The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON) MONDAY MORNING, JUNE 21, 1R46.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOL-SE OF LORDS, June 20.
ct.An-ar: DERNSFORD—GRIM. CON. AND DIVORCE.
This was a petition to the House, by the plaintiff; for a
divorce, oil the ground of adultery.
An action was tried for criminal conversation in February
lsst, in which our readers will remember that the plaintiff
was an attorney at Bristol, and the defendant a surgeon, then
in partnership with the plaintiff's mother. It appeared, upon
the trial. that the defendant had hired a house at Bath, in
February, 1845, and he and the wife of the plaintiff were in
the habit of meeting there under the assumed names of Mr.
and Mrs. Nyne ; and from this and other circumstances, as
well as from evidence of the confession of the parties, the
criminal intercottrse was proved, and the jury returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, damages 5,000/. The defendant is in
prison upon proceedings for the recovery of this sum.
Mr. Austin and Mr. Butt now appeared in support of the
petition for a divorce. No counsel erm-ared for the defendant.
The evidence produced at the 1 id .vas gone into, and the
facts of the case were fully corroL tat 1, after which,
Lord BROUGHAM, who presides, s .id the case was one of
the clearest he had ever heard, and in his opinion it was
satisfactorily proved ; he should, therefore, advise their Lord-
ships so to report to the house, which was agreed to, and
their Lordships adjourned.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH', June 20.
(Sittings iu Banco.)
BAT:1101T V. OLIVER.
This is a seduction case, which came before the Court in the
shape of an application for a new trial on the `round of mis-
direction, and that there was not sufficient evidence adduced
on trial to show that the plaintiff had lost the services of her
daughter.
The plaintiff is the mother of Elizabeth Barrott, aged
thirty-three, who resided with her, and kept a school at
Saltash, in the county of Devon, and the action was brought
against the defendant, a Mr. Oliver, who also resided in
Saltash, fur the seduction of the daughter, thereby
depriving plaintiff of the benefit of her services.
The case was tried at the Devonshire assizes
before Mr. Justice Coleridge, and a verdict was returned for
the defendant. According to the evidence adduced on the
trial, Elizabeth Barrott was residing with her mother in
Saltash, and opened a school in order to assist her mother in
maintaining the family. At this time the defendant was in
the habit of visiting them three or four times a week. This
ended in the pregnancy of plaintiff's daughter; and
when she informed the defendant of her condition
he gave her money to purchase drugs to procure
abortion, and on several occasions she took turpentine,
muriate of iron (tincture of steel), and savin, but they all
failed. She received 30s. in all before the birth of the child,
and 4s. afterwards. When it was publicly known she was
with child, the defendant gave up his visits, and refused,
when applied to, to do her pecuniary justice for the injury
done. her pupils also left her; hence the action was itisti.

tuted by the mother to obtain compensation.
It was endeavoured by cross-examination to show that
the daughter of plaintiff had bad connexion with another
person of the name of Lander, and that she was not at the
time in the service of the mother, but that the latter was
only residing with the daughter for a short time, and that
the latter was perfectly Independent of the former, having
entire control over her own earnings.
Mr. CSOWDES applied for the rule on a former day, on the
ground of misdirection and that the evidence addued on the
trial did not warrant the conclusion that the daughter was
the servant of the mother at the time.
Mr. NOTAGUE SMITH was heard this morning against the
rule, showing that the mother was residing with the daugh-
ter before the seduction up to within a month of the
confinement of her daughter, and then only going for a
short time to Plymouth, leaving her daughter its charge of
her brother. The Learned Gentlemen cited several parallel
cases, in which it was ruled that there was proof of service.
In the present case the daughter was in service when the
mother sent for her home ; that when there she opened a
school, being then under the jurisdiction and control of the
mother, and that therefore the latter was fairly entitled to
compensation for the injury done Iy the loss of service.
Mr. CROWDEIt replied at length, contending that there
was no sati.factory proof of service—that the daughter, with
her brother, who kept a boys' schrol, kept a house jeintly,
and paid rent, with which the mother had nothing to do—
that the daughter had entire control over her own earn-
ings, the mother being more in the character of servant than
otnerwise—that she had sufficiently art ived at the period of
discretion, at least if years were any test of that—and that
any incontinence on her part with the old gentleman in
question, though its effects might become fit subject of pro-
ceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, did not warrant the
mother to compensation at common law. With regard to de-
bauching the plaintiff's daughter, there could not have been
many seductive wiles employed, as it appeared from her evi-
dence she consented to connexion when asked to do so, and that
the defendant was in the habit of entering her bed-room by
a ladder at night, and that she was in the habit of returning
the compliment by the aid of a ladder. Whether she
Axed the ladder or not did not appear. He concluded by
asking the Court to make the rule absolute.

The COURT said that the practice of the law had always
been to admit proof of service in actions for seduction, even
when the evidence was not of the most conclusive character.
_ .

In the present case their Lordships were of opinion, looking
to precedents, that s..rvice had been made out, and by ;n-
-ference they trust also conclude, there being no evidence,
that there was loss of service. They, therefore, considered
the jury were justified in coming to the verdict they did on
the evidence adduced on the trial:
The rule was accordingly discharged.

.Sittings at Nisi Prins at Westminster, before Mr. Justice

WILLIAMS and a Special Jury.)
DONALDOON AND OTHERS It. BIRD.

The Attorney-General, Mr. Butt, and Mr Peacock, were
Counsel for the plaintiffs, and the Solicitor-General and Mr.
Bovil for the defendant.
The plaintiffs were the Commissioners of Sewers for West-
minster. and Middlesex. and the defendant was a party who
had entered into a bond for the performance of certain works,
under a contract made by George Bird, to make a sewer in
Gloucester-road, Paddington. Dlr. George Bird performed
this work, but the plaintiffs alleged that it was done in avert'
incomplete manner. so much so as to make it dangerous to the
public, and useless for the purposes intende 1. Two gentle-
men of eminence, Mr. Tite and Mr. Rennie, were called in to
inspect the works, and to make a report of their union, and in
that report those gentlemen stated that the works were de-
fective. Mr. George Bird was then called upon at his own
cost to re-construct the works; he offered to do so at the cost
price, provided the question as to his liability was reserved.
This, however, the plaintiffs would not accede to, and hence
the present action.
"Very many witnesses, and among them Mr. Tite and Mr.
Rennie, were called to show that the work was defective.
They had examined the sewer after it had been finished.
Upon cross-examination, they admitted that these defects
cht to have been seen from time to time as the worked pro-
c( sled. The examination also contained a scientific view
of the nature of the arches used.

Mr. John Jay was employed by the Commissioners to put
the sewer in a proper state, for which he had charged 2321.
For the defendant it was urged that the plaintiffs were
highly blameable in the course they had pursued, and that,
if any mischief had arisen it wai in consequence of the neg-
ligence of their own officers, and it was also contentied that
the plaintiffs' plans as to the arches were improper, and had
led to the defect. The plaintiffs' officer had certified the work
as perfect in 1841, and George Bird was then paid for it.
The interest of the case was entirely confined to the Com-
missioners of Sewers, to the defendant, and to George Bird,
fiur whom the defendant was surety.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up, the jury retired,
and having been absent about an hour and a halt, they came
into Court, and wished to know if they could say that the
work was done to the satisfaction of the Commissioners then
acting?
The officer of the Court informed them that the Learned
Judge had left the Court, and that their verdict mu.t be for
the plaintiffs or defendant.
Tue jury then again retired.

At length the jury came in and said they found a verdict
for the plaintiffs; but they were of opinion that the work was
done to the satisfaction of the Commissioners then acting.—
Damages, 231/. 10s. 4d.

was present when be came to Eaetcheap Drea-er s tid e
WAS glad the (1,,, tor had COMP, fer he waist safferiog gre :1
pain, and he thought 'tin doctor wouSa do 'limn goo I. D:.
Ellis said he had made up his mind that Dues: r would i:o
down with him to Sudbrook Park that aftern ,on ; and m hat
he would drive him down in his carriage. An appoint meet
was made to meet Ellis at Sackvilleastreet, Piccadilly, at
three o'clock that afternoon.
Cross-examined—Dresser was acquainted with Dr. ElFe
for some time, and was a great advocate of hydropathy ; so
far, indeed, as to publish cases of cure. The pain complained
of affected hire in the hip joint, groin, and down the thigh,
and in consequence, he walked with great difficulty. Dresser
was not robust, but a strong, healthy man before that.
William Glasgow Dresser, a cousin of the deceased, stated
that his cousin was 45 years of age, a man rather strongly
built, and capable of undergoing considerable fatigue. He
believed him a person of average health. About two months
deceaseed was affected with jaundice, but recovered of them.
On the 28th Slay, the last day witness saw him alive, de-
ceased complained of pain from rheumatism. On the Tues-
day following, witness went to Sudbrook Park about -I o'clock
in the afternoon, and saw the body of deceased, which was
very much swollen, very dal k under the eye and behind the ear,
froth issuing from the mouth. Witness saw Dr. Ellis, to
whom he remarked as to the death from rheumatism, but
Ellis said he had not died of that but from hepatitis. Ile
had, however, treated him on his own statement, as suffer-
ing from rheumatism; but it was afterwards discovered that
it was disease of the liver. Witness said deceased bad had a
similar attack five years ago, and the gentleman who attended
him said it was rheumatism. Dr. Ellis said that was no
imputation on the skill of the gentleman, for the disease was
of a very insidious character, and frequently only discovered
by the use of the knife. Witness asked him shortly after
something further, and Ellis said he would write him a
diagnosis of the case. He accordingly drew up the paper
produced in Court, and said he would be happy to assist at
a post mortem examination, or meet any medical gentleman.
Cross-examined—Dr. Ellis said had he known it was hepa
titis, he would have taeated him in another way. The
patient was a man of a dark complexion, and the day when
he saw the body was very warm. Dr. Ellis said the patient
had warm baths in the evening and wet bandages.
Eliza Murial—Knew Richard Dresser three or four years;
and on the Friday, the 29th May, he was complaining of
rheumatism. On the Sunday following, she and Mrs. Dres-
ser saw him at Dr. Ellis's in bed, when he appeared very
poorly. Witness did not stay long in the room, and never
saw him after alive.
Harriett Dresser, widow of the deceased, stated she accom
panied her husband in the omnibus to Ellis's on the 29th of
May. She had seen the doctor that day before, who was
called in by her husband's desire to see him. About six
weeks before he had jaundice, and was then attended by Mr.
Waterworth. When he went to Ellis's he was suffering from
nothing but rhumatic pain. Witness herself knew
Ellis for several years. He was at one time a seller of
lace. It was between five and six o'clock in the evening
when she and her husband arrived at Su lbrook Park, where
she remained till about right o'clock the some evening. She
saw nothing done to him while she remained. SI e went
down again on the Sunday afternoon before five o'clock, and
remained somewhat more than two hours. Her husband
was sitting in the bed-room on the bed ; he was very. poorly
and low, sitting oa the foot of the bed covered in blankets,
under which lie told her he had wet bandages. lie did not
seem so well as on Friday. He bad a bath while she was at
Sudbrook. A long oval bath was taken into the room. She
saw several pails of cold water, and a different water
in another can, both which were mixed. She asked time
bathman whether it was warm. On the Monday she again
went down, and found her husband sitting up as before. He
complained about his legs, and she in consequence put her
hand to them, and felt them quite cold. He said they were
perfectly useless. Dr Ellis afterwards came into the room,
and she told him what her husband had said. and he placed
a large wet towel, folded thick, on her husband's stomach.
The towel was wetted in the wash-hand ba-in, with water
from the ewer. Her husband had only a night shirt on at
the time, and the wet cloth was applied to the skin. Dr.
Ellis asked her husband whether he dreaded it, and the reply
was, No. Ihe Doctor gave it as his reason for putting it
on, that he was afraid of inflammation. She had
tea then, .but her husband said he was not allowed
any. After tea she was ordered to leave the room by Dr.
Ellis, for he was to have a bath. Halt an hour after, when
she saw her husband, he appeared very low; he was in bed.
Her husband was changing colour, becoming very black, but
Dr. Ellis said to her he would change, and become as yellow
as gold. This darkness appeared particularly under the eves
and about the lips. His breathing was very short. She
asked Dr Ellis what he theught of the shortness of breath
and change of colour; he said they were not desirable. She
then took leave of her husband, and felt in kissing him that
his lips were quite cold. Before she left the house,
she had a message from Dr. Ellis in the ground, he
wanted to see her. When she met with him, he said
if she was not satisfied with his letter to-morrow, would she
like to have him removed, or would she have further advice?
She said she would wait anxiously for the letter. .Next day
she heard her husband was dead. Her husband thought this
water system would cure him, and he wished to try it.
Cross-examined—That produced in Court was her own
letter, written on the Friday morning to Dr. Ellis, in
which she described her husband as "prostrate with
rheumatics, as helpless as a child, and unable to walk." She
wrote as her husband dictated. When they arrived at Sud-
brook he required to be helped in from the coach. He said
that next morning he was so much better as to he able to
walk in the grounds with the help of Dr. Ellis alone.
On the Monday her husband said to her, that if Dr.
Ellis had been his own brother he could not have
been more kind. Some time before his illness it was agreed
that lie should go down and audit the accounts of the esta-
blishment. She noticed there was no perspiration on the
Monday evening. She knew Dr. Ellis had given up the lace
trade and gone abroad, but did not know whether ho
had studied at any of the colleges. She wished the
body opened in consequence of what passed between
her and Mr. Waterworth. She knew that her husband got
sago, tapioca, and other farinaceous food, and had no sug-
gestion to make as to any illiberality connected with the
establishment.
Charles Waterworth, surgeon, New Kent-road, stated that
the deceased was a patient of his, and he had attended him
as his medical adviser for six or seven years. He had a
severe attack of rheumatism about four years ago. In
March last the deceased was attacked with jaundice;
it was slight, and in a few days he was very
well. He was not a robust man, but a person with a
feeble heart and languid circulation. Witness was present
at the post mortem examination. The chest was first exa-
mined, in consequence of the appearance of the le,ood from
the lungs. The lungs were very full of Mood.
The heart was large and gorged, and the walls of
the heart rather thin. The witness. believed that
the state of congestion of the heart and lungs accounted for
death. Such a state would be accompanied with coldness of
the limbs, and shortness of breath, terminating in death. They
found the liver healthy, and saw no actual disease in the
liver or heart. Witness had seen the diagnosis
of Dr. Ellis, and in some particulars it corre-
sponded with the state of the body ; in some nor.
There was tympanitis, and with that the diagnosis corre-
sponded with the actual state of the body. There was no
hepatitis or suppuration. Witness thought it very difficult
to ascertain suppuration of the lungs. Hepatitis would be
accompanied with fever, and he thought it might be de-
tected by the symptoms. If hepatitis or suppuration bad been
present the treatment was certainly not proper. The patient
was more liable to congestion from such treatment as he
received than many others; this could be judged of by the
pulse. Wet cloths on the Monday afternoon when his legs
were cold were very objectionable, and in the judgment of
the witness, after seeing the state of the lungs and heart,
would accelerate death.

Cross-examined—The post stortem examination was con-
ducted by witness and. his partner. He proceeded to the
P()stmrte*flithee agxdaiminnaostlon with a belief that the result would
contradict
is. Had any suggestion been made to
have Dr. Ellis. or one for him present, he would not have ob-
jected. He did not believe there was any congestion of the
liver, it appeared particularly healthy. Hisopinion was that
congestion was going on on the Monday evening, and was
accelerated by the application of wet clothes. Knowing
the constitution of Mr. Dresser, witness considered the ap-
plication of wet cloths at any time very improper; but he
admitted that in this he had an advantage over a stranger.
A congested state of the brain would produce congestion in

the lungs.
By Mr. HUDDLESTONE—He thought that water at a tem-
perature of 85 deg. would be too cold generally, and under
the symptoms mentioned by Mrs. Dresser very consider-
ably so. The effect of it would be to drive in Cie blood
from the surface. _

- -
Mr. Hicks, partner with the last witness, stated that the
countenance of the deceased was bloated, and bloody serum
issued from the mouth and nose, and the whole appearance
was of a person who had been drowned. Witness thought
the liver had a' little too
much blood, but otherwise perfectly
healthy. There was disease in the kidney, so much as
to interfere with the functions. In other respects he corrubo
rated the former witness.

John Maynard. an attendant in Dr. Ellis's establishment,
at Sudbri)ok Park, near Petersham, stated that he was a
bathing man, having certain rooms allotted to his section,
and he attended all persons in these rooms. He had been
there about six months. He saw Mr. Dresser on the Friday
in No. 2, in the cottage, a part of the establishment, a bed
room; Dr. Ellis was with him at the time, which was be-
tween seven and eight o'clock. Dr. Ellis said something to
witness, but he did not recollect what he was. Dresser had
a bath or' Saturday morning between seven and eight o'clock,
the bath being carried into the room and Dr. Ellis being pre-
sent. The temperature of the bath was 85 degrees. The
patient after remaining in it 90 seconds was taken out and
well dried and put to bed. Witness took up water three or
four times during the Saturday, about two quarts cold and
two quarts hot ; each time at intervals of three or four hours.
Dr. Ellis was there at these times; there was i o bath in the
room. A cloth about two feet long was taken up with
every quantity of water. On Sunday he had a bath of the
same time of the morning as before. Dr. Ellis ordered that
it should be at a temperature of 85 degrees, and that the
patient should remain in it 90 seconds. Towels and water
were taken up as on the day previous. In the bed-room his
covering was two or three blankets. He had a bath on the
Monday, but not quite so early, and no water or towels were
sent up that day.
Cross-examined—The rubbing down on Saturday morn-
ing, after the bath, did not cause so much redness as witness
had seen in other cases. After the bath on Sunday he walked
out, and felt•yery much better from Dr. Ellis's treatment,
and said so frequently. He expressed himself to the same
effect after the bath on Monday, and wished to have baths
during the day, he felt so much relieved. He had no bath
on Monday night. His food was tapioca, milk, bread, and
through,Utter. His bowels were confined from the time he came
on Friday till Monday morning; on Sunday some castor oil
was taken into Dresser's room. Dr. Ellis sat up with his
patient oatind appeared Sunday and e r Mondayv an xiou
s nights,abou t the whole
on
3nli
ognh-t
day, at half-past six o'clock in the evening, witness saw no
change in the patient. There were four or five gentlemen in
the establishment at the time.
Dressersaw
,rdileer(ri ah' bRi
moougtteotr
hs,nir
ebbeo
(op, t,
car
:icsneketi
snh etf
eheeets
aamfb.tile: sir
chnhomo enwn,
et
rN, when Dr Dhleirre.
cold.
Witness sat up with him that night until I If )a -past three
o'clock next morning, and during time the •
pauent Ire.
quently complained of pain in the side.
This closed tie case for the prosecution.
Mr. COCKBURN took three technical objections, two on the
wording of the indictment, and one on the subject of the ju-
risdiction of the Court.

~.,......
Chief Justice TINDAL reserved the points.
Mr. COCKBURN then addressed the jury, and delivered a
long and elaborate defence of the prisoner, and finally put it
to the jury whether they c,uld say there was congestion of the
lungs, that that congestion was caused by the water treat-
ment, and that, even if that were so, Dr. Milos ignorance of
tsile.heorr, liNnDfies:
a latent disease of which his patient never spoke a syllable,
was of that gross and culpable description which would jus-
tify them in finding him guilty of manslaughter.
Several witnesses, patients of Dr. Ellis, were caned, who
spoke to his care, skill, and humanity.
toCthheiejfujryus,
Ggilty.
aluse by several in
The verdict was received with great apP
the Court, summed up
P returnedt he
evidence,
t t ve dai entd o sent
Net
ei 1

NEW (,' RT.
(Before the G ,umort SERGFANT.)
Henry &cup, a young rnan co vey respectable appear-
ance. who was Oescribed as a warchou.ietnan, was indict, d
for quantity of French cambric and cambric hand-
kerchiefs, (Idle value of 49!. odd, the properly of his em-
ployers. Messrs. Lewis and James, warehousemen, Gutter-
hme, Cheapside.

Mr. Be:•j. Lewis said be suspected the prisoner a few days
after he hed left his employ. In consequence of such suspi•
cion he had his stock taken, and found the property now
produced missing. The cambric and the handkerchiefs
erdctly corresponded with those in their (the prosecutors)
possession, the threads where they had been torn off exactly
fitting.

lulls cross. examination by Mr. BALLANTINF., the prose-
cutor admitted that he had formerly entertained a very high
opinion of the prisoner, and that there were other persons in
his employ who also had access to the cambric. The account
the prisoner rave of the transaction was that he had pur-
chased the articles from a Mr. St. Croix, who had been intro-
duced to him by a Mr. Bisson, a merchant, living at Jersey.
Mr. Bisson had been, and prosecutor believed was still, on
intimate terms wi.h the prisoner. That gentleman, however,
denied ever introducing such a person as Mr. St. Croix to
him. About the 26th February, prosecutor, who required
the services of Mr. Bisson, as a witness against the prisoner,
cautioned him, on being informed that he was going to dine
with the prisoner, to be careful that he was not " drugged."
George Hayter was next examined. He was directed by
the prosecutors to go to the prisoner's warehouse and endea-
vour to purchase the cambric, they having been told that
the prisoner had some for sale. He accordingly went to
prisoner's shop, and there saw the articles produced and pur-
chased them.

Cross-examined—The articles were lying exposed to view.
Mr. BALLANTtNE wide a powerful address on beh•,lf of
the prisoner, contending that it would have been absurd for
a man in the prisoner's position, who was rapidly improving
his condition, and had become the partner of a highly re-
spectable man, to run the risk of sacrificing his future
prospects by committing a paltry theft.—Mr. Bisson, one of
the prosecutor's witnesses, had placed between 6001. and 700/.
worth of goods in the prisoner's possession since the charge
had been brought, and such was the high opinion he enter-
tained of him that he would not have this property removed.
There had been abundant opportunities of disposing of the
articles said to have been stolen, if the prisoner had been so
disposed, and he (Mr. Ballantine) would call a witness to
prove that the purchase was it arse by the prisoner of a person
answering the description of Mr. St. Croix at the very time
and place stated.

After a lengthened and feeling appeal to the jury, this wit-
ness was called, and corroborated the statement made by the
Learned Counsel, after which
Mr. CLAIIICqON said he was instructed to withdraw the
prosecution; which announcement was received with accla-
math ns, and the prisoner left the doLk in compeny of his
friends.