Star.
London, England, 1802-12-23 00:00:00

ii" .
the t tiff firtl* be eli trint'isLi
then lintriniEhced'Atin ibßion.agaitikehe, defendant.
She was.prefiat at *Many' COTlVOrfatiois between
the defendant and her daughter, rerPs4ingi this
elopement, before it had aCtually taken/place:
Upon het crofs•examination the confeffed; that
for the year before this elopement the had not vi.
lited her daughter as frequently as formerly, and
that the reafon of making her vifits lefs frequent
was, that the found her daughter and her hnibatid
were not on comfortable terms; thealfo admitted
that (he never mentioned to the-Plaintiff the cir..
curnaance of the prize till the Defendant had re-
futed to pay it ; that the Defendant seas
.coufin to
Vra• Gin, stud that a filter of Lis alfo reticle& at
kis houfesin'Hoxion, it the time when Mrs. Gill
and het. childien were there, ' • (
James Stevenfon, a ftationer in Wiidnick-conrt,
Holboin, laid, that he had been a lung time inti.
'irately acquainted teith the' Plaintiff' and his wife;
that he freqtiently vitited them; anknever faw any
thing of family difpntes or diragreeinenti; that
after the elopernetit the 1114ntiff called upon Lira
is`a Rate of- rind almbft approaching diftraiftion ;
that,ln confequence of thiShe toot every pains to
diatrter‘ wberi the ,Plairitiff's wife wasi and at
length traded her to the Defzndant's houfe at
Hogan • • that-Upon remojaftrating with Mrs. Gill
and the befendant, and exprding a with that the
breach fhould be ,made npp between_ littOind Mrs. •
I Gill, the Defendant declared, that the thoula not
1 returnee the PlaintifPs broth, 16r thlit;f had tifcd
hcilioa brutally—but upon. birtg by,thp
,IVltnes tp fpecify any particular adt of bruttilitr,
!.be was not able to do it. This was the principal
evldeace.en the part of the Plaintiff.
Serjeant Saseneen Rated the cafe of the De.
fendant i he raid it was a cafe of the Perna im-
portance, nethe princire of it would determine;
"Plpothar, under soy c !coilances of hi-inti and
improper behaarinur in a hufband, a near relation
and I:lend might not Racket. his wife from his fury
and ill treatment ? In this 'cafe be fhoiild prove
that the Plaiatqf had, for a great length of time,
been guilty of the moll unfeeling and brutal conduet
towards his wife, that he had not only refalt,d her
eentforts and neceffaries at thofe titteesl*hen the
was molt in need of them, but that he had cruelly
beaten her at feveral times. That her leaving his
houfe was no handy or fudden tefolntion, but a de,
liberate aft, in confequence of his conltant ill treat.
I ment. • Tlipt in order to prevent the flighted itn.
potation on the charader of the Plaintiff's wife,
I the Defendint had prewiottily fent for his filler
[from her father's houfe at Varlingtfm, to reticle at
Moat= while Mrs. Gill chofe to make it her afyluin
—that nothing arirninal had ever paired between
the Defendant and the Plaintiff's wife, was con.
retied by the Plaintiff's Connie', and by the Plain.
tiff himrelf, who now lived with her. This being
the cafe, the firnple queftion was, whether a near
relation was not junified in giving an afylum to
Mrs. Gill, under the cirettmliances he thould prove'
in evidence .? Ifferelhe 'Learned Serjeant Rated,
at confiderable length, and with every Obferva.
don whlr.h would- atife Arum ftieh evidence, the
nature of the
,proof he thOulci ftibmit to the Jury.)
Aim Heinz, a Nurfe, who attended Mrs. Gill
at her three lyings in, faid, that her hufband, the
Plaintiff, always appeared extremely indifferent,
brutal, arid unftehng; that he hardly allowed
hei-thofe necelraries required by a woman in tl:at
fituation ; that he *cry IZldoei vifited her at thole
,times, and, when he did, talked in the molt un-
feeling manner ; that in particular, after her re.•
cond lying.in, when the 'was neatly in a dose, he
laid loudly her breaft mutt be cut off, shaft another
Surgeon' i job that l mu, be at the experiet of.
• FranEes Smith laid, that the had lived a con&
derable time with Mr. and Mrs. Gill as maid-fer-
vant ; that from the first the perceived her matter
was a very very bad tempered man; that he was never
fatisfied with any thing, but was always quarrel.
ling ; that he ufed generally to flaq out four or fire
nights in the week at the Free Mafonc' Tavern
till very late, and generally returned imsoxicated—
that he ufed frequently to call his wife by the molt
abufive names, and forpetimes beat her; the had
feen him beat his wife with his flit bath on the face I
and about the loins.; that in confequence• of this •
repeated and conflant ill-treatment, the fpoke of
his houfe a confiderable time before (he
actually kt it ; And that very loon after Mri. Gill
had left the houfe, the Plaintiff ufed indecent and •
improper liberties and familiarities to. this wieners.
Mies tlogg; filler to the Defendant, Paid, that
when Mrs. Gill came to her brother's houfe at
Horton, the had a revere mark on her breaft,which
proceeded (as the had been informed by her) from
the brutal ill treatment of her hufband.
Charles Warren, who lived next door to the
Plaintiff, laid that he had frequently heard at night
the (creams of Mrs. Gill, and ditlirialy heard her
callinf to her hufband not to ill treat her.
This was the principal evidence on the part of
the Defendant.

Tar; Wrici
It

Serjeant Cocan replied at great length, and
with conlidemble ingenuity and eloquence. He
endeavoured to imprefs the Jury with a perfuafion
that it mull have been in the contemplation of the
Defendant to (educe Mts. Gill from her hu(band's
houfe, fur the purpofe of ruining het virtue, and
Utterly deflroyrng the Plaintiff's happinefs.
Lord ALYANLIZY Paid, he could not fee the
ffightefl foundation for fuch an imputation, even
from the teflimony of the Plaintiff's own Wit.
sifis. The limple quellion was, whether or not
'Ow Defendant was juftifled in acting as he did,
*hen all the circumliances of the cafe were con.
&Wed
,'There were two Counts in the Plaintiff's declat
`ration, t ft, for (educing the Plaintiff's Wife from
the houfe of her holland ; 2d, for that the having
left his bottle without fifstint mule, he illegally
Ilarboured her. The Jury were the bell judges,
Whether, from the evidence, it appeared that e. t he'
of thofe Counts had been proved he cr
down no general rule or line upon this
every cafe of the kind mull rya on its
circumflances. His Lorthip then reed
to the Jury all the evidence which had been
mod commented on it with his ufual abilitt
\The Jury having retired for aboutlralft4
;brought a verdia for the Defeatism*, N'

Adel. I BMA
oultl lay
t fubjettl,
peculiar
verbatim
'en frivO.
It • :
!f.00.4..
•*!
—.ft.