Star.
London, England, 1822-08-03 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

CRTM. COX.—YORK, JULY 31.
WARRELL O. SANDERSON.
Mr. SCARLETT stated, that the plaintiff, John War-
rell, Esq. a Lieutena:it in his Majesty's Navy, brought
his action against the defendant, William Sanderson,
who is a schoolmaster at Leeds, to recover a come
pensation in damages for the seduction of the plain-
tiff's wife. No damages were laid in the declaration,
because (observed the Learned Counsel) the damages
could best be measured by the injury sustained.
. The
Liarned Counsel prefaced his address by challengin. g
the most-vigilant -suspicion and jealousy of the cm-
cunastantial evidence which he should adduce. The
plaintiff (Lieutenant. Wariell),, after serving many
years as a Lieutenant in the Navy, and being disap-
pointed in hislinpes of promotion, had
.thought pro-
' peeto retire from the service upon a small independent
income, just sufficient to support Lim in the rank of
a Gentleman, to which he was entitled by birth, edu-
,cation, and profession. Prior to this, in the year
1800, he lived in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth,
where he became acquainted with the Lady whose
unfortunate alienation of connubial affections was the
subject of this action. She was the object of his ear-
liest love, and afterwards became his wife. They
were married in Hampshire in 1800, and their union,
for many years, was marked by the most tender and
mutual affection ; three children were the happy
fruits of wedlock. Previous to this Gentleman quit-
ting the Navy, and subsequently to that period, the
Lady had brought him three others, five of which
children, sons and_daughters, are now living. After
he quitted Portsmouth he came to reside near Hull,
ia 1807, and from the time of their marriage in 1800
to 1815, no man had better reason to be satisfied, for
no woman could be more affectionate both as a wife
and a mother, and no man more happy as a husband.
In 1812, their children requiring education, choice
was made of a school at Aberford, and the defendant,
although a stranger to Mr. and Mrs. Warred, yet
the circumstance of sending their children to Mr.
Sanderson, who kept a school at that place, produced
an acquaintance between the defendant and the plain-
tiff's wife. That acquaintance between the family of
the plaintiff and the defendant (who is himself a mar-
ried man, with four children) gradually improved.
The plaintiff, for some reason, about the year 1814
or 1815, thought proper to remove his family from
the neighbourhood of Hull to Leeds ; soon afterwards
Sanderson thought proper to remove his school to
Castieton-house, . which is about three miles from
Leeds, whether with the intention of pursuing the
unhappy object of his unlawful attachment did not
exactly appear, but so it was, and the children of the
• plaintiff, two boys, remained at his school till 1817.
Between 1815 and 1816, after the plaintiff and his
family came to Leeds, circumstances of suspicion
arose in the mind of the plaintiff, who felt his do-
mestic felicity interrupted, the cause of which had
doubtless for some time previously existed, as would
be apparent from circumstances which would be left
to the judgment of the Jury. The plaintiff now be-
gan to entertain strong suspicions that his wife's affec-
tions had been seduced by the defendant, but which,
were deemed insufficient to justify his bringing the
defendant before a Jury. The defendant's visits be-
came more frequent to the L 1.17, especially at inter-
vals of the husband's absence from his house; these
circumstances of suspicion, although such as to fully
warrant a separation from his wife, were yet deemed
no: sufficient, when it became necessary to consult his
legal adviser as to what evidence was necessary to
substantiate adultery to the satisfaction of a Jury. It
was one thing to say what evidence would satisfy a
Court of Justice, and another what would warrant a
separation between the parties. It was not until a
very recent period, subsequent to the separation,
which took place on the plaintiff agreeing to allow
her SOL per annum for her maintenance, on condi-
tion that she delivered up all the letters that had passed
between her and the defendant, which,she averred she
then did; so that the plaintiff's attorney, now in
Court, was enabled to produce that evidence which it
was hoped would prove conclusive. This short out-
line would explain why the action was not com-
menced when the husband separated from his wife,
in 1816. The plaintiff having occasion to go to
London in 181 i, and being a few weeks absent on
private business, the defendant had become a con-
stant visitor to his wife, which somehow connected.
itself with the birth of her last child in 1816, though
under circumstances impossible to be proved. Many
occurrences might pass between husband and wife,
which could not be brought before a Court of Jus-
tice. There are irresistible proofs of the alienation of
a wife's affections to satisfy the husband, which would
not satisfy a Jury ; such as her not shewing the same
attention to her husband and her family as she had
done before. Now, a letter was discovered, in the
defendant's hand-writing, under circumstances ex-
tremely mysterious, to which the plaintiff's mind at-
tached the strongest suspicion. That letter, although
it might not satisfy the Jury, yet satisfied the husband
that his wife's affections had been seduced. Those
who were conversant with human nature could best
know what circumstances would excite jealousy,
where love had once possessed the breast, and bow
impossible, when those suspicions were once excited,
that a Gentleman could live under the same roof
with a woman who had dishonoured his bed, al-
though perhaps he could not produce evidence of that
fact to satisfy a Court of Justice. The plaintiff know-
ing he could not substantiate his charge of adultery,
yet thinking he could no-longer submit to the pain-
ful situation in which he felt himself Opted, deter-
mined to separate from his wife, in order that he
might judge from her future conduct how far he
might rely upon those suspicions with which his mind
was unhappily impressed. It was finally agreed that
from henceforth they should live apart, she going to
reside at Aberford, and her husband at Thorparch ;
and that the youngest child, born the preceding year,
should accompany her. The special condition of her
allowance of 801. was, that she should give up all
letters of Mr. Sanderson's, but he had so cautiously •
• expressed himself in all those letters, but one which
subsequently fell into the hands of the husband, as
to make it impossible that those letters alone could
.. be made the subject of evidence in a Court of Jus-
tice. la. r eking the Arit., of these letters. the Jury
would be ready to admit "that no situation 'could be
more miserable than that of a husband having ground
of suspicion to form constiction on his own mind, of,

;~ ,~ • « . t

• • -
a nature so imperfect 11.1 to be told, on consulting his
lawyer, that it was impossible to bring forward Lhat
circumstantial evidence, but at the risk ofprtindicing
his children, and aggravating his own misery.
The following evidence was then adiluced:
Mrs. Davis, the mother of Mrs. Warmll, prfeed the marriage
of her daughter to Mr. Warren, at Portsmouth. They left
Portsmouth shortly, and she had not seen much of them since.
Mr. Ilulmer, an upholsterer, of Leeds, knew the plaintiff and
his wife when they lived at Bradford. He did not visit them
at that place; but when they went to reside at Leeds, in 1913,
he became well acquainted with them, and he always thought
they lived upon very amicable terms. They had three children
at Leeds.---Cross-examined.—They lived about three years
together at Leeds.
Mr. John Flood, a surgeon in Leeds, was also acquainted with
the plaintiff and WS wife, and, as far as he had an opportunity
of judging, they lived upon very good terms. In the latter end
of 1815, and is 1818, he perceived a difference in their conduct
toward~ each other, and they appeared to be much less affection-
ate than they had een.
James White, a post-boy at the Bull and Mouth, Leeds, knew
that Mr. and Mrs. Warren resided at Leeds in 1816. He fre-
quently drove her in a chaise to Abberford, the defendant's place
of living, where she had two sons. He had driven her to Mr.
Sanderson's house, but generally it was to Morris's Inn, where
she would remain for- several hours, and the defendant would
pass his time with her. When site went home, Sanderson would
go three or four miles with her, and on leaving the chaise he
would give the driver sixpence or a shilling not to say that he
had been with her. Sometimes be would walk a mile once(
the town, and then get into the chaise. The last time he drove
her to Abberford the defendant was waiting for her at Puling-
ton Park, about a mile from Abberford, and rode nearly to
Leeds, which was ten tunes from Abberford. He had known
Mrs. Warren stay at. &elan from ten o'clock in the morning to
seven o'clock in the eventne, israunpany with Sanderson.
Sarah Ripley lived servant it Mo. Warren in the summer of
Isis. Between Jammer/ and July ber,itaster went to London,
and during his absence Mr. Sander Wk. at else house very fre-
quently, and then he and her mistress would p out in the even.
log for two or three hours. One evening in the latter end of
June, her master returned unexpectedly from London when
Mr. Sanderson was in the house. Sanderson came that day
about two o'clock, and remained to tea ; and after they had
drank tea, they went into the drawing-room, and remained
there a long time. The witness had been desired to go up stairs
to her mistress after she had taken her tea, and on doing so she
found the room door was fastened. Her mistress opened the
door, and said it only wanted a push. It did not require to bz
pushed at other times. Mrs. Warren save orders to have beef-
steaks prepared for supper, and after the cloth was prepared,
and Mr. Sanderson and her mistress had reached as far af the
back parlour, where they staid for some time on the way to the
table, a rapping .came to the door, which proved to be the mu-
ter of the house, who came unexpected. Mr. Sanderson was
then passed out of the house by the back way ; and on Mr. War-
reles expressing surprise to see a hot supper, it being contrary
to their usual habits, Mrs. Warren said she ad prepared it for
him, thinking he might come home; upon which the plaintiff
seemed pleased and happy to see his wife. She had never men-
tioned this to any one but to her master, about six weeks since.
She had more than once found the drawing-room door locked
when Sanderson and her mistress were in the room.
The Rev. Mr. Lindley knew Mr. Sanderson ; he was a
schoolmaster, and the witness had been his assistant for several
years. Mr. Sanderson was a married man, and had four chil-
dren. The letters produced were all of his hand-writing.
Amelia Beaumont, nOw the chamber-maid at the Bull Inn,
at Leeds, but formerly a servant to Mr. Warrell, had seen Mr.
Sanderson visit her mistress at Thorparch, where she lived after
she separated from her husband, and he generally staid with her
about two hours.
Charles Kitching was a butcher at Leeds.—Mr. Sanderson
went to live at Castleton In 1814. In 1815 he received letters
from the defendant, with instructions to deliver them to Mrs.
Warren pemonalbf, or to keep them till he saw her. He also
convey letters from Mrs. Warren to the defendant.
Joseph Briggs, of Wakefield, painter.—Early in the spring of
*B2O, Mrs. Warrell went to reside at the next house to him;
the divisions between them were slight, and on several occasions
'he had heard a man's voice in Mrs. Warren's room at night; he
had heard him chiding a child. Mr. Sanderson was with Mrs.
Warrell at all times, and had been seen in her room. This wit-
ness also spoke to having seen and heard Sanderson at various
times in Mrs. Warren's room. _ _

Cross-examined—He was taken before a Magistrate for using
abusive language to Mrs. Warren, but the warrant was dis-
charged. Mr. Sanderson appeared before the Magistrate as her
protector. He bad never mentioned what he had seen, but when
he was applied to by the plaintiff's attorney, about a year ago.
Mary Sutton, a discharged servant, proved that the defendant
came three times to see Mrs. Warren in the space of about seven
weeks, and that he staid two days each time. She had seen them
together when she went to bed.
Mr. Serjeant HEMLOCK, for the defendant, cos
tended that if the plaintiff had abandoned his wife
to the care of the defendant, under a knowledge or
belief of criminal connexion, without seeking to re-
move her from thence, he was not entitled to any
compensation. His Learned Fiiend bad represented
the parties to have lived in a -state of connubial
bliss and happiness, until interrupted by the lady
dropping, as it were, like " ripe fruit into the hands
of the spoiler." Wu this consistent with the case
wherein the plaintiff had either deserted his wife from
unjust cause or suspicion, or, knowing the criminal
connexion between her and the defendant, had con-
nived at it by leaving and abandoning her to his pro-
tection. The Learned Serjeant commented upon a
correspondence between the plaintiff and defendant,
about a bill which the wife had drawn for her salary
upon the husband, and which could only be nego-
ciated by the defendant's endorsement, the plaintiff,
it appeared, having published a notice in the country
papers, that he would not be answerable for any of
his wife's debts.

Mr. SCARLET? ably replied.
The LORD CIII al? JUSTICE summed up the evidence
with great perspicuity, in the course of which he re-
marked that the evidence was slight, but that pro-
bably the situation of the plaintiff was such as not to
allow him to, bring many witnesses. The case, his
Lordship said, divided itself into two heads—the first
was, whether, upon the evidence they had heard,
they were satisfied that the improper intimacy had-
taken place before the separation? for, if it had, then,
at alt events, their verdict must be for the plaintiff
and if they should think that it did not occur until
after the separation, yet there was abundance of evi-
dence to entitle the plaintiff to their verdict, for there
was sufficient proof of the defendant's having at-
tempted to seduce Mrs.Warrell before the separation
—unless, indeed, they thought the plaintiff had foi-
faked his claim to it by his subsequent conduct. •
The Jury retired for about half an hour, and then
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £5O.
The following causes were tried on Tuesday :
• THE KING V. RARNSDAW.
This was an indictment for an assault.
Mr. Charles Roe is the Comptroller of the Cus-
toms
at Hull, having a country house at Hestle, near
that place. 'the defendant is a Gentleman of pro-
perty, and a near neighbour of the prosecutor. It ap-
• peared that the road leading to the houses of the dis•
putants was very narrow, and that the defendant had
lately increased its natural defects, by making a new
footpath, at an elevation of twelve or sixteen inches
above the level of the road, sois to make it almost
impossible five two carriages to pass each other with-
out doing an iajut' to one of their. ' The prosecutor
complained of this to the defendant, :and after using
la great deal of persuasion he prevailed upon him to