The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-15 00:00:00

he followed him to the -Vauxhall Railway Station,
where he was joined by Mrs. Case, and they went
away together in the train. Upon another occasion
they met in the Haymarket, and he followed theM
into St. James's Park,'and after they had been in the
enclosure Mr. Biker went into -his own house in
Spring•gardens, and Mrs. Cage followed him in, and
they remained there for some time.
By Sergeant SFIEE—The plaintiff employed him to
watch his wife, and he reported to him all that oc-
curred. He had no tnotive'of hheown for watching
the parties. He had been watching Mrs. Case for a
considerable time.
Qeorge Shipmore gave similar testimony. He also
proved that he followed Mr. Baker and Mrs. Case,
and traced them to the Rose and Crown at Wimble-
don, and he immediately returned to town, and gave
information to Mr. Stafford, who at once proceeded
there, accompanied by the clerk of the plaintiff and
witness. When they entered the room, Mr. Baker
and Mrs. Case were it dinner.
Mr. 'W. Stafford, the attorney for the plaintiff, de-
posed, that upon the information he received from the
last witness, he proceeded ,to the Rose and Crown,
and saw them there at diener. He did not know tha
lady, but she was pointed, out to him as Mrs. Case.
Mr. Stafford then reverted to the circumstances re-
lating to the Servant girl 'having been taken to the
house of the defendant to identify him, and he said
he was at 'first so satisfied that hums not the gen-
tleman who was at the plaintiff's house on the 25th
Atigust,. that he apologised to him for his suspicion,
and said that Mr. Case would also, no doubt, do the
same. The defendant said he would see him, and he
agreed to bring Mr. Case in a quarter din hour, and
he did so, but the defendant was denied, and this ex-
cited his suspicion, and induced, him to make further
inquiries. Mr. Stafford added, that since these pro-
ceedings the colour of the defeaflant's whiskers ap
peared to be changed, and wereolthough they had
been dyed. The defendant, stated, at the time he re-
ferred to, that be had never been at Mr. Case's house
more than once or twice when he was absent, and be
asserted most positively that nothing improper had
ever taken place between him and Mrs. Case.
The settlement made upon Mrs. Case at her mar-
riage was then put in. It' appeared that 1,7001. was
settled upon her and her issue, but the plaintiff also
took an interest in it, and' had the power to borrow
half the money. Mr. Timothy Bailey and the defend-
ant were the trustees.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Sergeant Suss then made a very able and forcible
address to the jury for the defendant. He said that if
they had had any experience in courts of justice they
would be aware that there were no cases which differed
so much in their circumstances as cases of criminal
conversation, and none which required more careful
and searching investigation at the hands of the jury.
The present case differed in a most important respect
from any other within his knowledge, for his Learned
Friend had omitted altogether the usual topics of
crushed hopes and blighted affections of the husband,
and appeared to rely for damages solely upon some
supposed treacherous conduct on the part of the defend-
ant. It appeared, therefore, that the plaintiff did not
allege any of the usual grounds that were urged in
cases of this description as a ground for da-
mages but he relied merely upon the fact that
the defendant had seduced his wife, and for that
act he hoped the 'jury would give him money,
which was the only object of the present action.
It appeared pretty clear that the plaintiff was
tired of his wife, and that he wanted to get rid of
her; and to effect this --object he did not scruple to
blast her reputation for ever. The formal ground of
action was that the defendant had seduced the wife of
the plaintiff, and alienated her affections from him,
and he would leave it to the jury to say what was the
value of the loss sustained by the plaintiff, when the
evidence showed that he had never treated her as a
husband, and that his conduct towards her had, long
before this transaction, entirely destroyed the affec-
tion she had once entertained for him. They had
heard the case that was opened on behalf of the plain-
tiff, and the evidence in support of it, and it appeared
to him that they must be in doubt at that moment
whether any criminal intercourse had really taken
place between the parties, and whether the whole pro-
ceeding was not a conspiracy to destroy the. 'wife of
the plaintiff. He had never heard of such an extra-
ordinary case as the present. The action was brought
to recover damages for the loss of the society and
affections of the wife, and did the lux, ever hear in
such a case of not one single witness being called by
the plaintiff to speak to the terms upon which the
parties had lived together? The reason was
that they were well aware they could not show
the existence of any affectionate conduct between
the parties, and the duty was cast upon him to
inform the jury of the real facts of the case;
and be should satisfy them by the evidence he
should lay before them, that the conduct of the plain-
tiff towards his wife was of the most brutal and un-
manly description—that they lived together in the
most wretched manner, and that he absented himself
repeatedly from his home. If he proved these facts,
and the jury felt themselves compelled to return a
verdict for the plaintiff, the question then would arise,
what was the amount of damage the plaintiff had sus-
tained, and if they should be of opinion that he had
by his conduct destroyed the affection of his wife, and
driven her from home, and placed her in a position to
fall an easy prey to a seducer, in that case the very
smallest coin would be an ample compensation. The
Learned Sergeant then commented upon the evidence
of the servant girl, and urged that it was utterly un-
worthy of credit, particularly after the admissions she
had made that she said nothing about so important an
event to her master's honour and reputation until a
month after the transaction, and then only upon her
having a quarrel with her mistress. He also com-
mented upon the letter written
,by the defendant,
and contended that there was nothing in the case to
show that it was not written with the most pure and
proper intentions. His Learned Friend had talked
of the treachery and faithlessness of the defendant, but
it appeared to him that there was not the least evi-
dence in the cause whatever to show that the plaintiff
and defendant had ever been on the intimate terms
that were represented, and that this part of the case
entirely failed. He would tell the jury what were
the real circumstances of this unhappy transaction.
They had heard that Mrs. Case was an illegitimate
child. She had, however, been very well educated
and brought up, and at her marriage a handsome
provision was made for her. When the young lady
Was only seventeen years of age, the plaintiff met
her by accident at a jeweller's shop, and entered
into conversation with her, and followed her home,
and applied to her friends to be allowed to pay his
addresses to her. They refused to sanction the con-
nexion, but clandestine interviews took place, and
in the result the plaintiff succeeded in seducin,g her,
and her:friends subsequently discovering that she was
in the family way; consented to her being married
to the plaintiff, solely with the view of saving her re-
putation, and although a marriage sett!ement was
made upon her, leer own friends never took any part
in the marriage proceedings, and not one of them was
present at the ceremony. The marriage was one of
unmitigated misery, and he should show that the con-
duct of the plaintiff had been of the most brutal de-
scription, and that he had on several occasions resorted
to personal violence. He also kept her without money,
and had taunted her with being illegitimate, and he
should show that so far from the plaintiff having any
right to ask for damages for the loss of the society
of his wife, his evident object had all along been to
drive her away from him-and to get rid of her. The
Learned Sergeant then proceeded to detail other facts,
which he said he should put in evidence, and con.
clUded by'expressing an opinion,that when the jury
became acquainted with all the facts, if they should
be of opinion that the criminal connexion had been
established, they would at the same time feel that the
very smallest amount of damages was a sufficient
compensation to the plaintiff for any loss he had sus-
tained.

Mrs. Turner, the mother of Mrs. Case, was then
examined—She spoke to the circumstances of the
marriage, and said that the plaintiff and her daughter
always appeared to live unhappily, and she said she
did not believe they had enjoyed one moment's happi-
ness since they bad been married. During the first
three months her daughter frequently complained of
her husband's conduct, and before the first fortnight
had elapsed she saw her in tears. Upon one occasion
the plaintiff pushed his wife out of the room, and
told witness to take her home, and he said he did not
want her. When he was at home he would sit on
the sofa, and never speak a word to her, and in the
evening he would dress himself and go out, and not
come home till t wo or three o'clock the following
morning. Six months after the marriage shesaw her
daughter with a black eye, and witness had repeat-
edly interfered to prevent the plaintiff from striking
her, and he used repeatedly to swear and make use of
bad language to her. The plaintiff went away from
his wife in 1848, and witness went to his office
for some money, and he then told her
that he had kept her daughter for ten years, and
he ought to be paid for keeping her. Upon one oc-
casion her daughter showed her some marks upon her
back, and said they were caused by her husband beat-
ing her with a stick. lie left her again in 1842, and
again in 1844, and 1848, and the last time he was
away from her for four mouths, and he left her without
a servant and without money. Witness applied to him

to return to her, but he said he would not, and that
she should turn out.
By Mr. CHAMBERS—Her daughter was very
" nervous." She had never been struck by her, but
they had quarrelled invariably. Mr. Bailey was not
her father, but he had known her since she was two
years old, and took a great interest in her, and he had
settled some money upon her at her marriage. He
also provided the money to furnish a house for them
in Moore- place, Lambeth, but her daughter would not
go to live there. Her father was dead, but Mr. Bailey
had adapted her, and had been a very good friend to
her. Bef,re her marriage Mrs. Case was living as a
boarder with a person named Hart in Kennington-
green. At present she was staying with witness, and
Mr. Baker called upon them last week.
Prances Duncan said she had known the plaintiff
and his wife for nine years and a half, and she first
became acquainted with them by being neighbours at
the east end of the town. During the time she knew
them they lived miserably together, and the plaintiff
al ways treated his wife with indifference and con-
tempt. Mrs. Case appeared to be always a good wife,
and to conduct herself with great propriety. In 1840
they removed to Henry-street, Vauxhall, and witness
continued to visit them there for eight years, and it
appeared to her that the plaintiff treated his wife
worse than ever. He was almost always out, and
when he did come home to dinner he would sit in the
room with his wife and never open his lips to her.
He would then dress himself and go out about nine
o'clock, and they would see no more of him until the
next morning. She once saw the plaintiff lay bold of
his wife's nose and slap her across the face, and he
made her lip bleed. Another time he threw a dish
cover at her. She had also heard him ask her why
she did not elope, and say that he should never come
after her whoever she went away with, and that she
was more fit for a mistress than a with.
Sarah Ann Green, a charwoman, employed in the
family, gave evidence of a similar description. She
also stated that one evening, after they had had a
dispute about some coffee, the plaintiff seized his wife
by the throat, and the language he made use of at
the same time was most disgusting. She begged the
plaintiff not to kill his wife, and she got away from
him, and fell in a fit, and a neighbour, at her request,
got over the wall of the next house, and came to her
assistance. The witness also said that she had re-
peatedly heard the plaintiff call his wife a bastard,
and say that ber mother, her sisters, and her grand-
mother, were all bastards.
By Mr. CHAMBERS—AII this occurred in July,
1849. Mrs. Case used to go out, and did not return
home till ten or eleveen o'clock at night, and her hus-
band quarrelled with her for stopping out. Upon
one occasion, when he asked her where she had beer,
she said she had been to Mr. Bailey's, and he replied
that she was a liar, for he had inquired, and found she
had not. She was only in the service a couple of
months or so, and during that period the plaintiff
complained a dozen times of her stopping out at night.
Mr. John Owens, a butcher, residing next door to
the plaintiff, in Henry-street, proved that he and his
wife were heard frequently to quarrel and fight, and
that Mrs. Case repeatedly cried " Murder I"
Mrs. Jane Owens, the wife of the last witness, de-
posed to the same facts, and also said that upon one
occasion, when the plaintiff went away from his wife,
he left her without any resources, and she supplied
her with food from her own table.
Caroline Naylor deposed that she was in the plain-
tiff's service two years ago. He was in the constant
habit of using most disgusting language to his wife,
and once he threw a teacup at her in witness's pre-
sence, and cut her wrist with it. Mrs. Case's con-
duct always appeared to be very good; and she (wis-
ness) could only say her husband would not have had
such good usage from her.—(A laugh.) During the
eleven months she was in the service, she never knew
the plaintiff to stop at home one evening with his
wile. He never used to read to her, or do anything
to amuse her, but would lie upon the sofa and go to
sleep. He also ussd,frequently to go by himself to
masquerades.

Mr. NORTON—In what chareeter—was it Blue-
beard ?—(A. laugh.) Witness—l don't know what
character he took, but I know he used to go in cha-
racter, because I have seen dresses and false noses that
be used to wear.—(Laughter.)
Mr. CHAMBERS then addressed the jury in reply to
the case that had been set up for the defendant.
bile CHIEF BARON summed up. He said he did
not thick there could be any doubt upon the question
of adultery having been actually committed.—(The
jury intimated that they were satisfied upon that
point.) Tne only matter, therefore, that remaiued for
consideration was whet ought to be the amount of da-
mages the plaintiff should receive. Whit then was the
case they had to consider ? The plaintiff brought• his
action fur the loss of the society and affections of his
wife, and fur this alone was he entitled to compensation;
and he must say that it did appear very extraordinary
in the first place, that although a period of ten years
bad elapsed since the marriage, no person should have
been brought forward by the plaintiff to speak to the
terms upon which he lived with his wife during that
period, and he could not help observing that, it was
hardly fair fur a plaintiff to keep back all information
of that kind, and, by compelling the defendant to call
the witnesses, obtain a reply. The jury should re-
collect that the object was net to punish the adulterer ;
but to recompense the injured husband for the loss he
had sustained, by having his wife's affections seduced
from him, and all they had to consider, therefore, was
what that loss really was. His Lordship then referred
to the principal points in the case, and concluded by
leaving it in the hands of the jury.
After a short consultation in the box the jury re-
tired, and in about a quarter of an hour gave a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 2001.
The trial occupied nearly nine hours.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, Aug. 13.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice 'Wm

LIAMS.)
TEE COALYIT HEATH MURDEE.-SENTENCE OF DEATH.
[We brought our report of this trial up to the depar-
ture of the last train yesterday. We now conclude it.]
Ann Cohen deposed that she called at the prisoner's
house a few days after Christmas last. While she
was there, Edmund Curtis, the prisoner's present hus-
band, came, and he and the prisoner went out, and
were absent about a quarter of an hour. When the
prisoner returned, which she did alone, witness left,
and while going away saw Curtis enter the house, and
the door was closed after him. A short time after-
wards witness met Mrs. Curtis, who told her that her
then husband (Harris) was very jealous of her because
Curtis had been there. She added, " But let him
know about that." Her husband (Harris) was three
or four years older than the prisoner. Curtis was
younger than she was.

The marriage of the prisoner with her present hus-
band, on the 26th of May, was then proved, and
W. Joyuer Ellis, Esq., was. called to prove that
Harris and the prisoner were married. Mr. Ellis
stated that in consequence of the rumours which
had been circulated to the contrary, he put the ques-
tion to the prisoner whether she had been married to
Harris, and she replied that she had. Witness
cautioned her throughout the investigation as to what
she said. It was at the adjourned inquest that the
prisoner made the statement that she was married to
Harris.

Mr. CookE, for the prisoner, contended that such
evidence was inadmissible, but his Lordship ad-
mitted it.
Mary Ann Elliott, daughter of the prisoner, was
next put in the witness-box, but Mr. Greaves de-
clined to examine her. She was dressed in decent
mourning. Mr. Cooke put several questions to her,
in answer to which she said that she was the priso-
ner's daughter by a former husband, named Jen-
nings, and that she was married, but used to live
at her mother's occasionally, when out of service.
Lived on good terms with Larris, and he with her
mother, except when he was in liquor, which was
frequently the case, and then be was quarrelsome.
Bad heard of the cat getting into her mother's house
and eating the butter and meat, but never the tarts.
On the 19th of April deceased was sick, and the pri-
soner took some peppermint tea, which she offered to
him, but which he refused. The tea had a smell like
that of landanum. The deceased occasionally took
magnesia as a medicine.
Mr. COOKE then addressed the jury
.for about an
hour and a half, examining the evidence critically,
and contending that, although this was undoubtedly a
case of suspicion, the facts, as they had been given on
oath, were us consistent with innocence as with guilt.
The question for the jury to decide was whether the
arsenic (which there was no doubt had been the cause
of death) had been administered to the deceased wil-
fully, for the purpose ofdestroying life; and, if so, by
whom. lie contended that the suggestions made in
the evidence, that the poiso❑ had been administered in
tea and in wine, were not borne out, the witnesses
stating that there were no appearances of sediment, or
any foreign substance, in the cup. Mr. Herapath, too,
had given his opinion that arsenic killed within 24
hours. But here the sickness had extended from the
19th April, before the prisoner had been proved to have
bought the poiso❑ at Mr. Morton's, until the 30th,
when the deceased died. The same symptoms were
apparent in the illness of the deceased on the 19th as
on the 26th of April. He suggested that the correct
version of the unhappy affair was that the deceased
(sarris) having been used to take magnesia, which
WU kept in o particular buffet, bad 1111f°11"elY