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

E VENING,

Sarah Wood Smith (also now married) said she went
nto the plaintiff's service in August, 1847. The plain-
iff and his wife lived happily—behaved kindly.
Jane Whitfield (also now married) said she went into
,he plaintiff's service when the last witness left. She
also said that plaintiff behaved kindly to his wife.
Her master bad to be away from home three or four
times a week, three or four miles off, at the asylum
and the union. The defendant lived only about
three hundred yards from them, and he was
in the habit of coming to their house—mostly in her
master's absence. Witness used to take notes to him
from Mrs. Potts, with instructions to deliver them to
him personally, and he then used to come directly, get-
ting there and being let in by Mrs. Potts at the house
door, by the time witness could get to the kitchen door.
He would sometimes send medicine to Mrs. Potts when
nothing was amiss with her. After witness had bee
ig
there about three months she heard one day a " slot" at
the dining-room door, when the defendant and Mrs.
Potts were there, and the plaintiff was away. Next
time the defendant came he went into the dining-room,
and again hearing a suspicious noise, witness took up
some coals, as an excuse for going in. She tried the door
and it was fast.
Re-examined—The defendant's visits were short when
the plaintiff was at home. They were more frequent
when he was away.
Mary Ann Bell said she was the daughter of an auc-
tioneer. In January, 1848, she went into the service of
the plaintiff, and remained there till the May following.
Defendant was a very frequent visitor there; generally
two or three times a week, when her master was from
home. His visits were short when her master was
at home; long when he was not. The errand-
boy used at those times to take notes from Mrs.
Potts to him, and then he came immediately. Three
weeks before Good Friday, when the plaintiff was out,
he came at one o'clock, and remained till nine. Soon
after plaintiff was gone the boy took him a note,
and he came immediately. He was alone all the time
with Mrs. Potts. At five o'clock witness heard a noise
in the room in which they were, and she went gently up,
taking the tea-tray with her, and opened the door with-
out noise, and saw the defendant and Mrs. Potts on the
sofa. [The witness here stated circumstances which
admitted no doubt of the guilt of the parties, but which
are unfit for publication.) Witness wen; out of the
room directly. On Good Friday the plaintiff went to a
funeral. In the afternoon the defendant came and asked
for Mrs. Potts, and she told witness to let him in. She
was then lying on the sofa. In about half an hour her
father came, and witness let him in./ He went into the
room where they were and came out aigaia immediately,
and called out aloud to witness, " Why did she let that
rascal into the house?" He was in a great rage,
and while he was storming, the defendant came out of
the room and left the house, and witness never saw him
there afterwards, Up to that time the plaintiff and his
wife appeared to live on very good terms.
Cross-examined—There was a bolt and lock to the
room door. Witness did not tell her master. She did
not like to tell him. She told no one. She went up
when she saw them, because she thought she would go
and see what they were doing. When he called again
a few days after, witness let him in as usual.
Re-examined—She took up the tea-tray because she
had her suspicions. After the defendant was gone, Mrs.
Potts came into the kitcher and quarrelled with her. The
reason she did not tell what she had seen, was because
Mrs. Potts frightened her. She said if she told she
would prosecute her.
That completed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. liarowLEs (Mr. Thompson with him) for the de-
fendant, said a most remarkable case it was; he might
ask any man in court if he had ever heard of such a
case? The plaintiff came to ask damages for one of the
greatest injuries that one man could commit against an-
other. In such a case it was usual to call relations and
friends to prove the terms on which the parties lived
together; none such had been called in this, but only
servants. Damages for the loss of such a woman ?
Why, six months after marriage, and long before the
d. efendant knew her, she commenced a career of drink-
ing, which always sunk a woman to the lowest depths
of infamy. Did the plaintiff complain of her infi-
delity ? Why, for that her husband had already
obtained a judgement against another party in another
action. Well might his Learned Friend lay aside his elo-
quencein such a case, as be could not possibly claim more
than nominal damages. He could tell the jury why none
of the proper witnesses were called to prove the plaintiff's
loss; it was because his Learned Friend had prudently
left out every one who could give any information of the
real state of the parties. He could understand why
friends and relatives refused to come into the box. They
could have told whenever the plaintiff had not mentioned
other names as well as Smith's, and whenever, instead
of losing domestic bliss, he had not got rid of domestic
misery. What damages could they give for the loss ho
had sustained? But he trusted it would not come to that.
He trusted they would not give a verdict that would
ruin the defendant, a professional man, for life, on the
single testimony of the witness Bell, Whose evidence was
utterly incredible.

Mr... Justice WILLIAMS summed up. Ile said servants
were most likely to know the terms on which a master
and mistress lived, lie saw no reason to impute perjury
to Bell.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
one shilling.

THE GREAT EXHIBITION.

The number of persons who entered the building yes-
terday was 57,849, and the receipts at the doors
amounted to 2,8001. 16s.

A serious question has arisen as to the period at
which the Exhibition should close. On the one hand,
exhibitors from Russia and the northern States of Ger-
many are anxious to have the power of removing their
goods after the end of September, as if the Crystal
Palace remains open till the middle or end of October,
the winter frosts will have set in before they can pos-
sibly have them conveyed back to their respective coun-
tries; on the other hand, the French are desirous to
have the final closing delayed as long as is practicable.
They hate been late in getting their department
thoroughly arranged, and it is a matter of much
importance to them that the public shoald have
the fullest opportunity of examining its details. It was
understood that the Commission had a short time ago
fixed upon the 14th or 15th of October as the proper
period for closing, nor does it seem on the whole desira-
ble that that event should take place at an earlier date,
but some arrangement might be come to by which diffi-
culties might be avoided. For instance, those States
that were anxious to remove their contributions might
have the facilities for so doing afforded to them after the
30th of September, and means might be adopted for
that purpose without closing the doors of the Crystal
Palace against the public. It is an obvious and on-
deniable hardship upon many of the German
and Russian contributors that they should have their
goods detained until all means for their removal
are cut off by the winter ice, and every disposition
we are sure exists on the part of the Commission
to meet their wishes and interests. But this question
raises others of great importance, the settlement of which
cannot be long delayed. The vast expense which the
Exhibition has entailed upon exhibitors renders them
naturally anxious to have the means of disposing of
their contributions in the building when the objects for
which they have been displayed aro completely satisfied.
Whether such sales can properly take place under the
circumstances is a matter which the Commission must
speedily determine. As far as that body itself is con-
cerned, such an accommodation would be found very
convenient in helping to clear out the interior, but it
seems doubtful whether the hopkeepers of London
would much relish the ides of flinging suddenly into the
market so large and valuable a quantity of foreign
Pods. The question is one which permits a good deal

Mr. Sergeant WILKiNS (Mr. Manisty with him) ad-
dressed the jury for the plaintiff. He said the plaintiff
I came to ask for damages for the greatest injury which
one man could do to another, and he asked that they
should be proportionate to the injury which the plaintiff
had sustained from the profligate conduct of the de-
fendant. If the evidence he was instructed to lay before
them was true, the defendant had availed himself of his
acquaintance with the plaintiff to dishonour his house.
The inquiry would claim their serious consideration.
The best interests of society required it. The plaintiff
was a surgeon at Bishopwearmouth, and was the surgeon
to an infirmary, and also to the union, the one at Hilton
and the other at Grindon, three to four miles from his
residence, which caused him to be frequently away from
home, and to be long detained from home. The de-
fendant was also a medical man at the same town, and
lived about 200 yards from the plaintiff. In February,
1844, plaintiff was married to the daughter of a retired
tradesman, being himself then thirty years of are,
and the lady nineteen. For two years they
lived in the greatest happiness, with nothing
101 disturb their mutual confidence. About that
time the lady began to manifest a propensity
for drink, but it did not follow from that the plaintiff's
acquaintance and neighbour was to avail himself of that
failing, in order to ruin her, and bring dishonour on his
friend. If she had b ince swerved from the path of virtue,
it was after the defendant had made her a ruin and a
wreck; and if the defendant should set up that defence,
it would but, he thought, enhance the damages to which
the defendant was entitled. Notwithstanding the frailty
of his wife, the plaintiff's conduct to his wife was uni-
formly kind, till the day he was obliged to expel her
from his house. At the end of the second year of their
marriage, the defendant began to pay attention to the
lady, and she used to send him notes when her husband
went out to attend to his duties at the asylum and the
union, and the defendant was then in the habit of coming
and remaining with her, when she used to instruct the
servant to deny her if any one called. IF, upon a due
observance of the marriage contract the happiness of a
man's life depended, he trusted they would by their ver-
dict show that it could not be violated with impunity.
On the subject of the amount of damage he would say
nothing, he would leave that entirely in their hands.
Mr. John Graham, clerk to Mr. Potts, brother of the
plaintiff, and a solicitor at Sunderland, produced the cer-
tificate of the marriage in 1844.
Cross-examined—Mr. Potts, the solicitor, was not
the attorney in this case. He had heard from the
plaintiff that he had got judgment in an action for
criminal conversation against one Smith, also a
surgeon, or surgeon's assistant at Sunderland. He had
not heard him say his wife had had any improper in-
timacy with any other person. She left his house in the
early part of this year.
Re-examined—lt was some time after the matter of
the present inquiry took place that that with Smith
took place.
Martha Curry (now married), said she lived with the
plaintiff as servant in 1846, nine months. He and his
wife then lived happily together.
Cross-examined—After she had been there three
months Mrs. Potts, she observed, was addicted to
drinking.
Re-examined—But the plaintiffstill behaved kindly to
her.

t ~~