Star.
London, England, 1821-05-23 00:00:00

CUTHBERT V. BROWNE.

This was a special action for deceit of an extraor-
dinary nature. The first count stated, that the plain-
tiff; Charles Cuthbert, being then a bachelor, was,
on the '2oth of March, 1820, wrongfully and deceit-
fully informed by the defendant, John Browne, of
Castle-street, in the County of the City of Dublin,
that Hannah Darling, the sister-in-law of the defend-
ant, John Browne' was a virtuous, moral, and well-
conducted young Lady, he, the said John Browne,
well knowing to the contrary; and that, in order to
induce and encourage the plaintiff to pay his ad-
drk..ses to the said Hannah Darling, the defendant
did represent her as a pure and undefiled virgin, and
that he did thereby, falsely and deceitfully, cause
and procure the said Charles Cuthbert to marry the
said Hannah Darling. This count stated, that, con-
fiding in the assertion of the defendant, John Browne,
he, the said Charles Cuthbert, on the 423 d of April,
1820, did ask her, the said Hannah Darling, in mar-
riage, in Castle-street, in the County of the City of
Dublin, and did then and there marry the said Han-
nah Darling.. The count further stated, that the said
John Browne well knew the said Hannah Darling
was not a pure and undefiled virgin, as he had re-
presented to the plaintiff, but that she had been de-
bauched and defiled by the said John Browne. The
count further stated, that the said Hannah Darling
was delivered of a child on the sth of October fol-
lowing; and that the plaintiff was cruelly deceived,
and put to the expense of X2OOO, for the maintenance
and support of the said Hannah, and for medical ad-
vice and attendance during her accouchensent.
Mr. Iticuanns contended, that the marriage con-
tract did not require that the woman should be chaste
previous to her marriage, nor would any previous
unchasteness, on the part of the woman, deprive the
husband of any benefit he might derive from her, or
limit any of the privileges she, as his wife, should
enjoy. The plaintiff contracted for no more than a
wife, and he has got one—(l laugh)—the very
words of the contract are, " to take her for better
for worse"—(Continued laughing).—At any sale of
goods, however they may be puffed off, all faults
must go with them. The Learned Counsellor con-
cluded by stating, that if this action was admitted,
there was no imperfection which a Lady might have,
but might be the subject of litigation; bad temper,
on the part of a Lady, might be the ground of a fu-
ture action : he trusted their Lordships would not to-
lerate or allow the plaintiff to go into the evidence of
this case, and to cause an investigation before a Jury,
as to the virginity of his wife.
Mr. GOOLD, on the part of the plaintiff, stated that
the present action was grounded on one of the great-
est injuries under which a human being could suffer.
—.lf history did not furnish any precedent for this
action, it did not proceed from any defect in the law,
but solely from the enormity of the offence. It was
the maxim of common law, that there was no wrong
without a remedy ; and should it be said to the plain-
tiff, after having suffered so dreadful an injury—
should it be then said to him, " Depart from hence,
for you cannot be'heard in this Court ?"—Hannah
Darling was the 'sister-in-law of the defendant, John
Browne, domesticated and living under his protec•
tion. He inveigled the plaintiff, by allegations which
he knew to be false, to pay his addresses to her.—
The defendant was the proper authority for the plain-
tiff's ascertaining the Lady's character, and, through
his false representations, he was induced to 'ask her
in marriage. The plaintiff has sustained great pecu-
niary loss in consequence of a crime committed by
the defendant. Surely the plaintiff was not bound to
support a child not begotten by him ?
Judge JOHNSON here mentioned an instance of a
Gentleman having advertised for such a woman, in
order to disinherit his heir.

Mr. GooLD resumed. This was a stronger case
than one for criminal conversation. There compen-
sation might be had, and the marriage dissolved—
but what law could dissolve this marriage? Was he
not bound to this woman, as had been said, for better
for worse? What opportunity had the plaintiff of
ascertaining the fact as to the Lady's chastity, that
he did not avail himself of ? Mr. Goold concluded
by stating, that the frightful enormity of this case
was the cause of its novelty. The questions for their
Lordships to decide on were.—Was this an injury ?
Was that injury inflicted by the defendant ?—And
was there a damage sustained? Mr. Goal trusted I
that the Court would be slow, after looking over the
declaration, before it would shut out this man from
all relief. . .

The Court being about to rise, the further hearing
of this motion was postponed.,