The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-22 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 20.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord Chief Jus-
tice TnrnAL, and a Special Jury.)
FRASER V. BAGLEY.-GRIM. CON.

At the sitting of the Court on Tuesday the evidence on
the part of the plaintiff in this case was resumed. Its ten-
dency was to confirm the testimony of the witnesses examined
yesterday ;`but no new facts were elicited beyond those given
in the testimony of the persons examined on behalf of the
plaintiff's ease on the first day.
That evidence being concluded,
Mr. F. KELLY said.that he should be able to prove that a
great deal of what his Learned Friend had been instructed
by the plaintiff to state, in his opening of the case, was
utterly fable and unfounded ;: and he then proceeded to con-
tend, that under none of the circumstances in this unfortu-
natebusiness had the plaintiff a right to come into this Court,
and ask for damages for the loss of his wife's society. Mr.
Fraser had been led by motives ofcupidityand avarice, to seek
a union with his unhappy and persecuted wit'e, passing, and re-
presenting himself as a man of fortune and substance, at a
time when, in point of fact, he had not a shilling which he could
call Lis own. Th 4, lady, at the time a widow, had 10,0001.
of her own, in addition to an annuity of 3001. from the East
India Company, • 6,000/. of this money was previously to the
marriage with *"..'tlr. Fiasee settled on herself, but the other
4,00(4. he got possession of, and squandered in acts of extra-
Nta(a)-hnarb
egda
na
Ihndateheodensev.ied,i:t 4,lie,ilniidttaii
il:ishgh;h,otoutehwhlxetlac
ptetphlphrataoei
utvowtelni
snte
sy soughtnti
nlae
deteat
tr)l
se wasa;a
nl thetieodn hm ioosefnnu
acsui:jr:orcei
einh3illo”it-Rei7:2l,:hea
occasions
as hdaoneandst:
as he expected company ; and that often, while he was sup-
posed to be absent upon his professional avocations, he was
spending his substance on other persons. To talk of the
plaintiff's being deprived of his wife's society by any act of
the defendant, was utterly absurd. He never had it, for lie
was scarcely ever at home ; and Mrs. Fraser was an ekect of
sympathy with all who knew her.
Shortly after six o'clock the case was again adjourned.
FEBRUARY 21.
FRASER v. BAGLEY--CIUM. CON.

At the opening of the Court this morning this cause was
proceeded with, by sailing the following witnesses for the
defence :
Edward White examined by Mr. CuABIRERs—I am soli-
citor to the Duchy of Cornwall. I prepared the marriage
settlemer.t between the plaintiff and his wife. The wife had
10,3001. fortune. Mr. Fraser got 4,3001. immediately after
the marriage. Mr. Fraser had no property of his own. After
the marriage they lived abroad for about five or six years.
After their return, I used to see them professionally. Mrs.
Fraser used to complain of the conduct of her husband. I
did not speak to him of any complaints she made. I
heard of something about a sale of the furniture
when Mrs. Fraser lived in Wilton-crescent. An ap-
plication was made to Mrs. Fraser's brother to become
mortgagee, but he declined. At a meeting which subse-
sequently took place, Mr. Bagley offered to advance the
money ; at first he seemed disinclined, but ultimately he ad-
vanced the money. The object was to preserve the property
for Mrs. Fraser, whose property I believed the furniture to
be, and not Mr. Fraser's. About May, 1842, I saw Mrs.
Fraser with regard to the furniture. Mr. Fraser was very
much embarrassed. I received Mrs. Fraser's interest, and I
paid it over to her.
To the COURT—The 3001. which was advanced by Mr.
Bagley was paid over to Mr. Fraser, who claimed the furni-
ture amongst others.

To Mr. C'HA'ainEßs—An execution was subsequently put
in. I left directions to my clerk to settle the matter for Mrs.
Fraser. I received a letter from Mr. Fraser, dated the 18th
of July, enclosing one written to Mrs. Fraser, dated the Bth
of July, and addressed to her, at No. 30, Baker-street, Port-
man-square. There was merely an envelope round the letter
to Mrs. Fraser. (The letters were put in and read. The letter
to Mrs. Fraser was very long, and its reading occupied a con-
siderable time. It was full of charges of unkindness and
violence on the part of Mrs. Fraser towards the writer.) I
enclosed a letter from Mrs. Fraser, in answer to that letter.
It was dated the 26th of July, 1842. (The letter was read.
Another letter, dated the 23d of May, from Mr. Fraser to
Mrs. Fraser, was handed in and read.) lam not aware of
anything occurring between the 23d of May and the Bth of
July to account for the alteration in the tone of those letters.
Mrs. Fraser was in Brighton in July, 1842. She came to
town, and called upon me for my advice. I advised her to
take lodgings, instead of renting a house as she proposed.
Between July, 1842, and July, 1843, Mr. Fraser came to me
for the purpose of raising money, to enable him to go
to India. I saw him several times during this time.
I do not recollect his asking where his wife and children
were, except when she was 'hang at,_ Ramsgate. Mr. Fraser
wanted 200/..; I urged Mrs. Fraser to advance the money
out of her means ; she consented, with some reluctance. I
proposed to Mr. Fraser that his passage should be paid, and
to give him a letter of credit for the balance when he arrived
at Bombay. He had to get a certificate from Lord Denman
to enable him to practice at the Indian bar, which delayed
him for some time. He then said that lie wished to go over
land to India, as he had to escort a niece of his and another
lady. I gave him 20/. to buy some things ; he afterwards came
for the residue in October, and said he was going in November.
I objected, and told him I did not wish to trust him with
the money. He subsequently got the balance. Mrs. Fraser
visited my family when she came to York-buildings. I con-
sidered her manners were rather free. Mr. Fraser hinted a
sus•picion to me with regard to the conduct of the defendant
and his wife. This was before he received the money.
Cross-examined by Mr. TxZSIGER—Mr. Fraser told me
there were reports circulated to the prejudice of Mrs. Fraser.
do not recollect telling Mr. Fraser that I would see Mrs.
Fraser on the subject. Ido not recollect telling Mr. Fraser
that Mrs. Fraser said he had nothing to do with her friend-
ships or acquaintances since he had separated from her. I
believe Mr. Fraser said on one occasion that it was a pity
she had not ',wile person to keep her in the right path. I
might have answered, that that was more easily said than done.
I le expressed a wish that she should continue her acquaintance
-with the Broughton family, and have respectable persons
about her. I do not recollect that I gave the address of
Mrs. ,Fraser to Mr. Fraser; which he - asked for in his letter
of the 18th of July.

Re-examined by Mr. KuLLY---If I did not give the ad-
dress- of Mrs. Fraser, it was with no intention of concealing
it from Mr. Fraser. Mrs. Fraser has, continued her ac-
quaintance with time Broughton family, and continues to
have respectable acquaintances. I do not know of her hav--
ing one disreputable acquaintance. Mr. Fraser:continued
his negotiations for the 200/. after he expressed his suspicions
with regard to the defendant.
John Curtis, a clerk in the office of the last witness, was
called and examined by Mr. KELLY—The evidence of the
witness related to the :bill of sale of the furniture, and the
money transactions referred to by Mr.;White.
Chas. Wood; examined by Mr. Wonnsworrot—My mother
keeps the hotel, called Wood's Hotel, in Portugal-street, Lin-
coln's Inn-fields. I know Mr. Fraser. We have an account with
him, commencing in February, 1840, and ending SepteMber
34, 1841. The amount for that time is 1181. Is. 44. I get
two acceptances for the amount. When they became due
they were dishonoured.

Captain Chines hart—l am Captain, on half-pay, of the
60th Regiment. 1 know Mr. -Fraser. I knew him when he
beeame a candidate for the representation of Hythe. I un-
derstood him to say he had expectations of a large fortune
from his Ober. I knew Mr. and Mrs. Fraser before and
after their marriage. Mr. Fraser used to ask me_ to dine.
Sometimes Mr. Fraser came home very late, and
sometimes he did not come home at all. Ile used
to tell me that I - would always find Mrs. Fraser at home.
About 1840 t hiy were living in Melcombe-place. I met Mr.
Bagley there at thinner sometimes. Mr. F. was present, and
when he was absent my daughter.dined there. I never no-
ticed any particular familiarity between Mr. Bagley and Mrs.
Fraser. Mr. Bagley used to play with the children. I never
saw him play at blind-man's butt with them.—(Laughter.) I
never saw anything like unkindness on the part of Mr. or
Mrs. Fraser towardS each other. After Mrs. Fraser left
Melcombe-place, she told me she hired at Lady Doyle's. She
did not dress in a showy manner. As far as my opinion goes,
she is not an attractive person; but that is a matter of
opinion.—(Laughter.)
Cross-examined by Mr. TIIESICIER.—I should not say that
Mrs. F. was extremely nald.—(Laughter.) She was a mild
person. I never heard anything about family jars.—
(Laughter.) • There was some talking as to Mr. Fraser's
extravagance, and his coming home later than his business
required. I never heard Mr. Fraser use a harsh word to-
wards Mrs. Fraser. Tliere was a constant upbraiding of Mr.
Fraser on the part of Mrs: Fraser, on account of his extra-
Vaganee, and his being absent from home.

and examined by
Commodorenown her aboutir John
oshi
six
years. I knew her in 1839. I knew her when she removed
as
on intimate terms with her up to the time that I heard of
toHI a-4113.1raleed\s1C).01CitInu4bkst e‘lll‘l'll:rilnivai TleAlell.H7 a.
IlFt. mar%
Fraser.
ss"e. Isa-tar vcofafeilrolkem my house. I was
this trial. We • saw each other frequently. I remem-
ber when Mr. Fraser • slept at --my house. It
might have been more than one night. It wax
about the time she was removing to Melcombe-place.
1 have known very little of Mr. Fraser. I never saw him
when I called. I saw hiM two or three times when I dined
there; never on auy other occuien. I cannot say if they
lived happily together. Mrs. Fraser appeared to be a most
devoted mother. J should say her mode of dressing was ra-
ther shabby.—(A 1%14h.) She generally won, a cap. She
was tidy, but not so well dressed as be her situation,
might have been. I was often shown the picture of her
husband. She appeared to be extremely fond of it; more so
than she ought to be in my opinion.
Cross-examined by Mrs. THEstcEn—Mrs. Fraser appeared
to be fond and proud of Wr husband. My husband was in
the Lae., India Company'4 seryice..