The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-08-29 00:00:00

THE STA TESIkIAN.

L4NG'4STER ASNIZES.

ELFORE THE HON. Alit RICHAGD RICHARDS,
EN t 111
CItIM. (ON.
• POLLAN!) a. LUPTON.
This was en action brought against the Defendant
to recover damages for the injury he -had done the
Plaintiff by hiving had a criminal correspondence
n Hi his wife.
Mr. SCARLETT, as Counsel foCilie Plaintiff, e.n.
largerrupon the nature anal character of the injury,
for which the Plaintiff sought a compensation by the
present action. Ile described his client as a person
filling a respectable and honourable situation in life.
Ile was the master of an academy at Salford, in Man-
chester, having under his care and tuition upwards of
two hundred scholars. He had married the lady,
whose conduct liarl given rise to the present action,
when she was little more than 16 )ears of age. It
was a union of pare affection. They lived for five
• or six years en terms of mutual, happiness; and in
that period they were blessed with two children.—
Their connubial felicity was uninterrupted, until
tl:e Defendant, Mr. Lupton, an opulent brewer in
the neighbourhood, was introduced to the family.—
Very soon after his introduction, the atteutions of
Mrs. Holland towards her husband and children
were considerably abated—an evident alienation of
her affections indicated that she had violated her con.
jogai faith. It was some time before her crimina!ity
could be ascertained ; but at length it was developorl,
and it was towed to an intercourse with the De-
fendant, in a Nay which be would leave to the wit-
ness to detail.
The usual proof of the marriage was given. It
appeared that the parties were both under age when
they married. Their union was not sanctioned by
their parents, mud tie marriage aa3 sr:bne:zed in a
retrisii distant front that in which either of thein re.
It appeared upon cross.etantieration !bat the
wife becrree a motlipc within three months otter her
union with tile Plaintiff. The vvitilev.es stated, that
the always conduct«, themselves nfieelioniately to-
ss aids each other, until the hushatal from ctic,tm-
siancei sts-pected her chastity. Miss Roscoe, the
siopr of M is. Itrillatid. stated, that ti,e Plaintiff ;vas
in tiie habit of treating his wife with extreme cruelty
and ; that he once strt.ck her in toe public
srreets of Manchester, when she had an infant in her
arms.

Several Mi,nexce4 ..ere examined before any proof
of ctirniettlity aas elicited beyond that of the D..-
fecidan! los•ing Mrs. Holland's lips. The only eti-
&tire of the actual fact of adultery was given by a
; erson of the name of Mark o,bortie, and his testi-
nit ny was of a very extraordinary Ware.' We centiot
Rise it in detail, but are crnstrained to leave much
to the imagination. Ire stated, that he had heir('
from report of the infidelity of Mrs H. Holland;
he was in the service r f the Defendant,. and it was
his custom occasionally to repose himself in the af-
ternoon in a cellar in which the barrels of beer were
deposited. On the day to which his evidence parti-
cularly applied, he had retired to this cellar, and
had stretc:4r4l himself alOng three barrels, which
care placed el, se toge!her. In this situation he was
disposi;,?, I:ol,cif to sl,e,p, about three o'clock in the
aftereeon, when he heard the s 4 :141A1 of foosteps
con.leg down the cellar stairs; the place was too
dark 1-Jr any person to see him As he lay. Ile per-
(Tired the Defendant and Mrs. Holland enter the
(Mar and app:oar Ii the barrels MI %%1101 he was ex-
tended. Thry came within the distance. a 'aril
from hint. The renislitieg put of his
.testimony
ni-
forded the o est unequivocal proof of t. a deirasity
and iml* henry of the climittal parties: Seen after
the Defendant retired, and listening a while, whis-
pered to Mrs. Holland that the coast e as clie4r, upon
which she quitted the cellar, and they both went
away. Upon cress-examination the veracity of this
witness becae.e very questionable. He admitted that
he had told a number of persons he had beets ap-
prenticed to the house of Barclay and Perkins, emi-
. vent brewers in London, and that his father had
given with him an apprentice fee of 500 guineas.—
lie acknowledged Ibis to be a falsehood. He also
confessed that, with as little foundation, he had
stated that Mr. Perkins used to black his shoes. He
said he had raised these lies in order to obtain credit
for being a great and accomplithed brewer. Ile hod
also reported that he had entered into a partnership
in a concern in Ireland, with a gentleman of the
name of Sullivan, whose capital amounted to 10.0001.
and that the Marquis of Hertford and Lord North-
wick were his securities. This, too, was false, with
the exception that those two Noblemen had, upon
some occasion, become his bondsmen, on account
of his having a vote for the borough of which they
were patrons. He admitted that his real employ-
ment in Ireland was that of assisting Mr. Denis
O'Brien in a speculation in which that gentleman
was engaged for fattening hogs. In short, he ad.
twitted himself to be a liar of the first quality, un-
, equalled even by Fernandez Mndez Pinto.
••Mr. Topetect, for the Defeendant, addressed the
Jury with confidence upon this evidence. He ob-
served, that the Plaintiff, even if the fact of
adultery had been proved, was not entitled to more
(bait nominal damages—a man who had so basely de-
ported himself as to spike his wife in the public
. streets, whil•A she held her infant, hail but little
reason to complain if she deserted his bed and threw
herself upon other protection. He insisted, how-
ever., that there was us credible proof beyond that
of ordinary familiarity. With respect to the evidence
of Mark Osborne, it was utterly unworthy of
.Credit. Was it to be believed that in such a place as
:.Manchester, where there were so many facilities for
illicit commerce, two persons of the rank in life of
the Defendant and Mrs. Holland would retire to a
brewer's cellar, to which all the servants had con-
tinual access, and make it the scene of their cri.
missal amour ? The thing was incredible ; was it to
be credited that they could have come so close as
within a yard of the place where the witness was
lying rerdlie, without discovering him, and being
alarmed ?- -It was impossilee--edd to this, that the
witness stood self-coesici4.ll of being a nototii•us
liar,' unworthy of credit. Under these ciccum-
Stances, he trusted the Jury would return their ver-
dict in favour 4f the Defendant. If, however, they
believed the improbable story of the witness, the
smallest coin the country afforded, would, in his
estimetien, be a sufficient compensation fur the
I Plaintiff. • . .

Mr. Baron IticnattnA summed up the evidence
with great perspicuity, observing, that not only the
credit due to the witness, but the ltunilurn of da-
mages were matters peculiarly within the•prosince of
the Jury.—Upon those points he could afford them
110 assistance—they would judge for themselves, and
decide accortlinc,ly.
The Jury, after deliberating about ten minutes,
announced their verdict fur the Plaintiff—Da-
mages 1001.