The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-02 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(THIS DAY.)

(Before Lord DENMAN and a Special Jury.)
CRIM. CON.—DUNDAS, CLERK, V. 1101 E.
This was an action brought by the Rev. Mr. Dundas, a
clergyman of the Church of England, against Mr. Hole,
a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood of Beth, to
recover damages for criminal conversation with the plain-
tiff's wife.
Mr. TIIESIGER addressed the Jury on behalf of the plain-
tiff, who was a clergyman of the Church et' England, re-
siding in Wiltshire,eind the son of Captain Deans Dundas,
R.N., the representative in Parliament for the borough of
Devizes. The lady who was the unfortunate cause of -
this action was the daughter of Colonel Burslem, and
the plaintiff was married to her ;in the year
1536. Differences unfortunately had occurred between
them, and they were separated from each other, Mrs.
Dundas became acquainted with the defendant Mr.
Hole, a young gentleman, residing in the neighbourhood
of Bath, and that acquaintance ended in the unhappy con-
nection which was the cause of the present action. The
Learned Counsel then detailed the circumstances of the
case as they subsequently came out in evidence, and called
the following witnesses :
The Rev. Thomas Douglas Hodgson officiated at the
marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Dundas on 13th February, 1836.
On his cross-examination the witness said he knew of
Mr. Dundas paying his addresses to Miss Burslem.
The marriage settlement was then put in and read, and
the execution of it was proved by Mr. Baker, a solicitor of
Newbury. There was also a draft of the deed of separa.
tion, which Mr. Dundas had refused to execute when he
was desirous of a reconciliation.
John links, waiter at the Castle, at Marlborough—Oa
the 13th of May, 1839, Mr. Hoie and a lady came to the
inn, from Bath, and occupied a sitting room and bed room.
They were attended by a female servant, and passed as
man and wife. They remained two or three days. In 10
or 12 da) s after witness saw the same lady at the inn. Dr.
Harman was with her.
William fleetly, waiter at the Castle, corroborated the
evidence of the last witness.
Harriet Greenaway, the chambermaid at the castle, re-
collected the lady and gentleman coming there. They
occupied but one bed.
Dr. Harman, a physician at Bath, went with Mr. Den-
das to the castle at Alarlberougb, on the 29th May, 1839.
Win. Hall knew the residence of Col. Burslem at 9,
Portland-place, Bath.
Ann Murrell, chambermaid at the White Hart, Chip-
penham, recollected that on the 15th of November a lady
and gentleman came to that inn, and they lived as man
and wife. They left a blue band-box behind, which wit-
ness took care of.
George Nicholls, the waiter at the White Hart, recol-
lected the lady and gentleman corning there.
Richard Hook knows the defendant. Ann Murrell had
pointed him one to witness as the gentleman who had
been at the White Hart.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. ERLE then addressed the Jury for the defence,
and said that he was convinced his Learned Friend had
not been instructed as to the real circumstances of this.
unhappy case, or with his usual candour he would have,
stated them to the Jury. The unhappy lady, who was.
the subject of the present action, was possessed of great
personal attractions, and was residing with her
father, Colonel Burslem; in the neighbourhood of
Barton-court, in Wiltshire. In the year 1834 Captain
Deans Dundas, the father of the plaintiff, came to reside
at Barton-court, and his son, the present plaintiff, was re- .
siding with him. At that time the plaintiff was about 22,
years of age, and was not in holy orders; he became a
' frequent visitor:at Col. Burslem's, and his attentions to Miss
Burslem, who was then about 21, attracted general attention.
On being spoken to on the eubject, he stated that a mu.
tual attachment existed between himself and Miss Burs-
• lcm, that his intentions were strictly honourable, and he
ended by an offer of marriage, and stated that the con-
• nex ion was one of which his family approved. Towards
the latter end of 1834, Mrs. Burslem was confined to her
' room for two months by illness, and the plaintiff still con-
tinued his visits. During this time the plaintiff was base
enough to take advantage of the affections of Miss -
Burslem, and to abuse the confidence reposed in him by
her family by effecting her ruin. Miss Burslem became
ill; she was removed to Bath fur the benefit of her.
• health, and then her mother learnt, for the first.
time, that she was pregnant. From that time Mr.
Dundas discontinued his visits. Having satiated his
appetite he was base enough to abandon his unfor.
female victim. Aliss Burslem was then removed to St.
John's Wood, in the neighbourhood of London, where
' she was privately confined. In the mean time, negoti-
ations were opened between the family cf Colonel
r Burslem and that of Captain Deans Dundas, with a.
view of bringing about a marriage ; but the plaintiff
exhibited the greatest reluctance to repair the
erong he bad done. In fact, he believed that at that
. time he was paying his attentions to another lady. Both
the plaintiff and his friends exhibited the greatest repug-.
fiance to the alliance, and it was only with the greatest
t difficulty that the defendant had been forced to make-
' this tardy reparation to his victim. From the time,
of the marriage, Mr. Dundas seemed to have
dcvottd his whole attention to the devising means.for
getting rid of his wife. He was guilty even of personal
violence towards her. He treated her with the greatest
_ cruelty and neglect, and took every opportunity -of
• exposing her to the seductions of other men,'
• with a view of getting an excuse for such an
action as the present, whereon he might found a suit
for a divorce. He left her without any cause, and she re.
peatedly endeavoured to get interviews with him without
effect. She had applied at his father's house fer this pur-
pose, and the servants then had told her that it was as much
as their place was worth to deliver any of her messages.
She had repeatedly written to him, but her letters had
been suffered to remain unanswered. When a plaintiff in
an action of this sort was consenting to his own dishonour,
the law would not allow him to recover any damages, In
such a case as this, if the Jury felt inclined to give da-
mages at all, he thought the smallest possible amount
would satisfy the justice of the case. The Learned Coun-
sel then called the following witnesses
Mrs. Burslem, the wife of Colonel Burslem, and the
mother of Mrs. Dundas.—Captain Deans Dundee came
to Barton Court in 1834. Mr. Dundas became a fre-
quent visitor at witness's house, and his visits attracted
the attention of the family. Witness's daughter
was then twenty-one years of age. Mr Dundas, on
• being spoken to on the subject, said that there
was an attachment subsisting between himself and witness's
daughter, and that his intentions were honourable. He
made an offer of marriage, and said his family were agree-
able to it. He afterwards spoke to the Colonel on the
subject. In the latter end of 1834 witness was confined
for two months, and Mr. Dundas
.continued his visits.
Witness's daughter complained of being unwell in October
or November, and went to Bath. Dr. Vance attended her.
Witness fetched her back from Bath. Mr. Dundas did
not visit her in Bath. While she was in Bath- witness
learned she was pregnant. She was confined of a child in
June, 1835. Witness stated what had happened to Cap-
tain and Mrs. Dundas before the confinement; had fre.
quent communications with them about the mar-
riage. After that Mr. Dundas renewed his visits. It
was understood by both families t .at a marriage
should take place. He was in holy orders at
the time of the marriage. In 1837 there was a great deal
of quarrelling between them. Witness had at one time
Observed a large cut on her daughter's lip. She was in
tears. They once came on a visit to witness, and she thought
they lived happily. He went away suddenly, leaving his
wife behind him, and did not return for some time. In
June, 1837, witness was on a visit to Admiral Ommaney.
Mr. and Mrs. Dundas were there. There was a great
disturbance in the room.one evening, and witness went to
the room and pacified them. He was in a violent passion,
and her clothes were torn. In 1837 witness fetched her
daughter from Portsea. She had been left there in lodg-
ings by her husband. She has frequently written to him
since, but her letters have never been answered.
Cross-examined—After she left in August she lived
sometime with witness at Bath. She left because she
wished to have an establishment of her own. She pos-
sesses considerable attractions. She was confined privately
at St. John's Wood. The members of the two families
attended the marriage. Witness knew nothing of her
daughter's pregnancy until six weeks after the birth of the
child. After the last separation endeavours were made to
bring about a reconciliation. Mr. Burslem was desired to
he the mediator. Witness had not seen the defendant
since this occurrence.
Col. Burslem, the husband of last witness, corroborated
the testimony, and detailed the negotiations between the'
two families, which ended in the marriage. Captain' Dune
das and his son appeared to be reluctant to the marriage.
Captain Berkeley lived In the same village with.' the,
plaintiff and his wife in Wiltshire. On one oceasion-Mia.
Dundas came to plaintiff's house, and complained of her _•
husband's conduct. Witness aaid, the best persons to cart- -
suit were the father and mother of the witness. Witness'
remembered on one occasion going to -Salisbury in their .
carriage with them to a ball. Witness returned in the
carriage with two other gentlemen and Mrs. Dundas. Mr.
Dundas was on the box.
Cross-examined. —Never observed anything yeti', par-
ticular in the conduct of Mr. Dundas towards his wife,
when he has seen them together. -
Ann Hall had lived as lady's maid with Mrs. Dundas
i nmediatcly after their marriage. Mr. and Mrs. Dundas
did not ldpi v eubne
dehnatip
tpwuierl happily
went to
tdtoogoetuit
oe
room
0.
Dundas had come to witness's room in the middle of
hert
ls
okeemsedsOr
ontnnohhcgoweceso.
unannbpdneresi
odeotwocodworteemaearcwi
es,. al
neaasadsi
nosinitllVhor:
.icceet
okMpt
and
ct
uieeinrldrssdg.
.s.
the night, and had said that she must sleep with witness,
cir-
cumstances orntdssimhgs. Ntea"l rrny:lue:Mel
Dundas
arm.sa
knocked,tat
tenandndcien.g Mrs.
oTbt
uhhDundas.teerreviebictiienv
Mrs. Dundee.
Mrs. Harrison, is the wife of the bailiff of Captain Deans
Dundas. Remembers Mrs. James Dundas coming to
witness's house, and requesting something about some•
message to be delivered to her husband. Did not say it
was as much as her place was worth to deliver it. Is at
present in the service of Captain Deans Dundee.
Mr. MESMER, in reply said, that if the conduct of the
plaintiff had been such as his Learned Friend bad repro.
seated it to be, no terms of reprobation would be too
strong to characterise it ; but ho utterly [failed
to prove his allegations by the evidence be had
called. There was no proof that the plaintiff himself
was averse to the marriage; on the contrary, the evidence
of Mrs. Burslem proved that the plaintiff had renewed his
visits to Miss Burslem after her confinement. Neither was
there any proof that the defendant conducted himself
with harshness and cruelty towards his wife after their
marriage--that he had neglected her,
had exposed her to temptation, cr had ever deovri.sedthmateahnse
for getting rid of her. The disgrace of setting up such
a defence must recoil upon the heads of those who had
instructed his Learned Friend.
Lord DENMAN summed up the case, and the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages One Farthing.