The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-19 00:00:00

SHERIFF'S COURT, RED LION-SQUARE, JUNE 16.

MALPAS V. COWLEY.—This was an action for criminal eon-
ver.sa; ion with the plaintiff's wife. The defendant had suffered
judgment to go by default, and a jury was empanelled to assess
the damages on the execution of a writ of inquiry.
Mr. Huinfrey opened the pleadings, The damages were laid
at £2,01/0.
Mr. Serjeant Goulburn stated the case. He said the plaintiff
was a barrister practising at Leamington, in Warwickshire,
and with whom he was on terms of intimacy, and, had visited at
his house. His wife, he could say, was a beautiful woman, and
highly accomplished. The parties were married in 1827, and
had lived happily together for some tune. There was, however,
a difference in respect to their tempers, and a separation took
pace. The lady came to London, where sne became acquainted
with the defendant. He was, be believed, a young man who had
been in the nave. They met at a boarding-house near Bruns-
wick-square, and hence arose the criminal intercourse of which
the plaintiff complained. He (Mr. Serjeaut Goulburn) was
not there to ask for vindictive damages; the defendant had
admitted the adultery by allowing judgment to go by default,
and the jury would give fair and temperate damages for the
injury sustained.
Sir Eardley Wilmot, Bart. was the first witness called; he
stated that he was member of parliament for Warwick, and
chairman of the Quarter Sessions; the plaintiff is a practising
barrister at Leamington, and visited with his wife at his house.
He had been acquainted with them since their marriage in the
year 1827; they lived in his opinion on extremely good terms,
and to his remembrance he never saw any difference between
them. The last time that he saw them was at his house about
two rears ago. _

On cross:examination by Mr. Ball, who appeared for the de-
fendant, Sir Eardley Wilmot said, he supposed trie,plaintiff was
about thirty-six, and the lady about thirty. He only knew their
ages by appearances; he never saw any "jarring" between
the parties. He had heard they had separated on account of
temper.
Henry Alexander, Esq., barrister-at-law, was examined by
Mr. Serjeant Goulburn. —He said he was in the habit of going
the midland circuit. lie had known the plaintiff since the
year hy29. He had visited at his house at Leamington, anti
never saw any disagreement between the parties; they lived
happily together. He had not seen them for some time. There
had been a separation, but he understood Mrs. Malpas returned.
Miss Malpas recollected the marriage of her brother, in 1827,
with the lady who was the subject of the present action. She
was present at the marriage, and afterwards visited them. They
appeared to live cowfntably together. Mrs. Malpas visited her
in May, 1831, after the separation from her brother. She be-
lieved they had lived together after the first separation.
Cress-examined by Mr. Bal,„—Her brother was thirty-six,
and his wile twenty-five. She was not of age when she mar-
ried. She did not know their tempers were not congenial, but
in her opinion his wife was not very amiable, as she had be-
haved ill to her mamma. She should say her temper was not
good, and that there was irritability on-the other side. Most
gentlemen were irritable when provoked. (Laughter.) Her
brother treated his wife with great kindness. She thought he
eko
petted her, not only at the timf the honeymoon, but twelve
mouths afterwards. (Laughter.) She believed there had been
a deed of separation. She said she knew her brother was
anxious to send his wife home to her mother, but she believed
she went to a boarding -house near Brunswick-square. Miss
Malpas said she was not aware that the defendant was a dis-
charged midshipman. The lady had had one child, who had
died. •
Mr. Bali; addressed the jury on the part of the defendant.
None re pried more thin he did the present action, nor did he
mean tojffs-tleyr the conduct of his client—he was a young man,
had become acquainted at a boarding-house with an accom-
plished lady, he was a discharged midshipman, he was at the
battle of Navarino, and had lost one of his eyes in that engage-
ment. She had lost her husband, and their sympathy for each
other had baen excited. Their acquaintauge grew into
friendship, and ripened into love; further he would not say.
(Laughter.) In this case there were mitigating circumstances.
There were no children to deplore the loss of their mother, no
friendship bad been violated. His unfortunate client was
possessed of no property, he had merely a pension of £4O a
year, and when he became acquainted with the lady he had more
passion than judgment.
Mr. Burchell charged the jury. Actions of this nature widely
differed in circumstances, and in this case there did not appear
facts to aggravate the conduct of the defendant. It had not
been proved that he was possesied of property, neither had it
been shown that the defendant knew the lady was married. The
plaintiff might have been reconciled to his wife, and their do-
mestic peace renewed ; but the defendant had now placed an
insuperable bar between them.
The jury, after a short consultation, assessed the damages
at 40s.