Star.
London, England, 1827-06-04 00:00:00

the time the plaintiff would have brought her action
but what were the facts in this case? The defendant's
wife dies, and in two months afterwards he pays 'eve-
ral visits to the plaintiff. He makes no promise what-
ever of marriage, but on going to Germany, he writes
several friendly letters to her. After his return, the
parties agree to break off all further intercourse. The
separation ti ok place by mutual consent, which he
should prove by the p oda.ction of a letter, dated
January, 1824, which the plaintiff had smitten to the
defendant. and that would put an end to the present
action. The following is a copy of the 'letter, which

was read:—
" Sta--In returning to yob the Inclosed I offer no apology ; the
possession may probably ?Pre you pleasure, but can afford none to
me, when the original no longer merits my esteem. I hope you will
follow' my example, and return mine, because you can have no mo-
tive in retaining them. I should at the sante time return your let-
ters, but as I understand you have asserted that yeu only vkited me
as a friend, I shall keep them, to &hew that I gme my society tu
one who professed a serious and honourable attachment.
" If your torn heart acquits you of Injustice towards an insulted
warms, I Mall not condescend to reproach gnu, but shall have it
to time and your own conscience to repair the injuries lOU have so
H."
wantonly inflicted on
Mr. Sergeant WILDE resumed—Wfy should the par-
ties return their letters and miniatures if they had not
separated by mutual agreement? • As a further proof
that it was a mutual separation, the plaintiff lay by from
1823 to 1826, without even calling upon the defendant
to contract matrimony ; and then, when the defendant
gets married, she brings her action, and for no other
motive than that of extorting money from him. When,
he would ask, would it be safe for a man, after paying
a slight attentiois to a female, to marry another, if not
in the present case ? She told him in her letter, that he
tad lost her esteem; he sends her letters and miniature
back ,and he never hears of her or from her for two or three
years; nor is he asked to perform any contract till he is in
a situation that precludes the possibility of his doing so.
It was due to the respectable ch racier of the young Lady,
and he was instructed to admit, that her moral charac-
ter and conduct were irreproachable ; but at the same
time he must defend the character of his own client
from the infamy which had been attempted to be fixed
upon it, by imputing to him the authorship of that
abominable letter. He pronounced it to be a wicked
forgery, fabricated by some one to prejudice the de-
fendant in the minds of the Jury, and thereby to en-
hance the damages in the cause. The conduct of the
defendant bad been, throughout his acquaintance with
the young Lady, open and honourable—he had not first
gained her affections and then basely seduced her—he
found that they should not be happy if united, and by
mutual consent they separated. He should call wit-
nesses, who would prove beyond all doubt that the
defendant was not the writer of the letter ; and having
dune that, if his Lordship should be of opinion that
there had not been a mutual agreement to separate,
and that the defendant was legally liable to the present
action, after she had written the letter to him, demand-
ing her letters, &c. then he should go to the Jury with
confidence that they would acquit his client of being
the author of the letter imputed to him, and that they
would gi cc such moderate damages as the case called for.
Wm.-Pitchers—He is clerk to the employ of Stults and Co. and
bas been so for three months ; be was formerly employed by Mrs
Stakes solicitor, and had been for eight years well acquainted with
the defendant's hand-writing ; he Is quite positive neither the dire*.
tion nor the body of the letter produced is the defendant's hand-
writing, or at ail like It.
Wni. Dale, J. Howley, and George Souks swore to the same fact
most positively. Otecromexaminatien, they prevaricated in their
statements, and two of them admitted there was a similarity in the
writing to that of the def‘ndant'a.
Mr. Sergebat t Aortas replied.—His Learised Friend
(Sergeant Wilde) wished to put this case upon the issue,
whether the defendant had written the disgusting letter
or not; but the Jury were aware, that whether he was
the author of the letter or not? he had broken his faith
. with the plaintiff, and must answer for it by their ver-
dict that day. His Learned Friend had admitted ti at
it aas impossible to cast the slightest taint upon the
plaintiff's reputation, yet he wished the Jury to credit
so absurd, improbable, and monstrous an insinuation,
that the young Lady, or her friends, or her attorney,
bad entered into a foul conspiracy to enhance the da-
mages in this suit by forging an atrocious letter, and
affixing the authorship on the defendant. The Learned
Gentleman recapitulated the whole evidence in the case,
and called upon the Jul y to look at the letter addressed
by the defendant to the plaintiff, in reply to the one
which she wrote calling upon him to fulfil his promise.
They would find that he did not directly refuse, nor
did he consent, but,
He paltered with her in a double sense.
If she recovered her beauty, he might be inclined to do
her the justice she asked at his hand., or he might deny
it just as it suited his inclination. The Learned Counsel
concluded by calling upon the Jury to give such an ample
amount of damages as would mark their opinion of the
most disgraceful and infamous conduct of the defendant,
and compensate his client for the disappointment and
pain she had experienced.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up. He said
the plaintiff was not barred from her action because
she had written a letter, asking the return of her
letters and portrait, at a period when she was suf-
fering from wounded feelings occasioned by the
neglect and insult of the defendant. It the Jury be•
hewed the defendant a as the author of the letter which
had been handed to them, the grossness of which no
language could characterize, it ought to enhance the
amount of the damages they would give to the plain-
tiff. if they were, however, of opinion he was taut the
author, and was not privy to its being sent to the plain-
tiff, they would give such moderate damages as the ge-
umal circumstances of the case demanded. •
The Jury examined the letter, and, after a few mi.'
notes' consultation, they returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, one thousand pounds.
The LORD Cuin, Alarms: With the permission of
my brother Wilde, as an act of justice to the defendant,
I ask the Jury if their verdict was given from a convic-
tion that the defendant was the author of the letter so
often alluded to?
FOREMAN—We are of opinion that he wrote it, or
was privy to its being sent.
GRIM. CON.—WALTER V. SAUNDERS.

Mr. Witt-rousts opened the pleadings.--This was an
action brought by the plaintiff to recover compensa-
tion in' damages from the defendant, for a criminal
c•mversation with the plaintiff's wife.
Mr. Sc, geant Wit.na stated the plaintiff's case; his Learned
Friend had already stated to the Jury the nature of the action.
The plaintiff was a person In very humble circumstances, by
trade a journeyman hatter. He was brought up in the country,
where he became acquainted with the subject of the present
action, to whom he was married in 1819, at Stowmarleet, in
Suffolk. The marriage took pl.ce with the consent of the fa-
milies on both sides, and in the presence of Mr. Kent, Airs.
Walter's lather, and the putits commenced life with every pro-
erect of domestic happiness. Soon atter his marriage the plain-
tiff commenced business as a hatter in the (*entry, but he
afterwards came up to town,- and entered into the service of
a Mr. Itlidelletun. Upon calming to town he took lo4tOngs