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

generally going out with her visitor, but frequently returning
alone. This practice, however, was not limited to the time
of her hurried trips to Bristol by railway, for while she regu-
larly resided there it was shown that she pursued the same
plan, on most occasions of her husband being away from
home for any length of time, and to a more limited extent,
when she knew he was only at his office and would return
home in the course of a few hours. Another of the witnesses
who was in the plaintiff's service as coachman, gave it in
evidence that on one particular occasion, when he had to,
drive his master into the country, his mistress asked him at
what hour Mr. Clark was to come back. He could not exactly
inform her of the hour, but said he thought it would beabout
ten o'clock ; and he further stated that he had frequently
received directions to take Mrs. Clark up in the carriage at a
greengrocer's shop in Bristol, kept by a person of the name
of Dowling, and whose house was some ten minutes' walk
from her own house, but not more than a hundred yards from
the defendant's residence. The nurse and parlour-maid at
length decided on informing the plaintiff's brother, Mr.
Henry Clark, of what had occurred when they returned
home from their stay at Weston. Upon being informed of
these circumstances, he sought an interview with Mrs. Clark,
but was at first refused, though she afterwards received
him in the afternoon of the same day in
her bed-room. Another interview was had between
them the next day ; and in three or four days she
quitted her home, and went to her sister's residence at
N ewport."llester4tlre parlour-maid, accompanied her thither,
not only by her mistress's own earnest desire (as she declared
in giving her evidence), but by that of the plaintiff's
brother, with whom she was to communicate with regard to
what occurred during her stay with Mrs. Clark at Newport.
At first, however, there existed some doubt as to what the
nature of this communication between them was to be, as it
at one time appeared that it was to be in case there was any
money wanted, as it was desired that the lady should be
comfortable. But, in cross-examination, this servant admit-
ted that she was to write to Mr. H. Clark all concerning the
conduct and proceeding of her mistress ; though in re-exami-
nation she declared that she had not intended to act the spy,
and that the only letter she had forwarded him had pre-
viously to being posted been shown to Mrs. Clark herself.
As that lady and her sister, however, did not agree very
well, she soon left Newport, proceeding to Chepstow, and
then to Gloucester, and, after staying some little time at
each of these places, to London, where she remained for a
while at the Bull-and-Mouth. Nobody received her in the
metropolis, and the servant then returned to Bristol, and re-
entered Mr. Clark's service.
Such is a general statement of the purport of the evidence
given on behalf of the plaintiff's case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the jury for the
plaintiff, and entered into a detailed account of the cir-
cumstances under which the cases was brought before them ;
and having concluded his speech, the following witnesses
were called :
Elizabeth Jones—Was servant to the plaintiff in the year
1842, and afterwards in 1844, when they resided at Bristol.
During the first period of service she knew the defendant as
being the partner of Mr. Henry Clark, the plaintiff's bro-
ther. lie used often to visit Mr. and Mrs. Clark, she thought
as a medical man. During the second period he was a con-
stant visitor, and generally came when plaintiff was out. He
always used to go up stairs by himself, which no other
visitor ever did. He used to let himself out, which was
also unusual. When other visitors were going, the bell was
always rung for her (witness) to show them out. She re-
membered his calling on the 6th of June, 1844. On that oc-

casion he was shown into the library, and Mrs. Clark met
him there. After they had been together a little while
witness heard the door either locked or bolted, and the win-
dow-blind pulled down. This excited her suspicions, and she
went into the pantry, which was under the library, where
she got upon the dresser to listen to what was going on in
the room above. She heard the noise of feet, as if some one
was walking towards the sofa, and then a noise, as if two
Hpersons were on the sofa. She then called to Elizabeth
ertford, her fellow-servant, who did not come to her imme-
diately, and when she did come the noise had ceased. Soon
after this witness heard the door unlocked, and, almost at
the same moment, Mr. Clark came home.
Hester Bevan, examined by Mr. Burr—P entered the ser-
vice of Mr. and Mrs. Clark on the 18th of February, 1845,
and lam in Mr. Clark's service now. I recollect Mr. Duns-
ford frequently calling to see Mrs. Clark. On one occasion
after he had gene the sofa was very much tumbled. I saw
my mistress afterwards, and she appeared confused. In
the spring the baby was vaccinated. In the week of
the vaccination the library was freshly arranged, and the
sofa was taken into it out of the dining-room. The
library was arranged on the Tuesday, and the vaccina-
tion took place on the Friday. Mr. Dunsford called
on the Friday. I showed him into the library, and the
child was brought to him almost immediately. In about
10 minutes afterwards the baby was taken away. Mr.
Dunsford and my mistress remained in the library together
for nearly three hours afterwards. My master was out of
town. The defendant called again on the Friday following.
My mistress went into the library, and the child was taken
in there also, with a basin and a towel. The child was
hardly in the room ten minutes. The defendant said to
Mrs. Clark when he came in, " Make haste and bring the
child, as I have a great deal to say to you." He came at a
quarter before three o'block and left at a quarter before seven.
He let himself out when he went away. While he was in the
library with my mistress I went to the door and listened. I
heard Mr. Dunsford say, " If I do love you better than any
other woman in the world, you need not say so. You
say to me, 'be cautious, be cautious,' and yet you your-
self say things that lead people to suspect.' Mr. Duns-
ford charged her with something she had said to some
one, and she wished to known what it was. He said,
"Well, shall I tell it you just as I heard it ?" She
said " Yes." At that moment the bell rung, and I went to
answer the door. Two ladies came to the door, and I told
them, as I had been directed, that my mistress was engaged.
While I was listening at the library door, I heard the de-
fendant kiss Mrs. Clark. I saw the defendant go out, and I
immediately went up to Mrs. Clark, and asked her whether
she would not take something, as she had had nothing but
her breakfast that day. Her face was remarkably red, and
she did not look up, but smoothed her hair with her bands
when she spoke to me. That was the last time Mr. Duns-
ford came to Berkeley-square. About a week afterwards
the Misses Kirkby came on a visit. In August last the
family went to Weston-super-Mare. Mr. Clark came every
evening to Weston, and returned in the morning to Bristol,
except on the occasions when he went to Exeter. While the
family were at Weston, Mrs. Clark went to Bristol three
times, I went to Bristol on the second of those occasions.
Miss Kirby went with us. We arrived at Bristol in the
evening. On the following day my mistress went out with
Miss Kirkby, and remained out all day. On the third day
we returned to Weston. While at Weston my mistress went
many times to the post-office. There was a boy who took
letters to the post-office from the plaintiff's house. My mas-
ter was in Bristol when the family returned from Weston,
and he left the next day. Mr. Henry Clark came up to the
house the day after my master left, and spoke to me. lie
saw Mrs. Clark in her bed-room on that day. He had called
before, but by mistress would not see him. I went with Mrs.
Clark afterwards to Newport.
Elizabeth Hertford, fellow-servant of the former witness,
gave evidence as to the suspicions which had been excited
in her mind by various circumstances.
Mr. Henry Clark, the plaintiff's brother, spoke to a con-
versation subsequent to the commencement of this action, in
which defendant said, " Joseph and Potiphar's wife has been
acted over to the life ;" and added, that five words from him
would have ruined Mrs. Clark.

Maria Withers examined—ls sister to a Mrs. Needes, who
keeps a lodging-house, No. 17, Norfolk-street, Bath.
In July, 1844, her sister left Bath for a time, leaving the
house in her care. During her sister's absence, a gentle-
man called upon her, and represented that he was secretly
married, that he wished it to remain a secret, and that he
wanted lodgings in Bath. He called himself Mr. Lisle.
After this she wrote to her sister about it, and on receiving
an answer, she desired her nephew, a lad named Kinchen, to
write to Mr. Lisle, to tell him that his terms were
accepted. She knew his address, which was at the
British and Foreign Hotel, Hanover. square, London, from a
letter which she had received from him. (This letter was
produced in Court, but the part which contained the address
had been cut away.) After this Mr. Lisle came several
times to sleep at her sister's house. He used to come at
night and remain till the next evening. On sash occasion
he said, in the morning, that he expected Mrs. Lisle, and a
lady came at about tea o'clock. She remained each time till'
four, when she went away alone, and at about nine he went
away also. He never slept there two successive nights.
'1 hey met there four times.

Mrs.; Needes, and George Kinchen, her nephew, corroborated
the above statement. The three witnesses had seen Mr.
Dunsford and Mrs. Clark at Bath, and identified them as the
lady and gentleman whom they had known as Mr. and Mrs.
Lisle. The servant of the house was also examined, and
said that on one occasion Mr. Lisle had not slept there the
night before, and the bed was not disturbed during the time
he and Mrs. Lisle slept there. On the three other
occasions he had slept there, and the bed had been left un-
made by his wish, so that it was tumbled before Mrs. Lisle
came, and she could not say whether it had been used while
she was there. This witness had also identified the defen-
dant and Mrs. Clark.

Joseph Hall, a police-officer at Bath, had taken the four
last witnesses to Mr. Dunsford's and :Mr. Clark's: house, in
order to identify the persons. On stating his object to the
defendant, the latter said, " What is done cannot be
helped."
The above-named witnesses having been examined, evi-
dence was given with respect to the marriage settlement.
The deed itself was put in, and proved by the attorney who
had prepared it and witnessed its signature. Evidence was
also adduced of a notice that had been served upon the
trustees under it. It appeared that in this deed it was a
condition that 5,0001. should be in trust for the sole use and
benefit of Mrs. Clark ; and, further, certain property she
would inherit from her grandmother and mother, the interest
arising from which was to be duly paid over to her for her
sole use and benefit, by the before-mentioned trustees, :on
receipts bearing her own signature. There was, however, a
proviso, to the effect that this interest should not be paid over
to her until she had formally demanded the payment of it,
and notice had been regularly served upon the trustees. It
was accordingly now proved that the payments had been de-
manded in due form since Mrs. Clark bad quitted her husband's
house. _

The evidence for the plaintiff (of which the above presents
the material portions) having been concluded,
Sir THOMAS WILDE addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant, and contended that they could not, upon the evi-
dence as it now stood, come to a conclusion adverse to his
client. He submitted that there was no direct or clear, satis-
, factory or by any means conclusive proof of adultery having
been committed by the defendant and the plaintiff's wife.
Even if they were disposed to place entire reliance upon
all that had been given in evidence by the witnesses
which had been adduced in support of the case on the
other side, lie did not believe that it could be held that more
than a case, he admitted, of great suspicion had been esta-
blished by the witnesses. That, however, would not be suf-
ficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict at their hands ;
and still lees would he be entitled to it upon testimony, of
such a very doubtful and improbable nature as they had
heard that day. Upon such evidence no one who was stand-
ing at the bar of a criminal court could be found guilty; and
he contended that a similar doctrine should be applied
to such a case as the present. Before they received such
testimony with anything approaching credence, they ought
well to consider its value and probability. They ought to
exercise the utmost caution before they so received it. It
would, he admitted, be impossible and useless to deny that
great and suspicious intimacy had existed between Mrs.
Clark and his client, or that there had been no improper
familiarities between them. It was most probable that
such had taken place ; but a far more decided conviction
must be entertained before a verdict could be given for the
plaintiff. He contended that there was no reason to come
to the positive conclusion that this intimacy and those fami-
tmliw.airetitetenidelbhhyea dtpbbaereitin.e scarriedand that
ut hutaloe
unless
tsandtebu lastadultery r yw
were
eat do really
clearlycri in
establishedibi eae been ycobme--
anwo
arld'eerddibetimfo.r the
But pelvaeinntlffftcboeuljdurybewerreetusarntiesdfieodrtbdartba
were sufficient grounds for sucfhuranvoetrbdinicgt,
bheeysounbdmaitltoewd that
s
this was a case that called
trifling amount of damages. Little would compensate the
plaintiff ffilly, for, regarding matters in the most unfavour-
able light, his loss could not be looked upon as heavy. After
commenting on the evidence that had beenleaavdidnugeetabeboenfoerse.
ttihoenmi, tlntibeeLarnbeandeadofSethrgee
jury, being
bneciplugdeaadsburyed
they
would,
ac.

cording to the best of their judgment, do justice between the
pacties, and meet the merits of the case.
d e nTchei-4 'Tlecal yGEantdheenleaprrloyceledaidedatlol
itss muatpertihale eviefoi74
por-
tions
b :he
• 4 been used by Counsel, his Lordship said
rnceadrejfuulDl
le jury. In the course of some remarks upon
crguments that ha_ . the inadequacy
that much might be in:,..11"." on respecting
- instances such as the present.
of pecuniary compensation in _of this nature, many ob-
As was usually the case in actions , Lueffisisan7 oY any
nervations had been made as to the tote- ._ a husband
amount of pecuniary compensation to soon' the
wounded feelings; or to satisfy his injured honour, ~.71
sufferings he must endure under such circumstances. The
law, however, had awarded no other than a money compen-
sation in all such cases; and, notwithstanding all that might
be alleged against its adequacy, it would be extremely diffi-
cult to point out any other remedy that would be mere satis-
factory and efficacious. The jury, therefore, would new only
have to decide whether the plaintiff, under the circumstances
of this case, judging from the evidence that had been laid
before them, was entitled to any compensation, and if so, to
what amount they should award it to meet the merits. They
must measure the damages by the value of what the plaintiff
had lost through the conduct of the defendant, that had de-
prived him of a wife, and his children of a mother. It would be
for them to estimate the extent of the injury the plaintiff had
sustained, and to give damages (if they were agreed that da-
mages should be given) in accordance with that estimation.
In coming to a decision as to the amount to be awarded, they
must take into their consideration all the facts ; for, in such in-
stances, much depended upon the character of the wife seduced,
the manner in which the husband had ever behaved towards
her, and various other circumstances that gave each case a
distinctive character, and made all the difference between
the extremes of the hitherto virtuous wife who was se-
duced, and the wanton profligate woman, who with head-
long passion threw herself into the arms of the adulterer.
As regarded the nature of the injury inflicted, it was cer-
tainly difficult, indeed, to imagine any one that would be
more afflicting to a man who had fulfill:cl the duties of a
good husband and a kind father, and who was happy in
his reminiscences of the past, the enjoyments of the present,
and the bright and cheering prospects of the future, than the
seduction of the partner of his wedded life, once chaste and
virtuous, and the blight upon the condition of his children,
deprived under such painful circumstances of the care and
love of their once devoted mother. If, however, on the
other hand, a man had allied himself to a woman of free
and capricious manners, of immodest deportment, and
wanton lascivious disposition, it would certainly be his mis-
fortune to have espoused such a female, but it could scarcely
be considered a misfortune to lose her. In such a case too,
a plaintiff could scarcely be held entitled to any con-
siderable amount of damages, even if any beyond a mere
nominal sum, by way of compensation for the loss lie
had endured by her abandoning him. It would be there-
fore for the jury to decide where in their opinion the present
case stood, and at what distance from the one extreme or
the other. If they gave credence to the testimony of the
witnesses they had heard in the course of the cause, he
thought they could entertain no reasonable doubt that there
had been acts of adultery. If so, the plaintiff had been, by
the defendant, deprived of the society of her, who was at
once his wife and the mother of his children ; and it would he
for them to estimate the loss the plaintiff had thus sustained,
and to give damages accordingly. In the course of the pro-
ceedings they had heard that the defendant had spoken
slightingly of the virtue of the plaintiff's wife, and that he
had said something about the story of Joseph and the wife of
Potiphar being acted over again. tie (Mr. Justice Creeswell)
had, however, observed that, from the beginning to the
end of the evidence that had been adduced, not a single
question had been put to any witness with a view of casting
a slur upon the manners or life of Mrs. Clark, or seeking to
impugn her virtue prior to her acquaintance with the de-
fendant. There was nothing either to show that her con-
duct had been light, or that she had first sought the de-
fendant, and had not been seduced by him. The law did not
in such cases seek to punish the offender, but merely to give
the injured party, the plaintiff, compensation for the loss he
had sustained in losing the society of his wife. The degree
of the defendant's guilt was an important matter of investi-
gation and consideration for this latter purpose. The blacker
his transgression, the greater must of necessity be the injury
sustained by the husband, arid' consequently the larger the
amount of damages to which the latter would be entitled.
It must be so, inasmuch as the more serious the guilt of the
seducer, the more subtle the artifices to which he had re-
course to attain his purpose, the more deep laid the plans by
which he at last succeeded in triumphing over the virtue
of the once spotless wife, the higher must originally have
been her value to her husband, and the higher also ought to
be the amount awarded him by way of compensation, as far
as the law allowed compensation to be made him for the loss
he had sustained. The wife, however, who, on the other
hand, yielded readily to any man who chose to approach
with a guilty purpose and solicit her, could never have been
of much worth or value, to her husband; and the easiness
of the adulterer's triumph might be taken, therefore, as a
measure of the rate at which she was justly and truly to be
esteemed. The jury must, in fact, look to the particular cir-
cumstances of the case, and decide upon the evidence they
had heard what would meet its merits.

The jury, at the conclusion of the Learned Judge's obser-
vations, retired to consider their verdict; and, after being
out of Court rather better than half an hour, returned with
ono for the plaintiff—Damages, 5,000/.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Dec. 3.
THE PIRACY AND MURDER CASE.

Sir J. DopsoN (in continuation from our Afternoon Edition
of yesterday) said—lt was urged on the other side, that the
capture was not made in accordance with the instructions is-
sued to the Royal Navy under the treaties; but it must be re-
membered that these instructions were altered when the
convention of 1830 was agreed to, and for his part he thought
the seizure in question in no way violated them. He ad-
mitted that this country had no right to punish these pri-
soners as pirates at all, but it had the right of capturing a
vessel suspected to be engaged in the slave-trade for exami-
nation, and if the crew of such vessel committed an offence
after such capture, they rendered themselves amenable to
the laws of this country. That was the case here, and
therefore he contended that this country, having a right to
capture, and the capture itself having been properly effected,
the prisoners had laid themselves open to the vengeance of the
English laws by the murder of Mr. Palmer subsequent to
the seizure of the Felicidade. In a time of war it often
occurred that neutral vessels were captured, but he had yet
to learn that the crews of those vessels, following out the
argument of his Learned Friend on the other side, had a
right to disregard the privileges of the British flag, and
murder the whole or any of their captors to recover their
vessel. It was objected that the Echo was not captured by
a lieutenant in her Majesty's Royal Navy, or by a vessel
having certain instructions on board. Now he should con-
tend that the Echo was captured by a jolly-boat of the
Wasp, acting under the directions of Lieutenant Stupart,
commander of the Wasp, but before the capture could be
made by the jolly-boat, the Echo struck, and how it could
be objected that this was not a capture effected by a vessel
in the Royal Navy, he could not for the life of him under-
stand ; but of this he was confident, that the mode in
which the Echo was captured could be no justification
for the murder of Mr. Palmer. He submitted, in
conclusion, that both the Echo and the Felicidade
were lawfully captured by a British vessel in the
Royal Navy, and being then under the control of the British
flag, any offence committed on board of either, whether by
an Englishman or a Brazilian, against the municipal law of
England, rendered the offender liable to be dealt with and
punished by those laws.
Dr. ADAMS replied, reminding the Court that his Learned
Friend, throughout the whole of his address, had been contend-
ing that the country had a general right of visitation. Now
he maintained, that in a time of peace it had not, except by
especial contract entered into with a foreign nation whose
vessels were to be searched, and unless the conditions of
that compact were strictly complied with, no right of visi-
tation existed. That was the case in this instance, and he
humbly submitted that their Lordships' decision ought to be
in favour of the prisoners.
Dr. lIARDING also replied, and the Court adjourned shortly
after five o'clock.

ARCHES' COURT, Dec. 3.
(Before Sir 11. Jr:pun:ft Fun.)

JUDGMENT.-.-THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE
BISHOP OF LINCOLN v. THE ItEV. JOHN DAY.
This was a proceeding by letters of request, against the
Rev. John Day, clerk, rector of the rectory of Hawridge,
for the reformation of his manners and excesses. The suit

was in pursuance of the provisions of the Church Discipline
Act, and as it has proceedel throughout in pEcnam (the rev.
defendant not having appeared to the citation), the articles
exhibited, were, on a previous court-day, read seriatim, as
well as the evidence brought forward in support of them.
Counsel were then heard in support of the validity of the
charges, and, as total deprivation of the living enjoyed by
Mr. Day was asked fur, the Court took time to consider the
case in extenso.

The principal articles exhibited against the Rev. Mr. Day
were to the following effect:—
" We article and object to you the said Wrn. Day, that at
all times in and during two years previous to the eornmence-
niont of this suit (save from on or about the 7th day of July,
1843, to the 9th March, 1844), during which time you were
a prisoner in her Majesty's gaol at Aylesbury, in the county
of Buckinghamshire, you have addicted yourself to habitual
excesses.

"Also we article and object to you, the said Wm. Day,
that there did exist concerning you scandal and evil report
as having offended against the laws ecclesiastical, in the
several matters hereinbefore particularly articled, objected,
and set forth against you. And we further article
and object to you that by reason, and in con-
sequence of such scandal and evil report, and under and by
virtue of an Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 3d
and 4th years of the reign of her present Majesty, entitled
An Act for better enforcing Church Discipline,' the
Lord Bishop of Lincoln did think fit of his own mere motion

to issue a commission under his baud and seal, bearing date
the 14th day of September, 1844, to five persons, one of
whom was the Rev. John Rd. Clerk, Vicar of Ivanhoe, in
the said county of Buckingham and diocese of Lincoln, and
a rural Dean within the said diocese, fur the purpose of
making inquiry as to the grounds of such scandal and evil re-
port concerning you, as having offended against the laws ec-
clesiastical by having addicted yourself to habitual excesses.
That when such proceedings had been closed, one of the said
Commissioners, after due consideration of the depositions
taken before them, openly and publicly declared the unani-
mous opinion of the said Commissioners, that there was suf-
ficient prima facie ground for instituting further proceed-
ings; that the said Commissioners transmitted to the said
Bishop, under their hands and seals, the depositions of the
witnesses taken before them ' • and also a report of the una-
nimous opinion of the said five Commissioners, that there
were sufficient prima facie grounds for instituting further
proceedings against you, and that such report is filed in the
registry of the said diocese of Lincoln."
There were other articles. The concluding ones prayed
that the said William Day be duly and canonically corrected
and punished according to the exigency of the law, and
also be condemned in the costs of this suit,
Sir 11. JENXER Fusr, at very considerable length, ex-
pressed his opinion upon the case. The articles exhibited
were referred to by the • Judge, and he held that the mate-
rial charges were proved. Referring to previous cases of
the kind, and cited in argument, he (Sir 11. J. Fust) was not
disposed to hold that this was a proceeding in which depri-
vation was called for. The Court thought, however, that a
suspension of three years froin the emoluments of the living
would be sufficient.

The sentence of three years' deprivation, with costs, was
ordered to be entered in the registry.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 3.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FoNswgulc.)
IN RE FRANCIS COPLAND, AN INSOLVENT.

The insolvent in this case, who was better known as Col.
Copland, and who was some time since deeply mixed up in
the affairs of Margaret Edmonds, of St. James's-place, and
Lord Huntingtower, came up to-day for his final order.
Mr. JAMES, who with Mr. Sturgeon appeared for the in-
solvent, said that a difficulty arose upon the last appearance
of the bankrupt before the Court, inasmuch as the certificate
of a former bankruptcy of Colonel Copland was not produced.
It was then held by an attorney who had a lien upon it, but
had since been given up, and thereby obviated tho opposition
then raised by Mr. Valiance against the insolvent.
Mr. VALLANCE said that he had certainly opposed the in-
solvent upon his lastappeikrance before the Court, both in rela-
tion to hie " commission, and the evidence which he had

~..~,.