Star.
London, England, 1828-02-23 00:00:00

higher tribunal; ThiJury were not thecintors of public
morality. The wisdom of the law. had said, that the
immorality of persons guilty of conduct like that of the,
defendant wa. not the subject of legal animadversion;
Although his client was a Clergyman, he was sure that
he would receive fair and impartial justice as fully as
if he were a layman, or the member of any other pro-,
fession. In the present instance, there were none of thel
u.usl topics for inducinf the Jury to give an excessive
amount of damages. There was no satisfactory proot
given by the plaintiff to shew the supposed affectionate
terms on which the plaintiff and his wife were tieing.
On the contrary, the evidence in the canoe went to
chew, that the wife was neglected and despised, and
the-defendant, from a feeling of commiseration, had
taken her under his protection. He stood not forward
to defend the impropriety of his client's conduct, bat
he was merely anxious that the Jury should, on taking
all the circumstances into their view, return such a Ner-
diet as their calm and dispassionate understanding should
determine a sufficient compensation to the plaintiff.
Mr.lustice Pais Bummed up and told the Jury that
there were two questions in all cases of this nature for
their consideration. First, was the plaintiff entitled to
a verdict at all? Secondly. the amount of the damages
which they shoold think a sufficient compensation ?
From the first question they were fortunately relieved
by the admission of the Learned Sergeant who conducted
die defendant's case. The second question, therefore,
as.to the amount 4 damages,which was peculiarly their
rovitite, only remained for their -determination. In
.doing so, the rank of the parties had always been
.regarded as a legitimate object of attention. It had
been very justly observed by his Learned Brother,
that the offence of the defendant was not such a
one as the law considered worthy of punishment.
That was the law ; and he always consideted it as a
great defect that it was so. That a man who thus vio-
lated all the duties which social life enjoined on him—
who thus ruined the peace of families for ever, should
014 be visited by the payment ot a sum of money by
way ofcompensatiun to the injured plaintiff, he could
not avoid regarding as a disgrace to the laws of Eng-
land. The defendant must not, as the law stood, be
punished for his immorality. He felt glad that such
was the law, as far as he was himself concerned, for the
crime was in itself so abhotrent to his nature. The
Jury must, however, remember. that here the defendant
wawa man past that time of life when allowances were.
made fn. human weakness; but it was to be remem-
bered that he was the Priest of Goo, who held a living,
and who was bound to maintain the dignity of that
sacred character; and it was hardly possible to conceive
a punishment in this.world and the next sufficient for
an gross a violation of such sacred obligations. It is to
be' hoped, however, that punishment will meet him in
some way, through the efforts of the Right Reverend
Person in whose diocese the living held by him is situ-
ated. Had he forgotten the sacred vow he had bat
lately taken to regulate his conduct according to the
life and doctrine ot Cisme?, that he should thus take
advantage of the waywardness of an unhappy woman,
thus to reduce her husband,hischildren, and her fa-

truly, to such a disgrace? Viewing all the facts of the
case as they appeared ir. the evidence, he really never
saw anything in any person, either clerical or lay, mole
hard-hearted than the c,induct of this delendan.. In
f frilling their opinion on the case, the Jury must c”ri
si er what the plaintiff had lo.t through the misconeuct
of the defendant. They would perceive that he had
list an engaging wife—the mother of their daughters,
who more particularly requ;red the attention of an
amiable and affectionate mother, and who, k, ithout the
wicked efforts of the defendant, might have educated
them in virtue, morality, and rebgion. They could
carefully weigh the various facts of the case as proved
by the witnesses, and acc rding to the conclusion they
should form, would the amount of damages they gave
the plaintiff be.
Tne Jury having retired for about a quarter of an
hour, ietutned a verdict for the plaintiff—Dam iges
06111 THOUIAbIe Fan HuiwiraD Pousus i COIII Forty
Shillings.