Star.
London, England, 1830-09-30 00:00:00

PUNISHMENT OF ADULTERY IN THE NETHERLANDS.

MITZI. V. BARNWELL.
It must be fresh in the memories of our readers that the above
case was tried at the sittings after last Trinity Term, in the Court
of Common Pleas, Westminista, and a verdict given for the plain-
tiff, with 3,0001. damages. Subseauent to the trial, the defendant
left England foe the Continan, fa company with the plaintiff's
wife,after a temporary residence at Cab&proceeded and Ostend.
to Brume with an idea of making the place his permanent abode. As
soon as the plaintiff was informed of his having left iligland, he line
mediately proceeded to Calais, and there demanded satisfaction for the
injury he had sustained, offering to forego the advantages of the ver-
dict if the defendant would meet him, but he declined meeting him.
The plaintiff then pursued him to Ostend, and inflicted very severe
chastisement on the defendant, which, however, did not
reesi.dimntoalts duel, as he declined risking his personal safety upon
any terms. On the guilty parties salving at Itrusselte the plaintiff
applied to „the .Procursta- r du Red on the suirject, producing legalised
documents as, to his marriage, kn. , 17pcm this evidence the par-
ties had their passports taken away, and were committed to
prima to abide the event of a trial for the commission or
misdeal bathe Netherlands, or rather tee me continuation of crime in
that country. On the cause being heard Were the President and two
Judges of the Court Correctionnel at Mussels, the defendant and plain.
tiff's wife were escorted into Court by two gendarmes, and placed on
chain immediately facing ,the Judges. The plaintiffs Counsel then
examined the witnesses as to the crime of adultery having been corn.
mined at Ostend and other places in the Netherlands, and contended
with much ability, and at great length, that the trial and verdict in
England had no reference whatever to the proceedings then before the
Court, which was a criminal one, at the instance of the Procure= du
Roi, In which the wife was equally responsible with the adulterer. Mr.
Thornby, the plaintiff's attorney, fmni London, then explained to the
President and Judges, in the French language, the nature of the pro
ceedirgs in England, and that no divorce had yet been pronounced be.
tween the parties in this country. On the part of the defendants it was
urged that the plaintiff had already obtained satisfaction by the verdict
in England, and that it was absolutely n , according to the
Dutch law, to prove the fiegranle &lido before parties could be
pronounced guilty. After the cause had occupied the Court two entire
days, the President pronounced his judgment in the Dutch language to
the following effect—vie :—" That the defendant and Mrs. Masters be
each imprisoned in separate apartments in the prison of Brussels for six
months, pay $ fine of 600 florins, and all costs of prosecution."
This cause crested an intense interest at Brussels, from the fact that
there are in that city at this moment many persons similarly situated
with the defendant, several of whom were present in Court, heard the
judgment pronounced, and saw the guilty parties conveyed back to
prison' escorted by gendarmes. It is added, that, according to the law
of the Netherlands, the husband may, within twenty-four hours of the
sentence, claim the custody of his wife, and that he is authorised even
to take herby force, and prevent her associating with the defendant or
any other person.