Star.
London, England, 1824-07-24 00:00:00

By a Juror—They went to France in 1815, jtut after the battle
el Waterloo.

Colonel MiDonald—l know Sir James Erskine ; I
Was upon his Staff in 1803 or 1804. Sir James is now 1
Lieutenant-General—the same rank as Sir George
Murray, who is also Lieutenant-General of the Ord-
nance, second in rank under the Duke of Wellington.
was the only Officer attached to his Staff when he
commanded at Mallow; I used then to dine with him
three or four times a week. They appeared remarkably
happy. I was afterwards attached to Sir James in
Scotland, in 1809, jitst before the Peninsular war com-
menced; I went to Spain with him, and returned with
him when we found Lady L. at Kingston.
Mr. James Morey, brother-in-law to Sir James Er-
skine, gave similar evidence as to the affection which ex-
isted between the parties, which lie had many opportu-
nities of observing.
Sir Robert Wilson deposed, that the attachment of Sir
James and Lady Louisa was the longest passionate at-
tachment. after marriage, he ever knew.
Adam Crawford sworn.—l was bred up in the Erskine
family. I was in Sir James's service from 1813 to the
end of 1816. first as groom, then as house-servant. I
never saw two so loving to one another as they were be-
fdre they went to Paris. I quitted his service at Brussels,
tieciusehe said be was going back to Paris. I wad afraid
of Lady Erskine and Sir George Murray. I had seen
something between them not very proper. They stopped
at the Hotel d'ireland. There was a correspondence
kept up at Paris between Sir George and Lady Louisa.
It was carried on through a lacquer de place named Au-
guste. Letters were given to Lady Louisa by afemnse-
de-dicta:6re. I remember one day in particular) in the
winter time, Sir James was out about pictures. I saw
Sir George at the hciuse. It was I let him in. I was,
sent out for some asparagus. If that was the season for
asparagus, I could not 'find any. (A laugh.) I was
about an hour away. 'On my return I found Sir George
Still there. When Sir George was going away, he had
her by the hand, but seeing me he drew her into a back
place out of my view, and then went out by another
door. If sht was reluctant to go with him, she was
laughing. r Lavghter.,l 1 went to Spa with Sir James ;
we were stopped on the road toSpa by a lacquey, with
a letter to Lady Louisa. It was given to the maid. I
did not see the address. I know of letters having been
put into the post-office at Brussels,diretted to Sir George,
in Lady Louisa's hand-writing. I saw them in the
inald's hand. I saw her bring back letters in Sir G.
Hurray's hand-writing. I was afraid to inform the
Plaintiff of what I saw, because I knew his temper too,
weil, and his love for her, and I fearel he would have
taken a pistol and shot me.
Cross-examined by the Arroaxer-Getteitat —I know Mis. An-
tustine, Lady Louisa's maid. I was on as good terms whit her as
anYb^dY else. I did not know that she had a child. I was not
afriid of meeting that little child. I never heard it said that I was
the father of that child. I was afraid to tell Sir James what I had
seen, for I believe he would have shot me. I once said to Sir James,
when sitting beside hint on the dickey. that I thought he would be
.utter at home than here. Ile did not seem to suspect what I
ti,eant: he only said he could not live at home as well as here. I
was afraid to go on.
Re-examined by Mr. Thodraimat.—Sit James did not take up my
trot on the dickey in the light I meant, and I did net carry it farther.
John George Schriener, a Frenchman, examined
elfough the medium of an interpreter.—Was lacquey de
,piace to Sir James Erskine in 1815; continued in his
set vice nut quite three months; always went widi the
carriage when Lady Louisa went out with it; there was
a !louse where her L p went to regularly every day.
—Knew a person that Lady Louisa met there; it was
ky-u:r.il Murray ; tiler generally went there at one

b'clock,aad topped till the time for dinner,betweert jobr
and five; remembered being there while Lady Louisa was
visiting there, and Sir James Erskine called, and was
obliged to wait a quarter of an hour in the anti-cham-
ber. At the moment Sir James Erskine came, a noise
was beard of different doors shutting, as if some persons
were going out, and then Sir James was allowed to
enter; Lady Louisa came out a little confused, but very
much like as usual, by the usual door of the house;
saw nobody else leave the house on that occasion ; Lady
Louisa was always alone when she came out, except
when Sir J. Erskine's sister was with her.
Cross.examined : Other persons visited the house In question
beside Lady Louisa and General Murray; those others were ladies
as well as Gentlemen. Lady Louisa's carriage waked for her in
the court-yard. Miss Erskine was living at the same Hotel with
Lady Louisa; she visited the house in question with Lady Louisa
very often.
Jean Baptiste Cologne also gave his evidence through
the medium of an interpreter: Was servant in a house
in La Rue d'Anjou. Saw Lady Louisa Erskine at that
house; and also General Murray ; saw them very often
there; they were in the drawing-room. If there hap-
pened to be anybody in the drawing-room, they some-
times went into the bed-room. Recollected Sir James
Erskine tailing, when Lady Louisa and General Mur-
ray were there, but he was not received immediately,
but there was a great neowoement (laughter). It seemed
that many.Rarties were going out of doors. There was
a sort of confusion of persons going in and out. Did
not see what became of General Murray and Lady
Louisa. Sir James Erskine and General Murray did
not see each other on that occasion. There was a way
to go out of the house through the garden, without
coming through the door. Other persons visited the
house, English and French ; a great many persons of
distinction ; company went into the bed-room as well
as the sitting room ; this was common in France.
Miss Erskine, sister to Sir James, gave evidence as
to the affection between the parties until they went to
France, when she perceived a change.
Sir Robert Wilson was re-examined, as to an inter-
view he had with Sir George Murray on the supposed
clandestine correspondence with Lady Louisa.
The ATTO4MY-GBNERAL submitted, that the best
way to prove this part of the case would be, to put in
Sir Robert Wilson's letter.

Mr. BROUGHAM said, be was about to do so. The let-
ter was then handed in, and Sir R. Wilson was requested
to read it. It was to the following effect :
" In pursuance of your wish, I have seen Sir George Murray,
and having stared the object of my visit, I have the satisfaction of
informing you, that all my hopes have been confirmed. Sir George
has stated, that no letter which, from habits of friendship, might
have passed between him and the party alluded to, was of such a
nature as might not have been communicated to you in the melt
unreserved mittuter. He added, that any degree of reserve which,
might have characterised his former letter to you, was to be ascribed
to the equivocal manner in which your own communication was
made. A sense of duty towards you, however, as well as to the
other individual interested, called upon him unreservedly and posi-
tively to state. that there was not the slightest ground for imagin-
ing that a trespass of the nature referred to ever took place. I
have only to add my conviction, that no explanation could have
been more satisfactory, and I have therefore to toren, that you
will dismiss the subject of correspondence entirely from your mind,
and that you will bury all impressions on so painful a topic in the
tomb of oblivion."

To this letter there was a postscript, which he (Sir
Robert Wilson) said he had added with the view of re.
moving all doubt from Sir James Erskine 's mind. It
was to this effect:

" Sir George Murray's explanation was made in the most frank,
candid, and unreserved manner, and was such u to Telieve my mind
from every possible suspicion of there being any ground for the
impression which you seem to have received."
There was a second letter read, which was that sent
by Sir George Murray, in answer to the letter originally
sent to him by Sir James Erskine ; it was dated the
25th of January, 1819. In this letter Sir Gtorge stated,
that there was not the slightest ground for the surmises
entertained by Sir James, and declared that no inter-
course had taken place between him and Lady Louisa,
which was in the slightest degree injurious to Sir
James's honour, or to that of the Lady herself.
Jane Rob—My mother kept a lodging-house at Dumblane ; it I.
a watering-place; Lady Louisa came there in June, 1819, and a
friend came about a month afterwards ; they lived together about
ten days or a fortnight; and had separate bed-rooms.
Isabella Rady—l remember Lady Louisa coming to Mrs. Rob's
house ; about a month after a Gentleman came, breakfasted, dined,
and was altogether with Lady Louisa ; he slept on the same floor
with Lady Louisa.
Peter Sterling—l was servant to Mrs. Rob. I recollect seeing
them pass where I was at work, and they went and sat down on
the side of a quarry, the most convenient they could find if they
intended to go into the quarry; the quarry is a place where a per-
son might see for a considerable distance and not be seen. I never
saw any third person with them. I saw them for eight or ten days
walking out together. _ _ _

---- Duncan, clerk to the plaintiff's attorney—l went to a
house, No.ll, Old Burlington-street. I saw a Gentleman come
out. I pointed him out to the witnesses, who recognised hint as
Sir George Murray.
Mary Brailsford—l was at Matlock in 1820; recollect Lady
Louisa Entine coming there, as also Sir George Murray ; they
dined in a private apartment. I stayed at Brampton fourteen
months; Sir G. Murray bred with Lady L. part of the time. Sir
G. and Lady L. slept on the same floor. When company was in-
vited, Sir G. seldom made his appearance; when any of the Paget
family came, Sir George did not appear. I had scen him in the
house just before, and at the time they were there, Sir George's
bed-room door has been locked.

Susan Creswell—l lived servant in Erie's-court; Sir George
Murray and Lady Louisa Erskine came to live there ; Sir George
would hide himself when any of the Paget family came; they left
in Alava, 1692. _ _

Charlotte Hastings—/ was at Finchley in 1822 ; I was In the
service of Sir George and Lady L. She was confined there, and
had a daughter ; they went under the name of Mr.sand Mrs. Evans.
I am the daughter of the nurse, who nursed Mrs. Evan's child.
Mr. Murray called by Mr. Deutranass—l made a cortunuoica-
don to Sir James, and I only regret that I was the unfortunate
person who made tyre tommunication—it had such an effect on his
mind. Sir JeMet it this time knew of the adultery.
The ATTORNET-GIINZRAL now addressed the Jury in
Mitigation of damages. He felt as much as his Learned Friend did
for the distress felt by all the connections of the parties, and he
could not help thinking a little more caution was requisite on the
part of Sir James Erskine. When I tome to direct your attention
to the more particular part of this ease, I shall satisfy you in the
defence I now urge. Sir George Murray began life with a small
property, notwithstanding the high rank to Stitkit he has risen.
Four hundred pounds s-year alone entitles Mm to sit in Parliament,
and beyond this be has merely his Menthe from military promo-
tions : Sir J. Erskine is a branch of the noblest families in Scotland.
In 1793, the parties now litigating were merely companions in'
arms; if his Learned Friend had stated that aid friends in arms had
broken in rashly on their friendship, he had stated that which was
no a ha in the case. Urns their arrival In Paris, a new scene
opened to their view. You may, Gentlemen, easily imagine that
1 a Noble Marquis, who had distinguished himself under the Duke
of Wellington, being their thief visitant, the defendant could
not have been the original aggressor; it might have been possi-
ble to say that the fascinations of his client, Sir George Murray
might have bad effect on the charms of Lady Louisa, which
were by no means of a trilling degree, and quite capable of snaking
impressions so Sir George Murray ; that a correspondence was car-
ried on, be would Dot dispute; but be would say, and defy that the
Jury could for a moment, upon this evidence, stigmatise the gallant
Officer whom be represented with a criminal intercourse in Paris ;
no such thing could ever have taken place; and even when Sir James
, Erskine alter this beard the rumour, be lent a deaf esr'to it, and
said it was impossible; be therefore evidently did not credit the
eid 31a crusts report. No fair inference can be drawn upon such vague
encet-evislence upon which it was impossible the Jury could
st anytbirg t., his client (Sir George Murray). The name of the
h ,91s, in Faris Is:sionrued Friend had candidly withheld, but the

Jury could draw nothing froth the tatiyyrho
.kept it; slue wu a
Lady bt high respectability, alsitied by all foreigners of distinction,
and Englishmen of rank, and to infer Sir George Murray visited It
in common with other Gentlemen of distinction, and met Lady
Louisa Murray there, because a criminal intercourse existed--the
Jury could not act upon such evidence ; it was too vague, too weak
to build upon. And he (the Attorney.Gencral) would have the
Jury listen to what Sir Robert Wilson had said, that even when he
held the (commission, in 1619, he had not the slightest doubt Upon
the honour' and integrity 'of Sir George Murray, and tlfat he firmly
believed Sir George Murras's declaration. He know that Miss
Erskine had endeavoured to give a colour to the transaction at Spa,
but that they ocnupied separate apartments at Spa was clear beyond
all question of doubt ; and the irritation that existed in Sir James
Erskine there could not have been occasioned by Sir George Mur-
ray. The Jury would recollect that Sir George Murray did not
return to England tin 1819 and between that time and 1815 no cor-
respondence took plaoe; ilia yet where were the parties ? Sir James
and Lady Louisa Erskine were found sleeping in separate beds, meet-
ing only together at dinner in the presence of a third person.—
This clearly proves that Sir George Murray could not have been
the person who had thus alienated the affections of Lady Louisa,
who was even after this left at Torry, and Sir James went to reside
at Edinburgh, and Lady Louisa was brought to London by Mr. 11.
Paget, her brother, when found so described. If ever there was a
case less tainted with auravafion, he never saw it. He would with
these observations leave the case in the hands of the J,iry ; and
more competent persons he should not have found, to act upon the
whole bearings of it for justice. You cannot suppose Sir James
Erskine wants to put money in his pocket? No ; this is a pro-
ceeding to let a divorce take place in the House of Lords, and for
this purpose is the present inquiry. It cannot be to fill the pockets
of a branch of so noble a family. This is not done to enhance the
damages, but to give the Jury a fair opportunity of investigation.
The room was cleared, and after half an hour the Jury found
their verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Al/42,500.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 23.