The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-22 00:00:00

WATTS V. STERNE.

This action was brought to recover compensation
in damages for the injury the plaintiff had sustained
through the misconduct of the defendant, in main-
taining a criminal conversation with his wife. The
Plaintiff was a labouring man, and the defendant was
a gentleman farmer in Essex; both resided within a
short distance of each other, and the latter took ad-
vantage of that circumstance to seduce the wife of
the former. The action was tried at the Spring As-
sizes, at Chelmsford, before the Lord Chief Baron
of the Exchequer, when the Jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—damages 401. It appeared that the
plaintiff had children, and was obliged to take his
wife back again after he had discovered her misbe-
haviour, as he had no one to look after his family ;
and that the defendant was also the father of a
family, the youngest of whom was 16 years of age,
and that he was a gentleman farmer, who cultivated
400 acres of his own land. On a former day a rule
to show cause why a new trial should not be had
having been granted,
Mr. THESSIGER appeared to show cause against it,
and stated the facts of the case as they were proved
in evidence at the trial. He (Mr. Thessiger) stated
that a female, named Wyman, had sworn most posi-
tively that she saw the plaintiff's wife enter a wood,
where the defendant followed her, and that she wit-
nessed the offence. The Learned Counsel then com-
mented on the affidavits of the defendant, and con-
tended that there was nothing in them to disprove
the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses.

Mr. A. DOIVLING followed on the same side.

The COMMON-SERGEANT, in support of the rule,
observed that the defendant was taken by surprise
at the trial ; he (the defendant) was prepared with
evidence to rebut a charge which he understood
would be made against him, but was surprised at
the plaintiff bringing forward another, which it was
alleged had occurred at a different place. There
was a person in Court, named Freeman, who would
have entirely rebutted that charge, which, as it was
not brought forward, he would Hot allude to. There
was, however, another circumstance which would
weigh with the Court. A person named Ayl,ff
had come to the Court to give evidence fur the de-
fendant, but was refused admittance by the door-
keepers. He then went to the principal inn of the
town, and invited the landlord to accompany him
to the Court, which request being acceded to, both
went to the Court; but when they arrived, they
found that the evidence was concluded, and that
the Judge was summing up, and the witness did not
therefore tender his testimony. The landlord had
made an affidavit which corroborated Ayliff in
what he said.—Rule dismissed.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 21.

IN THE MATTER OF CHITTY AND ANOTHER.

Mr. KELLY appeared to show cause against a mo-
tion made by Mr. Earle, to compel an attorney in
Dorsetshire to deliver up to the Marquis of West-
minster all the rolls of the manor of Chilling. The
Learned Counsel said that the Marquis himself had
made no affidavit, but the person appointed steward
of the manor makes one, demanding the papers in
the possession of Mr. Chitty. This gentleman is
at present in gaol, and under all the circumstances,
Mr. Kelly proposed to refer the matter to the
Master.

The question was referred to the Master to make
such order as he might think fit.