a wrong upon the plaintiff. They should
also take into account that the plaintiff would now have
to bring up these children himself, they being deprived
of the countenance and support of their mother. He
would now leave the case in their hands, and he was sa-
tisfied that they would give such damages as the plaintiff
was entitled to under these distressing circumstances.
The following witnesses were then examined

Frederick Charles Fordyce produced an examined copy
of the registry of the marriage of the plaintiff with Hester
Richards, 27th March, 1825.
Jane Robson Kidner—l am the wife of W. Kidner, a
butcher, living near Bermondsey. I know the plaintiff,
who is master of a vessel. I was present at the marriage.
Her father was a ship-chandler, and she was about 18 at
the time. Captain Orfeur was from 25 to 27. I visited
them after their marriage, and they appeared to be very
naPPY and comfortable.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER— They were living
seen her tweilre
at F.ast-lane, Bermondsey.. I have not been more than
twice in th •
sh
ao house s
me fory h theous e
with five e
rSears,
husband
dt
also
l shoe
in
ne
time. I never aw
that time. them more frequently before that
plaintiff and
Agnes sawwesteoe the defendant Watkins at their house.
his jv j was present at the marriage of
c e visiting
th er. there. esraew.
bars.
thought e
~oart and have r
last
in been et nh e in
month the habitofe u l
yo f
.
they lived very happily to-
I live in Union-street
five times in the course ofrooamug3:e.ae there. I have some-
times seen Mr. Orfeur at h
tetirace, Bermondsey.
livedhave known Mrs.
Eliza Ellis-1 live at Covingto.
I know the family of Mrs. Orfeull;
l near me. My
Orfeur since she was a child. The
oungest two
father was in the sea service. The' ptillteintiff has seven
the house,
and happily together.,
children alive—the eldest 16, and
years old. I have been very frequently atY
was often absent for months at a time
ways appeared to live very
anird. tohreireuarl
Mrs. Orfeur's father died about four years ago,at sea.
lived
dbuast
previously to that time Captain and Mrs. Orfeur
part of their family. I know William Watkins the de-
fendant. He is a pilot, and has two steam-tugs_ 1,
Lie
Flora and the Fiddler. His father also owns some ves-
sels. Have often seen the defendant at Mrs. Orfeur's
when the plaintiff was absent. To a stranger he would
appear to be her master. I have seen him pull her on
his knee, kiss her, and put his arms round her neck fre-
quently. I have seen the defendant and Mrs. Orfeur
on the sofa together. They were lying down. At
anoth©r time she appeared to be lying in the defendant's
arms on the sofa. I saw either him or her pull down her
clothes, which were up nearly to her knee. That
occurred about three weeks after last Christmas—the
other familiarities I have seen before and since Christ-
mas. I have seen the defendant there as early as seven
in the morning. He was then washing himself. I
helped to make the bed that day, and remarked that it
looked as if two persons had slept in it. I thought so
at the time. I saw William (the defendant) get over
the garden wall about eleven at night coming into
Mrs. Orfeur's premises. I have often seen them
walking' and sitting in the rope-walk behind the
house. He generally had one arm round her waist and