The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-01 00:00:00

HABEAS CORPUS.

Mr. ROBE moved for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to bring
up the body of Wm. Atkinson, a bankrupt, on the cause of
his detainey, to be made returnable on the first seal before
next Terta.—Writ ordered.

The COURT proceeded with the part-heard motion of the
" Attorney-General v. the Corporation of Liverpool," to
dissolve an injunction.

The Lord Chancellor will not sit again.till Tuesday next.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

Mr. Tturst,orz, Mr. RosE, and Mr. BICKERSTRTH,
having been appointed King's Counsel, took their Nara ac-
cordingly within the Bar..

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Several causes were tried this morning, but none of the
slightest interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
CRIM. CON.
WALTER U. SAUNDERS.

Mr. WHITCOI/13 opened the pleadings..--This was an
action brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation in
damages from the defendant, for a criminal conversation
with the plaintiff's wife.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the plaintiff's case; his
Learned Friend bad already stated to the Jury the nature
of the action. The plaintiff was a person in very humble
circumstances, by trade a journeyman hatter. He was
brought up in the country, where he became acquainted
with the subject of the present action, to whom he
was married in 1819, at Stowmarket in Suffolk.—
The marriage took place with the consent of the families
at both sides, and in the presence of Mr. Kent, Mrs.
Walters father, and the parties commenced life with every
prospect of domestic happiness. Soon after his marriage
the plaintiff commenced business as a hatter in the coun-
try, but he afterwards came up to town, and entered into
the service of a Mr. Middleton. Upon coming to town he
took lodgings in St. John-street-road, and a respectable
lady, named Rawlins, introduced the defendant, who was a
surgeon, and he was soon after employed by the plaintiff
in his professional character. Mr. Rawlins was a married
man, and the father of a family, and it. could not be matter
of surprise that the plaintiff should not have har-
boured the remotest suspicion that he was that
deep, designing, intriguing character, which he afterwards
proved himself to be. About Michaelmas 1825, the plain-
tiff removed to Panton-street, Haymarket, where the de-
fendant still continued to attend as surgeon, and in June
in the same year, taking advantage of the temporary absence
of her husband on business,'Mrs. Walter eloped with thede
fondant. For some time her husband could learn no traces
of her, but at length she was discovered lodging at Bromp-
ton, and passing as the wife of the defendant, who had as-
sumed the name of Harwood. Witnesses would he pro-
duced who would prove that the plaintiff and his wife en-
joyed great domestic happiness until their acquaintance
with the defendant. It was true the plaintiff was in
humble circumstances, but no man suffered so much from
the loss of domestic happiness its a poor man, for what had
he that was so valuable as the tender assiduities of an af-
fectionate wife. In conclusion, he called upon the Jury
to give full compensation to the plaintiff, for an injury
which had been properly characterised as the greatest one
man could inflict on another. _ . _

John Kent examined, and said the plaintiff's wife is my
daughtir. I was present at their marriage; it was cele-
brated at a village near Stowmarket, on the Bth July,
1819. The plaintiff carried on business as a hatter at Ely,
and subsequently removed to London, where he conducted
business for Mr. Middleton. I was frequently in the habit
of seeing the parties after their marriage. They appeared
to be living very happily. My daughter always spoke of
her husband with the greatest respect and affection. The
plaintiff came on a visit to my house about last Whitsun-
tide. His wife soon after followed. I then observed a differ-
ence in their behaviour towards each other. They did not
appear to enjoy as much domestic happiness as they
had previously dent, and I told my daughter that I feared
she had bad advisers ; my daughter's name is Susan.
Mrs. Rawlins said--I lived in John-street-road, in 1825.
The plaintiff and his wife lodged with me and my son ;
they appeared to live on terms of great affection ; I believe
it was at my house the plaintiff first met the defendant Mr.
Saunders ; the defendant is a surgeon and a married man
with a family; the plaintiff has no family.
Mr. Middleton—l am a hatter ; the plaintiff came into
my service in 1822. He managed my business ; I fre-
quently had an opporttusity of seeing him and his wife, and
they appeared to live very happily together.
John Deacon—l live in Panton-street, Haymarket ; the
plaintiff and his wife came to lodge in my house; Mrs.
Walter left my house in the absence of her husband ; she
returned frequently afterwards to take away some things
which were left; I subsequently saw her at the house of
Mr. Arnold, in Brompton ; she was living under the pro-
tection of Mr. Saunders ; they passed under the name of
Mr. and Mrs. Harwood. Whilst the plaintiff and his
wife were lodging at my house Mr. Saunders attenied Mrs.
Walter in his professional equity.
Mr. John Arnold—l live at Michael-place, Brompton.
Mrs. Walter took my lodgings, she said for herself and
husband. Mrs. Walter took the lodgings under the name
of Harwood. Mr. Saunders passed for Mrs. Walter's
husband, and they occupied the same room.
Wm. Magness--I live at Pimlico. I know Mr. Saun-
ders. He lived at the corner of Duke-street, St. James's,
and kept a surgan's shop. He took lodgings at my house,
as Mr. Harwood. Mrs. Walter lived with him. They
lived as man and wife.
Aaron Blackman was produced to prove the hand-writing
of the defendant Saunders ; and a copy of verses, written
by him, were put in, which proved to be Moore's well
known song, commencing—" Fly from the world, oh
Bessy, to me," the defendant having substituted Susan,
which is Mrs. Walter's name, instead of the name chosen by
the Irish Anacreon.

The cue having closed, Chief Justice Brix addressed the
Jury. The evidence left no rational doubt that there had
been a criminal connection between the plaintiff's wife and
the defendant. The Jury were to consider, however, that
they did not sit there to popish the defendant, but to make
amends to the plaintiff, for the injury he sustained. The
defendant being a surgeon, was certainly an aggravation ; for
medical men were received into families upon different terms
from other male visitors, and if a medical man availed him-
self of those facilities to debauch a female, he was guilty of
a most scandalows breach of trust. Vordiet for the plain-
tiii.rrpooset 1501.