The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-14 00:00:00

inconsistencies of it. He would read it, how-
ever, to the jury, if either of the parties should
deem it necessary. Adverting to the evidence of
the watchmen, who bad sworn that they had seen
a woman returning to her house repeatedly at a late
hour in the morning, and who had now identified
Mrs. Bligh as the woman whom they had seen,—he
asked the jury to consider, if that woman was not
Mrs. Bligh, who was it ? It was not pretended by
any of the servants who had sworn so positively
against Mrs. Scott, that either Mrs. Scott or any
other of Mrs. Bligh's female servants was in the
habit of going out at night, and returning to her
house at an early hour in the morning. If, then, the
woman whom the watchmen had seen was not Mrs.
Scott or any of her fellow-servants, it could not be
any other person, if they had sworn truly, than Mrs.
Bligh. After detailing the evidence at great length
on one side and the other, the learned Judge stated
that it appeared to him impossible to say that the
whole of the general plea, or any part of the third
plea, in which this publication was defended as a
full and fair report of the proceedings in a court of
justice, was satisfactorily made out. The only
point which he should wish them to consider was
this—had Mrs. Scott been fairly and satisfactorily
proved guilty of adultery with the man cook, Ber-
geret, and of stealing the property enumerated in
" this indictment," and spoken of by Mrs. B. He had
stated the evidence which had been given by the wit-
nesses who had been called by the defendant to sub-
stantiate those charges, and he had pointed out
to the Jury how they had been contradicted by other
witnesses, and also by each other. If the Jury
should be of opinion that the proof offered in sup.
port of these charges Was sufficient, let them say so
by their verdict. Let them, however, not forget
that it was Mrs. Scott who had been attacked by
the defendant. She was not before the public, ex-
cept as a witness. As a witness, she was the last
person whom the defendant ought to have attacked;
for what man would ever venture to come into a
Court of Justice, if he were liable to be attacked
on every part of his conduct through life in the news-
papers. If Mrs. Scott had been guilty of perjury in
the affidavits which she had sworn in the Court of
Chancery, the law of England, on that charge being
proved against her, would remove her from this coun-
try, which she would no longer be worthy to inhabit;
but, at all events, let her not be tried, condemned, and
executed by the public papers. The defendant in
this case was a volunteer against Mrs. Scott; he
had dragged the woman forward, and had put her
on her trial before her country. If they should be
of opinion that he had no grounds for the charges he
had made against Mrs. Scott, they would negative
his plea ; but if they should be of opinion that he
had grounds, they would say so by their verdict.—
At all events, as the imputation of perjury was not
justified by the defendant, the plaintiff would be en-
titled to their verdict on that point, as also for the
police report, of which no justification was pleaded.
But if they believed that Mrs. Scott had been guilty
of theft and of adultery, they Would give her but
very trifling damages for the injury which she might
have sustained by the publication of the other charges
against her; for he agreed with those who said that
people of blemished character should not receive the
same compensation for the injury a libel might inflict
upon them aspersons of unsuspected and uninipeached
reputation. It was the misfortune or the fault of
Mrs. Scott, that she had lived in Mrs. Bligh's
house. It was incumbent on him to make that
remark, in justice to the nominal defendant On the
record. Whether the persons who were the real
defendants would be satisfied with it he did not
know, nor did he care, since in making it he had
only performed his duty. He was afraid that, worn
out as he was by the length of this cause, he had
not performed that duty as well as he ought; but if
they should want information upon any point in it,
he should be most happy to render them all the as-
,istance in his power. He then left them to con-
sider their verdict.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE begged leave to remind his
r.7ol'us/Ifp, that the fourth plea justified the Pollee
•epOff, by justifying the theft and adultery that were

Isa rg e d izi it.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE agreed in that obser-
vation ; but remarked that the charge of perjury
was not justified : that complaint was unanswered.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE hoped that his Lordship
would leave it to the Jury to decide whether perjury
was imputed to the female plaintiff by the defendant.

The LORD. CHIEF JUSTICE—I stated that point
once already, as clearly and as broadly as I could to
the Jury.
A Juryman—Could three distinct verdicts be
given, my Lord?
Mr. PLATT was about to call his Lordship's at-
tention to this remark of the Juryman, when
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE remarked, that the
case was now in the hands of the Jury, and there
they had better leave it.
The Jury retired from the jury-box a short time
after six, and returned with their verdict at twelve
minutes before eight.

Mr. KNAPP then asked the Foreman—'
find for the plaintiff or the defendant ?"
Foreman—For the plaintiff ; Damages, One
Farthing—Costs, 40s.
Mr. KNAPP—Do you find Mrs. Scott guilty of
adultery and theft, or either of them ?
The Foreman—Guilty of adultery only.
Mr. KNAPP—Do you find the publication a fair
account of the affidavits, and what passed in the
Court of Chancery ? The Foreman—No.
Mr. KNAPP—Do you find that the libel imputes
perjury to Mrs. Scott ? The Foreman—No.

." Do you

CONSISTORY COURT, JULY 13.

ROSE V. ROSE.

This case has been so often published, in proceed-
ings in this Court and a Court of Law, that the
public may be spared a repetition of its offensive de-
tails. It was a suit for divorce, by reason of adul-
tery, promoted by Mr. Rose, of the Legacy-office,
Somerset-place, against Louisa, his wife. The
parties were married in October, 1816. Mrs. Rose,
it was alleged, was in the habit of leaving her house
at Highgate during the absence of her husband on
official engagements, and pursued- a course of pro-
fligacy, especially with a Mr. William Blakemore, a
person of the medical profession, resident at Finch-
ley, with whom she was sworn to have committed
adultery in Hornsey church-yard in 1824. Mr.
Rose instituted proceedings at law in 1825, against
Mr. Blakemore, and recovered 1001. damages ; arid
in 1826 he commenced the present suit. On the
part of the wife it was alleged that differences took
place between the parties shortly after marriage ;
that Mr. Rose eame home of an evening intoxicat-
ed ; that upon one occasion he kicked his wife when
pregnant, and attempted the chastity of Miss Su-
sannah Bowyer, an inmate with the family, and one
of the witnesses in this cause.

After Dr. LUSHINGTON had been heard for the
husband, and Dr. JESSE ADDAMS for the wife, chiefly
on the credibility of the witnesses, _ _ _

Sir C. ROBINSON said lie would consider the
question attentively, and give his sentence before
the next term.

ROBERTS V. ROBERTS

Upon this. case case being called, Dr. JENNER
proposed that it should be heard in private, to which
Dr. PHILLIMORE, on the other side, did not object.
The Court thereupon adjourned to the dining-room,
from which all persons but the Advocates and Proc-
tors on both sides were strictly excluded. No rea-
son was assigned for this unusual course. It was,
pa,
rob bly owing to the nature of the details, as in a
recent matrimonial case (that of Brown v. Brown)
in the Court of Arches, which was also heard in
wivate on account of the disgusting character of the

evidence.
Before the Court adjourned, Dr. LEE expressed
a desire to be heard.

Sir C. ROBINSON—We must previously under-
stand'each other, Dr. Lee. Does it concern any
thing before the Court ?

D. LEE—
Certainiy. I am going to state the
circumstances which occurred between the Registrar