The Sun.
London, England, 1817-03-19 00:00:00

riai difference liit7een an author olio published
an innocent work and' one who :rah about to pub-
considcOtion iepented. It
was mit statr7 iiit whit manner Ole Copy 1)4,1 got
into the loublisber's hands, which it would be very
necessary In kirow, and also that 'it was a most
important feature of this case that Mr. Southey,
with such a change of opinions, should liaVe so.
tered Mr. Ri,igway to keep pdssession tit the copy.
After no7ieinr rite el.!st in its, different bearings,
his Lo-rdsbip said he would look into the .work
and give his opinion on Thursday.

SECONDARIES' OPFIOE, Marat 16.
CRIM. CON.
TIIC REV. CASTLRTON MILLF.R V. Slti

1)ILLON, BART.

This was a writ of enquiry to assess (Images
for criminal conversation. Tbe damages were laid
at 10,0001. • .....

Mr. Serjeant 13esr opened the case. The
plaintiff, he id, was a respectable Clergyman of
ihe•Churcit of Ewgland, and the defend.int Was a
man of great fortune. The plaintiff was Chap•
lain to the Forces at Malta ;, his Lady ac-
comriattied him there, and remained ,with him
until -she had occasion to visit 11,:‘gland in 1809,
in consequence of being afflicted with a liver
complaint. The Wstribution of hor father's pro-
perty was also an object of her visit to Eagland.
He should he able to primp, that during the absence.,
of Mrs Miller,- the plaintiff made/the most. ample
preparations for her return, by purchasing a house;
furnishing and decorating it ; and' he should also
prove, that scarcely had a vessel entered the port,
,and deposited its anchor in the deep,
,before the
anxious husband was on board, in expeCtation of
receiving into. his \arms his valued wife. In the
year 1815, however, in consequence of having re-
ceived a letter from Sir John Sewell, the Judge of
the Admiralty Court there (who was on leave of
absence in England), 'he obtained hints sufficient
to induce him to repair to EngYsml, and on his ar--
rival he found his wife living in a.state of adul-
terous intercourse with the defendant. , At this
time .the defendant conducted himself in a manner
most unworthy of a man of his rank, by deny-
ing his own name ; and on a writ being issued out
against him,' he denied that he was " Sir Charles.
pition."—mi.s. Miller had at this time lodgings
in Norfolk •street, in the Strand, and the defendant
also lodged there, under the name of Paget (which
was the maiden one of Mrs. Miller). He repref
sent himself to be the brother of Mrs. Miller, and
had to go through her room to get to his. Hes
(the Learned Sejeant) should be able to prove,
that Within a week Mrs. Miller and the defendant
were living there together; and be should also
call witnesses who wontd prove, that, up to the
time of, the unhappy circumstance, Mrs. Nlillee
was a complete pattern of conjugal excellence.=
The Learned Serjeant, having concluded his ad•
dress to the. Jury, called
Mrs. Mary Bliss, of Norfolk-street, ,in the
Strand, who proved that Mrs. Miller and the de•
fendant lodged in her house at the Sante. time,
and that the defendant went by the name of TA..
,get, and could only pass to his room through
that of Mrs Miller. They quitted the 'rouse on,.
Sunday week last.
Frederick .Henry Qray, clerk to the plailliff's
Attorney, stated, that on. tie 21st of Jannary lie
was sent to serve a. writ on the defendant. Ile
went to 'No. 27, Norfolk-siteet, and semi' the de. •
Pendant, and asked him if his name Was not Sir
Charles Dillon He denied it ; but he afterward;
imderstond at a coffee-house that he was Sir
Charles Ddlon, and served him With the writ.

Mr. John George Children., proved that in 1799
Mr. and Mrs. Miller came to his house at Ton-
hridge Wells, after their marriage. lie saw'theta
at Lisbon in 1501 ; they appeared to live togs-
tiler ,upon 'terms of perfect•harmony.
Sir John.Sewell, Judge of the Admiralty Court
at the Island of Malta, proved that the parties
lived On terms of harmony together.; that the
plaintiff always spoke iss the moot affectionate
mann(erof his wife, bought a house, and made
preparations for her,arrival, &c.,&e. This wit-
ness returned to England in 1814,-and in Om-
what he bud .seArd her, 1815, in consequence of
of the conduct of &hi., Miller, he wrote' a letter
to the plaintiff, who immediately etur.e to tug.

. •
land.
Sir H. B. Oakes., Governor of the Vorces at
Malta, said, that the plaintiff and his wife lived in
uninterrnpted harmony and perfect happines4.
Captain It. Vincent spoke to the harmonious
manner in which the patties lived, also to the re-
parations made for the reception of • Mts. Miller
on her expected return from England.
Mr. D. L. St. Clair spoke to the plAintiff hsvinv:
quitted MiOta in 1815, in consequence of a leityr
he received front Sir John Sewell.

Mr. Gilpin, en Armyr. agent, proved tht,t Mrs.
had complete coutroul oVer.her blisbotori
foods down to the year 1816, and that froth 1815
to 1816 511 e drew ()rats upon him amounting to
11368 t.

All the witnesses were re-examined by the So;
LICITOR GENERAL and Mr. BROUGIIANI who were
retained for the defendant, but no material facts
arose, and the So'Active GENERAL addressed the,
Jury in mitigation of damages the principal
points of his arguMents were these—that the•pe.
rind of siK years should not have been suffered to
elapse, without any inquiry burin been made by
the plaintiff, as to the state of his wife's health,
and that, being so left,,sbe might have considered
herself deserted by hint. Ile contended, that it
was not a case of•aggratated guilt, nor did it ten
for heavy dainages,:i::
The Under Sheriff Itummed-up the evidence, an
the Jury, after retiring for a short time, rettnucci"
v.•itia a verdiet for the iditiutitr—Dannvgesoool.