The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-21 00:00:00

GRIM. CON.-ROGE RS V. DALE.

The following case was heard before Mr. Justice
Cresswell yesterday, at Stafford :
Mr. Keating, in opening the case, stated that the plain-
tiff was originally engaged in theatrical pursuits, being
the manager of theaeres in the midland counties, and an
actor of some note. He married a Mies Donovan at
Leeds, in 1343, a young lady also an actress, and by her
he had a large family of children. In 1854 the plaintiff
fixed his residence at Hanley, in the Potteries, becoming
the lessee of the theatre there. He a'sa took the Sara-
cen's Head, and brought his wile and family there,
Mrs. Rogers attending to the hotel, and he attend.
ing to the theatre. At Hanley they became ac-
quainted with the defendant, Mr. Dale, a surgeon in
considerable practice at Hanley. Mrs. Rogers was a
woman of attractive person, and at this time 37 years
of age. The defendant frequented the hotel, and was
soon seen by other persons to pay particular atten-
tion to Mrs. Rogers. In August, 1855, the plaintiff's
suspicions were aroused. Mr. Dale was watched, and
the facts too clearly proved that he had possessed
himself of the affections and person of the plaintiff's
wife. The learned counsel then gave an outline of the
evidence, which was as follows :
Hugh Roberts, printer, proved the marriage of the
plaintiff with his wife at Leeds in 1843. The witness
also stated he was acquainted with them, and they ap-
peared to live happily.
Cross-examined—l have not been in the habit of
visiting him. He came to me on business to print play
bills. I first knew him when he was in lodgings.
Re-examined—They appeared to live quite as man
and wifo should do.

Ann Manley-4 was in the plaintiff's service as parlour
maid in 1854. He was the landlord of the Saracen's
Head, at Hanley. The defendant came as a customer to
the house. He began to come in the spring of last year.
He came more frequently afterwards. I have been at
the defendant's house. He lived about thirty yards from
the plaintiff's. I have taken letters from Mrs. Rogers
to the defendant. When he came to the plaintiff's house
he would come sometimes into the private parlour, and
sometimes into the kitchen. Ordinary customers did
not go there. I recollect on one occasion the defendant
and the plaintiff and some gentlemen in the private par-
lour. They had supper about twelve. The other ser-
vants were gone to bed. They were drinking brandy
and water. Mrs. Roger's put more brandy in her
husband's glass than in the others. I afterwards saw
the defendant and Mrs. Rogers in the smoking bar.
He had his arm round her. He kissed her, and threw
her to the corner of the smoke bar. No other per-
sons were there. After that the defendant's visits
became more frequent. He would lie on the sofa and
go into the kitchen. Mrs. Rogers made bin soup. The
plaintiff kept a cook. Mrs. Rogers did not cook for other
persons. Sometimes the defendant was tipsy. Mre. Rogers
used to tell him to go to No. 14 bed-room. Sometimes
she west with him, sometimes afterwards. I have seen
her go in and shut the door. Sometimes Mrs. Rogers
went out in the evening. When she had a white dress
she put a dark dress over it to disguise it. She went
towards the defendant's house. She would stay out
until 11 or 12. The defendant has frequently slept at
the Saracen's Head. Mr. and Mrs. Rogers did not sleep
together on those occasions. I have seen her let the
defendant out of the house between 7 and 3 in the morn-
ing. She has shown me a latch-key and told me to
whom it belonged. I have seen her in his bedroom un-
dressed. She has been there all night. On one occa-
sion when ho slept in No. 14 I took him up mutton
chops and mushrooms and brandy and water, after 12
at night. Mrs. Rogers went to bed that night before
the house was closed. Mr. Rogers was not at home.
She told me to take the keys to Nc. 14. Her own bed-
room was No. 4. I took them to No. 14. The door
was looked. I heard her get. out of bed. She opened
the door. She was in her chemise, and held the door.
It was about half-past 1. I saw in the morning that two
persons had slept there. The defendant had slept in
No. 7 the night before. Mrs. Rogers left the house all
night on one occasion when the plaintiff was out. She
went towards the defendant's house. In August last
year defendant and Mrs. Rogers were in the kitchen.
He bad his hand round her waist. They were standing
up. Mr. Rogers came in. He was like a madman, he
was so excited.

Cross-examined— I was servant at the Wheatsheaf be-
fore. I never heard Mr. and Mrs. Rogers quarrel, or
heard him nse abusive language to her. There has been
a ball in the plaintiff's house since Mrs. Rogers left. I
never knew Mr. Rogers sleeping in a different room to
his wife before defendant came to the house. I was never
taken upstairs the worse for drink. Once I was called
Mr. Rogers' fancy woman. I never walked out with
him.

Geo. Jones, boots at the Saracen's Head, proved that
Mrs. Rogers, the day after the explosion, gave him a gold
watch and chain, with a message to the defendant, and
told him that Mrs. Rogers sent it back as she thought
it better to return it. He took them, and said lie was
sorry for the poor children, and sent a letter back.
Jane Porter, servant to Mr. and Mrs. Rogers, said—
They had several children ; the youngest is about five
years old. I was present when the plaintiff came in
and knocked the defendant down, and said if he had not
a lame thumb he would knock him through the wall.
The defendant said he was going away ' • Mrs. Rogers
said if he went she must go too. She left the house
altogether on the Tuesday following.

Cross-examined.—She did not attend t 3 the house
after wards.

Mr. Herrington Mills, an actor, proved the marriage
of the plaintiff and his wife. He gave her away.
Mr. Pigott addressed the jury for the defendant, nom.
menting on the absence of all evidence as to the terms on
which the plaintiff and the defendant lived. He then
opened the evidence, subsequently adduced, to show ill-
usage on the part of the plaintiff to his wife.
A number of witnesses were then called, who deposed
to the misconduct of the plaintiff and his ill-usage of his
wife, striking her, and using foul language repeatedly,
she on some occasions being obliged to keep with her
servants to avoid his violence. According to several
witnesses, male and female, the plaintiff was a person of
great profligacy. It is scarcely necessary to say that the
details are unfit for publication.
Mr. Pigott having summed up the evidence,
Mr. Keating replied.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 501.