The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-17 00:00:00

PRICE V. SEELEY.-SPECIAL JURY.

This was an action brought to recover compensation
in damages for a malicious prosecution.
Mr. Sergeant Shea and Mr. Hayes conducted the
case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Platt and Mr. Watson
were for the defendant.

The defendant in this action is one of the vestrymen
of St. Dunstan's parish. In the year 1838, a new
school-room and vestry-room were erected. When
the school-room was finished, a wall was commenced
en the north side against Clifford's Inn. The plain-
tiff's premises were on the west side. Two labourers
were employed in clearing the foundation of a fence
wall, as an old fence wall was standing at the time.
While the labourers were engaged in this, the plain-
tiff came up to them, and said they should not go on,
as it was an infringement of his property. As fast
as the bricks were put up he kicked them down. As
the workmen were attempting to put the bricks up,
he pushed them (the men) clown, and otherwise es
-
milted them. Some of the vestrymen came and re-
monstrated with him, but he still persisted ; and a po-
liceman was called in, and the plaintiff conveyed to
Guildhall Police Court, but the Magistrate would not
entertain the complaint, as he said it must be the
subject of a civil action. The plaintiff had com-
menced an action against the vestri, in which action
the defendants obtained a verdict, and the cause was
removed into the Court of Error, where it still re-
The vestry, as the Magistrate refused to ad-
jndicate, then indicted the plaintiff for the assault on
the workmen. He removed. the case by certiorari
into the Court of Queen's Bench, and the cause was
delayed for upwards of two years, when the plaintiff
applied to have it decided one way or the other.
When the case was called on in the Court of Queen's
Bench, Lord Denman said the facts had already been
stated in an action in that Court, and he thought it
would be better not to waste the public time. In
consequence of this, Sir F. Pollock, who appeared for
the vestry, said he would not offer any evidence, and
the plaintiff was acquitted. The plaintiff now brought
this action to recover damages for malicious prosecu-
tion. _ _ _

Evidence was adduced to show that no assault had
ever been committed; and, on the part of the defen-
dant, the two labourers were put into the box, toge-
ther with several of the vestry, who swore distinctly
that the plaintiff had violently, and without any pro-
vocation, assaulted the two men.
Mr. lIAvEs, in reply, contended at great length
that these witnesses were interested parties.
The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and
said the only question they had to consider was
whether there were just grounds for the prosecution
in the plaintiff having assaulted the two men.
The Jury retired ; and, after an absence of nearly
two hours, returned into Court with a verdict for the
plaintiff.—Damages 40s.

CONSISTORY COURT, Dec. 15.
DIVORCES.—GRAVES V. GRAVES.
This was a suit for divorce instituted by Lord
Graves against Lady Graves, on the ground of adul-
tery by her committed. The libel charging the
offence has been admitted. A responsive allegation
was now offered on the part of Lady Graves, which
retorted the charge of adultery against Lord Graves,
and accused him of introducing to the acquaintance
of her Ladyship the person with whom she is charged
with having committed the offence, and the person
with whom she now charged Lord Graves with cri-
minal intercourse. The plea now offered also alleged
that Lord Graves cohabited with the present Lady
Graves during the lifetime of his first wife. The alle-
gations in both pleas are ex party, and to be proved.
The allegation was opposed by Dr. Phillimore and
Dr. ib. Phillimore on the part of Lord Graves, and
supported by Dr. Addams and Dr. Robertson on the
behalf of Lady Graves.
Dr. LusunGToN—These proceedings were com-
menced on the part of Lord Graves, and a libel was
given in, charging Lady
.Graves with adultery with a
person nameeDesmarest, and was admitted without
opposition. The allegation now offered by _Lady
Graves is responsive to the libel, and contains a
denial of the adultery imputed to her, and charges
Lord Graves with adultery with a Madame Breug-
not, otherwise Valmont. I do not think it can
be said that Lady Graves dire,ltly charges Lord
Graves with collusion at her own adultery ; it
rather appears to be the character of the allegation that
it states circumstances explanatory of the conduct of
Lady Graves with respect to her alleged intimacy
with M. Desmarest. The first article pleads that
Lady Graves was in the service of the first Lady
Graves, and whilst in her service, in 183, she was
seduced by Lord Graves, with whom she cohabited,
and it pleads the birth of a child. In enforcing the
objection to the admission of this article, reference was
made to the decisions of these Courts, as to ante-
nuptial infidelity. Perhaps the question has never
been considered in all its various points of views,
under different circumstances. I take it that a party
commencing a suit in these Courts, whether husband
or wife, has no right, in the original libel charging
adultery, to plead that the party against whom the
charge ;vas preferred was in the habit of leading a
lewd and licentious life at any time before the mar-
riage. The doctrine is this—that a party, by entering
into a matrimonial connexion, gives a final pardon
to all ante-nuptial errors and offences. But the
doctrine cannot be extended beyond the limits
I have stated, so as to preclude a party frOm
pleading and proving ante-nuptial infidelity under
any circumstances, and prevent a wife from availing
herself of such circumstances to support her
defence because they cannot be urged by way
of charge. If the case had rested here, I should be
of opinion that such circumstances were admissible ;
but there is another reason which appears to take the
case out of the principle I refer to. There is an ex-
hibit annexed to the libel of Lord Graves himself (re •
lative to the birth of the child), which proves the fact
of ante-nuptial cohabitation. If Lord Graves was
under the necessity of producing this exhibit, and
thus proving his own misconduct, by the law of France,
which required the legitimation of the child he had
had by the person he married there, he must take the
consequences. But I have some difficulty in respect
to the allegation that Lady Graves was seduced by
Lord Graves whilst she was in the service of the first
Lady Graves. The difficulty is, that I seem to be
about to try the question whether she was seduced or
not—notat the
ee e question e
os tfi ot
ten
o3f,
ears c o lmabfitteart i oi
tn , tbo
oukt
polfacsee,dauncd-
' ti n__
it would be opentobethewhiubsbtanddto counterplead the
seduction, though
tion. It would be safer andg better
rt
therefore,
fcohabita-
p,lead e
that,eore, and.si
not detrimental to Lady Graves, to
tvi t
in the service of Lady Graves, in the
of 1833, she cohabited with Lord Graves during rrthe
summer
lifetime of her Ladyship, and that a child was
born. 'With regard to the second article, which
pleads that whilst the present Lady Graves and Lord
Graves were cohabiting together, in the year 1834,
Lord Graves became acquainted with M. Desmarest,
a musician, and also with Madame Breugnot, other-
wise Valmont, an actress on the French stage and
the mistress of Mr. Ball Hughes ; and that he intro-
duced such persons to her (Lady. Graves) ; the
ob-
jection is, that Madame Valmont is pleaded to have
been the mistress of 111 r. Ball Hughes, and it might
E introduce mucfi litigation, since the fact might be
counter-pleaded. In " Harris v. Harris " I admitted
such an averment, and that case created much anxiety
in my mind ; but I am satisfied I was correct in ad-
mitting it, for it would go to sap the foundations of
all morality if it were permitted to a husband to in-
troduce to his wife persons of bad character, to induce
her to associate with them, and when she follows an
example which-he held up before her eyes, to come
here and demand a separation for a crime occasioned
by himself. In this case how can I refuse to admit
the averment ? It is pleaded that Lord Graves did
introduce to his wife a person passing under the cha-
racter of the mistress of Mr. Ball Hughes; that she
continued on terms of daily association with her.
This may be a false averment ; I cannot tell
that it is so, and the party has a right
to plead it. I wish it to be distinctly understo9d
that if the article had been confined to 1834, and if
the association had not continued after the mar-
riage, very different considerations would have applied
to it. 'With respect to the 17th article, the effect of
it is, to plead that from December to April, 1841, Mr.
Ball Hughes and Madame Valmont were living toge-
ther in Paris, and that, during some part of the time,
Lo• d Graves resided in the same apartments, and it
alleges the habitual commission of adultery, without
specification. Now all questions, where habitual adul-
tery is Veaded, are attended with a certain degree of
difficulty, and in almost every case the same objection
is taken. But I should not be justified in rejecting
the averment. Here are four months, during which
the habitual commission of d 1 a u tery is pleaded, and
the witnesses produced on the article may be cross-
examined as to the particular time and place ; and it is
alway open to the party, even after publication, to
counterplead the adultery, so that the party giving in
in an article of this kind does it at her own peril. The
18th article alleges that the parties were seen id the
fact of adultery, or all but the fact, in a certain room,
the doors and windows of which were closed.
when I read this article, the objection suggested itself
to me, and I wrote opposite to the word " seen," the
word " how ?"
Dr. ADDAMS—I am ready to say, through the key-
hole of the door.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON—Then it is better to plead it so.
With these observations I admit the allegation.

JAMES V. JAMES.

This was a suit for divorce, by reason of adultery,
by Captain T. James against Rosanna, his wife. No
appearance was given by the wife, against whom the
proceedings were in pmnam. The libel pleaded that
Captain James and his wife, shortly after their mar-
riage, proceeded to India; that Mrs. James, on ac-
count of her health, returned to England in the early
part of this year ; that on her passage in the Larkins,
she became acquainted with a Mr. Lennox, with whom
she cohabited at the Imperial Hotel, Covent-garden,
and in lodgings in St. James's.
After hearing Dr. ADDAMS for the husband,
Dr. LUSIIINGTON said he was quite satisfied with the
proof, and pronounced for the divorce.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dcc. 16.

IN RE HENRY MILLS.

The insolvent had been a cab-proprietor, and attri-
buted his insolvency to a severe accident by being run
over at Westminster on the day the Queen proceeded
to open Parliament, in consequence of which he was
confined to his bed for several weeks.—Discharged.

IN BE WILLIAM ABBOTT.

The hearing of this case had been adjourned from
the 27th of November, to enable the insolvent to
produce certain deeds and a warrant of attorney exe-
cuted in favour of his brother. •

It appeared that the insolvent, who was a surgeon,
was the inventor of some important improvements in
the ventilation and heating of buildings, and was en-
titled to a large property by right of his wife, in
Kent, which it was alleged he had made over to his
brother without consideration, and merely for the
purpose of defrauding his creditors.
The case was again adjourned, in order to get the
evidence of his brother, a.; to whether the transaction
was bona fide or otherwise.
IN RE THOMAS COLEMAN.-LOAN SOCIETIES.

The insolvent described himself w.s a grocer, carry-
ing on business in Leicester-square.
Mr. Commissioner "'Aunts, upon looking over the
schedules, said he perceived the names of about forty
different loan societies. The fact of incurring reck-
lessly such liabilities was most inexcusable, and could
not be sufficiently .reprobated.
The case was adjourned to enable the insolvent to
lodge some papers in Court.