The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-04 00:00:00

This action (in which the damages were laid at 10,00010
was, as above stated, brought by the plaintiff, to recover com-
pensatiogjn damages for the injury he had sustained through
the defendant having had criminal conversation with his
wife, and having at last induced her to quit her husband's
house. The plaintiff, Mr. Clark, is a solicitor carrying on
business at Bristol, where the defendant also resides, prac-
tising his profession as a medical man, in which quality he
had been in the habit of visiting the family of the former
gentleman. Mr. Dunsford, it appeared, was a friend (as well
as formerly the partner) of Mr. Henry Clark, the plaintiff's
brother, by whom he was originally introduced to the plain-
tiff's family, and which he had occasionally attended pro-
fessionally, besides being always admitted on terms of the
ctoeeset intimacy. Under these combined circumstances,
it might be easily imagined that the defendant had the
freest and most unsuspected access to the house
of the plaintiff. It further appeared that Mr. and
Mrs. Clark had always lived together on terms of
affection and mutual confidence. The husband was
especially kind and considerate in his manner and con-
duct towards his wife, always conducting himself towards
her with the utmost tenderness; end the lady had recipro-
cated such treatment, and exhibited a like demeanour towards
her husband (according to the testimony of servants and
others who had possessed ample opportunity of observing all
hat occurred in the family) until some time after Mr. Duns-
ford was introduced into the house. It was then noticed that
she often betrayed towards Mr. Clark signs of diminished
affection, and occasional sullenness. According to the testi-
mony of some of the female servants who were examined in
support of the plaintiff's case, and who deposed to this pet-
? Witless and altered manner on the part of Mrs. Clark, they
were chiefly shown while the family were at the dinner-
table. Thus, for instance, it was alleged that she would
sometimes give no answer at all to questions or observations
made by her husband. One of the servants, Hester Bevan, who
was a material witness in the cause, further stated that the
sullenness she meant was principally shown by her mistress
not answering the question as to what she would prefer
being helped to at dinner. It, however, appeared by the
evidence that she always was helped to hat she liked, not-
withstanding her giving no answer on the subject. Mr.
henry Clark, the brother of the plaintiff, too, deposing as
to the pettishness and sullen manner of his sister-in-law,
said, that shortly after the time it was probable the relations
between Mrs. Clark and Mr. Dunsford had become intimate,
there no longer appeared to be the same svmpathy and cor-
diality between the husband and wife as "formerly, and that
she seemed estranged from him' and to live in less commu-
nion with him. This had not been seen in her manner pre-
viously. She moreover, began thereafter to display towards
him an unwonted degree of coldness and reserve, entirely
differing from her demeanour previously to the unfortunate
introduction of Mr. Dunsford into the family circle. still,
notwithstanding this obvious change on her part, it was
shown that her husband's manners towards, and treatment
of his wife, ever remained the same, and that he'was always
kind, considerate, and affectionate in his demeanour, towards
her. There was a young family, the fruit of this marriage,
and Mr. Clark was proved to have been, not only a good hus-
band, but likewise:a tender and attached father. When the
visits made by the defendant to the house had become more
frequent, as was the case sometime after the first intimacy
commenced, they werathe eubject of repeated remark by
the plaintiff's servantikeanetit was, observed (and the cir-
cumstance added to the.,other grounds for suspicion in their
minds) that those visits everw,either made when thel plain-
tiff was away from Bristol, tor away, from his home, and
known to be engaged tat his -office, and likely to remain
there for some time. Anothgr subject of
*suspicion, as to
the nature and object of the defendant's visits to Mrs.
Clark, was the character of the Orders always given to her
servants by the lady herself, when Mr. Dunsford was ex-
pected to come. On such occasions directions were always
issued by her that no one was to be admitted during his stay
at the house, and that she was, in fact, "at home" to no one
while he was there. Again, his visits were extremely long,
and his departure was made in the quietest possible manner,
sothat often those in the house were not aware when or how
he left. Though, however, these visits of Mr. Dunsford to
bk. Clark's house were es protracted in their duration,
they were but few in number, and long intervals elapsed be-
tween them. On the occasion of the first one, deposed to by
one of the servants, Hester Bevan, she stated in her evidence
that her mistress, previously to the defendant's arrival, told
her that she expected a gentleman to visit her that day, and
that during his stay no one was to be admitted, and that,
on his arrival, he was to be shown into the drawing-
room, and no one was to intrude while he remained. Three
specific occasions were deposed to; and on each of them the
defendant was stated by the witnesses to have remained
several hours in company with Mrs. Clark alone. It was
each time some three or four hours at the least that they were
together, except on the last occasion of his calling at the
plaintiff's house, when his visit was even more protracted.
arious circumstances too were spoken of in connexion with
those visits, that were alleged to render them still more sus-
pieious in their nature and object. Thus, when he was about
to leave the house, the room bell was not rung for the ser-
vants to come up and open the door, as was the custom with
all other visitors; but he left without any announcement to
the servants, opening the street-door himself, and departing
in this manner, without making any one in the house aware
of it. The servants, who respectively acted in the establish-
ment in the capacities of nurse, cook, and palour• made, gave
evidence to the above effect, as regarded the visits of the de-
fendant to Mrs. Clark, during her husband's absence ; and two
of the three were shown to be in the service of the latter at
the present time. Another important portion of the evidence
adduced in support of the case, was that respecting the„visits
made by Mrs. Clark away from her home, in the absence of
tier husband. On several occasions it was proved that the
lady left her house at an early hour of the morning, remain-
ing out on those days some six, seven, or eight hours, and
not returning till late in the afternoon. A further fact
deposed to by the witnesses as an additional proof of the
criminality of the parties, notwithstanding the absence of
Ay very decided testimony of criminal acts themselves,
was that of Mr. Dunsford having, under a feigned name,
taken lodgings in the city of Bath. At those lodgings
it was shown he was in the habit of receiving the visits
of a lady, to whom he asserted he had been privately mar-
ried, although circumstances prevented their acknowledg-
ing that marriage openly. Those visits were paid at long
intervals; and it waeof course sought, in support of the
plaintiff's case, to lead the jury to the conclusion that the
lady so visiting the defendant was no other than Mrs.
Clark, as any of the railway trains would convey her from
Bristol to Bath in little more than a quarter of an hour or
twenty minutes—thus affording plenty of time for her to be
some hours with Mr. Dunsford at his apartments in Bath,
out of the six or seven hours, she was sometimes absent from
home. With respect to the three visits made by the defend-
ant to the plaintiff's house, while the plaintiff himself was
absent, the second was, that concerning which there was the
most important and comprehensive evidence, as to the crimi-
nality of the parties. Regarding the first of these three "calls,"
it only appeared that Mr. Dunsford prolonged his stay in the
•sociefi., of Mrs. Clark for severalthours, and that the parlour-
maid, when she went into the drawing-room, where they had
been sitting, after his departure, observed that the sofa was
much tossed, and the cover crumpled, while Mrs. Clark ap-
prred excited and confused in her manner upon the ser-
leant entering the apartment. Several days elapsed be-
tween that and the next visit of the defendant to the plain-
tiff's house. During that interval changes were made in the
arrangement of the furniture in the library and drawing-
room. From the latter, various chimney ornaments, &c.
were removed, and placed in the library. From the dining-
room, too, a sofa was taken and placed also in the library,
-the same directiens being given to the servants as before
respecting the gentleman who was expected to come. Upon
his arrival, at this second visit, he was shown into the library,
according to the directions given by Mrs. Clark. That lady,
upon his arrival, was, according to the evidence of the par-
lour-n aid, Hester Bevan (who was the principal witness in
the case) in her bed-room. The instant, however, the fact of
Mr. Dunsfoord having come was announced to her, she rushed
down stairs to the library to meet him ; and the nurse was
shortly afterwards ordered to bring down the baby that had
been gut recently vaccinated, when the defendant operated on
the arm, so as to allow the matter to escape from the pustules.
A very few minutes, however, sufficed for this • and the nurse
then went into the garden with the child. The windows of
the library looked upon these grounds; and the nurse deposed
that, on looking up at the room she saw the blinds drawn
half down ; and her suspicions were at once aroused as to
the proceedings between her mistress and the defendant.
bhe immediately went into the house and told her thoughts
to !tester Bevan, one of her fellow-servants, and they both
decided that it would be well to watch. The latter, accord-
ingly, went close to the library-door, and listened at the key-
hole, in order to discover, if possible, the nature of what was
passing within. With all her ettbrts she could discover
nothing; lint, in her testimony, she positively stated that she
diet ireify heard a kiss given, and that she moreover heard the
defendant say to her mistress—" If I do love you better than
any woman in the world, why need you speak of it? You
saw" to rise, be cautious, be cautious, while you yourself say
things that must make us the objects of suspicion." Mrs.
Clark thereupon asked, " Why, what did I say ?" And the
defendant replied, " I will tell you. I will tell you as I heard
At." Before there was time, however, the servant, who was
.eagerly listening at the door to hear more of this conversation,
there wag a loud ring at the hall-hell, and she was obliged to
se down stairs to answer it. Two ladies had called to visit the
mistress of the house, and they asked the maid if Mrs. Clark
was within ? She answered that she was at home, but was en-
aiaged. Thereupon the ladies departed, and the witness
fleeter Bevan at once betook herself to the pantry, that was
situated directly beneath the library. There she stayed,
according to her own representation, for more than a couple
of hours, during which time she heard the defendant walk
atress the room, and afterwards heard a great scuttling of
feeL Shortly before the defendant that day departed, she
Ifeard him open the door for the purpose, as she imagined,
of ,
oking into the passage, and seeing that the coast was
clear.
the She looked out at the time, and from the place out-
asideoupantry she saw him in a minute or two subsequently
spate out of the room and opening the hall-door himself,
leave the house. She could not say she heard any lock
-turned or bolt
wen the defendant first opened the
lihrery door ;
w" simply opened, and did not seem to
lave been fastened.
Clarkirectly lie had left she went into the
:room to ask Mrs.whether she wished for any refresh-
Tnent, as she hajnot rung for her breakfast that morning, and
bed, in fact, erten nothing that day, though it was, by the
tiro the servant entered the library,quite evening. Upon her
asking her mistress this question, the latter thanked her, and
ordered a poached egg and some bacon with her tea. With
regard to the lady's demeanour at tl time, the wit-
awes stated that it was very
confused, and thatin her mis-
trestrs face was very red ; that she -did not look
rwitness'si.
face while she spoke, but continued smoothing
ba
en and f!tiaacclieri
with her hand, by thet means shadinghaerreacyteos
from observation. The sofa again appeared
di sturl,ed and crushed ; and it was evident, the witness
added, that it had been lain upon. A third visit was after-
wards paid by the defendant to Mrs. Clark, also while her
husband was away from home ; and on that occasion another
child, who had some affection of the throat at the time, was
brought down from the nursery to be seen by Mr. Dunsford.
It was in the room about ten minutes, but the interview
lasted es usual, for hours between the defendant and the
plaintiff's wife. In the month of August two of the servants,
the nurse and Hester, the parlour-maid, went with the fa-
mily to Weston-super-Mare, not many miles from Bristol ;
and the plaintiff was there all the time with his wife and
children, except upon a few occasions, when he had to go
to txeter. Mrs. C., it appears, was all this time receiving
letters ; but they were not sent like the rest to the house,
being fetched by herself from the post-office (about a quarter
of a mile from where they lived). Upon the occasions of her
husband's absence she tool/ the opportunity of leaving Wes-
ton and travelling to Britoil the railway. She remained
several of these occasions away for a day or more, being
lacumme
,171,71:,ey one of the servants and by a lady of the
Kirkby, who was on a visit to her at the time. She
usually led the house at an early hour of the day, and did
not return until five in the afternoon, and sometimes later,