Star.
London, England, 1808-07-28 00:00:00

. .
came into the room just as the'riefendaiti ivisloinesnistress not having ordered tiiii,hers.ifspectedtbire
away, and saw her mistress's hair quite disordered, 'Was something improper going forward, and wishir
and her dress discomposed. Her mistress appeared his master might discover it, at the same time '
to be very much hurried, and went out into the gar- fearful of informing him of his suspicions, he Arai
aen for a few minutes, and afterwards, without say- at the gate for him, and had it open when he c
ing a word to her, went up stairs immediately, to set so as to prevent him from ringing the bell, afrai,
herself to rights, before Mr. Gregson returned. She might alarm the Defendant. He was certainly
recollected one night, that the Defendant had been his mistress in the drawing-room on the anival
With her in the garden, she overheard a serious con- master, but he made his escape before the Plai
versation after he was gone, between her mistress and got into the room, and not one of the servants '..
Mrs. Close, her mother. She did not hear the pare- i which way he went ;he might have been disturbe,
culars of the conversation, but her mistress burst into by the noise of the horse's feet, or by the noise
tears. The defendant had sometimes been sheWn Plaintiff made in passing through the kitchen •
into the drawing-room, where Mrs. Close was, but Plaintiff seemed not to have the least suspici
generally went into the, garden directly, when there' what was going forward,
was company in the house. I Mr. John Keymer, jun. deposed, that his
On her cross-examination she said, she had never was the partner of the Defendant ; there were
taken notice of the sofa being put out of order at those letters produced to him, which he said were not
visits. She believed her mistress did sometimes drink hand-venting of the Defendant, nor could he sa'
a little too much. whom they were written.
Elizabeth Graves was also a servant at the country Here closed the Plaintiff's case.
house at Layton. She confirmed most of the circum- Mr. DALLAS then made a very able speeCh
stances stated by the last witness about the visits of part of the defendant. He said he should have hardi
the Defendant. She had once seen the Defendant a word to address the Jury on the sebject of danr-
kiss her mistress, at coming into the room. The kiss for that upon which 'be meant to rely was, th.
appeared not to have been at all forced from Mrs. defendant had pin a true plea on the record when
Gregson, but giveil voluntarily. It was she who saw said he was not WI-fa thecrime imputedto hi:-
Deft

the . ,Gtendant-drag her mistress into the path in the
shrubbery, which only led to a waste spot behind the
green-house. She stopped a few minutes, and then
returned to the house, and told her fellow-servants.
. William Woodburne had been ten years in the
service of Mr. Gregson, and was latterly his foot-
man. lie went out to the garden at the time spoken
of by the last witness, and after waiting some mi-
nutes, he saw the defendant quit that, spot by him-
self, and he immediately went away. The defend-
ant never continued his visits so late as the time when
Mr. Gregson returned, except once. The witness,
supecting that there were some improper doings, left
the gate open, in order that Mr. Gregson might come
in without giving any notice. The defendant, how-
ever, contrived to get away, some way or other, with-
out his master seeing him. He had himself seen the I
defendant kiss his mistress three different times at
least. He had taken one or two notes from her to
the defendant's house in Broad-street. He had gone
into the room once unexpectedly, and saw the defen-
dant and his mistress sitting on the sofa, dose to each
other. He added that he believed this was
,in the
month of November 1803, but certainly before the
coachman came into the service of Mr. Gregson, for
that Mr. Gregson did not set up his carriage until
the month of Pei rUary 180 t.
Miss Matilda Phipps, a young lady only 14. years
of age, deposed, that on the 11th of March 1804, she
being then only ten years of age, paid a visit to Mrs.
Gregson, at her house in the country. When the des.
fendant came, she and her sister were sent into the
garden, but afterwards, in passing by the study win-
dow, she saw the si.!fendant kiss Mrs. Gregson. It
appeared to her very improper, and she • mentioned
tt to her mother when she went home. This witness
gave her evidence in tears.
Thomas Meredith, who had been at the house in the
country, in the absence of the footman, was desired
by one of the maids to get a lanthorn to light the deo
fendant home. It was a dark night, and when he
Was in the hall he saw Mrs. Gregson and the defen-
dant come down stairs together. In the upper part
of the house there were no rooms for the reception of
company, but only bed-chambers, and a small dress-
ing-room of Mrs. Gregson.
Elizabeth Woodroff, another servant of the plain. i
tiff, spoke as to the transaction at the town-house.—
She corroborated the account of the visits, and the
blinds being let down. She has seen them sitting
very close to each other, on two-arm chairs. She
remembered one day in the beginning of the present
year, that, during one of these visits, she heard a
noise of the moving of chairs, which continued for
some time. She was herself a married woman, and had.
no doubt that a criminal act had been committed at
that time. The kitchen, in which she then was, was
separated from the parlour . by so thin a partition,
-that every noise could be distinctly heard. Her mis-
tress used, instead of rinsing, to rap at the partition
when she wanted any thing. When Mr. M'Taggart
came out, he went into the kitchen, and began to
speak to her about the smallness of the kitchen. 'Mrs.
Gregson then came out, and the witness endeavoured
to look at them, as she had the strongest suspicions,
but they both fixed their eyes so full upon her, that
she could not look at them. Her mistress immediately
went up stairs. She went into the room, and saw
the•chairs placed in a different part of the room, and
very close to each other.
On her cross-examination, she said there was a
loose cover over the sofa, which was not discompos-
ed. Although she had the strongest suspicions of a
criminal connection having then taken place, she did
not mention it at the time, as she did not think that
one circumstance enough to take away her mistress's
character.
Jane Hayden, formerly a cook to the plaintiff, de•
posed, she remembered the frequent visits of the de-
fendant to her mistress in the absence of the plain-
tiff. He generally came in the evening at dusk. She
never knew him to remain until the plaintiff's return
from London, except once ; when he came he gene,-
rally asked for Mrs. Gregson ' • he met her in a man-
ner that no other gentleman did—he used to-make
his obedience to her, take her by the hand, and whis-
per to her. Fie called one day, the witness informed
him her mistress was either in the field or garden,
and that she would call her to him ; he said she need
not, as he would himself go to her ; she looked after
him, saw them meet and go into the dark walk ;
there was a shrubbery on both sides ; they did not
come out again for half an hour, when her mistress's
dress seemed discomposed. In Spring 1803, the de-
fendant came to the house in town • the witness went
up with him to the dining-room ; Mrs. Gregson had
gone up stairs ; she told him she would call her, and
as she shut the door Mrs. Gregson leaned over the
bannisters, and asked her if it was the defendant ?
She answered in the affirmative ; when she desired
her to come up stairs to assist her to put on a clean
neck-handkerchief ; she did so, and Mrs.Gregson went
to the dining-room, where she and the defendant re-
mained an hour and a half or two hours.
James Cooke deposed that he lived servant with
the Plaintiff from 1802 to 1804; he had perceived
the frequent visits of the Defendant in the absence of
his master. One night that the Defendant staid ra-
ther later than usual, it being
_quite dark, and his

_ .mputeo
misted that after- the Jury had heard the observ;
which it was his dutyto address to them, they
be of opinion that the crime of adultery had not
proved ; and he, in'his conscientious opinion, bei
that it had not been committed between these p
He did not mean to say that paying frequent are
visits to a married woman in the absence of ht
band was in itself a proper thing. He did not mi
deny that personal familiarities, such as kissing
as had been sworn, was a censurable action; but
deal more must be proved before any thing like.
tery could be established. As to the visits itt the
sent instance, it was evident that if the defend•
sited Mrs. Gregson at all at her country hout
must have been in the absence •of her husband.
had been proved that her husband was in the hat
going to town at eight in the morning, and r
turning till nine or ten o'clock at night. It cor
then be supposed that any one would come
visits before eight in the morning, or after t.
night. The kissing her (which had been sworn
was, perhaps, a censurable familiarity; but
was recollected what sort of a woman Mrs. Gi
was now proved to be, it was not easy to ascertal
what degree he might have been provoked to
miliarity. As to the blinds of the drawing-room
down, it had been confessed by one of the wit
on her cross-examination, that the sun shone stron;
that room, and the blinds were generally dos,
greater part of the day. His visits had usually
place about six o'clock, when the blinds were nai
down, as the sun still shone on the room. As '
that was alleged to have passed in the country hk
never heard a charge of adultery attempted to, be
out on such slight circumstances. It had not apy
that the doors were ever fastened; servants had c
uponthem without notice, and never saw them in
decerit situation. Once they were seen sitting together,
a sofa, and another time on two arm chairs, but r
time was there any thing like indecency in their
tion. It was proved that Mrs Gregson dressed
self a little more when she expected a visitor,
that she was not quite so cleanly in her person
she expected to be alone. There were, howeve
circumstances from which adultery could be infi
The frequency of his visits might perhaps be ac
ed for on another principle. Having lost hi.
wife, his home had lost its principal- attraction,
he might innocently seek in the conversation
ther woman, some of those pleasures which
been formerly accustomed to in domestic life.
the walk in the shrubbery, although the parties
be out of the view of the servants for a short t
thought it by rho means followed that any thing crie
minal had taken place on that occasion. It was a
little extraordinary that those servant maids, who
were so attentive to one part of the transaction, should
not have also observed when their mistress returned,
whether her dress was so discomposed, or whether it
bore any of those marks which might have been ex-
pected from such a scene, as they had supposed at
such a place, and under such circumstances. In fact,
none of those strong circumstances were brought
forward upon this occasionwhich were always brought
forward in every similar case, when it was attempted
to establish the filet of adultery, from circumstancesi
and yet, when it was recollected the Plaintiff was an
eminent Solicitor, and that almost all the witnesses
were his own servants, it could not be supposed that
there was a single circumstance omitted which could,
by possibility, have helped out the case. The facts
sworn to at the town-house were of die same descrip-
tion. No doors were ever fastened, and the parties
were never found in indecent situations. As to
what one of the witnesses swore to having heard
from the kitchen, it was the most improbable story
he ever heard in his life. Could it be supposed
that any•woman who knew that the room that she
was in was separated from the kitchen by so slight
a partition, that every noise could be distinctly
heard, and who herself used to rap at that partition
when she wanted her servants, should so far expose
herself to them as had been described by the witness ?
'When Mrs. Gregson came out, the witness had not
;observed any disorder in her dress. When she went
up stain, and the witness entered the parlour, she
Found the sofa not disordered, and the only suspi-
'cious circumstance she could find, was the two arm
chairs close together. The Learned Counsel dwelt
at some length on the improbability of this story, or
of the actual commission of the crime which had been
charged against his client. He felt so strongly that
his client was entitled to a verdict, that he did not
know how to say any thing in mitigation of damages,
which would appear as if he gave up the strength of
!Isis case. If he were to speak, however, about da-
mages, he would beg the Jury to connder what sort
of a woman this was, for whom the husband came a
' second time into a Court of Justice to demand repa-
ration in damages for the loss of her society. The
'',first verdict gave him a right to be divorced from this
bad woman, and a verdict now could givehim nothing
but pecuniary damages. He might mention that this
was a woman who had been married a long time
without having any children, who was proved to be
given to drinking, and whom the Defendant might
have visited at first from the most innocent motives,
being a near neighbour, and having himself lately
lost his wife, whose conversation gave his home a

d there
rishing
being • ...
atched
came,
raid it
y w th
l of his
laint •'
; knew
turbei
ire the •
4
; the
cion 9f
father
e three _ •
tot the
say by
• ;
on the
hardly
.mages,
hat tbs •
!heti he
im: He"
vations
r would
of been
)elieved
parties
nd long
ter hus-
nean to
ing her,
a great
re adul-
the pre-
iant vi-
ouse, it
td. It
habit of
not re-
Duld not
to pay
• ten at
rent to)
when it '
3regson
rtain to
this fa-
m being
itnesses,
trong on
own the
ly taken
taturally •
s for all
louse, he
be made
ippeared
come in
n any in- •
;etheron
it neither.
eir situa-
ssed her, -
tor, and
on when
'ever, no
inferred. •
account-
his own
tion, and
n of ano-
he had
As to
ies might
t time, he
thing cri.