Star.
London, England, 1819-07-05 00:00:00

- t
•

4AW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 3.
CRIM. COM.
PEACOCK V. DERBYSHIRE.
Mr. Delmar/ opened the declaration in this case.
It was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr.
Richard Peacock, against the defendant Mr. Stewart
Derbyshire, to recover compensation in damages for
criminal conversation with his wife. The defendant
had pleaded not guilty, and upon this issue was joined.
Mr. SCARLETT, in his address to the Court and
Jury, stated that the Plaintiff was by profession a
Law-stationer, living in Chancery-lane. He was a
person of great respectability, and found himself
under the painful necessity of bringing this action,
to recover compensation for the injury which he had
sustained by the seduction of his wife. The Defen-
dant was a young man, the son of Mr. Derbyshire;
an Apothecary and Surgeon of some eminence (car.
rying on business in Berners-street, Oxford-street).—
He held a situation in the office of Mr. Archibald
Campbell, an Army Agent, and also held the com-
mission of an Ensign, in his Majesty's Service. In the
year 1811, the Plaintiff became acquainted with the
lady whose misconduct formed the subject of the
present proceeding, kllci afterwards married her.—
She was the daughter of Sir Henry David Peake,
who was a Surveyor of his Majesty's Navy. After
the marriage took place, they lived together in great
harmony, and with uninterrupted confidence and
affection, till during some porticn of the last year.
In-the course of the last year, Sir Henry Peake and
his family went upon a trip to France. Mr. Peacock.
and his wife accompanied them, and were nbsenC
from this country about eight days. While in France,
the Plaintiff had the misfortune to form some degree
of:intimacy with the Defendant. A lady, who was
in ;:he house Sir Henry Peake, was acquainted with
the family of the Defendant, and thus he, and a bro-
ther who accompanied him, were repeatedly invited
to speed the evening. Thus an intimacy grew up
between the families, arid they were occasionally in
the habit of .meeting each other. Some time in the
course of last year the Plaintiff observed that his wife
did not pay the same attention to her family as she
had been previously accustomed to do. He should
have stated that the fruits of the marriage were two
children, a boy and a girl, the eldest of whom was
five years of age. It was remarked that the lady
adopted a practice which was very unusual with hot
at any former period. She walked out every day,
and at an hour of the day which the Jury would find
it probable was most convenient for holding a meet-
ing with the Detendaet. It was true that they oc-
casionally met together in the evening at Mr. Pea- I
cock's house ; but Mr. Peacock being a domestic man,'
mid spending his leisure time with his family, no op-
portunity was afforded for that species of intercourse
which their passionate feelings suggested. Thus the
lady found it convenient to walk out very frequently,
and instead of taking her children with her (the eldest
of w)tom was at least a desirable companion), and
which she had been in the practice of doing, she went
alone, alledging that they were rather an incum-
bratice. A circumstance attracted Mr. Peacock's at-
- tendon, which also excited suspicion. but which, as
he could not make it evidence, he would not describe.
It was sufficient to say, that it was strongly calcu-
lated to create distrust. He should, however, be
ablso call evidence to prove, that about the time
when the intimacy between Mrs. Peacock and the
Defendant commenced, the former was observed to
neglect her family duties. He might ,here observe,
that such conduct alWays accompanied the violation
of the marriage sanctuary. Hardly an instance ever
occurred, in which a wife departed from the paths of
virtue and honour, where it was not observed, that
all the duties which she owed to her husband and to
herself, were not abandoned. This unhappy worhan
exhibited all those symptoms of neglect to her family
mid to her servants. Mr. Peacock, in consequence
of what he saw, watched her motions, and traced
her very frequently in visits to the neighbourhood of
Soho.square. At this time Mr. Peacock had not the
least suspicion of the Defendant, who was several
years younger than Mrs. Peacock. It was not till
towards the close of the last year, as Mr. Peacock
was going to bed, that any thing occurred upon
which a correct conclusion could he formed. On
that occasion Mr. Peacock observed his wife in some
degree of confusion, as if she wished to conceal from
his notice something which s:ie bad in her hand. He
should have informed them, that at this time a bro-
ther of Mr. Peacock, an Officer in the Navy, was on
a visit to him, and had gone to bed. Mr. Peacock
kept his eye upon the lady, and at last saw her con-
ceal a paper in some part of the bed. This induced
him to snatch the paper with some degree of violence.
Her conduct at the instant proved the importance
which she attached to it. It was sufficient to say,
that she conducted herself in the most violent man-
ner. She followed her husband down stairs, un-
dressed as she was, and blew out die light to pre-
vent his reading the paper. • He, however, opened
the street door, in order that he mit gratify his
curiosity as well as his anxiety by the light of the
lamp but her conduct was such as to prevent his
efforts, until his brother arrived, when the letter,
which he should now read, was secured. This letter
was in the hand-writing of the Defendant, and the
Jury would judge from its contents what degree of
intercourse had taken place between the parties.—
Before he read this letter he would make an observe-
tiou whichle considered applicable to all cases of this
nature. In all instances in which married women
had forgotten the duty which they owed to their hus-
bands, it was observable that the individuals upon
- upon whom they had conferred their favours treated
them with a degree of familiarity, which the circum-i
stances of the relation in which they stood to the
husband would forbid, if the last degree of intimacy
had not passed. No man would presume to addrees'
a woman whose virtue-was yet safi, and especially a
married woman, in terms otherwise than respectful;
but the moment the last favour was granted, that re-
spect would cease, and a more passionate style of
address would of course be adopted. He made this
observation because he thought it peculiarly appli-
cable to the terms of the letter which he was about
to read. The Jury would recollect this letter to be
from a young mast to a married woman—the mother
of two children, and five or six years older than him-
self—and when they heard the language in which it
was couched, they would say whether they could

doubt that the last degree of intimacy had taken place
between them. This was the letter :
" What will you think of me, my deers* Mary? The block-
heads of this office did not give ms your letter till this morning:
all credit is due to you for your excellent contrivance—and I
shall not forget Mrs. Smith (the feigned name by which this lady
was addressed.) But what did you suppose, upon not finding
a letter for that Lady ; you must surely, I fear, have inquired
before this ; but I hope you did not make any undue reflec-
tions. I did not, it is true, arrive here froth the city yesterday
till all the Clerks were gone, but they should have left my letter,
with the servant. I approve of your plan ;it will do very well
for a little; but our best policy will be to change from time to
time, as curiosity first, and then suspicion, and possibly detec-
tion, the natural offspring of these two, may follow each other,
if time is allowed for it. The circumstance( by which these may.
be excited, you will easily observe to be, first, your appearance'
(by no means unattractive), which would lead the worthies at
the Post-office to think you must have a house of your own;
edly, the frequency of your applications would, no doubt, W..
(kice them to suppose your letters to possess some peculiar in-
terest for you ; and 3rdly, the nearness of the place to your own
house would afford great facility to their at!empts to discover
the mystery, should their curiosity be awakened. All these,
however, are but, possibilities, against which, you know, it is
my plan always to be on guard.
From this it will be seen that the defendant, if
young in years, was well advanced in artifice.
" And this will serve all the purposes of a conveyance for our
correspondence till lam able to fix upon a better. This I shall
endeavour to do at a greater distance from bonne, but not so
great as to be inconvenient to you—and where, if possible, there
are no interfering tattling old or young women, who certainly
are.wcialerfulunravellers of secrets' where they chance to obtain
a clue. You will by the time you have got thus far, no doubt.
say or think, a truce to prudential considerations--love has no-
thing to do with such. I acknowledge it, and deFist, only re•
commending to you discretion. I feel in your presence as you
say you do in mine. I fo-g t all I wished to say when I see yot,
and when I have parted, they all crowd upon my memory at
once. I have hitherto omitted to thank you for your little pre-
sent, in every respect so gratifying to me, and so deserving of
estimation on its own account. Yost will, however, I ant sure,
believe me, when I say it possesses, in my eyes, charms far. su-
perior to its own intrinsic value—which you only, in the world,
can appreciate. I hope this will reach you in safety. I have
met with at least a thousand interruptions since I began this, and
am now forced to end abruptly.
" Saturday." " Yours D. S."
ever,
,
He should proceed to call witnesses to establish
the fact.
Thomas Putney, a parish clerk of St. George the
Martyr, produced the registry of the marriage of the
plaintiff with his wife, on the 23c1 of November, 1811,
then being Miss Mary Ann Peake.
Mr. Lewis Peacock, attorney, and brother of the
plaintiff, proved the hand-writing of the plaintiff and
his wife to the marriage 'registry. Mrs. Peacock was
the daughter of Sir Henry Peake. The plaintiff and
his wife lived together on terms of affection, as far
as witness ever observed. They lived together until
September last, when they separated.
Fanny White lived servant with plaintiff and his
wife, four years. next September. They had two
children, a boy a girl. As far as she observed,
Mr. and Mrs. Peacock rived happily together. Wit-
ness did not observe much t hen her mistress went
oat. Never noticed any difference in the conduct of
Mrs. Peacock towards her husband from what was
when witness first w:nt there. Mrs. Peacock used
sometimes to walk in the morning, at times with her
little girl, and at times without. Could not say whe-
ther she went out oftener latterly than before. Re-
membered plaintiff and his wife going to France last
year with Sir Henry an I Lady Peake. After return-
ing from France, Mrs. Peacock did not go out oftener
than usual. Sometimes the plaintiff went out of an
evening, and returned at ten o'clock. Remembered
the dispute between plaintiff and her husband in Sep,
tember last. Witness wai awakened by the disturb-
-

atice, and went up stairs, and saw her mistress stand-
ing on the landing-place, undressed. Did not know
what the dispute was about. I-ter mistress left the
house next day, and never returned again. Witness
could not swear to the defendant, but might have
seen him.

Elizabeth Williams was nurse in the plaintiff's fa-
mily a few days before Mrs. Peacock left her house.
In the course of a night in September last, was dis-
turbed by a noise in her master's hed-room. Went
up stairs and saw her mistress undressed. Saw no
paper; only heard a noise. There was no light but
the plaintiff called for one, which was brought by
witness's fellow-eervant. Mrs. Peacock blew the
light out.
Mr. ADAM objected, that any thing done by Mrs.
Peacock, was not evidence receivable in this cause.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, it was receivable as evi-
dence of the manner in which the letter alluded to
was obtained by the husband.
Sarah Jenkins was a nursery-maid in the plaintiff's
family the year before last, and left the service 16
months since. The plaintiff appeared to be an atten-
tive husband to his and was fond of his children.
Mr. Samuel Peacock, a Lieutenant in the Navy,
and brother of the plaintiff, stated that he was in the
habit of visiting the plaintiff and his wife, and they
appeared to live happily. Did not know the defen-
dant—never saw him at plaintiff's house. Witness
slept at plaintiff's house on the night the letter in
question was obtained by the plaintiff. Heard an
altercation between plaintiff and his wife. The latter
said, " You shan't have it—it is my letter." Heard
the bed-room door open, and a rush down stairs.
Witness was about getting up, when the plaintiff
came to him with a light, and requested hins-eci get..
up. He appeared in great distress. Witness got up
and went out, and saw hlrs. Peacock in her bedgown,
without shoes and stockings. Witness said, " For
GOD'S sake, what is the matter? Compose yourself,
and don't expose yourself to your servants." The
plaintiff had a letter grasped in his hand, and was
going to read it, when Mrs. Peacock snatched at it,
but rushed into her bed-room, and blew the candle
out. A considerable struggle and altercation af-
terwatds ensued, but the plaintiff succeeded in
getting the letter. Next day Sir Henry and Lady
Peake called and took Mrs. Peacock away. Saw
the defendant on Saturday morning (the disturb-
ance mentioned being on a Thursday night) ;—wit-
ness called upon him, and told him that he came
about an unpleasant business between him and plain-
tiff's wife. The defendant appeared agitated, and
said, " I find I am in a scrape, and must get out of
it as well as I can ;" and added, " that the errors of
youth may lead us into acts which we may after•
wards regret,- and which blast our future-prospects
in life." Witness asked him for some letters belong-
ing to plaintiff's wife, and requested him to deliver
them up. He replied, " Certainly not ;" but if wit-
ness would pledge his word of honour that the plain-
tiff's wife would consent, he would deliver them up.
Witness said he could pledge himself to no such
thing. This, was at the house of the defendant's
father. The defendant asked witness to walk up

stairs, which he did. After some conference between
defendant and another person in the adjoining room,
he returned, and said he could not give the letters up.
,Witness had said below stairs, that delivering the
letters up might be the means of preventing public
exposure in a Court of Justice ; defendant said, that
*as most desirable.
Cross-examined.—ln the course of the struggle
which witness described, Mrs. Peacock said the letter
was not her's. There was a greit deal of confused
'noise about the letter, one word of which witness
'could not repeat. Mrs. Peacock did not say it was
a letter from her brother Henry. She might have
said so. She said she had nothing to do with it,
meaning the letter in the plaintiff's hand at the time.
When witness saw defendant on the Saturday morn-
ing, he said to him (defendant) he was sorry that he
had got into such a scrape. Recollected a conversa.
don between plaintiff and himself about a Mr. Maund
some days after the letter was discovered. The plain-
tiff said he had suspected his wife a long while; for
on going down to his office after dinner one day, he
saw a person whom he supposed to be a Mr. Maund;
that he took no further-notice, and went to the of-
fice ; that on his return home, between nine and ten,
he asked his wife whether any body had been there?
and she said " No person ;' that he then asked of the
servants whether any body had been there? and they
said, " Yes, Mr. Maund has been here for nearly an
hour." Witness told his brother, that as Mr. Maund
was his wife's brother-in-law, there was nothing in
that circumstance to excite suspicion. This was after
the plaintiff had said he suspected his wife with Air..
Maund. Remembered a conversation also with his
brother about a Mr. Bamfield, as to the treatment of
Mrs. Peacock's children. The defendant was about
nineteen or twenty years of age. Mrs. Peacock was'i,
about twenty-eight. The plaintiff was a law stationer
in Chancery-lane; he was about thirty-six or thirty-
seven years old ; his private house was in Burton-
street, Burton-Crescent.
Alexander Knight, a Clerk in the Office of ,Mr.
Campbell, the Army Agent, proved the hand-wri-
ting of the defendant to the letter in question ; defen-
dant had been a Clerk in Mr. Campbell's Office, and
was now a half-pay Ensign in the Army.
Tire letter was then put in and read.
Mr. John Derbyshire, brother of the defendant,
said his father was a Surgeon and Apothecary, in
Berners-street, Oxford-street. Defendant boarded
with his father. Mr. Derbyshire, the elder, attended
Mr. Peacock's family professionally. Witness and
defendant visited at the plaintiff's house. Never saw
the letter in question, but heard it read to-day. Ne-
ver saw or heard of the present mentioned in the let-
'ter. Has seen Mrs. Peacock at his father's house in
the day time, in company either with her brother or
her husband. Never knew of defendant meeting Mrs.
Peacock in the street. Never saw any of her letters
to him. Witness was the person whom the defen-
dant consulted about giving up the letters. which
Lieutenant Peacock called about, and to which the
lattet had spoken in his evidence. Witness said to
the defendant on that occasion, that if he really had
any letters' of Mrs. Peacock, he would advise him not
to give them up. -
Cross-examined.—Witness has six brothers and tom,
sisters. Tee defendant was on half-pay as an Ens*,
and was not twenty, bid not know of any ineansof'

..ce he had except his half-pay.
...e-examinecl.-.-Witness his since seen Mrs. Pea-
cock accidentally in the street, but did not know that
the defendant had seen her; except by chance, he
might have seen her at a distance in the street.
Here the plaintiff's case closed.
Mr. ADAM proceeded to address the Jury on behalf
of the defendant, but
Mr. SCARLETT interposed, and said he did not
mean to interrupt his Learned Friend's observations;
but as he had naturally anticipated the way in which
the case must be left to the Jury, he felt that there
was not sufficient evidence of the fact of adultery to
warrant a conclusion of criminality; and therefore,
with the consent of the Learned Judge, he would
withdraw the case from the consideration of theJtiry,
more especially as he perceived his Lordship to be in-
clined to concur with him in thinking that the case
could not go with any expectation of a verdict.
The CHIEF JUSTICE appeared to acquiesce, and
the plaintiff was nonsuited.
RIGGS V. GRIFFITHS.

This was an action for an assault and false imprison-
ment. The plaintiff was the wife of a soldier resid-
ing at Chelsea. On a day mentioned in the record,
Mrs. Riggs went to the defendant's shop to buy a
straw bonnet, and having selected one, tendered a
£1 note in payment. The defendant, on looking at
it, said it was a bad one; on which Mrs. Riggs left
the shop, and went to another in the neighbourhood,
kept by Mr. Herring, where she bought a bonnet,
and was in the act of paying for it with a £1 note,
when Mrs. Guaths, who had followed her, entered
the shop, seized the note from her hand, and charged
her with being an utterer of forged notes. A Con-
stable•was sent for, and she was given in charge by
the defendant, who, although it was mid-day, direc-
ted she should be taken to the watch-house, where
she was kept in the dungeon all night. On the fol-
lowing morning the Constable went to the Bank,
taking with him two £1 notes found in Mrs. Riggs'
possession, when it appeared that the notes were good.
She was then iiken'before a Magistrate and dischar-
ged. There was no defence, and the Jury, after an
address from the Judge, who strongly reprobated the
conduct of the defendant in keeping the woman in
custody all night, when.thqe.was plenty of time for
taking her before a Magigtate during the day, found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £2l—Costs 40s.

The Sheriff-Depute of Lanarkshire has published
a notice, calling upon the Public to seize, apprehend,
or give information of a woman, named Elizabeth
11F6stigan, charged with the murder of George
Simpson, her husband, lately a porter ix Glasgow.
Yesterday morning, about one o'clock, an alarming
fire broke out in the house of Mr. NICHOLS, pawn-
broker, of Gray's Inn-lane, Holborn, which, together
with the property it contained, was totally destroyed.
The house of Mr. WiLmens, next door, was also
considerably damaged. The engines, with a plenti-
ful supply of water, stripped its further progress.
Saturday a young Ldp, aged 17, residing in Castle-
street, Leicester-square, in crossing the' road where
the pavement is repairing,itumbled, and fell, and be-
fore she could recover herself a cart went over both
her legs, and crushed them to pieces.

CLERICAL INTELLIGENCE.

CAMBRIDGE, JULY 2.

The Parson Prize for the best translation of a passage from
Shakespeare into Greek verse, was on Tuesday last adjudged
Mr. Horatio Waddington, Scholar of Trinity College. Tkr
subject was from Corlolanus, Act 5, Scene 3, part of Volum.
nias speech, beginning with " Thou know'st, great son, the erd
of war's uncertain ;" and ending with " Let us shame hien
our knees."—Lord Hervey, eldest son of the Earl of Brined, t,
admitted Nobleman of Trinity College, in this University.

OXFORD, JULY 3.
Monday, the following Gentlzmen were admitted Fellows of
St. John's College :—John Joseph ERIN and Benjamin 'loll, rd
Banner. Same day, Thomas Arthur Powys, and Edward Tur-
nout', were admitted Scholars of the same Society.
Wednesday the election took place at Exeter College, vol:en
Josiah Forshall, B.A. of 'the same College, and 'fitomas
of lislliol College, were elected Fellows of that Society.
Wednesday, the following Gentlemen were elected Fellows of
Wadham College : Stephen Hurst tampion, Thomas GrES:II,
John Manley, and Peter Cramer Renew,. Same day, Jon
Charles James Hoskyos Abraball, Edward George Si:ncos, tt ii.
lints Oxnam, and blatbew Hughes George Buckle, were elev.-4
Scolars of that Society.
Thursday, the Rev. John Walker, LLB. Fellow of N:w
College, was presented by the Warden and Fellows of tit':
ciety to the Vicarage of liornchurch, EVICT.
Monday se'nnight, the Rev. Charles d, B.D. Student of
Christ Church, was elected Preacher to the Honourable Society
of Lincoln's Inn.
Thursday, the following were admitted to degrees;
DACHELOS IN DIVINITY.

The Rev. Joseph Benson, of Queen's College.

•ACHELOZ 1W CIVIL LAW.

Rev. Frederick Charles Blackstone, Fellow of New Collyse.
MASTERS Or ARM.
Charles Edmund Keene, Fellow of All Souls' College.
Rev. Thomas Trevener Penrose, Fellow of Exeter Witte.
Rev. Bouchier Marshall, of Exeter College.
Rev. Thomas Fryer Jennings of Wadham College.
Rev. Joseph T. Kirkbank, of Queen's College.
Rev. Harry Lee, Fellow bf New College.
Rev. Edward Turner, of Balllol College.
Rev. William Boyter Young, of St. John's College.
Rev. Joseph Mayo, firasennose College.
Yesterday, the following were admitted to degrees :
Rev. Joseph Benson, Queen's College, was admitted Der..ar
in Divinity.
Rev. James Britton, Christ Church, was admitted Bachtior
and Doctor in Divinity.
Rev. Robert Broadley, of St. John's College, was admitted
Master of Arts.
At a General Ordination, held by the Bishop of Norwich, is
that city, on Sunday last, the following were ordained :
DEACONS.
John Davies, late of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford.
James Allgood,.B.A. St. Mary Mall, Oxford.
. John Frederick Benwell, B.A. Magdalen Hall, Oxford.

• "must%
Henry Harvey, B.A. Christ Church, Oxford.
Watts Wilkinson, B.A. Worcester College, Oxford.
ECCLESTASTICAL PROMOTIONS.

Rev. J. 1). Churchill, Ls presented to the Rectory of Erpint
ham, Norfolk.
On the 3d ult. the original Burgher Associate Congregation,
Kirkintolloch, gave Mr. John Russell, Preacher, an unanirnow
call to be their Minister.
On the 17. h ult. a call was nu;deratetli in the Relief Chapel,
Dysart, for Mr. Junes Spence, Preacher, of the
Presbytery, as assistant and successor to the Rev. W. Dillervrell.

MARRTED. -

Rev. R. 14. Millet, Vicar of Dedham, to Marc, second
daughter of the late Rev. John Harrison, L.L.B. Rector d
Wrabuess, both in Easel.
Rev. Giles Daubeny, to Catherine, eldest daughter of the
Rev. J. Collins; of Benetton Berks.
Rev. IL Williams, Prebendary of Lincoln, to Miss Round,
eldest daughter of the late Stephen Round, Esq. cf King's Bet.ch
Hill, Berkshire.
Rev. C. D. Brefeton, Rector of St. Edmund's, Norwich, to
Frances, youngest daughter of Jesoph Wilson, )wig. of Highbury
Hill, Middlesex.
June 22, the Rev. Wm. Bradley, M. A. of Brasennose Col-
lege, Oxford, to Mary, daughter of the liev. Charles Gardner,
Rector of Stoke Hammond, Burks.
At Hallyboy Church, Francis Massey, of Newtown, meaty of
Kildare, Req. to Anne, third daughter of John Molloy, d Der-
rinboy, King's County, Esq.