The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-28 00:00:00

THE. SUN, LONDON,'

- -ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
CORK, March 23.
(Before Baron LE!ROY and a Special Jury.)
CRIM. CON.—HAWKES U. PENROSE.
Mr. JENKINS opened the pleadings. This was an ac-
tion taken by the plaintiff, John Hawke q, against the
defendant, Samuel Devonshire Penrose. The declara-
tion contained a count of trespass for the; seduction of
plaintiff's wife by the defendant. Damages were laid at
10,000/. The defendant had suffered judgment to go by
default, and therefore it would rest with a Jury of the
Sheriff of the county of Cork to assess the amount of
damages. 4
The Right Hon. D. R. PICOT stated the case. He
said—Gentleman of the Jury, my client, Mr. Hawkes, is
yet in early manhood ; the defendant is somewhat his
Junior, though not much. The young lady upon whom
Mr. Hawkes first fixed his affections was a very young
girl when he married her, and she is still a youthful
woman ; and I shall just briefly state to you the cir-
cumstances under which their connection commenced,
and to which their attachment led—the enjoyment that
followed their marriage ; and then it will be for you
to form some estimate of the extent of the injury my
client had sustained, and for which he now asks repara-
tion. Mr. Hawkes, before he attained his majority, was
left a moderate but competent fortune—competent at
least in reference to the circle in which he moved.
Ancient I believe his family is—respectable it was and
is. They resided in the neigbourhoood of a place called
Nettleville, in which neighbourhood there also resided a
gentleman who had long been intimate with Mr.
Hawkes's family, and who, upon the approach of my
client to manhood was the father of aninteresting family,
and amongst others, of the lady who subsequently be-
came the wife of the plaintiff. Mr. Hawkes and she
contracted an early acquaintance. They knew each other
for years—had become possessed of a thorough knowledge
of each other's tempers, habits, and inclinations. In the
year 1829, when Mr. Hawkes was then only 20 years of
age, and thisyoung lady,Fanny, only sixteen or seventeen,
a mutual attachmenthad sprung up between them, which
was sanctioned by their parents and it was agreed that
they should be wedded, and wedded they accordingly were
in the year 1829. Mr. Hawkes was at that time the
absolute owner of a property amounting to about I,IOOL
a year, and when he was about to be married he settled
upon this lady who was to be his future wife, an annuity
of nearly one-third of his whole property. They were
married in November, 1829, and immediately took up
their residence at his mansion at Kilcrea, where they
continued to reside until the occurrence of the transac-
tion which has led to this proceeding. Mr. Hawkes re-
sided at his house at Kilcrea for eleven years after his
marriage, in the enjoyment of uninterrupted domestic
fel:city. During that period his wife bore him three
children, the eldest of whom at the time of the unhappy
event I am about to detail to you was about eleven years
old. It will be proved to you by the evidence that the
attachment on the part of Mr. Hawkes fin his wife was
of the very strongest and warmest nature. Gentlemen,
when I was first engaged in this case, I asked for any
letters that might have passed between Mr. Hawkes and
his wife during those temporary separations which fre-
quently take place between husband and wife, and during
which, the letters that pass • between them would in-
dicate the terms of cordiality, or the contrary, upon
which they live ; but what was my surprise when I was
told there were none ? I asked why, and what think
you, gentlemen, was the reply ? It was this, and it will
be proved to you in evidence that, for the eleven years
that Mr. Hawkes and his lady were married, up to the
time of this most deplorable transaction, she had not six
times slept away from her husband. That, gentlemen,
at once accounts for the 'absence of the correspondence
I looked for. Gentlemen of the jury, I will now introduce
to you another person, and tell you how it is that the de-
fendant in this action has given rise to the complaint
which I am now laying before you. Mr. Samuel Penrose,
the defendant, resided in the neighbourhood of Mr.
Hawkes, and was his near relative. They were cousins-
german. Their residences were within half a mile of
each other. From their earliest infancy the strictest
intimacy subsisted between the plaintiff and defen-
dant ; they were the early playmates of each other, and
their fathers were close and fast friends. It will ap-
pear in evidence that the intimacy and friendship
subsisting between my client and the defendant was
much more like that of members of the same family than
friends of the same social circle. If there is a being on
this earth whom Mr. Hawkes could suppose incapable, by
whom he would say it was impossible could be inflicted
this deadly wound on his peace and home, that indivi-
dual was Mr. Penrose ; and let me here frankly and
candidly say, that in all the conduct of Mr. Penrose, ex-
cept in this unhappy invasion of my client's happiness,
not the slightest cause on his part had been given to
create a different sentiment in the mind of Mr. Hawkes.
At what time the attempt was first made by the defen-
dant to accomplish the ruin of this lady's virtue my un-
happy client does not know, and one of the miseries of
this case is that the man whose happiness has thus been
blasted cannot tell when his confidence was first abused
—when it was that it was first broken,--when the man
warmly confided in first became false. Therefore you
see, gentlemen, I am not in a position to say
when the defendant commenced his assaults on this
lady's virtue ; bat that they must have had
their beginning in some period of the year 1840
there is too great reason to believe. Gentlemen, I be-
lieve I need hardly tell you, that nothing short of actual
demonstration of guilt would have been received as
proof by a man who had been so attached to his wife,
and so confiding in his friend ; and when the elopement
was no longer matter of dispute or doubt, Mr.Hawkes was
not only unaware of the loss of his wife's purity and at-
tachment, but it absolutely came like a thunderbolt upon
him when he heard that she had eloped, and who was
the adulterer. And yet we are in this position, that we
know not but at the very time Mr. Penrose was the visit-
ing and cherished guest and tried friend of Mr. Hawkes,
while he was, day after day, received with all the warmth
of friendship, he was poisoning the virtue of this lady,
and seducing her affections from her husband. It will
appear in evidence, that in the year 1840 the defendant
was observed to be in Mr. Hawkes's house during that
gentleman's temporary absence ; to retire from the
house, not by the front door, but by a back entrance, at
a time that my client was expected home, and -to re-
appear again at the -front door. and then salute the
plaintiff and his lads-, as if that was their first meet-
ing and salutation of 'the morning. That circumstance
alone proves that while every confidence was reposed in
the defendant by my client, his seduction of his wife
was' not a deliberate or a solitary act, but a series of
them—plain to every one who now hears my statement,
that at the very time when the defendant was most
trusted and confided in by my client, he was carrying
on a clandestine intercourse with his wife. Some time
in the year 1840, Mr. George Hawkes was out enjoying
the sports of the field, and received a gun shot wound,
and the defendant was ' staying at' Rilcrea at the time,
and I very much fear that it is but too prObable he took
• occasion of his friend's absence and'infferings to alienate
his wife's affections and seduce her virtue. About the
month of May, 1841, the guilty pair appear to have
made up their minds to elope. In that month Mrs.
Hawkes intimated to her husband that she was
about to take advantage of an invitation she had
received from her husband's brother to spend some
time with him in Cavan, and she decided upon
going there. Mr. Hawkes was then about going to
Kerry, and it was arranged that his wife should pro-
ce3d with his brother to Cavan, and at the expiration of
his visit to Kerry he would go to meet her. The de-
fendant, having been previously apprised of Mrs.
Hawkes's arrangements for this journey, proceeded at
the very same time to Dublin, where he had resolved to
await her arrival. On the 7th of May, 1841, she and
her husband's brother arrived in Dublin, and stopped at
Morrison's Hotel. Upon tbeir arrival there, she corn-
- plained of being fatigued, 'requested her companion to
amuse himself in any way be pleased for the evening,
and that she would go to bed, and the young gentleman
accordingly went to the theatre. On his return to the
hotel, he found that Mrs. Hawkes had left—that a gen-
tleman had 'called for her during his absence—that she
went out with him, taking with her whatever luggage she
had brought, and without leaving any explanation
whatever of the cause of her departure. Mr. H. Hawkes
was not aware that the defendant was in Dublin, and,
therefore, he was totally unable to say what had become
of the lady. However, he at once wrote to his brother an
announcement of 'what had happened, and it was very
shortly afterwards ascertained that the defendant had gone
to Dublin upon the very evening of the departure of
Mrs. Hawkes for that city—that this meeting had been
preconcocted and arranged between them, and that they
had,• in fact, eloped to England. To England they
went, and there they delayed for some time. What
further proceedings followed it is now totally unneces-
cessary for me to detail, because the defendant has suf-
fered judgment to go by default, and has admitted the act
of adultery, and therefore, all that is legally necessary
to state should now be laid before you. Gentlemen of
the Jury, whatever amount of reparation you may award
will be inadequate to the wound inflicted'; no compen-
sation that you can give will make reparation for it—
money cannotirepair the injury to the feelings of one
whose happiness has been destroyed for ever. But, Gentle-
men, though you cannot measure the amount of compensa-
tion, it is for you to consider the extent of guilt committed
—the amount of happiness blasted—what more we would
claim it is impossible for you to give. Gentlemen, the
amount of the defendant's property shall be shown to
you. I understand it is a fee-simple estate, unencum-
inteorfneefexuiapienbecliaryrteoanchdoimsinppdaeteispbietlineedwinenaatht
aaingentleman
unencum-
bered by a debt, and yielding about 1,0001. He lived
s hupone
meansareps ceae
we
nmt le e ma na
nd
of ample and adequate fortune. Gentlemen, this is the
case that we are prepared to lay before you, and I have
no doubt as to the result of what we shall obtain at
your hands.
Several witnesses were then examined, whose testis
mony did not materially differ from the statement of
counsel. One of the witnesses admitted that there were
rumours of an improper intimacy between plaintiff's wife
and defendant six months previous to the elopement.
Mr. BENNETT spoke to evidence. He (Mr. Bennett) did
not know that he need say much to the jury. This was
a case that depended upon evidence, and not upon law-
yers. The act of the defendant had been described by
Mr. Pigot as au act of unhappy indiscretion or a " yield-
ing to temptation," and he (Mr. Bennett) believed that
to be the truth. The ages of the parties he had
being enabled to ascertain from the witnesses were these,
that the plaintiff was now about thirty-five, and his wife
somewhat about the same age, and the defendant twenty-
six. This unfortunate occurrence took place about a
year age—so that then the plaintiff was about 25 years
old. It appeared that he lived on familiar terms with
the lady, and that they had been thrown a good deal
together, and left much in each other's society, until,
unfortunately for him, he at length yielded to a tempta-
tion that his nature no longer vvithstood, and he should
pay the consequences of it. But when the jury were
about to estimate the amount of damages they should in-
flict upon him, they should be actuated by no vindictive
feeling ; but to ask themselves, with a proper sense of
justice, what amount of damages they would give. He