Star.
London, England, 1808-12-21 00:00:00

sel should prove that upon their eteursion to Shrews-
bury Races, the waiters and landlords, atnong whom
they appeared, actually thought the Defendant Mrs.
Parr's husband, and not the Plaintiff, so unblushing
and palpable were the familiarities that passed between
her and the Defendant. The Learned Counsel should
also prove from evidence of respectable guests at the
table of the Plaintiff, that the liberties that passed
between his wife and the Defendant exceeded all
bounds, gnd must have been known to the Plaintiff.
Catharine Jones said, she lived at Shrewsbury, and
let her apartments to Mr. and Mrs. Pair, and Mr.
Benson, during the races. The witness had two beds
to let, one on the first floor, and one on the second,
but at the particular request of Mrs. Parr, she suffer-
ed them to occupy another bed on the second floor,
which had been prepared only for the witness, and
was without curtains. In this bed Mrs. Parr slept,
the Defendant sleeping on the same floor with her,
and the I'laintiff down stairs. They staid about nine
days, breakfasting at the witness's house, and dining
and supping at the inn. One of the Gentlemen pro.
posed that they should have a key, and let themselves
in, which they had, as they were to be out late at the
plays and balls. The Plaintiff appeared very well during
the time he was there. The Defendant generally sat
at breakfast on the sofa by Mrs. Parr, and the Plain-
tiff opposite to them. It appeared to the witness,
I that the behaviour of the Defendant and Mrs. Parr
was not such as a husband ought to have admitted.
Upon her cross-examination, she said, that the
Plaintiff wore a shade over his eyes, which were weak.
The brother of Mrs. Parr breakfasted with the party
every morning.
Upon her re-examination, the witness said, that the
Plaintiff had often gone out in the sun without his
shade.

Upon her examination by Lord ELLBNBOROUGH,
she said, that she did not observe that the Plaintiff's
sleeping separate from his wife arose from illness.—
She did not hear any noise in the night, nor inspect
the beds to see if two persons had slept on any of
them.

William Jones, husband of the last witness, once
saw the parties sitting at breakfast as had been de-
scribed, and thought the Defendant paid Mrs. Parr
particular attention. He once saw Mrs. Parr and the
Defendant dressing for dinner with both their mom-
doors, which were only a few inches from each other,
open. They could not, however, see each other from
this circumstance. The witness would not have ad-
mitted such general conduct as he saw in Mrs. Parr
in his own wife. '

John Phillips, waiter at the White Lion at Shrews-
bury, was examined.—The witness particularly ob-
served, one day, Mr. Parr and Mr. Benson, and
Mrs: Parr, sitting together in the room, and Mrs.
Parr and Mr. Benson would frequently get up and
Walk together round the room, with his arm round the
waist of Mrs. Parr, and when nobody else was in
company but them both and Mr. Parr, who saw it all
and did not appear to object to it.
Mr. James Penny had been invited by him to go
to the house of Mr. Parr to meet some friends at sup-
per. Mrs. Parr was at the head of the table, Mr.
Parr at the bottom, and Mr. Benson next to Mrs. Parr.
••••••44 While at that table (said Mr. Penny) I observed
several significant things pass between Mrs. Parr and
Mr. Benson ; Mr. Benson placed his hands on Mrs.
Parr's thigh, which he seemed to press—it was near
the knee—but—he then put his hand on her clothes
still more indecently'
[Here the curtain of delicacy drops over the de-
scription, which, however proper in a Court of justice,
would not embellish the report.]
46 The glances which I spoke of were amorous
glances, and such as meant attachment of the sexes
for each other, much too plain to be misunderstood,
and such as Mr. Parr might have seen if he had
wished to look, or had cast his eyes that way : this
was at supper-time, and repeated two or three times.
These were liberties which most certainly I should
not have permitted were I the husband. When Mr.
Benson and I got out of the hcu,e afterwards, I told
him I thought his conduct extremely improper in
' taking such liberties with a married lady, in the pre-
sence of her husband. He said 44 He had been ac-
quainted with her from her childhood, and that he
had always been used to consider her as his sister."
I then said, I have sisters also, but I do not skew
my regard for them by treating them as you have.
treated Mrs. Parr. I do not recollect all I said to
him on that occasion, I believe I might have called
him a scoundrel, but I know I said to him, that if I
had a wife and he had treated her so, I should have
kicked him out of the house. I was not in the house
above half an honr—that was the first time I saw Mrs.
Parr in company, but I saw such lascivious glances
that disgusted me—it was quite unfit for modest corn-
pany.
Mr. Silvester Richmond remembered Mrs. Parr
retiring after dinner. Mr. Bensqn followed her, not j
immediately, but in about 20 minutes ; and I imme-
diately said to Mr. Parr, " Tom, is Ralph gone for
good ?" To which he replied, 66 No, he is only gone '
to Mary." Mr. Benson returned into the room no
more that night. I staid perhaps two hours and a
half after he went. I staid until about nine o'clock.
But I do not mean to speak positively as to the time. j
On other occasions,. Mr. Benson was very far from
being fond of leaving his bottle. I remember some
time afterwards of meeting Mr. Parr, in Great
George-street, Liverpool, very near his house; Mr. Parr
had his two boys with him. We had some conversa-
tion, in which he pointed to his young boy, and said,
" Don't you think he is etamn'd like Ralph ?" mean-
ing Mr. Benson. Ralph was the familiar name by
which they called Mr. Benson. I said, " Tom, what
the Devil do you mean ?" I thought it an extraor- '
dinary question, and I certainty did not give him any
other answer.
-

Major Chamberlain, of the 24th regiment of foot,
said he was quartered at Liverpool in the spring of
1803 ; and he became acquainted with the plaintiff
and the defendant. The witness dined at the plain-
tiff's once; and the defendant and Mrs. Parr, who were
then present, seemed to him to think nobody was in the
room but themselves : they paid exclusive attention
to each other. This was always the case between
them ; and the plaintiff could not have helped observ-
ing this, but never seemed to disapprove of it. • The
witness conceived the attentions were such as a hus-
band ought to have noticed.
Captain Gladwin bad been a Captain in the 6th
regiment, quartered:at Liverpool in 1805 ; and he
had dined with the plaintiff four or five times. The