The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-27 00:00:00

PRICE OF SUGAR.

The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, for the
week ending July 23, 1844, is 335. 7id. per cwt., exclusive
of the Duties of Customs paid or payable thereon on the im-
portation thereof into Great Britain.

SUMMER ASSIZES.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, July 25.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Spe-
cial Jury.)
CAM. CON.—KING V. NUNN.
This was an action brought to recover compensation
in damages for the seduction of the plaintiff's wife by

the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Bovill were for the plain.
tiff; Mr. Platt, Mr. Sergeant Channell, and Mr. Peacock.
_ _

appeared for the defendant.
Sergeant SHEE addressed the jury, and said he had the
honour to appear for the plaintiff, who sought their assist-
ance to relieve himself from a load of shame and dis-
honour too great to be borne, and to which no man
ought to submit. In form he asked them for damages
for the seduction of his wife, but he would at the onset
inform the jury that damages were not so much an object
as that he might be enabled to found an application to
the Legislature upon their verdict, to dissolve a con-
nexion which he felt, after what had occurred, could
only henceforward be a source of misery and disgrace;
and that the friends of the plaintiff would be satisfied
that it was not a frivolous charge, and that he was well
entitled to the relief he sought for. The Learned
Counsel said he should now inform the jury of the cir-
cumstances under which the action was brought
against the defendant. The plaintiff had carried on,
with his brother, a very extensive business, as a
wine-merchant and grocer, in the town of Abing-
don, in Berkshire ; and he lived in that town in a posi-
tion of the highest respectability. At the time of the
marriage with his present wife he was about forty-eight
years old, and a widower, his first wife having died
about ten years ago. He admitted that in his con-
nexion with the lady now in question he had evinced
some little indiscretion, but this could not, in any
way, be an excuse for the conduct of the defendant.
Three years ago the plaintiff became acquainted
with the lady whom he now had the misfortune
to call his wife. She was the widow of a
small tradesman at Birmingham, and her position in
society was certainly not equal to that of the plaintiff.
He, however, was struck with her beauty and manners,
and after a short courtship, he proposed himself as her
husband, and was accepted. He was aware that the
connexion would not be a satisfactory one to his friends,
and the marriage was therefore solemnised in private, at
All Souls' Church, Marylebone, no one being
present but the clerk, and a young woman, a
stranger to both parties, who were requested to for-
mally witness the marriage. After it had taken place the
plaintiff and his wife proceeded to Hampshire ; and in
one short month, the film fell from the plaintiff's eyes,
and he found that lie had been seduced by the beauty
and accomplishments of the lady to enter into a con-
nexion, which it was impossible, from the violent temper
of the lady, could produce happiness. At this time there
was not the slightest imputation upon her chastity, but
Mr. King found that his wife had such a violent temper,
that it was impossible for him to live with her. He was,
however, still attached to her, and hoping that in
time be might be able to renew the connexion, a
deed of separation was drawn up, in which he agreed
to allow his wife 501. per annum, but which deed at
the same time also contained a proviso, referring to the
probability of their being together again, in which case
the annuity was to cease. After the separation, the
plaintiff returned to Abingdon and resumed the business
which he had given 'up on his marriage taking place,
and very soon afterwards he received information
which induced him to believe that the conduct of his
wife was not what it ought to be, and that an occur-
rence had taken place which would prevent him from
ever again thinking of living with her, or treating her
as his wife. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to
say, that after Mr. King had returned to Abingdon, his
wife went to live in Providence-row, New Kent-road,
near which place the defendant carried on the busi-
ness of a cigar dealer, and he had also a coachmaking
establishment in the Westminster-road. He should
show that at this period they were intimate, but there
was no proof of any criminality. However, after this
the intimacy increased, and he apprehended there
would be very little doubt, after the evidence he should
lay before them, that criminal intercourse did
eventually take place between the wife of the
plaintiff and the defendant, who, he should inform them,
was a married man and had a family. He should show
them that the defendant had engaged a public-house,
called the Shades, near the Corn Exchange for the
plaintiff's wife, whom he represented to be a widow,
and acts of gross indecency would be proved to
have taken place at that house, which could leave
no doubt of the guilt of the parties. He should be
also able to prove similar proceedings in other places,
and he felt satisfied the jury would say that the
plaintiff was entitled to their verdict. The next ques-
tion would be that of the amount of damages, and al-
though he admitted it was not a case calling for heavy
damages, yet he did expect substantial damages from
the defendant, who, there could be no doubt, had in-
flicted grievous injury upon the plaintiff. Witnesses were
called who fully confirmed the statement of Counsel.
Mr. PLATT then addressed the jury, and observed that
it was now his duty to make some observations to them
on behalf of the defendant, who, he must say, was placed
in that position under very extraordinary circumstances.
His Learned Friend, in his address to them, evidently
felt that he was in a difficult position, and that he could
not hope to raise much sympathy for his client, and it
was pretty clear that the case would not admit of it.
Did the jury ever hear of such an extraordinary mar-
riage as the one that had been spoken to? The plain-
tiff first induced his wife to consent to a private mar-
riage, and then took her to the church, and had the
marriage solemnised in the presence of the clerk and
a woman, both of whom were perfect strangers to
them ; and then, almost the very next fact in
the case, was the deed of separation, about a month after-
wards. Why did not the plaintiff take his wife home to
his own house, and treat her as his wife ? What expla-
nation had been given for his not doing so ? In general,
in cases of this description, some evidence was given of
the manner in which the parties had lived together,
but here all was a blank, and the jury were left to form
their own conclusions upon the subject ; and he submit-
ted that, for all that appeared to the contrary in the
caw, the marriage had never been consummated. The
object of the present proceeding was evidently to
enable the plaintiff to get rid of his wife,
and to cast her upon the world without any resources,
after having solemnly made her his wife. The Learned
Counsel went on to say that it was amusing to see the
terms of the declaration which charged the defendant
with seducing the wife of the plaintiff; and depriving
him of the comfort, society, and assistance of his wife,
but, in point of fact, he had never received any of
these enjoyments. lie had certainly married her,
but lie did not take her home, or introduce her to his
friends, or treat her as a wife ; and after a month
had elapsed, and his passion was probably gratified,
he turned her off with a miserable pittance of 501.
a year, which he must have well known, was inadequate
to her support. The plaintiff was a man forty-eight
years old, and that was surely a time of life when a
man knew what lie was about. He had married
the lady deliberately, and now he sought to get
rid of her, for that was clearly the only object of the
present action. He turned her from him with a
miserable pittance of 501.—not enough for her support,
without any protector, and he had then no doubt caused
her to be watched, in order to get up a case against
her. He submitted that there was no evidence of
adultery having been committed, and he said
that the defendant was not proved to have done