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

LON DON,

man of the town of Greenwich. He frequently came to
the house, and was admitted to the bar-parlour, and re-
ceived in the most friendly manner by the plaintiff.
Witness remembered Mrs. Watson going to the Exhi-
bition on a Saturday in May, accompanied by the de-
fendant and ono of his female relations, who was about
forty years of age. The defendant and Mrs. Watson
came home together on foot between nine and ten o'clock
at night, without the lady who had gone with them to
the Exhibition. Witness remembered the day when
Mr. Sellers was found in her master's bed-room. The
dinner was over, and her master and mistress and
the defendant had drunk a pint of wino together,
and her master laid down on the sofa and went to sleep.
When he was asleep Mrs. Watson went out of the bar-
parlour and proceeded up stairs, and almost directly
afterwards Mr. Sellers followed her. In about ten
minutes her master awoke, and asked where his wife
and Mr. Sellers were. She told him she believed that
Mrs. Watson had gone up to her bedroom, but she did
not know where Mr. Sellers was, and her master went
up stairs directly, and in about five minutes the bed.
room bell was rung, at first quietly, but afterwards
violently. Witness finished serving some customers
who were about the bar, and then went to the foot of the
stairs, when she heard her master say, "I have found
this man locked up in my bed-room with my wife," and
shortly afterwards Mr. and Mrs. Watson and Mr. Sellers
came down stairs, and Mr. Watson seemed very angry.
Oa the same night, when they were all going to bed, she
heard an altercation on the stairs, and Mr. Watson said
to his wife, "How can you expect it when you have
dishonoured my bed?" Mrs. Watson remained in the
house about a fortnight after this occurrence, but she
never occupied the same bed-room as her husband. On
one occasion she went out, and when she returned she
was in a very excited state, and threw herself upon the
floor. On the day of the election for Greenwich Mrs.
Watson accompanied Mr. Watson and a Mr. Lucas in a
carriage to poll for Alderman Salomons.
Cross-examined—Witness was informed that when
Mrs. Watson left her husband's house she went to reside
with one of her relations. When the plaintiff told his
wife that she had dishonoured his bed, she replied " You
nasty old beast, I hate you, and always did." They
appeared to be on the landing of the stairs when this con-
versation took place. There was a great deal of angry
language between them. Mrs. Watson slept in her bed-
room atter this occurrence happened, and her husband
occupied a room in another part of the house. She be-
lieved that her master was asleep when his wife went out
of the bar. Had no reason to suppose that he was
shamming sleep. Two other gentlemen were in the bar
at the time.
Re•examined—Before the defendant was introduced
into the family, Mr. Watson and his wife lived very hap-
pily together.
Mr. Lucas, a printer at Greenwich, said that he had
been in the habit of going to the plaintiff's house, and
it appeared to him that he and his wife lived very hap-
pily together, and the plaintiff appeared to be a very in-
dulgent husband. He had met the defendant at the
house. Witness went to poll for Alderman Salomons
with the plaintiff at the last election. Mrs. Watson
accompanied them in the carriage. Mr. Watson ob-
jected to her doing so, but she said she would go—(A
laugh.) Mr. Watson appeared a good deal broke down
at this time.
By Mr. CHAMBERS—When Mrs. Watson wanted to
get into the carriage, the plaintiff said to her, " You
must not come, my dear."—(A laugh.)
Mr. John Killick said he was Mr. Watson's son-in-
law. Mrs. Watson acted as waitress formerly at the
George, and in consequence of the marriage there was
a coldness between him and his father-in-law, as witness
objected to the union. In the beginning of July the
plaintiff made a communication to him of what had oc-
curred, and he in consequence went down to Greenwich,
and advised Mrs. Watson to leave the house. She re-
fused to do so, and he remonstrated with her for nearly
two hours, and at length she was removed by force.
Witness made a search after her departure, and in a
linen drawer he found the piece of poetry that was pro-
duced, in a blotting-book belonging to Mrs. Watson. Tho
plaintiff appeared a good deal under the influence of
his wife.
Mr. W. Edwards proved that the piece of poetry was
in the handwriting of the defendant.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. CHAMBERS, in his address to the jury for the de-
fendant, said that the attempt to make out the crime of
adultery in this case was one of the most extraordinary
that he ever remembered, and ho felt sure that the jury
would pause for a long time before they returned a ver-
dict, the effect of which would be the utter destruction
and ruin, not only of the wife of the plaintiff, but also
of the defendant, himself a married man, and filling a
respectable and honourable position. As to any amount
of damages—if' that was the only question to be de-
cided, ho should not say a word upon the subject, for the
plaintiff himself by his own conduct had shown pretty
clearly what extent of damage he considered he had
suffered; but ho should contend that upon the slender
evidence that had been adduced, the jury were bound to
say that the charge of adultery had not been established,
and that the defendant was entitled to a verdict. What
was the evidence in reality upon which they were called
upon to brand this unhappy woman with infamy, and at
the same tirae destroy the reputation of an honourable,
respectable man? In the first place it was said that the
defendant was in the habit of going up stairs during the
day, but what earthly importance ought to be attached to
that fact, when it was clear that all the other customers
used to do the same, and that it mostly occurred just be-
fore dinner, when in all probability the only object Mr.
Sellers had in doing so, was to wash his hands, or some
other equally innocent and natural purpose? He could
only say that, if the jury should come to the conclusion that
the commission of adultery was to be inferred from the
proceedings, that nobody would be safe, and he should
strongly advise the gentlemen of the jury themselves,
whenever they went to an hotel where there was a
pretty landlady or a chambermaid, not to go into a bed-
room for any purpose, lest it should be supposed that
object was to seduce either the mistress or the maid.—
(A laugh.) It appeared to him that the most natural
and ordinary occurrences of every day-life had been dis•
torted and tortured so as to give a colour to a charge of
adultery. What were the facts of the case? The defendant
had gone to a public ordinary, where anybody who
chose might go and dine with the landlady, flatter
the landlady, and pay the landlady.—(A laugh.) He
contended that the conduct of Mr. Sellers was quite
consistent with his perfect innocence. As to the sus-
picion that anything wrong had occurred of the visit to
the Exhibition, he submitted that there was not the
least foundation for such a supposition. At the same
time he was very glad the House of Commons had come
to the decision with regard to the Crystal Palace before
this suggestion was made, for otherwise that moral as-
sembly might have paused before they sanctioned its
continuance as a winter garden, as it was clear that if
roses were gathered there at all, they would be gathered
just as well in the winter as the summer.—(Laughter.)
The evidence with regard to this part of the
case went for nothing; and the only point in the evidence
for consideration was the scene in the bed-room. Now
he could not help thinking that what took place upon this
occasion had been very much exaggerated, and that the
jury had not been put in possession of the real facts. It
appeared to him to be very improbable, if Mrs. Watson
really intended to take advantage of her husband being
asleep, t go up to his bed-room to commit adultery, that
she should have sent the servant out of the kitchen to the
very part of the house where the crime was to be com-
mitted, and thus give her an opportunity to see what was
going on; and ho submitted that there was no evidence
to show that Mr. Sellers was in the bed-room, and that
it was quite probable that the plaintiff having his suspi-
cions unjustly aroused, and meeting the defendant on
the landing of the stairs, had pushed him into the room,
and then locked him in. He considered that the conduct
of the plaintiff himself, after the occurrence, showed that
he was satisfied that his wile was innocent, for if he really
had believed that he was dishonoured, he would surely
not have permitted her to remain in his house for several
days, and he thought his Learned Friend would hardly
induce them to believe that this injured husband would
have gone to the polling place at Greenwich, and exer-
cised his right as a free and independent elector, in
shouting " Salomons for ever," and recording his vote
for that gentleman, accompanied by the woman whom he
believed to have dishonoured him, if ho really thought
it was true. He submitted that the plaintiff himself, by
his own conduct, had shown that he did not believe his
wife was guilty, and ha could not help thinking that these
proceedings would never have been taken but for the in-
terference of the son-in-law, who had admitted that he
amn dr. thatat
saonn
ounfriendlyaccount
ofw.efal
ehiniospgptehoxisnieskdtiendtgobheetthrweaenemniamhriprmiraogapenerd match for his father-in-
law. If the jury should entertain the same opinion, he
was sure they would with pleasure say so by their verdict,
particularly when they reflected that the consequence of
such a verdict would be, to restore the wife of the
plaintiff to society, and, in all probability, lead to her re-
conciliation to her husband.

The CUIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, said there were
two questions in this case for the consideration of the
jury—one, whether the fact of the commission of
adultery had been proved; and, another, what amount
of damages ought to be given supposing they should
be satisfied upon the point. In cases of this descrip-
tion, direct testimony, of course, could not be ex-
pected, and the jury could only judge from the circum-
stantial evidence laid before them, whether the fact
of adultery had been proved. As to the other question
it certainly was not a case for inflated damages. An
old man of 72, who married a young girl of 25, and who
allowed her to expose her attractions at a public ordi-
nary frequented by military officers and other gentle-
men, must almost have expected what the consequences
would be, and if the jury should be of opinion that the
charge of adultery had been made out, they would, of
course, only give such moderate damages as the justice
of the case required at their hands.
The jury, atter deliberating a short time in the box,
enprove proved
corrupted th
said there was some difference of opinion amongst them
base to whether the actual commission of adultery had
,althoughtheyhe mind
had uo doubt that
the
defendant
of the plaintiff's
wife.

The CHIEF JUSTICE said they must be satisfied that
adultery had actually been committed before they could
find a verdict for the plaintiff. They could not expect
to have any direct evidence, but they must look at all
the circumstances as men of the world and of common
sense, and say whether or not the act of adultery had
been proved.
The jury then retired, and were in deliberation about
half an hour. Upon tneir return into court, they gave
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 50/.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT;—Durham, July 30
CIVIL COURT.— (Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS and.
a Special Jury.)
POTTS v.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
damages from the defendant for criminal conversation
of the defendant with the plaintiff's wife. The defendant
pleaded not guilty.

it