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

at his brother's house, and he understood that their
intimacy arose from the Defendant knowing Mrs.
parr from the time she was an infant. Mrs. Parr
must be now about 28 years of age, she having been
very near 18 years of age when she was married. Mr.
iii•ison, he supposed, was between 35 and 40 years
iofage, and his brother, the Plaintiff, a few years
lower, being, as he believed, about 41 or 42. He
never saw any familiarities between the Defendant
and Mrs. Parr, to raise his suspicion of any thing
improper passing between them. On the 10th of
January, 1807, •his brother was seized with an in-
disposition, approaching to insanity, and he found
it necessary to send him to the care of Dr. Chute,
ithe keeper of the Lunatic Asylum.) Mrs. Parr left
~erpeol on the 14th of February that year, and took
with her her youngest child, about 16 months old.
It was not with his permission that she did so, but
decidedly the contrary. Since that time he never
thought his brother quite well ; he having been guilty
el inconsistencies and extravagancies.— The Plaintiff
bad been first seized with a brain fever upon occasion
(idle election in l 790, and had been sent to the care
d Dr. Chute, by order of Dr. Currie, for two or three
months. He was then furiously mad, and, although
on mischievous, his raving was horrible for several
months.—Upon his recovery, he took an excursion to
the Lakes, and then returned to business. The mad-
ness came upon him a week before the election was over.
lee thought his brother had been taken away prema-
uuely from the care of Dr. Chute, by the advice of a
medical brother, and confined at Mr. Holmes's mad-
house, Clapton, and was under the direction of Dr.
move; Mrs. Edward Parr (the witness's wife) was
now inLondonlrebjeeneed by the Defendant, she having
left her son at the point of death. He was Attorney
e this action for the Plaintiff, and it had been begun
shale before Michaelmas Term, or about the middle
of October last. His brother had again fallen into a
deep melancholy since the 14th of November, 1807,
and is entirely unable to attend to business ; for one
week during the election for Liverpool, his brother
bad never been to bed, having greatly interested him.
self for General Tarleton, by which he brought on a
complaint, which Dr. Currie called a fever on the
brain. The reason why the action was not brought
sooner was, that he had never heard any thing of the
subject then before the Jury, previous to the month
of August last.
Jane Hughes was ie the service of the Plaintiff and
Mrs. Parr from July, 1801., 01 their establishment
broke up in the summer of 1807. The Plaintiff and
his wife appeared to live together very affectionately :
be was a tender husband, and she was very much
attached to him. The Plaintiff was a very affectionate
father. The Defendant used frequently to visit Mrs.
Parr while the Plaintiff was at his counting house,
about a mile from his dwelling-house. The witness
am proved, that at one of these visits, in 1805, she
law the criminal connection between' the Plaintiff's
wife and the Defendant actually take place in a par-
km, which she was induced to enter upon some pres-
ence, in consequence of suspecting she heard some-
bing wrong overhead while she was in a cellar
indemeath. The witness left the room and burst
nto tears ; the Defendant followed her, and she told
!aim it was a shame to act as he had done. The
Defendant said a great deal to the witness, which
she did not recollect.
• Upon her cross-examination, the witness said there
were two or three other servants kept, but they were
eotattiome at the time. She had suspected her mistress
before then, in consequence of'what an old male-ser-
rant of the family had told her some months before.
The door in which the connection took place was
sot locked or bolted. The witness told one of her
fellow-servants immediately of the circumstance, and
mother soon afterwards. Mrs. Edward Parr next
eked her about the affair, having heard it from one
of these servants. This was after the Plaintiff went
a Dr. Chew's, and about July, 1807. Mr. Edward
Parr was in the parlour at the time. The witness
remembered her master and mistress going to Shrews-
bury races, and remembered the Defendant's sleeping
at her master's house many times ; but could not re-
collect whether her master slept at home then or not.
Jane Edwards lived with the plaintiff while he was
taken ill. About a month after which circumstance,
she went with her mistress to Heath Cottage. The
defendant 'came in a few days to dine there, and
was frequently there afterwards, but never staidlhere
all night.
John Brain, who lived at the Cottage, said, that
Mrs. Parr came there on the 14th February, 1807.
The defendant might visit her four or five times
'a week. He and Mrs. Parr frequently walked out
anti in arm, Mrs. Parr's sister accompanying them.
The witness had often gone to bed and left the de-
fendant in the house ; but could not say whether he
staid there all night. Mrs. Parr left the Cottage in
July, 1807.
Mary Woodman lived at Lutwich-hall, in the ser-
vice of the defendant, from March, 1807, till July,
1808. She remembered Mrs. Parr's coming there,
in April last ; and that the defendant came there while
she was there. When the defendant was there, Mrs.
Parr did not sleep in the nursery with her children,
as usual ; but with the defendant. Mrs. Parr was
still at the Hall when the witness left it.
Mr. Daltry, a Solicitor at Liverpool, said, that the
Defendant always lived in the first style at Liver-
pool; and had a very handsome establishment in
Gloucester-place, London, where Mrs. Benson and
her children lived.
Upon his cross-examination, he said he had heard
that the Defendant and his wife were separated.
Mr. GARROW then addressed the Jury at length,
ea behalf of the Defendant, urging particularly the
failure of the Plaintiff's evidence to prove that his
madness arose from his wife's infidelity, he having
hell afflicted with that misfortune long before his
marriage; and the contradictory evidence by which his
Leamed Friend attempted to account for the delay in
enraging this action, and for its being at last brought
In London . no se
r. Edward Parr having asserted that
he had not evidence of the criminal connection till
near Michaelmas Term last, and that the servant, who
saer the connection, having asserted that she told Ks.
Ward Parr of it in his presence as early as July.
--The Learned Counsel admitted the criminal con-
iihnectto but urged in mitigation, or, in fact, of an-
uation of damages, that he should prove the Plain-
to have been almost the pander of his wife's dis-
Pace ; for, in addition to all the familiarities that
ilaci been already
proved to have passed between the
turf wife and the Defendant, the Learned Cottle-
.