Star.
London, England, 1821-12-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 15.
CRlbf. CON.
WRIGHT V. WRIGHT.
Mr. SCARLETT stated the case to the Jury. The
plaintiff, Mr. John Wright, was a respectable wine
and brandy merchant and retail spirit dealer, residing
in Ratcliffe Highway. The defendant was his first
cousin ; and was a linen merchant, residing at Nor-
wich, and also a man in a very respectable line of
trade. The plaintiff's wife was from that part of the
country ; she was from North Walsham, in the county
of Norfolk, and was the dauihter of the Coroner of
that county.
Mr. Abraham Lemmon produced the register of
that marriage, at North Walsham, Norfolk.
.. Sarah Hubbard knew the plaintiff, Mr. Wright, as
well as his wife, who was a relation of her'sore
her marriage. Vitness lived six years with them at
ltatcliffe Highway. They lived together very hap-
pily. Mrs. Wright served alwajs at the bar of her
house, and seemed active in the business.
Cross-examined.—lt was a gin-shop in Ratcliffe
Highway, and Mrs. Wright served out the liquor at
the bar.
Mrs. Mary Stewart visited the family ; and for the
last time in August, 1820, when she staid there three
days; they lived very comfortably, just as happily as
other married people did.
Harriet Bankes lived as servant of all work with
the plaintiff at Ratcliffe since last September twelve-
month. She saw the defendant for the first time there
last March, when he came in late in the evening, and
slept at the house. On another day he came and staid
until twelve o'clock ; he supped with her master, and
Vie served him at the table. About three o'clock on
the following day he came and dined at the house;
she overheard him ezpress a desire to her master to
go to the play ; her master objected, as he said it
was laic, but a coach was sent for, and both he and
her master went away in it. Witness had orders from
'Mrs. Wright to get the spare bed ready fzir him (de-
fendant) on that night. The two men (plaintiff and
defendant) went to the play about half-past eight
p'clock, but about half-past nine the defendant re-
turned alone, and she then first saw him in the kitchen
with her mistress, which was an unusual
.place for
the latter at that hour. Witness saw her mistress un-
expectedly in the kitchen at that time, for she gene-
rally staid at the bar when her master was out. She
saw Mr. Wright, the defendant, in the kitchen kissing
her mistress, and his hand down ber bosom. On
being disturbed by witness, they both withdrew into
the parlour. At eleven o'clock they were in neady
the same position as when she saw them in the
kitchen. They were standing together near the
ni:..itle-piece, but they moved away on seeing her—
defendant to one side of the fire-place, and her mit-
ess to the other.

Jane Shuffery lived in the plaintiff's service, and
knew the defendant, Wright. She remembered the
last occasion when he came to the house and slept
there. She recollected his dining there, and going
with the plaintiff in a coach to the play. That was
the first night. he ever slept in the house. After din-
ner, and just before they went out, the defendant said
be should sleep there that night ; her master laughed
at him, and said he wasilking, for as he had taken
lodgings at a coffee-house, he did not think he was
serrotis. She remembered the defendant's soon return-
ing, and telling her mistress that he left her master
at the play. Shc (mistress) then quitted the bar, quite
against her custom, and staid an hour and a half in
the parlour with the defendant, without a light. It
was in Marc:).

Matthew Wiggins was a servant or cellarman to
Mr. Wright for two years. lie knew defendant, who
occasionally visited in the house ; he recollected his
coming in the month of March last year. The wit-
ness said, that while in the kitchen, lie heard a noise
as if the chairs were moving about in the parlour.
He told the servant-maid he would go and see what
they were ,4 doing ou." lie pulled off his shoes, and
walked along the passage to the parlour as softly as
he could. Witness went sound towards the bar, where
-there were no lights; the door from the bar to the
parlour was open; he knelt on a mat which was at
the door, and peeped in at the corner of the door,
which Was ajar. (Here the witness described the po-
sition in which he saw his mistress and the defendant
in the parlour when he peeped in, and which left no
doubt of the fact of adultery).
Mr.GURNEY addressed the Jury for the defendant.
They had here no seduction, no arts, no deceit. As
to the condition of the woman, she was, as they had
heard, merely serving in a
.gin-shop, and possibly
romping with the defendant in the manner her maids
sometimes do, and out of that perhaps was framed the
whole case. If the Jury thought this was a case for
damages, he was sure they would think with him
that the smallest damages would be quite so6u:•nt,
for such a transaction.

Lord Chief Justice Miaow, in charging the Jury,
said, that the first question which they had to con-
sider was, whether they believed the adultery had
been committed ? U they believed the witness Wig-
gins, then upon that point there could be no doubt,
for on his testimony the proof rested, the other wit-
messes merely speaking to acts of impropriety,_ but
not amounting to the principal act. With respect to
the question of damages, it was true that this case
was unattended with the points of aggravation which
sometimes are found in such offences. They would
of course look at the plaintiff's situation, at the injury
he had received, and at the probable means at the
disposal of the defendant. They would consider these
circumstances dispassionately, and apportion the da-
mages which they deemed applicable to a case of this
character.
The Jury consulted together for about five minutes,
and then returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, £lOO.