The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-17 00:00:00

BOSANQUET V. GRAHAM.

In this case, which related to certain disputes between
the London and Westminster Bank and the South Western
Bank, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL applied on behalf of one
of the Shareholders of the South Western Bank, to set
aside the warrant of attorney which had been granted by
the defendant, acting as representative of the South
Western Bank, to the plaintiff, acting as representative
of the London and Westminster Bank, and to be allowed
to plead to the scire facias the same matters that would
have been pleaded to the original action. The ground
of the application was that the defendant who had given
the warrant of attorney had been acting under a wrong
appointment, inasmuch as he had not received his ap-
pointment until after the South Western Bank had
ceased to exist.—Rule nisi granted.
TEE QUEEN V. F. O'CONNOR AND ANOTHER.—CRIMINAL
INFORMATION.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL a few days since applied
to the Court for a criminal information against the above
defendants for the publication of a libel in the Northern
Star, reflecting on the character of the Rev. R. Anstie.
Mr. Justice WILLrAms this morning granted a rule nisi.
GRIM CON.---811RUBSOLE V. GARRATT.

This was an action brought by William Henry Shrub-
sole, against Daniel Garratt, to recover damages from
the defendant, for criminal conversation with the plain-
tiff's wife.

Mr. FORTESEVUE having opened the pleadings,
Mr. PETERSDORFF stated the case to the Jury, and
said that the plaintiff had been compelled to bring this
action to recover damages from the defendant for the
greatest injury that one man could inflict upon another,
the seduction of his wife. The plaintiff who was a most
respectable man, had, for sixteen years before his
marriage, been in the service of the Archbishop
of Armagh as valet, and his wife had also been
for some years previously in his Grace's service
as laundry-maid. They were married in the year 1835,
and shortly after their marriage had left his Grace's ser-
vice and had come to London, where, in April, 1841, the
plaintiff was keeping a respectable house, the York Min-
ster, in Audley-street. They had lived happily together
up to April, 1841, the time when the circumstance
occurred which was the cause of the present
action. They had been prosperous in life, and had a large
family, and until the 22d April, 1841, the plaintiff had
not entertained the least suspicion of his wife's fidelity.
The defendant, who he believed was a courier, had be-
come acquainted with defendant and his wife, had been
in the habit of visiting at the house as an intimate
friend, and had taken advantage of the opportunities
thus afforded him to effect the seduction of the plaintiff's
wife. Up to the 22d April, 1841, Mr. Shrubsole had
entertained no suspicion of his dishonour. On the even-
ing of that day the defendant Garratt came to plaintiff's
house. Mrs. Shrubsole had suggested to the plaintiff to
send the waiter home on that evening earlier than usual,
to which plaintiff had acceded. In the course of
the evening plaintiff had occasion to leave the bar to
attend to the business of the' house, and on his
return he found the defendant and Mrs. Shrubsole in a
situation which could leave no doubt as to their crimi-
nality. Mrs. Shrubsole rushed from the room, and
plaintiff immediately inflicted summary chastisement
,
on defendant, whose cries brought persons to
the bar, in whose presence plaintiff accused
him of the crime he had committed, w hen
defendant did not deny the truth of the accusation,
but only begged to be permitted to leave the house. Since
the action had been commenced, the attorney for the de-
fendant had served a notice on the plaintiff, in the
name of the plaintiff's wife, demanding a maintenance
during the continuance of the action, thus endeavouring
to make the husband instrumental, not only in maintain-
ing her, but her paramour also. He hoped the Jury
would not forget this conduct when they came to con-
sider the question of damages. The Learned Counsel
then called the following witnesses :
Susannah King—l am in the service of Lady Isabella
Bridges. I was in Armagh in 1835, living in the service
of the Archbishop. I know plaintiff and his wife, and
was present at their marriage in the New Church in Ar-
magh. I left Ireland the year after their marriage, and
have had no acquaintance with them since. Plaintiff had
been in the Archbishop's service eighteen years as valet,
and his wife had been in the service nine years. Plain-
tiff and his wife were Protestants.
Cross-examined by Mr. Flax—l know they were
Protestants because they attended the Protestant Church.
Robert Patterson, I am the proprietor of the Green
Man and Still in Oxford street. I have known defen-
dant 'a long time. He was footman and valet to the
Archbishop of Armagh. I saw plaintiff and his wife
about three or four years ago in London; they were
then carrying on business in Princes-street, Cavendish-
square, and afterwards went to the York Minster, in
North Audley-street. I have seen them occasionally
since, and, as far as my opportunities allowed me, I
should say they lived happily. I believe they have four
children living. Ido not know defendant.
By the COURT—I should say that at the time of the
marriage Mrs. Shrubsole was about 25 years of age, and
her husband about the same.
Wm. Latham—l was billiard marker in the service of
plaintiff on April 22d, last year. In the evening of that
day I saw defendant at plaintiff's house early
in the evening. 1 went up stairs, and hearing
a screeching at the bar I went down, and saw
defendant there. This was between twelve and one.
Plaintiff was giving him a good thrashing. Defendant's
dress was disordered. I asked what was the matter,
and plaintiff told me he had found his wife in an im-
proper situation with defendant. Defendant made no
observation, but desired, to be let out of the house. As
I was going down stairs, I met Mrs. Shrubsole coming
from the bar. Her cap was off, and her hair hanging
about her shoulders.
Cross-examined—l went to the billiard-room of
the plaintiff. Defendant had the appearance, during
the early part of the evening, of being fresh. When
I saw him afterwards, however, he did not appear
to be the least so. There were five persons
in the billiard-room when the altercation took place.
Some of them accompanied me. I did not hear Mrs.
Shrubsole say, " For God's sake, go down stairs, or
Shrubsole will murder Garratt." She said something,
but what I do not know.
Re-examined—Defendant is a valet, or travelling ser-
vant, and appeared to be very intimate at the house.
Mr. Shrubsole has five children living. Defendant is
about thirty-five years of age.
John Stourton—l was at plaintiff's on 22d April,
1841. I had been in the habit of using the house as a
customer. I was there the whole evening. I observed
Garratt ;in the parlour. Mrs. Shrubsole was in the bar.
I went up to the billiard-room, and shortly after twelve
o'clock 1 heard a disturbance, and came down stairs ;
Mrs. Shrubsole came out of the bar as I g6t to it, and
ran by me and went up stairs. I found plaintiff and de-
fendant in the bar. The witness then described the
state of theparties, in the same manner as the last witness.
CrOss-examined—Defendant did not seem under the
inflaence of liquor. In the early part of the night he
pretended to be asleep when I looked at him, but I am
sure he was not.

By the COURT—Shrubsole had been in the billiard-
room for some time, and had not been gone more than a
minute before this altercation took place.
Sophia Cooper—l lodged at plaintiff's at the time this
occurred. Mrs. Shrubsole knocked at my door between
twelve and one, and came into my room.
The remainder of the evidence of this witness, is unfit
for publication. It, however, left no doubt as to the
criminality of the parties.
Mr. LINDON, the attorney of the plaintiff, proved that
Mr. J. Sprogg, the attorney for the defendant, had
served a demand for maintainence from Mrs. Shrubsole
on her husband, dated 31st May, 1841, and entitled in
the cause of Shrubsole against Garrett.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Fail asked the Court if there were sufficient evi.
dente of the marriage.
Mr. Justice WILLIAms thought there was.
Mr. Fax then addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and contended that the evidence was not sufficient to
warrant a verdict for the plaintiff. A more improbable
case had never been presented to a jury. Could they
imagine that any man would choose the bar of a public-
house as a place for carrying on an adulterous inter-
course with a married woman when her husband
was in the house, and there were four or five
persons up stairs in the billiard-room ? -Would
Mrs. Shrubsole, had she been guilty, have gone up
stairs to request the people in the billiard-room
to come down--or would she have consented to the in-
vestigation instituted by Mrs. Cooper at the desire of the
plaintiff ? These were cases in which cogent evidence
was required to convict a defendant. Had they such.
evidence ? Now with regard to the pretended confes-
sion of the defendant, all that appeared was that when
soundly-thrashed and accused of adultery he held his tongue,
and was only desirous of being let out. The defendant's
version of the transaction was that he was at the time
labouring under the effects of liquor, that he had occa-
sion to retire, had not readjusted his dress so carefully as
he should have done had he been sober, and that on re-en-
tering the bar he met plaintiff, who immediately
attacked him. With regard to damages there was no
proof as to the terms which the parties had been living
together, and therefore the plaintiff could not be entitled
to any heavy damages, even if they should be of opinion
that he had been guilty of the act imputed to him.
One of the Jury asked if the parlour was , a distinct
room from the bar.

Mr. Justice WILLIAMS recalled the witness Latham,
who said the parlour was distinct from the bar, and was
separated from it by a boarded partition, so that persons
in the bar could not see what was going on in the parlour.
Mr. Justice WlLLimus having summed up,
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—Da-
mages 401.