Star.
London, England, 1816-07-24 00:00:00

7

• T `

mistres., he had no great right to complain that she,
iu• her turn, became mistress also.. It was in evi.
dente, that Mrs. Wright was in the habit of going
with Mr. Braham to Berne-hill, Now •he was in-
structed that Lb,' Defendant could in evidence further
shew, that. the ktaintiff's negligence as to his wife
was more than that before, his last voyage. He had
suffered an intimacy between his wife•and the Defen-
dant which no man of delicacy or common sense
cquid for an instant allow. -If under such circum-
stances he had not suspected what was passing, he
Must have shut his ,t)es upon what was as clear as
day. A great deaf had been said by the witnesses
about Lamb's Conduit-strtet and Herne-bill; but it
• was singular, that none of the witnesses proved that
Mr. Braham lived the former with Mr. and Mrs.
11.Tright. Now, he would prove that such was the
Liq, and that Mr. Wright was privy to it. When the
Defendant was with Mrs. Wright she was denied to
et idy else, even her own husband walked out.
A husband who could.be so easily satisfied, had no
right' to complain, that if he had nourished a mothe-
ring flam.., it at length tqund a veneand fanned itself
into a blaze ; he had no right to have his story told
in a Court of Jusaice with sympathy for himself. It
• would also be proved, that so late as eleyen o'clock
at night, Mr. Braham had called at • the Plaintiff's
house,. when he was himself .at.home, and taken his
wire away in his carriage on a visit to Herne-hill,
where she staid that night, and longer. On some oc-
casions the age of the female would account for such
volatility, but here was an experienced I.fdy. 37 years
of ages irho must be :opposed to know and feel the
consequence of such acts. If those facts be proved{
as he was instructed on paper they would be, if they
did not fle, the length of calling fir a verdict for the
Defendant, they would at least reduce the claim for
damages to a mere nominal sum. l'he Defendant,
like every othei• man in the profession, of which he
was an ornament, depended fur his means of life on
the estimation of his talents in the public eye. In an
inquiry of this sort, he stood in so delicate a situation
that he ought not to be prejudged, or inconsiderately
condemned. This delicacy was occasioned by that
good and honest principle of morals abort: John Bull,
that led him to make a rigorous comment upon the
*floral characters of those dramatic personages, over
whom he holds an exclussive and commanding con-
troul. This was a feeling salutary in' itself, and one
of which he (the Solicitor-General) was proud for his
country. But yet it was,.from the nature of thing*,
zealous, and sometimes rash in its decision-T-4 was
therefore right to protect an individual from the ex-
cess of its operation. • He therefore felt it incumbent
upon him to point out to the Jury, that in this case
there had been no wanton or :profligate violation of
firendship on the part of the Defendant. It was no
such circumstance. He had notoriously fallen into
the arms of a mistress, with the eyes of •her husband
wide open. The latter Was therefore deprived of that
• right which other men, who acted differently, would
have a right to receive the benefit of from the hands
of a seducer. He would now proceed to evidence.
Mary Clarke exateined.—Was a servant to Mr.
Wright—went there on the sth of June two years
ago, and continued ur he Christmas following, at
their lodgings in La mb'S..:onduit-street. Mr. Braham
and Madame Storace were constant visitors there, and
slept in the same bed.; Mrs. Wright visited them in
her turn at Herne•hill—she often went there, very
often with Mr. Braham ; sometimes as late as eleven
• o'clock at night, though her husband remained at
. home. She has gone on Saturday and not returned
before Monday. Mr. Braham was always admitted
when he called ; Mr. Wright would oftener go away
than stay on those occasions, leaving his wife at home
with the Defendant. '[he latter often came there at
late hours in the evening, and remained up with Mrs.
Wright until between twelve and one o'clock, though
Mr. Wright went to bed between .10 and 11. Mr.
. Braham often slept in the house, in a chamber ad-
joining that in which Mr. and Mrs. Wright were;
there was a doOr communicated between them, but
witness could not say whether it was generally lock-
ed or pot. She remembered Mr. and Mrs. Wright
setting out in Mr. Braham's carriage to Oxford, .and
Mr. Wright's returning the next day, without his
wife,. On asking for her mistress, he answered that
he left her very well. Mrs. Wright did not return
kr about a week. Witness could not recollect who
brought her home.
Cross-examined.—She believed Mr. Braham was a
visitor, not a lodger, in Lamb's Conduit-street. She
then described the number of apartments which Mr.
Wright rented. .
Elisabeth Bider:raj; examined iy &deans VAUGHAN.
She lived as servant with Mrs. Wright in Lamb's
Conduit-street immediately on the last witness leav-
ing it, and stayed there ten months. She was with
Mrs. Wright on her removal to New-street. At both
houses Mr. Braham was a constant visitor, and al-
ways had a bed-room at New-street. This witness
eotri.borated the evidence as to Mrs. Wright having,
gone and remained with Mr. Braham at late hours,
when her husband was at home, and her being al-
ways seedy to receive him.
Air. Evans examined.
• He was landlord of the house in Lamb's Conduit.
street where Mr. and Mrs. Wright lodged. He was
• not aware that Mr. Braham paid any part of the
lodging money for his own accommodation in the
house, but he did at one period pay witness some rent
arrears.

The case for the defendant being closed,
Mr. Serjeant Lams rose to reply, and observed,
that he would willingly concede to the defendant the
whole of the defence ; that is, that Mr. Braham had,

perhaps occasionally, come forward and advanced
some arrear of rent in,the absence of Mr. Wright.
• lie might have done sot but did such an act give Lim
she right to seduce the wife of his friend ? There was
ao evidence that the plaintiff bad not given to his
wife.full means of maintenance in his absence. He
. bad opened the case by stating that he could not an
ticipate the defence, and he really was uninfocmed,
until he beard it, of any of its bearings. It did cer-
tainly appear that a cautions or a jealous man would
not have countenanced that sort of conduct on thel
part of his wife that might be deemed equivocal; so
far, perhaps, the plaiattff might be blameable. But
could such au unsuspicious confidence be miscon-'
strued into an absolute licence on his part ? Certainly
not, nor any thing like it. If the whole of the evidence
for the defendant could •be supposed to imply the
easy connivance of the husband to his own disgrace,
where was 4se necessity for the defendant's carrying,