Star.
London, England, 1829-04-10 00:00:00

SURREY SPRING ASSIZES.

KINGSTON, Ana S.
Before the Loss Cams Bosom.
WRITS AND OTHIRS V. SHARP.

This was an action which excited considerable inte-
rest, from its involving the right of the public to one
half of the very ample pavement in part of Blackfriars-
road ; and it was brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs.
hite and Green well, ;extenshe linendrapers, against
the defendant, the Beadle to the Commissioners of the
Christ Church Local Act, for a trespass in entering upon
the plaintiff; premises, and taking away their goods.
The defend.nt had seized, as a nuisance, two large
packs of goods, which the plaintiffs had placed upon
the pavement indhchately in front of their house, under
aright insisted upon by them to the path extending for
ten feet in width.
It appeared by the 'statement of Mr. Baortarmc,
with whom were Messrs. PIATt and Tneasioss, that
Blackfriars•road (now named-Great Surrey-street) was
formed and regulated by the 9th George 111. and that
iis management was handed down by carious Acts of
Parliameat to the present trn.tees of the Surrey New
R cads ; that the local Act under which the defendant
ac ed was only passed in 1811, and contained in it an
espie;s re e vation the powers of the road trustees,
that the rights of the public extended only to the car-
riage road of shay feet, and footpaths on each side of
ten leer in width, comprising the whole space of eighty)
feet, which the first trustees were cliginally em-1
po a ered to purchase, and that the plaintiffs had not
iufsinged upon the public path ; that although the pro.
prietars of the ground skirting the sides of the road
were prohibited from building within ten feet of the path,
and had, is consequence, placed back their houses that
space upon their own ground, yet that the area of ten
lea t was private property, and that many parts ofaihe
road were atill inclosed by an iron railing and sunken
areas; that eater since the plaintiffs house was built hr;
1785..tbe area of ten feet iu front had been made level,
with the public path, and had been u ed by the various
occupiers by placing out their goods upon it; and that
the occasional use of it by the public on Sundays, or in
net weather, and of passing between the goods, was not
such a dedication to the public as would justify the act
complained ef, or divest the occupiers of the houses of
the ten feet area demised by the original lessor, much
less that of the owner of the f_e to tint space of ground,
which t'te le.-er was bound to surrender at the capita.
ti-.n of his lease.
It appease& that the Christ Church Commissioners
had, in 1811, first a. trnipted jurisdiction over the pi-
e de path, by cutting down the short posts that then
sna.ked its limits, and that a conviction obtained by
them under their Act for the occupation of the ten feet
bad, upon argument at the Quarter Sessions, been
qtiashed upon the merits ; and that The Trotters of the
Roads had met with no better success in recent at-
tempts to establish the right of the public to the path in
qu!stion.
The evidence far the plaintiffs fully establiaheil the
case. as stated, and their right to the exclusive use of
the locus in Quo; and Messrs. GuRNEY and CHITTY, for
the delendai,t, con eated to a verdict for 411. 18s.. the
value of the goods seized.
BURY, Aran. 8.
I illinut Clitennole, aged 18, was indicted for utt.
lawfully and maliciously setting fire to a stack of clover,
in the parish of Leathetingham, the property of James
Glanfield and others.
Will am Platt stated, that he was at work in a barn
near the stack at the time it caught fire, and the pri-
soner had been in conversation with him about five mi-
nutes before the alarm was made; the prisoner went out
with witness, and was very active in his desire to eatin.
guish the flames.
William French stated that he was the first to dis-
cover the Brutes. His cottage is just by, but there was
no fire in it at the time, and none of his children were
at home. Suspicion fell on the prisoner because he was
the only person v ho was seen near the remises.
When taken before the Justice, the prisoner said it
could not be him, as behad not the means of doing it.
Several witnesses, however, proved that an the day
in question the prisoner had flint, steel, and tinder
`•:`..ht1(:,76
allow him.
Mr. Baron Vatonsin stimmed up* the evidence, and
the Jury returned a verdict of
The Learned Baron.-then, in an impressive manner,
passel sentence of death upon the prisoner—a sentence
which, he told him, would most certainly be enforced.
The prisoner was perfectly unmoved during the
Judge's address.
OXFORD ClRCUlT—Gtouctaraa*
cistat• c ,I/I•••-• WA LLIS, Zala. V. IHRILET, ESQ.
Mt. Tent/zoo (with Rhein were Mr. C. PHILLIPS
and Mt, PH ILLPOTTS) stated the circumstances that
compelled the plaintiff to come into a Conic of Justice.
The plaintiff was a gentleman who had resided for
about five years at Tibberton-court, 'near Gloucester.
He ti as a Magistrate of that county, and beloved by
all who knew him. In early life Mr. Wallis had
been in the navy, and had had the honour to be Se.
csetary to Lord Nelson. He had served at Copenhagen,
and basin; been promoted to the rank of a purser,
be was ultimately appointed prize agent at JAVA, where
he amassed so much property as to enable him to come
home at tl:e time of the peace, and live hi a sea e of
affluence. On his returned to England be became ac-
quainted with thefamily of Lady Bolton, who bad two
daughters, one of whom Mr. Wallis married in the
year 1816. Mr. Wallis was then S 8 years of age, Miss
Bolton being 18. She was young, beautiful, and ac-
complished, and, what was far more desirable, she was
virtuous. Ft om the year 1816 to the yearlBlB they lived
at an estate of Mrs. Wallis's, called 'Putts Hill, near
Chepstow. and during this time,' and even down to the
cause of the present action, it would be proved by friends
who visited them, and by servants who were dounesti.
cased with them, that nothing could exceed the harmony
upon which they lived together, and that nothing could''
surpass the affection of Mr. Wallis, nor the way in
which that affection was repaid by his wife. In the
autumn of the year 1826, they bad been at Abet istwyth,
u e they had become acquainted with Mr.:and Mrs.
lifsmidt, who, in consequence of the intimacy that then
gusted between them, were invited to make a visit at

Tibberton•court. The defendant seas die-brolly* of him
Goldsmidt, and he was invited with his brother-in-law'
acid sister to Tibberton, where be enjoeed the hcapi.
tality of Mr. Wallis's house, aid the pleasure. of sport-
ing over his estates. It was a remarkable feattwe to this'
case, that Mrs. Wallis was a person least of all likely
to have taken the step she had ; for it would appear,
that so far from having the slightest levity in her con-
duct, she appeared to strangers to be rather told and
repulsive. Indeed, during a period of two years, there
was nothing.to lead to the slightest suspicion of any
improper Intimacy subsisting between Mrs. Wallis and
the defendant; and the plaintiff defied the other side
to show that there was ever any deficiency of at-
tention is Mr. Wallis towards his wife, or that
there ever was the slightest negligence on his past
In the autumn of the year 1828, Mr. and Mrs.
Wallis contemplated taking a tour on the Continent,
and with that view Mr. Wallis disposed of his house
at Tibberton Court, and proceeded with his wife to
Cheltenham, to stay till they went on their tour
abroad. There they met Mr. Birket end Mr.and Mrs.
Goldsmidt. Before he stated what occurred at Chel-
tenham, he ought to inform the Jury that Mrs. Wallis
had some separate property of her own, which by the
marriage settlement she had the power of disposing of
by will. Now he was in a condition to lay before them
her will, dated so lately as the year 1825, by which she
left the whole of this property to her husband for bis
life, and after his decease to any children _be might
have by a second wife. At Cheltenham Mr. Sir-
ket was only once alone in company with Mrs. V al-
lis, and that was when Mrs. Wallis rode out on
horseback, attended by her groom, but nothing
then occurred to excite suspicion ; on the 14th of
October the Quarter Sessions at Gloucester were held,
and Mr. Wallis, being a Magistrate, came to Glouces-
ter to attend these Sessions. He made an arrangement to
dine at home, and had actually invited the defendant to
dine with him and partake of his hospitality. The invi-
tation was accepted; but it would be proved that at 10
o'clock on the morning of that day, Mr. Birket,wbo kept
two carriages, set out in one of them towards the Eve.
sham-road, and when he got beyond the new Church at
Cheltenham be overtook Mrs. Wallis. On coming apt°
her the defendant got out of the carriage and said, " My
dear, no time must be delayed;" to which, after bursting
into a aloud of tears, she replied, or rather she sobbed
out the words, "I can't go—l can't leave." This was the
last gasp of conjugal affection; the defendant imme-1
diately banded her into the carriage, and they pro.
ceeied to Evesham, eirough Alcester to Leamington,
*lime they took up their residence for five days,passing,
as man and wife, under the assumed name of Mr. and'
Mrs. Vernon. At the end of the five days,Mr.Chadbons,
accompanied by a police officer, proceeded thither, and
conducted Mrs. W. not to her offended h sband,but to the
protection of her mother, Lady Bolton. She was brought
back, and it was impossible to account for estrangements
such as these, but the Jury would hardly believe that,
such was the perversion of this lady's mind, that she'
went away igain, and was now in company with Mr.
Birket. These were the facts of the ease, and they were
without the slightest circumstance of alleviation, for it
would be found friendship was betrayed. hospitality
violated, and innocence seduced. The plaintiff came
forward with every possible claim for redress, while the
defendant had net one single topic in mitigation to urge.
Ample compensation the plaintiff never could have, as
no compensation could repay him for the anguish he
had undergone; but still such recompense as be could
have, he -s as quite sure the Jury would give him-
A number of most respectable witnesses were then
called, and proved that Mr. and Mrs. Wallis had, since
their marriage in 1816, lived together in the most per.
feet harmony—that Mr. Wallis behaved to his wife with
mach affection, and they never observed the slightest
want of attention or the least impropriety on his part.
Mss Wallis was very regular in attending Divine Service
onSucday,and she also received the sacrament frequently.
They never observed any thing that at all led *le to
suppose that she was a woman of levity of conduct.; Mr.
Wallis kept a very handsome establishment, three maid,
servants and three men servants, two carriages, a gig,
two saddle horses, and two carriage horses. He also
kept a gardener and a gamekeeper. Mr. and Mrs.
Wallis kept a good deal of company—Magistrates and
Clergymen, their families, and also friends from Lon.
don. At the time when Mrs. Wallis was ill, her hue.
band appeared to be very attentivirto her, and seemed
very anxious about her. After the elopement he sio-
- almost distracted.
Some of Mr. Wallis's servants who were examined
said, that about six years ago Mr. Wallis was at Par*
and he left his wile there at an Hotel with a lady's
maid and a valet, while he came home upon business.
She was at Paris without him for nine months, and
when she came home Mr. Wallis was n t the less atten-
tive to her. The lady's maid stated, she had heard Mrs.
Wallis say, that it -any one was blessed with a good
husband, she was. She never saw Mr. Dii ket alone with
her mistress, and saw no more attention paid by her to
him than a well bled Lady would pay to her husband's
friend.

Richard Hughes, a post•bny at the George Inn, at
Cheltenham, said-1 know Mr. Baden; his cattiage
stood at our house; 1 received an older to put horses
to the carriage, and bring it to his residence ; that
was on the 14th of October; I went with the car.
riage at eleven in the forenoon; I was ordered to
drive to Evesham. When we started there was no
out in the carriage but Mr. Btiket, and a servant
on the boa ; when we got to the new church I ob-
served a Lady; she was standing still near the hedge,
side; when the carriage got near her Mr. Birket said
Pull up; I did so, and he gm out of the carriage and went
o►er to the Lady at the hedge side;- they were in con-
versation a few minutes; he took her by theband; she
was cryinA. and had a handkerchief before her face,
and she said—" I can't go, I can't leave." He took her
by the aim and kissed her twice, as they stood at the
toad side, and then hansied her into the carriage, say-
ing 64 there is no time to be lost, my dear." He then got
into the carriage himself, and I drove them to Evesham,
which is a distance of 16 miles. Site had no luggage.
1 beard him order horses for Worcester. I drove them
Gr the Noithwick Arm+, at Evesham. _ _ _

CI oivez.miued—Tba Lady appeared to be waiting
for ta%

Other post•boys proved driving the parties foot*
Evesham to Woicester. Aleester, a.d, finally, to Lea-
mington, and they stopped at 14. Union Parade.
Mrs. Elizabeth Woodhouse. wiled Mr. Woodhoesse,
of the Union-parade. at Leamington, said, on the 14th
of October a Gentleman and Lady came in a carriage
to my house; the Gentleman looked at the lodgings.,
and after spcsking to the Lady, he took them at
three guineas and a half a week; he was to have
a dining ro m, clawing room, two bed rooms, and a
dressing room ; both bed tooms were on the second
Boor ; the man servant slept in the front bed room ; and
the Gentleman and Lady slept in the back bed room ;
a dinner was sent for to the Regent Hutel ; I sent for it
in the name of Rirket. because I saw that name on a
box; but the answer back from the hotel was that the

aim= bad brew mined in the iiii•rof Vases; in coo.
sequence cisme suspicions I hid I woof, into titir bed
room and found a pair of stockings marked 14 A
• Mr. Chadborn, and other mitt esses, proved hiving
discovered the pasties at Leamington, and that they
brought her back to Giltrocesver, and placed het in
charge of her mother. Lady Bolton. It was also proved
that the property which Mrs. Wallis had the power of
disposing by will was wenh betweea 2 0008. m 411,0001.
a year. It was also proved that *r. Barka was 23 years

of age.
Mr. CAMMLL addressed the Jury for the defendant.
He said that bis client deeply regretted what had passed.
and was ready to admit that the plaintiff was a much
injured man. The defendant was a very young am,
not 2$ years of age, and although he had offended
against the laws of Goo and • man. he submitted that
his conduct was net of that aggravated character which
had bean described. He did not think that that en-
thusiastic affection subsisted between the parties which
had been described, for Mr. Wallis was twenty years
older than his wife. He had, at one period, treated
her with ind.fference in having her at an hotel in Paris,
with no one to take care of her but servants. He thought
that Mr. Wallis had acted rather indelicately in allots ing
his young wife to settle her property not only upon him,
but upon the children he was to have by soother wife
after she was in her grave. without leaving anything
either to her mother, her sister, or any of her relations.
Assailer topic of mitigation - was, that there was no
adulterous intercourse carried on under the roof of her
husband. There was no child to mourn MIS. Wallies
loss—no child to remind Mr. Wallis of his misfortune.
Why, therefore, should a Jury award exemplary
damages? Was it because Mr. Birket remained still
kind to Mrs. Wallis, and that, after she had once
left him, he brought her back and aff trded her an asy-
lum? That, be submitted, was a circumstance in his
favour. Did this in any way inflict additional injury
on Mr. Wallis? He could not take her back; and, as
she had lost her station in society, Mr. Birket did right
to afford her protection. The character of Mr. Wallis
had been established, and the verdict would enable
him to have recourse to a remedy by which the
ties that united him to Mrs. Wallis would be for ever
dissolved. That was all he could require. as his fortune
was ample; and, if the Jury should award heavy da-
mages, the verdict would operate upon the defendant as
a sentence of perpetual imprisonment, as he was irsoo
situation to pay them.
Mr. Justice PAR[ said, that the facts of the case
being clearly made out, the question was merely what
ought to be the amount of daasages the plaintiff was
entitled to recover. In considering,, this question. the
conduct of the husband and wife, tiepre the latter felt
in the trap of this seducer. was most material. The
Learned Counsel for the defendant has said that there
was no evidence of the property of the defendant.—
There certainly was not ; but it had been alwayl;
laid down is a rule, that those who could not vas in
their purses should pay in their persons—and if Oh
, defendant could not pay, let him go to gaol. Was it to
be endured that this person should go about with his
open carriage and bis two footmen, seducing men's
wives, and then say. go Oh, pray let ink off, for I have
no money to pay damages?" Then it was said that the
Lady was 31, and this young Gentlemen only 23. It
, she had been the seducer, it would be a great mitiga-
I don ; and if this were the case of a lascivious woman,
who bad by her stets seduced a mere bOy—and it is
very difficult to withstand the arts of an artful wo-
man—small damages would suffice; but then look at
the evidence. Was she the seducer? The evidence
of It. Hughes showed that she was crying, and did
not like to leave, but that the defendant was
persuading her to go. However, there was but one
thing that made it seem that Mr. Wallis did not
live so well with his wife, which was this—that he
left his wife in France by herself for nine months. I,
said the Learned Judge, would not have done such a
thing for all the world ; however. I am sorry to say
that a great many foolish people of late years, keep
rennin abroad, and taking their wives and fami-
lies with them, spending their money there, which
they had much better have spent in their own coun-
try. But then this was six years ago ; and since
that time they had it proved that Mu. Wallis had made
a will in favour Of het husband. These were some of
the points urged in the defence. Theo how did thecase
stand? It was presets! that two years ago the defendant
became acquainted With the plaintiff—that he was re-
ceived at his house, and visited there from time to time,
till the affections of this Lady, who had up to that time
been a virtuous woman, were • entirely estranged from
her husband. This was the case; and the damages were
matter entirely for the tonsiderati—n cf the Jury.—
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £2.000.