Star.
London, England, 1828-11-07 00:00:00

the departure of Peter Cazalet to India in 1797, and
heard of his marriage and family in November 1813,
at which time he had four children. He went abroad
in May, 1815 ; shortly afterwards Mrs. Cazalet was
brought to bed ; Mrs. Cazalet returned to this country
in 1819; in the year 1822 witness was applied to by
Mr. James Cazalet; he brought a letter from the plain-
tiff's wife; witness destroyed that letter ; she went
to Half Moon-street, where she saw the plaintiffs wife.
Her family were then at Eastbourne. Witness found
her then in vet y distressed state of mind, and very far
advanced in the family way; this was in July, 1822.1
Mrs. Cazalet went home with witness in a hackney
coach. The defendant called to see her, and she was
delivered of a child in witness's house; the defendant
pail the expenses of the lying-in, &c. Nobody but the
defendant visited her ; two days after the delivery he
came to see her, and dined with her; the child was a
girl: it was baptised o Julia Corrillis, daughter of
James and Caroline;" witness named the child ; when
she spoke to him about the baptism, he said it did
not signify; witness does not know who is the father
of the child ; the defendant gave all the directions.
Mrs. Cazalet suggested that it should be called the
child of James and Caroline. None but the defen•
dant and witness interfered in the matter. The child
lived twelve months and five days. Defendant paid
the expenses of the funeral. Mrs. Cazalet was five weeks
at witness's house, after which she returned to East-
bourne. Witness received no particular instructions,
only to take care of the child. In November and De-
cember of the same year witness saw Mrs. Cazalet liv-
ing with her children at Eastbourne. The plaintiff re-
turned to this country in June, 1827. Defendant came
to witness last April, to entreat her to write to the
plaintiff to tell him of the affair of 1822 (the period of
her seduction), and stated to her that Mrs. Cazalet's
mind was in a bad state, and she must leave her husband's
house; he showed witness a letter from Mrs C. begging c f
him to go to the witness and request that she would men-
tion the whole occurrence. In consequence of that letter
witness did write to the plaintiff; Mrs. Cazelet, in four
or five days afterwards, came to witness's house with
Maria Atwood; she was then in the family way, wit-
ness saw the defendant twice before she wrote; this was
in June ; she asked him why he did not tell her the
whole of the case? he replied, that he could not make
up his mind to it, and said that it was unfortunate that
he went to Brighton; he then asked at what time Mrs.
Cazalet expected to be confined, to which she replied,
at the end of July ; that cannot be, said he, for if it is
the case, it is Peter's ; on the 21st of July she was brought
to bed ; she had two boys. who are very small ; witness
could not say whether she had gone her full time or
not; the children sere now under the care of Mrs. Ca-
zalet ; since October last, she had been at Hampstead
along with these children:
Cross. esamincd by Mr. BROUGHAM—Mrs. Cazalet is
younger than the plaintiff by seven or eight years. She
was married at 13 years old in India, where she was born.
Witness knew nothing respecting the circumstances of
the marriage. From 1813 to 1815, witness saw the
plaintiff and Mrs. Cazalet. They were travelling much.
Witness remembered the birth of the plaintiff ; he was
born in Austinfriars.
Maria Atwood was reexamined—She came to the
plaintiff's service in the year 1825, and remained there
till his return in 1827. She was there when he ar-
rived. During her master and mistress's stay, they
did rot occupy the same room. They never slept
together after his ieturn from India. Witness un-
derstood that it was by Mrs. Cazalet's desire they
slept sef;arately. They mere at Brighton in 1827, and
occupied the house No. 40, Bloomsbury place. The
plaintiff stopped at Brighton for some time, but occa-
sionally went to L.indon. He was in London from the
15th to the 21st of November. Between those times
the defendant came to the house, and was ushered into
the dra.s ing-room, where the young Ladies were. Wit-
ness never saw him there when the plaintiff was at home.
Defendant and Mrs. Cazalet went out frequently to-
gether in a fly. and were out for about art hour or as
hour and a half each time. Witness accompanied Mrs.
Cazalet to Mrs. Godsby's. The plaintiff and his wife
bad never seen each other since the discovery.
Dr. Ramsbottom said, be attended the delivery of
Mrs. Cazalet in July last. The children bout in July
last might be from a connexion in the Nov. previous.
Hugh Hughes, a del k in the banking house of Willis
and Co. stated, that a payment of 1,0001. per annum
was made to Mrs. Cazalet in the absence of her hus-
band ; she had an account at the banking house ; in
1820 she overdrew 1.20')l. In 1823 she overdrew to

the amount of 1,9001. Both sums were paid by her
_husband.
Mr..BROMMAM said, he trusted the Jury would hear
the few observations which he had to make, for the
purpose of aiding them in coming to a right decision
with the same degree of calm attention which they
had yielded to the opening speech of his Learned
Friend, and the evidence by which it was followed.
For the purpose of public justice it was necessary
to make a few remarks on the extraneous topics by
which they had been introduced. The Jury must be
aware that by law their measure of damages must be
tbe conduct of the plaintiff towards his wife, and the
arnount ef the comfort which he had lost by the act of
the defendant. Ile (the Learned Counsel) would say,
that if a Judge had, in his charge to the Jury in such
a case, addressed observations to them, such as had
'closed the speech of the Lea, ned Counsel for the
kleintiff, telling them, in effect, that they must give
the plaintiff damages not only for the injury done
ttpp lus feelings, and the loss of comfort ceased by
, tlniseduction of his wife, but for the injury &dew the
pphlic morals by the offence committed by the defend-
apt as a martied man, for his violation of the ties of
relationship, and for the injury he had committed on
414. sacitd Character as a Clergyman—the verdict
Oirned upon, such a charge, be the damages great or
small, would be subject to revision before a high tribu-
list], and the Judge making it would be liable to ad-
Monition. -The law of the land—whether right or wrong
it was not for'him to inquire—declared that the offence
of which he acknowledged himself to have bten
guilty, should not be punished criminally. The Jury
could not, therefore, without a manifest dereliction of
thrir 44, inflict penal damages upon the defen-
dant. It was by the loss which the plaintiff sustained
ip his domestic happiness, the amount of comfort of
- which be had been deprised, that the Jury were to
compute the tin ages. His Learned Friend knew
well, that, upon this point, the whole case turned.
and yet he had pur•ued at different course. Ile ad-
; dated only letters selected horn a number, and those
. which had been produced related only to a few months,
spd ibose months coofited to 1820. 'flue it was they
were IA terms of strong affection, as letters mostly were
when purposes were to be served. NuMbers of living
witne.ses Might have been called to prove the terms on
which the plaintiff lived with his wife; ?here were rela-
tions-who sight have been called, and they might have
stated some circumstances which took place with respect
to.the marriage, Which was consummated when the lady