The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-22 00:00:00

CRIM. CON.-EVANS v. ROBINSON.

Mr. Ormwold Lloyd Evans was the' plaintiff, and Mr.
Robert Ansley Robinson the defendant ; and the plaintiff
complained that the defendant had had criminal conversa-
tion with his wife. The defendant pleaded not guilty.—
Mr. Attorney-General Knowles, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins,
and Mr. Aspland, for the plaintiff; Mr. Watson, Q.C.,
and Mr. Atherton, Q.C., for the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES, in laying the case before the jury, said—
.The plaintiff in this case is Mr. Ormwold Lloyd Evans,
who is a gentleman of good fortune and good family in
the county of Gloucester. On the death of his father,
who was a magistrate of the county, lie inherited the
property which he now enjoys, his place of residznce for
some years having been at Cheltenham, situated in that
county. In November, 1850, the plaintiff was united in
marriage with a young lady named Carrington, the
daughter of a gentleman who has filled the office of Judge
of the Island of Ceylon, but who, since his retirement,
has lived with his family at Cheltenham. The plaintiff
was at that time about 32' years of age, and his wife was
some five or six years younger. , They had known each
other some time. Miss Carrington was a young lady of
considerable accomplishments, and any one looking at
their condition at the time they were married would have
predicted a long course of happiness ; and certainly no
one would have been prepared for the disappointment
which was destined speedily to follow. They went abroad,
to Paris I believe, for a short time, for nine or ten days
only ; and on their return they lived for a short time at
Leicester, Mr. Evans being fond of hunting, and the
county of Leicester affording great convenience for persons
taking an interest in that sport. A difference gradually
arose between them, based, I believe, on these grounds.
Before the marriage it had been arranged that they should
live in the house occupied by the plaintiff's mother. After
the marriage, Mrs. Evans seemed averse to this arrange-
ment, to which she objected, and the matter, no doubt,
caused considerable disagreement between them; so much
so, in fact, that when in March they left Leicester to go
back to Cheltenham, the lady, in the first instance, went
upon a visit to her father, while the plaintiff went to his
own house. An attempt was made at reconciliation,
which unfortunately did not succeed; for in April of that
year, and within a few months after their marriage, this
young couple agreed that in future they would live sepa-
rately, lie making an allowance ample and sufficient for
her wants—the allowance amounting to £250 a-year
during his mother's life, and £350 after her death; and,
if she survived her husband, she was to have a jointure
of £5OO, on the terms of the marriage settlement. I
must, for one moment, make an observation upon the
course which I have not the slightest doubt my learned
friend will take in reference to the topic upon which I
am addressing you. My learned friend will doubtless
point to the very short time which these parties lived
together; and that he will direct his eloquence and his
powers to diminishing damages upon that ground. Ido
not say that is not a circumstance for you to take into
your consideration; but you should keep in mind that,
in that separation, the plaintiff did all that a careful hus-
band could do, under circumstances so unfortunate; for
he stipulated that his wife should live under the
roof of her parents, unquestionably the fittest for a wife
from her natural protector, for under the sanctity of that
roof it would be supposed she would be safe from the soli-
citation of persons like the defendant, and that she might
safely rely upon her friends that in the new and equivocal
position in which she was placed they would be cautious
how they addressed her. I may mention that at the time
of the separation she was pregnant, although it was un-
known to either herself or herhusband ; for eight months
after the separation she was delivered of a still-born child.
I must now introduce the defendant. He, too, is a resi-
dent of Cheltenham, and is a man, I believe, of good
fortune. He is a married man; and has that security
winch is generally supposed to belong to a man of mature
time of life, for he is now turned 50. Gentlemen, he was
something more. He was, or professed to be, the old
and well-tried friend of the family to which this lady
belonged. He had known her family for some time.
He had unrestricted entrance to the family ; and I
fear that it is to that circumstance is mainly owing
the cause of your trying this case against him to-day.
For some time after the separation there appears to
have been no cause of complaint, for it came to the
ears of the plaintiff that the defendant—this mature
man—was walking out with his wife in a style of fami-
liarity which would have been suspicious in a single man ;
he attributed it to that old acquaintanceship which existed
between the families, and it gave his mind no disquiet on
the subject. But, gentlemen, when it came to his ears,
as it did last year, that, although he did not then know
the full extent of the information when it came to his
ears in June last year, that his wife had gone to London,
attended only by her maid, where they had resided in
lodgings by themselves for the space of a fortnight, having
no other member of her own family with her, he did feel
called upon to address a word of remonstrance to her
father, which, however, I am sorry to say, was unat-
tended to by him. In the course of the present
year that visit to London was repeated. The
lady again went to London in the month of July,
taking lodgings in Bryanstone-street, Portland-square.
The plaintiff had his suspicions excited to a higher
degree than before, and he felt it his duty to make
an investigation, not only as to the conduct of his wife
then, but also as to her previous conduct, in the year 1853,
when she was living in Edgeware-road, London. You will
judge, gentlemen, whether the plaintiff acted harshly in
entertaining suspicion, when he learned that the defendant
was with her morning and evening, and her only compa-
nion ; that no lady visited her there ; that the defendant
had a latch-key with which he could admit himself at any
hour and any moment, and staying late at night after the
family, in some cases, had gone to bed ; and that he exer-
cised an entire control over the whole apartments which
had been placed at the disposition of the plaintiff's wife.
Was there not ample cause for suspicion ? Only think of
it ! Here is this man, 50 years of age, at the lodg-
ings of this young married woman. Had he no other
attractions ? Where was, I ask, his wife ? Is he living
with her ? If he is, why hasn't he his wife to attend to ? and
how happened it that this young lady was at this place
without any member of her family to attend to her during
this fortnight ? Let us, however, go to that which took
place in the present year in Buanstone-street, Portland-
square, with respect to which I have evidence of a more
precise nature. Who took the lodgings in Bryanstone-
street ? The defendant. She lives at this time not en-
tirely alone, for, besides her maid, she is attended by a
young gentleman, I believe a relation, named Melins, who
was said to be preparing for holy orders, but who does
not seem to have passed much of his time at the house.
They arrive at this place on the 16th June in the present
year; and in the course of the day the defendant, who had
taken the lodgings, called no less than four times before the
lady made her appearance. When she had come, he called
. .

again in the evening, and remained a considerable time with
the plaintiff's wife, Mr. Melins, I believe, having gone
out, as you will find it was his practice to do, for being
in London for the first time, he had a great deal to see.
After this, the daily visits of the defendant continued,
and the plaintiff, being made aware of them, took steps
which I shall not conceal from you for one moment, al-
though I know it will be a point to which the force of my
learned friend will be directed. The plaintiff, having
heard of the acuteness of Field, the detective officer,
whose skill had been prominently illustrated in a trial that
had recently terminated, engaged him to take such mea-
sures as his own experience would suggest, for the pur-
pose of coming to the truth of the matter, and of unveiling
the objects of the defendant, if he had any. Field went
to work. He saw Mrs. King, the owner of the house at
which the plaintiff's wife was lodging. She refused her-
self to be engaged in the investigation; and he then
applied to a person named Grocott, a woman who
will be a witness to-day. Mrs. King wanted
a cook ; and Mrs. Grocott was introduced into the
house in that capacity ; and she had some oppor-
tunity of observing the motions of these parties. The
rooms occupied by the plaintiff's wife were on the first
floor, and consisted of a drawing-room and a bed-room
behind. There was also a bed-room above, in the second
floor, and an attic for the maid. The object of Grocott
and Field was to be able, by some contrivance, to have a
view of the drawing-room without betraying themselves
to the defendant and Mrs. Evans. You will find, from
Grocott's account, that for two or three days the defen-
dant came regularly; but she (Mrs. Grocott) not being in
the room, could do no more than record that the defendant
came. At last Field gave her a gimblet, and desired her
to bore a hole in the pannel of the folding-door between
the bed-room and the sitting-room. She did so, The
defendant CEO; Mr, Maio, accoxiliog to