The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-05-11 00:00:00

"r 1 .1E STY!' FSMAN

returned a verdict for the Plaintiff—One Shilling da-
mages. By this verdict the ground is laid for super-
seding the bankruptcy.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY 9.
LADY PERROT V. FARNWORTII.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Lady
Margaret Jemima Perrot against the Defendant, for
the support and maintenance of his wife.
Mr. CLARKE addressed the Jury, and stated the
circumstances under which the actio' was brought.—
The Plaintiff, Lady Perrot, he said, was the widow
of a Baronet of a very small fortune, and was under
the necessity, from her own distressed situation, to
bring this action against the husband of one of her
daughters, for expences to which she bad been put
for the maintenance and lodging of that daughter.—
When the Defendant married his wife, which was
some time back, he was a general merchant, living
in repute, and supporting a respectable establishment ;
be has since become a bankrupt. Subsequent to this
misfortune, he had again got into business, and was
Pow carrying on the trade of a wine-merchant, in
Elbow.lane, in the city of London. For reasons
which it was impossible satisfactorily to explain, he
bad refused to-maintain his wife, who was in conse-
quence obliged to resort to her mother for a living;
and for sixpences incurred in this way, the mother
now sought, as she was entitled to do, compensation
from the hands of the Jury. .
Mr. Baron RICUARDS.---11 •
it necessary that the
Court should be occupied io this discussion ?
Mr. Datuceir.ln justice to my Client and to
myself, I should state, that as far as this particultr,
cause is concerned, there would be no objection
to
refer it ; but as the fate of other pctions, depenritng.
'von the same defence whip is to be made to this,
would not be affected by this reference, I do not site
what advantage would be obtained.
Sir E. P. Perrot, Bart. deposed, that he was the
son of Lady Perrot. Mrs. Farnworth was his sister;
he was present at her marriage with Mr. Farnworth,
about 12 years ago. At that tim.a Mr. Farnworth
was living in Tavistock-place, and was a general
merchant. Witness immediately after this went down
go his regiment, and was absent for two or three
years. Witness was present at Lady Perrot's Ipdg.
legs in August, 1816, at an interview which took
place between the Defendant and his wife and Lady
Perrot. Witness had learned, that for some time
previously Mrs. Farnworth had been living with her
'pother. He also understood, that some application
bad been made to the Defendant for. some main-
tenance for his wife. A question was put to the
Defendant in witness's presence, whether he intended
to maintain his wife ? 'He answered that it was then
impossible—it was out of his power; but he shortly
expected to be in some sort of business, and was
looking after a house in the city, of which, as soon
as be obtained peesession, he would acquaint Lady
P. and her daughter. Ile added, that then his wife
should have one half of whatever he got. The con-
versation ended by his saying, that lie was determined
never to live with his wife any more. It was impos.
sible to live with her; but he would share with her
what he received. Witness then went away, and was
absent from town some time : lie left his sister living
with his mother. lie had not spoken to the De.
fentlaitt since, but discovered that he was living in
Elbow-lave. He went to ascertain be tact, and.saw
the house in which Le resided : was • respectable
private house. •
Cross•examincd Mr.-Dauncri.
You are trot now in the o rmy. are you ?--- am not.
When rill you ce.ise to be in the araly ?—I can't
charge my memory.
" Discharge," apprehend, is more in the military
line of expression was not discharged. •
I did not say you were; but do you not know
ts hen you quitted th‘-• army ?-1 do not remember,
but I think it was in Iso9.
Was your sister supported by Mr. Fara worth in
that. year ?-4 can't tell.
Not t.tl, Sir ! Do'you know whether they lived
together ?—lt is imposible for me to say, for I was
'very little in town: • I only know from report. •• •
Do you Pothole* that the separation took place
between them so far back as 1809 ? —No ; I was not
in London %heti the separation took place. It is very,
probable it was as far back. I am a married matt,'
and have lived with my mother's family very little.
Now many children has Lady Perrot ?—Five.
Are they all married?—All, except two, a son
and a daughter.
A pretty large exception out of five.—Whet is
the name of your single sister?—Augusta Matilda
Perrot.
She goes by another name, I believe !—She •has
reasons for doing so.
No doubt, Sir. Miss Fitzhenry is her otherpamo,
4 believe.?—lt is. I am ready to explain her miens
for assuming that name, if it should be necessary, as
I should be sorry any improper impression should
arise from the absence of such explanation.
No, Sir, you need not be at that trouble. Her
real name is Augusta Matilda. She is the same Lady;
I presume, whom we have seen announced as an
actress ?—She is, Sir ; and it is on that account she
has assumed a fictitious name.
Lady Perrot too, l believel.occasionally acts? •I
believe so.
Where does your mother live ?--In Cleveland.
streto.
,• Are you in the habit of sisitkes beo--Very sel-
dom.
Who lives with brae?-rklee yisangest son and my
'lister. •
Do you know whatalloiance the Defendant made
to his wife %I hPO he first parted with her?—l only
'know', from iteay.stuthat it was 3001. a-year..
What Mrs. FasinAorth's 'neaps of living were,
since that allowskica Kits stopped, you do,uot know?
—No; I have ilrfirsens-of inferrnation.
Ann Winteillewesed far. the D,i-ondant, that she
-Ness engaged as'Aphikilurse to Mrs. Far 111 V 'II'S child,
smite time in likl.P•• Ste continued in that situation
elefri!ir nionthw.44ts. Farnworth at that time lieed
in Tseis•pck•plac4. • -.-• • •
Mr.. RE..-- 1 111 S: 111, aso far bark as 180 ?
Mr. Datisicsir:s—the time snakes no tfitf:e.retice..
et.aitsze submitted, that the husband having
separated from his wife without making acy charge
of the sort alluded to by Mr. Dauncey, could not new
bring such a charge in tar of this action.

Mr. Baron RICHARDS said, be should like to know
upon what authority Mr. Clarke's argument was
founded ?
Mr. CLARKE said, he did not retiollect any imthe-
dicta authority bearing upon the case.
Mr. DAUNCET cited two MM.% from the Gth Term
Reports, in which Judge Buller had distinctly laid it
down, that adultery in the stile, at any time, and un-
der any circumstances, relieved the husband from all
responsibility for her support.
Mr. Baron RICIIA.RDS decided that the evidence
was admissible.
The witness then went on with her testimony.—
She recollected an Officer in the' army used to visit
her mistress very frequently ; this was about sus
months before she left. She saw them once in a
very particular situation. She was a married woman
herself, and had no doubt of what occurred. The
Gentleman used to come as a sweetheart to Miss
Farnworth, the Defendant's sister. She took let-
ters after this, and previous to the separation of Mrs.
Farnworth from her husband, from Mrs. F. to other
Gentlemen. Mr. Farnworth usually went out in the
morning at 11, and returned at five to dinner. Ile
sometimes went out afterwards to spend the after-
noon. During his absence several Gentlemen used
to call. She recollected one evening going to Mrs.
Farn worth's bed-room, and finding it locked. She had
previnisly been waiting at supper, and took in some
ducks. She had seen Mrs. F. a short time before in
the parlour with a Gentleman. The Gentleman fol-
lowed Mrs. F. when she left the room. Witness
afterwards went into the bed-room, and found the
ilsed tumbled. At this time Lady Perrot was in the
rporlour. Recollected Mrs. taking her to a Mrs.
Simmons's, in Marchmoto-street. Witness waited
in the front parlour with the infant, while her mis-
t toss went into a back parlour to speak to a Gentle-
man there. It was the same Gentleman who had
supped off the ducks. Witness was afterwards de-
sired to carry the child into the hack parlour, and
saw a bed there much tumbled. She could not say
whether it had been.Orevilvissly made or not.
Cross-examined.—She 'said, she met MT. Fern.
wotth, and that he asked her if snit coold.tell him any
thing respecting-the conduct of his wife ; and that she.
then told him all she knew. She lastly said, that
before she told him she went home and asked her
husband; and that she sent for Me. F. to'her hew,
and Olen told him. She considered Mrs-Farnworth
as common al dirt in the streets.
Frances Merrit deposed, that she lived with Mrs.
Farnworth in 1808 and 1809, and frequently saw.
Gentlemen take improper liberties with her. The
Gentlemen came after her master went out• in the
mortikg. When any Gentleman was there, her mis-
tress always desired she might be denied to any per-
son who might call. It was a Mr. Spurren whom she
saw with her mistress.
T. Thompson, a footman, who Used with Mr. Fun-
worth in November, 1808, saw Mr. Spurren, at be
was in the garden, sittiug by his mistress on the sofa
in an improper attitude. In cross-exlminatiou,
be
said he told his master whet he had seen.
Mrs. Sarah Creese deposed, that Mrs. Farnworth
came to live et her house after her separation from her
husband, in June, 1812. During the time she was
with her she was visited by several Gentlemen. Mrs.
Farnworth had hot one bed in her apartments. A
Gentleman slept in her apartments for several nights;
she could not tell in which room. There was a sofa
in the front room; the bed was in the Jack room.—
S!;e met the Gentleman on the stairs one morning,
and remonstrated with him on sleeping in Mrs. Fsrn-
worth's apartments; he was very abusive, and was
going to strike her son. She coold not tell how many
Gentlemen were in the habit of visiting Mrs. Farn-
wolth, but she thought four or live;
In cross.ezamination she said, that notwithstand-
ing sespicias of Mrs. F.'s misconduct, she did
not give her warning to quit for nine months. Her
neighbours, ,opposite said her house was a nuisance.
Mi.tt.teiss now called witnesses to rebut the
evidence "ny.the Defendant.
Mr. Du•Tertre remembered supping with Mrs.
Farnsworth at the time described by Anne Winter.
Lady Perrot was present, with a Mrs. Ware, and a
Geetlemen from the Bank, an old ftiend of the fa.
roily. . He was quite satisfied if such en incident had
happened as had been described by the witness, he
must. have recollected i!. No such incident did hap-
pen, nor did he ever see any think in the conduct of
Mrs. Farnworth in the slightest degree incorrect.
Miss Aukusta Matilda Perrot was then called to
contradict Mrs. Creese. She deposed, that she al-
most instrriahly slept with her sister every night, and
that the gentleman who had been described as having
slept in their apartments, was a distant cousin, a son
Of Colonel Montague. • He slept on the sofa, which
had frequently been used as a bed for her brother
and mother. In cross-examination, she admitted
that she went by the assunied.name of Fitahenry,
and was an actress. The Defendant always spoke
well of his wife.
Miss Cteese was called upon the part of the De-
fendant to contradict Miss Perrot. This young lady
said, that Miss Perrot seldom or never slept at her
mother's house, but always went home to Lady Per-
rot's, or elsewhere.
In cross-examination, Miss Creese said, she her-
self went ter bed at ten o'clock, which was before
the time When Miss Perrot usually went away. She
only knew she did not sleep in the house, by seeing
her generally come in the neat day about noon.
The Jury after a short consideration, found a
verdict for the Paintii", of two guineas per week for
fifty.two weeks, or 1091.4s—Costs 40s.
Both husband and wife were in Court during
most of the proceedings ; the latter is a pretty petite
figure7-r-Lady Perrot was also present.

The' Major-Generalship of the Marines is said to
have been conferred on that distinguished Officer
Vice-Adotirel Sir Iticuaßo KEATs, G. C. B.
The question of the equaliiation of the Duty on
Coals at this moment, engages much of public atten-
tion. There has been a copference oo the subject
between the Minister and a body. of Gentlemen in-
lerested in the platter. ' By an egualirttion of the
Duty on Coals, taken at the pit, a tax of only Is. 641.
per ton, would produce a great?r suns of Revenue to
Goverunient, than theesisting tax of Ms per chaldrott„
now paid at the port of Lon('tin on Coals brought by
sea. There is to be a Meeting on the subject at the
Mausion•hoase•