The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-01 00:00:00

THE SUN,

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT—Maidstone, July 30.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Chief Justice JERVIS and a
Special Jury.)
WATSON 9. SELLERS.
This was an action to recover damages from the de-
fendant, for having seduced and debauched the wife of
the plaintiff.
Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Lush, were counsel for the
plaintiff; and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Bovill,
were for the defendant.
Mr. E. JAMES, in opening the case for the plaintiff,
said that he had been compelled to bring the present
action to recover damages against the defendant, for
having inflicted upon him an injury of the most serious
description, that of having debauched, and had criminal
connexion with, his wife. The circumstances were very
short, and when the jury had heard the evidence he
should lay before them, he believed they would feel that
it was quite conclusive with regard to the fact of the
defendant being guilty of the act imputed to him, and
he must confess that he was quite at a loss to know what
answer would be attempted or what line of defence
would be adopted. The plaintiff was a person filling a
very respectable position in society, he was the land-
lord of the George Tavern at Greenwich; and the de-
fendant was in partnership with another gentleman
carrying on the business of a wine-broker in the city
of London, and he believed that he was a man
possessed of considerable property. The defendant
was a married man, but his wife and family resided
in Oporto; and in the month of May or June of last
year, he was introduced to the plaintiff and his wife,
and an intimacy afterwards sprang up between them,
and he frequently visited Mr. and Mrs. Watson, end
was received on the most friendly terms. The plaintiff
was a man of advanced age. He was married to the
lady whose conduct now formed the subject of inquiry
in the month of March, 1849, and at that time he was
about seventy, and his wife was about thirty. She bad
been his barmaid for some years before, and was a person
possessed of considerable attractions, and irreproachable
character, and the plaintiff, thinking she would prove an
advantageous connexion for him, resolved as he said to
marry her, and the marriage accordingly took place in
March, 1849. They continued, as he should be in a po-
sition to prove, to live very happily together, until the
period when the defendant was introduced into the
family, and there was reason to believe that the improper
intimacy between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife
was first commenced in May of the present year, upon the
occasion of a visit to the Exhibition. When this visit
took place, the defendant was accompanied by a female
relation, and the plaintiff thereupon thought that there
was no impropriety in his wife being of the party, but
he acted as any respectable man would be expected to
do under such circumstances, insisting upon paying the
expenses and his wife's share of the cost of the carriage.
The defendant came home with Mrs. Watson rather
later than was expected, but no notice was taken of it,
and the intimacy continued until the month of June,
when circumstances occurred which left no , doubt
upon the plaintiff's mind that he had been
dishonoured by the defendant. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to state the nature of the
evidence he should lay before the jury, and particularly
referred to a transaction of the 21st June, when he said
while Mr. Watson was asleep in the bar after dinner,
his wife went out of the room and proceeded stealthily
up stairs, followed shortly afterwards by the defendant,
and she was seen to go into her husband's bedroom. Mr.
Watson awoke suddenly, and missing his wife he in-
quired for her, and being told that she was gone up
stairs, he proceeded after her and found the bedroom
door locked. After some delay he obtained admission,
and he then found the defendant in the room; and this
fact, coupled with other circumstances, which attracted
his attention, left no doubt upon his mind that he had
been dishonoured by the defendant. From that time the
plaintiff refused to have any intercourse with his wife,
and although she remained in his house for a short time
after the day in question, he should show that it was
against the consent of her husband, and that ho had in-
sisted upon her leaving him, and ultimately bad her
forcibly expelled from under his roof. From the posi-
tion in which the parties were placed, the jury would
very well understand that he should not be in a position
to bring any correspondence that bad passed between
them before the jury, but after the plaintiff's wife had
left the house, upon a search being made, a piece of what
he supposed he must call poetry, was found in one of
Mrs. Watson's drawers; which he would read to them.
It was as follows:
" Oh, take back thy flower, for never believe
I would steal thy sweet heart's ease for me.
For wealth nor power I never would grieve,
To secure that best treasure for thee.
Yet still let me take it where only it blows,
In the love-beaming smile of thy face,
And thou, do thou make it, wherein my heart glows,
A love like thine own less its grace."
The Learned Counsel then called the following wit-
nesses :
Mary Neville deposed that she was in the service of
the plaintiff, as waitress at his tavern, the George, Green-
wich, The plaintiff and his wife lived together when she
entered the service, in May last. The defendant used to
come to the house occasionally, and he generally dined
in the bar-parlour, with the plaintiff and his wife, and he
appeared to be on intimate terms with them. After she
had been in the service ashort time she went one day to one
of the private sitting rooms, and found the door fastened.
There was a sofa in the room. Finding the door fastened,
she waited outside, and shortly afterwards she saw Mrs.
Watson come out of the room, and then she saw Mr.
Sellers come down stairs, but did not observe what part
of the house he came from. He came down stairs about
ten minutes after Mrs. Watson. The defendant came to
the house several times after this, and she noticed him
going up stairs very frequently, but she did not observe
where Mrs. Watson was at the time. On Midsummer-
day witness had been out, and returned about five in the
evening. The defendant came to the house on that
evening, but she did not see bim until she had been at home
some time. Mrs. Watson had given her some linen to re-
pair, and told her to go into a sitting-room on the first
floor to do it. She went into a room on the second
floor, instead of the one Mrs. Watson told her to go to.
She did not know where Mrs. Watson was when she
went up stairs. She afterwards went into another room,
No. 3, and heard some person come up stairs very gently.
Her master and mistress bad dined at this time. No-
thing particular attracted her attention until her master
came up to her. Betoro this she had seen Mrs. Watson
go up stairs to the floor above, and ten minutes or so
afterwards her master came into the room where she was,
and asked whether her mistress was up stairs, and in
consequence of what she told him, he went up to his own
bedroom, and she heard him call out to have the door
opened, and heard him knock at the door. In a short
time the door was opened, and a bell was rung, and
witness went up stairs, and he heard Mrs. Watson talk-
ing in the room in an angry tone. Another servant came
up and Mr. Watson opened the bedroom door, and she
saw Mr. and Mrs. Watson and Mr. Sellers in the room,
and the plaintiff said—"l have found this man locked
in my bedroom with my wife—look at the impression on
the bed." Mrs. Watson replied—" You jealous old fool,
I have been in the bed," and she began tucking it up.
The bed appeared to be flattened. They then came out
of the bed-room, and Mr. Watson said that Mr. Sellers
had ruined her and disgraced him, and Mr. Sellers re-
plied that he was guilty, but she was not. Her master
said that he had found the defendant in his bedroom,
locked in with his wife, but he did not say in what part
of the room he found him in. Before this time the
plaintiff and his wife lived very happily together, and
the plaintiff treated her with the greatest kindness.
Cross-examined—Witness was engaged as waitress,
and it was her duty to attend to the private sittings
rooms. The waiter attended to the public rooms. There
was only one private sitting-room on the second floor.
bed-
room. She had onlyDid
not oncekno before
what
seen
h e
wentthe defendant et fheenrde a
fnetr.
Could n ab e
-
not say when this happened, or whether it was during
w
the last election, when Alderman Salomons was elected.
She remembered the election taking place, but did not
know how long the house was occupied by Alderman
Salomon's people. The dinner time used to be six
o'clock. It was an ordinary, and every one who chose
used to come to dinner—officers from the barracks, per-
sons from London, and every one who pleased to go. It
was Midsummer-day when she saw the parties in the
bed-room, and when Mr. Watson was so very angry.
She sat with her back to the door while she was at work,
but the door of the room was open, and every one pass-
ing by could see that she was there. The work Mrs.
Watson set her to do would have taken her about an hour
and a quarter. She heard the room door bang violently
after Mrs. Watson went up stairs, and Mr. Watson
came up about ten minutes afterwards. She could not
say exactly, but was certain it was from five to ten mi-
nutes. The bell was rung as soon as Mr. Watson could
obtain admission to the room. He called out several
times, and knocked at the door loudly before he was let
in, When witness went up stairs after the bell was
rung she found the door fastened, and she did not know
who opened it, but her master was nearest to the door
when she got in, and he immediately called out that he
had found Mr. Sellers locked into his bedroom with his
wife, and asked her to look at the impression on the bed.
She was certain Mr. Watson did not make the impres-
sion on the bed himself by knocking his fists upon it.
Witness had never represented that Mr. Sellers said that
if any one was to blame he was. What he said was,
at the dinner in:the bar
that no was guilty, but that Mrs. Watson was innocent.
Mrs. Watson presided, asusual,
until three weeks ago. Onone occasion the door was
shut against her, and she forced her way into the house.
She had been turned out of the house about three weeks.
Mr. Watson went to give his vote after this outcry, and
took his wife with him, and they came home adorned
with Alderman Salomon's colours.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—What were the colours? Wit.
ness—Green.---(A laugh.)
Examination continued—The plaintiff and his wife
came home with a piece of blue ribbon in their bosoms.
They both wore these colours at the dinner on the day
when Alderman Salomons was returned. Never beard
the plaintiff say that he would make a capital thing out
of his wife, and Mr. Sellers, too; and she did not believe
he ever said such a thing. Did not know where Mrs.
Watson was residing at the present moment. About a
week after she had been turned out of the house she
forced her way in, and she was forced out again.
Re-examined—There was no election going on when
she first found the No. 7 room-door locked, in May. If
she had gone to the room where Mrs. Watson directed
her to go, she could not have seen any one go into her
mistress's bed-room. Mr. Watson never slept with his
wife after the 24th of June, and he told her that she
might go. She went out one evening, and the door was
shut against her when she came home.
Harriet Sutton deposed, that she went into the service
of the plaintiff as barmaid in August, 1850. The plain-
tiff was seventy-two years old, and his wife was about
twenty-five. They appeared to live very happily to-
gether, and the plaintiff was very kind to his wife, and
seemed very attached to her. The defendant first came
to the house about two or three months ago, and she be.
keyed be W* intryduoeci tis Mr, Watson, by. 6 SW"'

r