Star.
London, England, 1801-02-21 00:00:00

MOORE v. DEADY.

This was an aCtion for Cr:minal Converfation,
and the circumftances of this cafe were fo grofs,
that it is extremely difficult to defcribe them with-
out giving offence to modeft ears.
Mr. MINGAY, in an excellent moral fpcech,
opened the Plaintiff's cafe, in the courfe of which
he obferved, that the Plaintiff was originally a
Servant to a Gentleman of the name of Barnet,
in Bedfordfliire;—he was his Butler and Game-
keeper ;—and the Defendant is Abroad Cooper to
Meux and Co. eminent Brewers. The Plaintiff
married an extremely beautiful young. woman, a
Farmer's daughter, at Bigglefwade in Bedford-
fhire, with whom he received soot. After their
marriage, which was in 1796, they immediately
came to London, and kept a public-houfe. 'the
Plaintiff had his beer of Mein, and Co. by which
means the Defendant having occafion to vifit the
Plaintiff, had an opportunity of becoming ac-
quainted with Mrs. Moore. The Plaintiff and
his Wife kept the King and QLicen Public-houfe,
in Peen Ann-Rivet EA. He afterwards failed,
and ten became a Porter, and now he is locked
up in jail by Mr. Deady, the Defendant,for money
which he owes for beer. The Defendant lives in
great !kyle, and keeps his carriage ; has falary is
near zoool. per annum.
The Learned Connfel obferved, that there was
a great variety of fhades in this aCtion. Some
cafes demanded the mofl exemplary damages,
others required only moderate damages ; and
there were cafes where a Plaintiff, from the in-
famy of his own conduit, had no right at all to
prefent himfelf in a Court of Juftice. The Gen.
tlemen of the Jury would decide under which of
there cafes the prefent ought to be chafed.
The marriage of the Plaintiff and his Wife was
proved. It alto appeared from the evidence that
fince this anion was brought, the Plaintiff and his
Wife were teen together, in the company of feveral
other perfons, drinking porter—and there was no
vifible alteration in the (late of connubial love and
happinefs that had taken place between them—
they appeared to be in as good humour as ever.
A lady of the name of Diana Lenton laid, that
the and her male friend had lodged in the fame
houfe with the Plaintiff and his Wife, at No. 436,
Oxford-ltreet. She lodged in the adjoining room,
and had heard the Defendant fay to the Plaintiff's
Wife, when he was from home, that if the would
leave her hulband he would fettle sod. a year
upon her: the at the fame time heard Mrs. Moore
make an appointment to meet him at a houfe in
Chandos-lireet. She heard dillinetly what was Paid,
as the partition between them was only of wainfcot.
[Thlt Witnels was dreffed in one of Mrs. Moore's
gowns, and had teen her this morning. There
was no doubt about the adultery.]
It alfo appeared in evidence that the Plaintiff,
I his wife, and child, were all very lately in a fpung-
Ilitig-houfe in Shire-lane. It was alfo Rated that
the Defendant was a married man at the time the
ads of criminal converfation with the Plaintiff's
I Wife were committed, though he is now a widower.
Mr. ERSKINE made a Ihort fpeech on the part
of the defendant, in which ltr contended that the
Plaintiff's own conduct had been fo infamous that
he had no right to come into a Court a!atice to
complain of his injury. The very jot of this ac-
tion was the lots of the comfort, happinefs, and
fociety, which was the &mak union and the
fruits of it. When the jury confidered the fads
of this cafe, they mull lee, on the ffighteft atten-
tion, that they went not in mitigation of damages,
but in dettration of this infamous aftion.

The Loin CHIEF' JvsTlc► having been informed
the Plaintiff wits in jail, humanely recommended
the withdrawing of a Juror, in confequcnce of
which each of the parties would have paid their
own coils. Both Plaintiff and Defendant had al-
ready fo much demerit that be hardly km:w how
to deal between them.

Some perfon (neither the Learned Counfcl, nor
the Attorney for the I)efendant? was abtierd
enough to infifl that the caufe thou d proceed ; in
conftiquence of this Mr. Erfkine celled a !mber
of witneires, who diklofed loch :t &lie, of gm's
immoral condo& as we have very rarely witneffed
in a Court of jullicc. It appeared, among mans.
other things, that the Plaintiff, immediately Atier
his marriage, and after he got hi.. zeal. cattle to
London to look out fora public-houl^,ancl the firll
place in which he was fotia.l was in the Lcd of a
camas haricot.

• • •
Another witncfs fwore, that tilt Plaintiff...J.4;a
that it Deady had not t-L•ft.fed to fop ply him with
more beer, by which he had lo!! his fituation,
he would not have taker. any notice of his con-
neSion with his wife. He did Lot care a d—n
for her or what the did. P...7t as the Defendant
had turned hire out of his fituation, he would
trounce him. h alto appeared that Mrs. Moore,
in the pretence of her htefteaud, made alli;nations
with other men to ,rreet them at particular
places, and canduCled hula* ;awards them with
as much indecency as it was poll:ble tbr the mod
abandoned profti:ute to do. A Breve7' in giving
his ..aidcnce, faid fur ina, as a girt-
•tier's
Lord KENYON of,Ccryed that this s' as a
gulling hitlory to the ears of moral m: u. iiome.
things were tbunded on the etern Il pint:inks of
troth and juftice, and tabulate of mind. and that
it was impotllble tha: (-tka could appear through
any medium different from what i: was. Ile ail:ed
Mr. Mingay if he had the leatl profpcet of obtain-
ing. •a verdict ?
Mr. MING AY, in reply, oW:Tred, that a more
infamous cattle he never heard in the whole courfe
of his exillence. If a man would permit ltu wife to
make him acuckold he could notcomplain of it. He
thought his language p,..rfiftly adapted male cafe.
The Defendant availing himfe!l of his tituation;
and teeing this poor devil in the way to ruin, de-
bauched his wits. Said the li!arred Counfel, the
is to be pitied. In rags and in mifery this fellow
has now abandoned her, and has the audacity to
come into this Court—[he was prefent during the
whole trial, till the eyes of the audience were fixed
upon him, when his confidence deferted him, and
he retired]—to hear the hiftory of that miterl and
&firth of which he was the author—rolling in his
chariot in thefe times, but who in former and
more virtuous times; would have been rolled is
the kennel. He did nut w.th to twitt the law t 3
obtain a verdiet. They would hear the law laid
down by the noble and learned Judge, from
whom he and every body would receive it, as it
became them, with ?cried deference.
Lord KENYON, in his excellent Addrefs to the
Jury told them they were the judges of this cafe,
which like all others mutt be decided according to
the evidence. The (tort' that had been told was
very naufeous to modeft ears, and wounding to
the feelings of all moral and religious men. Being
'there, however, it mull be difp‘ifed of according
to the laws of the land ; and it was eltablithed (if
any thing was eflablithed) that if a man himfell
adminiltertd to the debauchery of his wife, he
thould not be permitted to come into a Court of
Jutlice and complain that he had been injured.
His Lordflaip laid, if he had to decide on the grofs
demerits and infamous conduit of the Defendan't,
he 'tmid think he ought to pay large damages,
and he walled that tbefe pat tiesrone and all of
them, were puniihed. But the tingle queltion•
here for the decifion of the Jury was, what this
Plaintiff had a right to demand in a Couit•Of
Jultice by the laws of this land ? It would be A
refleOlon on all laws. to permit fuck a. Plaintiff to
feek and recover damages. His Lordthip direfted
the attention of the Jury to the leading features
of this cafe, and Paid he was lure their =lds would
revolt at fuels an infamous Plaintiff prefenting
him-
felf in a Court of Juttice. He took it to be clear,
that by the law of the land the Defendant was en-
titled to their verdift, and therefore advifed them
to find for the Defendant.—Virsta for Defendant.