The Sun.
London, England, 1826-03-13 00:00:00

HOME CIRCUIT.—CHELMSFORD, MAncu 11.

THE ICINO V. C. W. DARLEE, ESQ. AND OTHERS.
This was an indictment against Charles William Berke,
Esq., and the Rex. Edward Bailee. and Charles Clarke, Esq.,
for a conspiracy, falsely to charge Frances Sarah Barlee, the
wife of the first-named defendant, with being a lunatic, or per-
son of unsound mind, and to take proceedings that a commis-
sion' in the nature of his Majesty's Writ sic Innano inquireudo
should issue against her, the defendants intending thereby,
falsely anti unjustly, to obtain, from her divers :large sums of
money. Thu overt acts laid were, that the defendants bad
made certain affidavits in support of a petition to the Lord
Chancellor, by the husband, for a commission of lunacy, stat-
ing that for a Ding space of time Mrs. Barlee had been lahour-
ing under great delusions relative to herself, her pecuniary con.
cerns and connections, and was, as' the deponents verily be-
lieved, of unsound mind,:, and incapable of taking proper care
of herself and her concerns. To this indictment the defendant
C. W. liarle.e, had not pleaded. The other defendants pleaded
Not Guilty.
It was stated that soon after the marriage of Mr. and Mrs.
'Beam, the latter (who had a respectable fortune of her own),
perceived grounds of suspicion that she had been deceived,
and that an improper intercourse subsisted between her hus-
band and a woman who had been introduCed into their house
in Vine-street. • It was also alleged that whilst living with hint
Mrs: Barlee was subject to cruelty and ill-treatment, and at
length she quitted his house, anti retired to the residence of
her trustee, Mr. Clarke, at lleccles, a pared agreement for
separation having been entered into. The husband after-
wards became embarrassed in his affairs, and a proposition
was made to Mrs. Duke to induce her to give up part of her
settled property for his benefit. This she declined. It was
alleged that the husband then insisted upon the restitution
of conjugal rights, and in order to obtain possession of her
person inveigled her to his house in Vine-street, where he
placed her under restraint. An appeal was made to the Jury
upon the wrongs, the sufferings, and cruelties, practised upon
Mrs. Barlee, from the hour of her marriage until the date of the
present proceeding. Much stress was laid upon the severity of
her confinement in Ipswich' gaol, and the deprivations to which
she was then subjected; she having for a considerable portion of
the time subsisted upon gaol allowance anti the charitable dona-
tions of her friends. During her confinement It was suggested
that the trustees had offered to make her advances of money, but
Under such terms as she could not with propriety accept ; and it
was prey ed as a topic of great aggravation that neither of them
• had once visited her in gaol, to see how she was treated, or
had attempted to rescue her from the cruel imprisonment she
was suffering; at the instance of a husband whom they knew she
loathed and detested. It was proposed to give decisive evi-
dence that she was a person of perfectly sound mind, and that
the supposed aberrations of intellect breathing in all her letters
and conversation, were no more than the natural expression of
a deep sense of those sufferings to which she had been exposed.
No filet, however, was opened to connect the defendants in a
conspiracy to effect the object imputed, or, to show that the
trustees were in concert with the husband with any undue mo-
tive. One fact opened was afterwards disproved—namely, that
the defendant, Mr. Edward Barite, had accompanied the hus.
band to Mr. Justice Rayley'S chambers, for thepurpose of
forcing Mrs. Barlee to return to her husband. The prominent
circumstance relied upon as bringing the defendants now on I,
trial within the scope of the indictment, was the fact of their
having made affidavits in support of the husband's petition to
the Chancellor,•without any just ground for believing that Mrs.
Barlee was insane.

After the tormal and documentary evidence necessary to sup.
,port the averments in the indictment had been • produced, the
Counsel for the prosecution Proposed to examine Mrs. Barlee as
a witness; whereupon it was objected by the defendant's Coon.
sel, that her evidence was inadmissible, upon the general prin•
cipal that the evidence of a wife cannot be received either for
or against a Imsband, except in certain cases, and this, it was
sumitted, was not one of the ckceptcd cases.
After an argument, which lasted three hones, Mr. Baron
IlAtiAat expressed a decided opinion that the wife could not
ha awitneas on this issue, and therefore rejected her testimony.
Several witnesses were called to prove the conduct of Mr.
Barlee towards his wife, and that he had often stated his object
was to get.possesSion of money, in which case he would let,
her do what she pleased. Some said that he would be satisfied•
with 11101. a year:
r Evidence was alsolidduced to prove .that.while Mrs.• Barnes
was ,confided at Ipswich she appeared to be perfectly sound in
-mine ; but nothing appeared to substantiate the charge of con.
spiracy.
Mr. Baron Gaattnat intimated his opinion to the Jury, that
however blameable. the imputed conduct of Mr—Berke might
be, there seemed' to be no just reason for saying that the Trus-
tees were influenced by the motives charged in the indictment.
The question. in this ease ,was,,not whether. the Trustees formed
a correct judgment to the state of Mrs. Barlee's mind, but
whether they acted Lora flde, and under a firm persuasion. that
she laboured under mental dcluSion, and was incapable of ma.
naging her own 'affairs. ft was perfectly clear that the Trus.
tees could have no personal interest in establishing a commis.
sion of lunacy. Their interest, if they had any, lay the. other
way ; for hail a commission issued, it was more than probable
that the, Lord Chancellor would have appointed other persons
as the committees; and if Mrs. B. was really of unsound.mind,
it was for her benefit that her interests should be taken care of.
by the Court of Chancery. Personal benefit could never have
arisen to' the Trustees from the success of the proceeding; and
after the high character' given of these gentlemen, it was too
much to say that.they were guilty of the foul crime of con.
spiracy.
The'Counsel for the prosecution said, that if. this was the
pression of his Lordship's mind, they certainly had no ,wish to
press the case any farther. They would bow to the slightest
intimation coming from the Bench.
At the request of the Jury, however, evidence was•called for
the defence.

Mr. Al MY AT T and Mr. Sergeant TADOY severally-addres-
sed the Jury on behalf of Mr. Clarke :and Mr. E. Bailee respec-
tively. They contended, in the first place, that there was not
a shadow of evidence to establish the charge of conspiracy, even
if their clients had an adequate motive for committing so infa-
mous a crime. Neither of the trustees appeared to have done
any thing whatever in concert with. Mr. Barlee, the husband,
• beyond sweating to the affidavits filed in support of the come/sit-
Mon. But their conduct in this respect was hong fide, and in the
full persuasion that they were doing the best that could be done
for the interests of Mrs. Berke, whose whole deportment mns
nifested that she was acting! under a delusion of the -mind, at
least as repected her trustees. Mrs. Barlee's letters were full
of the moat decisive indiCations of delusion, and to such n
morbid extent had this delusion been carried that she fended
the whole world in conspiracy against her happiness and bites:
rests. It was this conduct on the part of the unhappy lady
that induced her trustees to believe that? her mind was so much
affected as to di,,quality her tbr the conduct of her awn
The question in this case was not whethecin. fact Mrs. Bailee
was insane, but whether the trustees believed her to,. be so
at the time•theY swore the affidavits in support of the,pe-
tition to the Chancellor. Her letters bare internal evidence
ofderangetnent, and it:was upon their contents, us well as the
information of other persons, that the trustees came to the con..
elusion upon- which,tliey acted. The Learned Counsel corn.
plainest in strong taints of the want of candour on the part of
the prosecutor's Counsel,• in withholding front 'the Jury evi.
dance which they knew went direetly to the exculpation of the
trustees. Among the affidavits tiled in support of the Petition
was that of •Alr. Stebbing, Surgetrato the Ipswich gaol, which
was decisive to allow that the trustees were at least justifiable in
doubtinstthe Sanity of Mrs. Bargee's mind. •
The affidavit of Mr. Stebbing (since deceased), who had been
surgeon to Ipswich gaol for. thirty-eight years, was then put in
ansi read.: This affidavit was filed in support of the petition to
the Lord Chancellor, anti • it expressed- the decided opinion of
the tisporient to be, after a most attentive. observance of 31rs.
Bashes conduct whilst she was in Ipswich gaol, that she was
of niuontalMind, and incapable of forming a right judgment
proved that-in
on her own affisirs.
iti3,2ll)rcielli.l;.ollllt.ite,droAssi
firs.
ti,3:alrist7erg:
lenttaiSo.
whilst
she
was
at
vonsitierable acqirement ; but upon_ the
the' Meath Inn. in that towni anti afterwards visited her
st
in a frically way, and had had frequentopportunities of judg-
ing of the state or' her mind. He found her to he a woman 'or'
disputes subsisting. between her husband and
the truswes; losuiti.her lab Our under mentalti
delusion an
insanity,
ss
Irtei c"; nt: "

a'l,e'llev. -T. Methold, n Magistrate of Suffolk, and Chair-
man of the Ipswich division, proved thnt he visited thvgaol to
hour 31v, ei4oplaints, most of which he found:perfect-

zy

~

PRICE SlivEN-PENCE.

ly groundless., She 'Was treated with tintotnmon indulgence,
considering her situation.
Mr. Thomas Warburton deposed that he fwd lir#d tifry years'
experience in cases of madness. Abstraciedly sPeakhig, sod
without regard to the truth or falsehoods of Mrs. ffarleesS coin,
plaints against her husband and her trustees; bashould have
pronounced her mind to be unsound from the time of her mar-
riage, and should have advised'a petition. • '•it •
George Tuthill, who had been eightseifyieara a -physician
generally, and ten years one of the presiding physicians to Bed-
lam Holpital,.proVed that he was applied to by Mr. Murray by
the Lorti Chaticeller's order; to examine into Anti- report' his
opinion as to.the state of Mrs. Barlea's mind. }le saw her on
two successive days, and remained with. her twohonts each day
and he said he had not the smallest doubt in the world that she
was insane, speaking abstractedly, and' without 'regard to the
supposed conduct of her husband and her trustees.. The treat-
ment of which she complained, Was a delusion of the mind.—
This wathis opinion without hesitatien.
Both these witnesses were questioned by setreral of the Jurors,
and they both concurred in thinking that assuming Mrs,
Barlee's complaints to be well founded, still her mind was
unsound.

The defendant's Counsel wire proceeding te Call Many More
witnesses, when
Mr. Baron (unan again addressed the Jury, and reminded
they hod t 1 •
them of the question whichtry upon t record.—
They were not trying an issue, whether Mrs. Barka was or 'wag
not, in fact, insane at the time the Petition was, prespted. It
was not incumbent on the part of the defendants to show that
she wes absolutely insane. All that the defendants had to chew
was, that, in the opinion of men of science and understanding
upon such subjects, there was reasonable and probable ground
for applying to the Lord Chancellor for a Connitission. It
was tOreign to the* present case, whether Wm. Burke was or
was not, in fact, insane. The question was, whether the de,
fendants had conspired and confederated together in one con-
certed plan_namely, to secure to themselves the custody of her
person, and the division of her fortune,. mid whether that was
the object of all three; for that \ was the gist of the charge:
The hardships imposed upon-this unhappy lady by her husband
were foreign to the question. The Jury must he satisfied that
the object of all the defendants was to put her fiirtune into their
Own pockets, and in order to effect that object, had conspired to,
gether falsely to sue out a Commission of Lunacy, without any
reasonable or probable cause. lir his own opinion, it appeared
to him, that if such was the object of the defentlints, they had
taken the most effectual step to defeat their own views, because
a Commission of Lunacy would have put it completely out of
their power to touch a farthing of the lady's fortune.—Uo
Jury then delivered a verdict of Nut Guilty.