Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
The Times, 1824-04-16T00:00:00

--* -'-'LLcI stated, that this was an action broisgnst ty tite Proritors Of 11he Vf,yina1rket Theatre, against Air. George t'aton, Ibe therefilsal Of Al',sa MAlry Anne Paton, his dauighter, to enter into IrtQle gFriAWene'ltpursuant to an agreetnent made by herflathier. a'a-Gan, .i?X oPenea the case on behalf otf the plaintiff. This Paton uCi'fhr Lhe b-each of an-greement enterec into by Air. sadon .0Il behaltof his dlaughter, a lady whose merits an an actress ""I 4 S % itier re high.ly appreciatcdr by the public, and Whose name 9thhemiliar to the juiry. .No theatre coult pose "at ftvme~tsbindin-' the performers, to continue their ser- jcsf spociilo periods; Qn wie'n those performiers were under age, ic"ablek orfcontretictng for theenteives, it was necessary, fin b Cht o hrmanalzersi, that somie one Should be botund foe h'm.Iliss Paton mra&eher first a'ppearance at the Hayarkitet 4Pheare, in the ~asuyime of 1822, having previoasly 11111.e an engage. ment for 81. per Wreek during Erie seso, hh was liberal, ~Oni5derirut that all theatrical success was, in a degree, uncertain. At ;hLi; Period the agreemnent Was made which Mlr. Paton hadi broken. TIhe LoRD Cur"Er JtUSTICE.-SUrtlY We are not the fittestPnT- :i~ to arrange a dlispute of this nature. Mlr. SCARLETT~ for the defendant, saidI that the.case involvedA a whint Of law Which 'his L-ordiship wouldI decide. AMr. Grrra,zEy said, hiehad no objection thait the casie, after thle saint had been decie, shtould be settledl ant of court. The low; of ehich the r;aintifk-coriplainti hin consequence of' the refusal ofl'Alies. Paton to perform her en agement. was verb' consitderable: they (lid )5c ask for the irhole -, 7fr the expense whitch they had incurrea in ardeavouring to supply hier place, and( the loss arising from their in- LbUittv completely to Rupplyr it, wotild, if fairly estimated, be fouind 'erY large. The engagement made by Mr. P'aton, and on whichi lie acectio was fouint led, bore date the 29th of July, 182. The -earnedi counsel here read the agrLeement. whiichl was ne-arly in the bllowing terms :-"- I hereby agree that Mliss Patan, roy dlaughter, hnall Perform at the Hiaymlarket Thteatre for 81. a week, until he present season, shnall terminate ; and I hereby consent that bhe shall, if' re-quired bv Mlr. Morris, sign articles for three 'ears, rer,oi;vg 91. a week l'or the secason 1823; 101. a week for thle eaten 1624,V&tnd 121. a week for the season 1825. It is understood hXat AMiss Paton is to be subject to thle rules and regulattions which re observed by other pertormners ; buit she isi only to be required to ,erfo)rmTin operasand musicral pieces." Thisagreement was signed Y- Mlr. Paton and by Aliss Patton, then uinder age, and witnlesed by 'let-trnurer of the theatre. Under this a.,greemnentMiss -,Paton con- .nuled to perform, attr-acting considerable audiences, till the close of me seasonl1822, when s%he wasrequired to enter into articles. Air. 'aton, howevcr, vzished to defer thie business ; and it was, in fact. oatPnedto tleiteummer. Ilis tdaughtcr then wished for othe'r rrme, she desired a stipul-ition that shie should not be caletd on to eribrm in male attire (which the had never been), and M1r. Mlorris iented. MVr. Paton sttill* deferredI the execution of the articlet; ut AILts Paston re-apueared' at the theatre, and cenitinued to erformn during thec earlier part of the season. In the course of .utgtst, it appearedI ttitt Mlr. Paton had discovered thaLt mnore money 'as4 to be made by, singing at concerts in the country, than by per. 'rring at the Urayrearket in London; and he actually entered into irrespondence with several persons by whomn such entertainments ere conducted in different parts of the kingzdom. Miss Paston now Icam indisp-osed; sinig three times a week was too much for hier tatIadsite could sing~ but twice, till, at th.e end of Augiits, tlit reasurer heard, 'withi surprise, that shie was gaing to sing at Exeter. a1 being requtired to attend a rehearsal, she said it was of no use, shqe should not play ; she performned for the last titme on the Istt 'Septe-mber, and iminediately after qjuitted London. At this time ,r services were peculiarly requiistte, because the operatic piece-s, of hich she wan the princiDal ornament, were juast coming into play. comedy, in wlhich .lUr.:Liston ' performedi a principal character, tdrun for a long time; but a change becamre necessary ; the operas -hich 'diss Paton had attracted great houses were to be revived, anew opera produced, in which she was to perform a chief pare; doeed, at this. tinfie she was regarded as the principal stiy andi sup. 'rt of the theatre. On her unexpected secession, the o'peras were id3 aside; Madame Vestris was engaged, at a great expeinse as -r Substitute; anad the treasury sustained Considerable loss. u 'mere, at this time, was Mlis,s paton ? "1Her health required rest," was said. She sang, it was true, at other places; but she hap. ned to) be there just when concerts were performed, and so was duced just to sing in order to pay, her curren t expenses. Mir. SCAJSLErT...No, indeed- itis not to be said- Alr. GURreEY.y....t has been-said, however, and printed, if I an) *t mi-staken, Hlow did she proceed ? On the 2d of September, e left L ondon; trle &b,. she sang at Mlanchiester; aLnd by the ti, we fiod h6f, havtng taken a longj~ourney across the country, at Sceter-- Thec LoRD CHIEF Jt'STzCCE-A longer journey than is ntecms- rv to your purpose, ihir. Gurney. Mr. GURNEY.-I thloughit it necessa-ry, ray Liord, to shiow the ility of the excttse. The LORI) CHItEF JCISTICE.-Oh, it is a very agreeable jour- v,ad have not the ieast objection to travel it with 7ou, it you Mr. Gtrni~ _-It is moy wish, ceftainly, to state nothing ex- it with a view to the cause he LORrI CHIEF JUSTICE.-I am sure it is not; no one Rel I hope, have understooa me to mean otherwise. Mlr. Gur~t-sz restnmed.-He wouldi me-ely state on this part of case, thait Miss Paton sang four nights at Exeter. and that she nt from thence- to Edinburgh, where she botli played and sang teh oftener than she had obtectedI to do in L,ondon. This was the e: it was obvious that profit, and ntot healch, was the object of secession of which, the plaintifl.i complained ; and they, lad, refore, a right to seek fromi 31r. Paston a fair and reasonable coin- isation for the injury they hadl sustaincd by the loss of his daugh. 's; services. %1r. Edward Pritchard assistanit treasurer of the Haymarket eate, rovd tatMr.Moris nd r.Winston w'ere proprietors he Hymaret hea'e. H wa subcriing Witness to the cemet prduce by r. Pean.Artiles f agreemtent previous :he nd o th seaon 822 ere repred or1r. Paton to ext. ~. O th lat dy, wen he alaiesof the performerst were d, M. Mrrisaskd M. Paan henit wouzld be convenient for i1 to come and sign the articles for his daghter? He said three oack the next day. The witness andi Mr.orris attended, but Patan did not come. Durirg the season of 1822, and p art of season 18213, till September, Mliss Patoan performed at the theatre. e season that year closed on the 15th of October. During the )le time the salary was paid to Mr. Paton-81. per week for the season, 101. for the second. Ifer servrces were mnaterially 're. red the residue of the year. When she played, the receipts were d ; when she retired, they regularly fell. .ross-examined.-He did not know thiat Mites Paton offered to vr for 11 weeks, leaving~ the remuneration to Air. Mlorrisq. 'he agreement was then read, in the terms opened by Mr. RtNEY. 'he LoRD CexeEg JUSTICE.-NnW You will Prove, Mir. Oyur. ',that Mliss Paston was willing to sign the articles, but that Air. on would not consent. Ir. GuRNE Y submitted that this was not necessary, and put in letters---one firom Mr. Paton respecting teems, and off6rint' that daughter would sing for a term of night-s; and aniother fromi s4 Paton, complaining that the labour required of her was too -h for her health, and expressing a hope that her father would desire her to enter into the proposed articles. 'he LOaIn CHIEF JUSTIr-g said it was perfectly clear that the utiff could not recover. Mlr. Paton bound himself for one sea- absolutelv, and then stipulated that lie would consent to his ighter Makri-g an agreement on Certain terms for a further period. sAhe declined:- she nasked for other termns, and she haa them; could he be liable ? !r. GURNE~Y submnitted that the term "conLvsent" was equiva. to "agrrs.` he LORD CITCEF J.TTsrCE held clearly that it was not; andi di- A the plaintiffi to be called. tie plaintiffs were accordingly nonsttited. HOT.StgEt V. COLLETT. r. TarEsseGEFt stated, that the plaintift'in this action soughit to ver damages for crimainal conversation badi by the defendant with wvife. r. SCAstLETT said, it was his duty to open the painful circum- csunder whichi the plaintiff's case was brought before them. vain prtnership with Mn. Shephierdl, in thle iron trade, which . 7carriedon in Union-street, Borough, where he resided. About ears.ago, he married the lady who was his present wife ; she ghthumue fortune, buxt great ersonal beauty, and was the ,er of four children. They livehltogether in great harmnony and stic comfort until the unfortunate time when Utrs., Holmer ms-quin-dwith the defendant. He wasaahopl-factor of very d4 m-frue--a man at once Of business and of pleasure, and !Ief{sqe of this cause would show, had no repuignance to ,'hs Aesurs a te expense of ilisi neighbours. Air. Holmer inpeled y hi buiness to take frequent journeys( from honie; in hes ocasins e was accustourtedl to receive letters from his, expressive Of lier affections, some Of which he read, asi shizn utianswerable proofs of tile happy terms on whichb thley Allr. Collett, who kePt Several horses, occupied stables near erntdby Mir. Hlolmer, and hatl an Opportunity of ktiowing hewudbe absent from home. Tlowards the close of' the 182, se ws wlkig with htr -children aInd nuraery-Umaid, og oehid in one hand while the3servant held the otlier. At noment, Mr. Collett rode by ; he was0 struck by the appear'ance eS Malmer, he rode by her again to lonk ac her, and teaced her dwelling. There he obtained admlttarlcg under a fictitious tht name of' Dunidas; and though his appearance under that whlen he was known to bear another, c:icited suspicionI among *rais,t noneofiheti were then able tosolvethe mystery. Ile edIisv iit,aways in Air. Maimer's. ubsecue, and cireuim- -ocurdwhich wrould appear in evidence, ar.d whichl w%ould thembhe and aildoubt that thiecrimidnal intercourIse was co,,_ illr. Hlmer observed an alteration in the conduct of his she became lets gentle to him andI lees tender to lier childIren ; 'tlost, he was induced to make inquiries, the result of whichrl ced him that he had sustainied the mnost serious and irrepara. uy Asthe claim of' the pleintilfTto a verdict would be egta- beodall doubt, the single question to the Jury wolild amutof damages. There was one topil~; hich lay, I,astesurface, and which his learnedi friend the Attor- Irealwud douslitlesis urge with all hi~s power,-tbat here eta no'vestige ofpremious friendship between the parties,...that ititin of cdnifidence' aggravmted the Violattion oDf the plaintiff's, thtabospilitlity was abused, and nio trust broken. Thiis e;btthere:Wase another viewr of thie case in which the tIe. t' cnuct' rMtghtlbe'viewed, and in which it wotild appear , . . -- -.-I time anid opporturnity concurreetiwhera the frienj of- theo hisband& wa.4 allowe dailY to see and converse withi the wite-that passiom would klide In unawAres;, and that parties, from the frailty of hussfan nature, might fall uinder temptation entitling them to pity but what excuse was to be mnade for a deliberate slystlimatic mnan of plea-. sure, whto prowled about'-watching for bis prey-who, possessing all. thmi. uitlt of gratifying irreguilar passio ihu rakn no h hapns fst'rangersk, YO: chose wantonly to 'invade it; anda wbose cae. thitigh stripp6d of the colouring of inigratitude, and violation of friendship, had vet Incidents, perliaps, whicti rendered it even more odlious ? What palliation was there for a man, wvho, withiout any) interrnixturle - f sentiment or generous feeling-. visionanarytlesile' to thoriter or protect his victim-mcrely seekcing thg temporary graiicton of hip, appetite, nist his eye oni a mother, surrouinded by her lbildren, and determined to make her his prey? Stirely the coed4ac of suich a person removedl himn farther from o'ur svynpathies than that,of a voting man, gradluallv led to cherish a fatal Passions in thle boose of his friend, antl temipted to gratifyr ank afThdo~ to strng or is virtue to control, at the- expense of all his hops knd-prspetsin life. Ho would niow shiow that the diefend- ant ha sougt th uaeuintanceof this lady in ordler to seduce her- to ~d l~r,erhps,tothe niumber of his vi'ctims; and hiaving proved the ase woud lave he esul totheir justice. Mr. 4eo~e Wllouhby cekto the plaintiff's attorney, pro. ducod the ma rigrestroth 31st of Mlarchi, 1810, between the plaintitF and MariraretCbrn Mr. Williamn Colburn, father of MVrfs. Holmer. provedI that he wasq present at the marriage. His dlaughter wasq then 17 or 13': Mtr. Hol- mer about 28. Hiewas-tlheniclerk to his father, and tnow whiolesale ironimonger in Union-street, Borouigh. Hlis wife lived with himi thiree. Air. liolmer's flather was asnagistrateof the county, ofSuirrey. Being cross-examined, the witness said, AMis Oolburn lived near Bronsily at the time oif hier marriage I have observed that Mr. Hiolner and my dauighter did not live very comfortabiv together. Hie sent for mue about three mionths ago, andl raid he had us'ed her ill, but wotild pot in future. I have been at his house two or thiree v-ears ago, when I have beard words, and she lhag said thiat he used her ill. As far hack ais thiis, I have seen that they livedI unhappily. I tiave two other daughkers--one living at Bromley, and the other at WVimbledon ; thiey were in thie habit of seeing M'trs. Hiolmer. As far baeck a-s two or three years ago, I have heard her comnplain of her husband :that he swore at-hier, and call9d h,er improper liames. I have heardi luliner, about Christmas, enniplain that his wife was initimante withi Oliver, a hop.ineretiant in thie Boroiigh, aind that lie had reason to believe an initimacy lhad long-subsisted between Oliver aind his wife. Re-examined by Ifr. SCART~rTTrMy daughster hias been liviing inl m-y hiouse since the beginniing of Januiary ; Mr. Collett's attor- ney, has beeni to miy houise two or three tinmes and seen myn daughter. R-e ha, a-sked me questions. I wvas: apot presenit tli~ whbole'time while he was with my da,ighter : it' was half an hour or thlTee quarters of an hour eaceh time. fie dlid not come by appointnient. e-I exanminetl other members of my family. Mly daughter Sarahi is hiere. I do) not know who brought her. I do not believe my svlauighter hans seen MT. Collettsitice shie ha-sheen atmnyhouse. Mly dlaughterhas foutr chiildren ; the yotingest3bout 3-; the eldlest about II or 12 years of age. A letter fromn tie plaintiff's iwife toieim,datedl November 7, 1821, 9a he was- on hii returTn from France, wasL read. It was coutcied in thec most afrectionate terms, an'ticipating his retutrn, but urginig himn not to cntlanier hirm-self Isy late travelling. Anothier letter, dated October 9i, 18122, also was expressed in simiilar language, and a third, dlated Novemi-ber 22, 182-2, was to the same effect, and c-ontain- ed tendler alltlsions to the childiren. Charlotte Binghiam, being examinedI by Mr. BROuo GIMM, said, I went to live as cook with Air. Holmer, about AMichaclnas, 1822. li e liv'ed in Union-street, Borouigh, in a house over the warehiouse. Mlr. lHolmer was frequently absent on his journies-sometimes, three week's.soinetimes a fortnighit: when he was noton his journies,hie lived always8at lhome. I recollect, between two and thiree mionths after, I wenrt walking out w-iti mny misitress and two of the children in the afternoon. T saw Mir. Ciollett, svhom I did not thpn know, ride by, bnt whom I now kniow to be a hopi-factor, not far from Mlr. Hlolmer's : his premises are in the lligh-sqtreet. f-Jo paissed, turnedl back, azicl loed at my mlistress: be thten turnied back, and rode past us, and smileA as lie Passed. She took no notice;, he then rode on. At that time -M1r. Holmer was a-t homne. Oin New Year's-dar he left honme, aind about thiree week-s or a frngtafter, I saw Air. Collett, 1 think two orthiree times before myvmaster areturni. Thiere isno entrance to the house, except through the shop ; there is a staircase frontingx the counter; then a door, in the nature of an outer-door, witlh a lock andl knocker. I ist-c opened this door to Mfr. Collett several times dluring my master's absences. He never called when my toiaster was at ho'nie. Ile used to ash for Mrs. H-olmer, I have iii- formedI her, and hie has then been admitted. There is a par- lour in front and kitchen behiind. He uised to stay an, hoar, more or less. One day, early in February, on Tuesdayv, be camne at eight in the evening, as the warehouse swas shutting. I opened the door ; he passed me, sayiag nntliingr and went into the parlour, where Mfrq. Holmner was alone. The chiildren were gone to bed. Mr. Collett was dressed as for the Opera. LThe witness here descrihed noises which slie hecardI whiilr the door tvas bolted on this oceasion.1 lie went awray about 10 o'clock in a one-horse chaise, with his groom, wvho had( waited fot him at a little distance from the aoor. I after- ward fund my mistressi agitated, and her dress disturbed. About afrnigh afe, Mlr. Collett camie again. During thisq iliterval my mistress seemed s-cry tirncomfoirtable, andI much agitated in her mind ; she then behaved well to her children, who were often with her. Soon after this she was confinedI to her chamber. Whbile she was so confined, abouit four one aftertnoon Mlr. Collett called, went direct into thle parlour, and asked for Mrs. IRohner. I told him she wras ill in bed. He gav,e mceaxcard, an.ddesireslme totake it tomymis.- tress, and give his best love to he-c. Slortly after he calledI again, and waited hialf an hour. WVhen he went away, mny mistress directed me to light a fire in the parloitr, as Mr. Collett was coming. She Cthen we'nt up stairs and dresased for the afternoon. As soon as Air. COllett wvent away, the childIren hail their tea aind were Plitt to bed, earlier than usua-l:! watsmyselfunwell theni. Ilheftsy roomnabotitnine, and then fouind Mrs.Collett and Mlr. Holnuerin theparlour. He went away after 10. On a Saturday after, Mlr. Helmer beinsg absent, 'about 9 or lObhe awatnenitled, :(trs. Holmer havink retired, and said he would call on Sunday about 12. Sunday came, and Mhrst. FHol- iner, whon usually went to church, remained at hiome the whole day. M1r. GolUett, however,dinot then call; but heo often came after- wards. One evening in Apriil,about 10 at night, he again came, while I was sitting with others in thje kitchen. I told him my miis- tres was in bed, and sent up a messaige by Elizabeth Bishiop. Ani answer came, that he was to wzlk up, and he went into thle parlour, andl sent wo-rd to a friend, who was at the door, to "1be oft?' I went into the room to close the shutters ; he said there was no rea- son to call air- mistress down, as he could go to her in the drawing- room, which is a bitting-room next her chamber. As I wenit out, I met MY 'nistressk co;ning down stairs, and opened the paslour door for lir. She went in. Mir. Collett said, " I flr- to you.", I went into the ktitchen. After this, the dloor was bolteil. (The witness then stated othier circuimstanceis.) At past 12 I let Air. Collett ouit. About this timne Mirs. Holmner became violent to her children_having before been a good mother, and very fond of her children. When I first west, I thought her verv fond of her husband, but afterwards she became violent towardsi him. Cross-examined by Mrl'. PnrLLsPS.-I am married, but do niot live with my htisband. When first I went, he was on a iourney. fie was at home when Air. Collett rode past us. Mfr. i~olmer migh be athomethre or our onth in the year, or more, between Mi- chaelmas and the new year. I hiave seen Mrs. Hlolmer violent with her husband. I do not recollect the cause. I onlv saw one quarrel. She said Mir. Holmer was cross to her ; and then altered it, aiti said it was all lier fault. I have seen my mnistress in company with Mfr. Oliver. I recollect her coming homre very late one night, at half- Past ten, alone, while her huisband was, absent fom London. Lately my mistress was in the habit of dIrinkinig much. I have liad quar- rels with her; but I do not corae here to speak against her on that account. I did not like to tell myy master of' what I suspectetd. Re-examinied.41, first quarrel with my m-istress was six weeks after Christmas. I was then discharged. Really I dIO not k-now whiat it was about. The Lon QsetEr JusaTicE.-There is many a quarrel of that kin, I blee (A laugh.) Tle witness proceeded.-I have often begged my mistress to de- cline! Alr. COIlett's visits. As I want dlown stairs, wvhen slie turned me away, shec desired me to recollect that there was a punish- ment for scandal. I cam, hack thie niext day but one. in con- sequence of Mlrs. Holmer's wishes I told her I wobld not come back, unless shle declined Mr,. 4Collett's visits. MIr. Oliver is a friend of M1r. Holmer's, anid has dlinedi with him,. It was since the Christmas twelvenmonth that I saw him w'ith mny mistresg. It was after thie first visit of MNr. Collett that imy mistress came home hate. Airs. Holmer is a very good-looking woman. By the Loait CITI-r J`USTrcE.--.ljrs. Holnier was not in the habit of drink-ing when I first iwet to live with lier. T'hat habit conlitneuieed after MNr. Collett's visits. Thomrus Cooper, Porter to Mlr. Holmer. proved that Mr. Collett kept horses near to those of MIr. Holmer's. In Januarv, 18'23, he saw Collett and dir. Jloliner's nursery.-maisd talk-ing toge'ther in the street. On the same day, he came inito thre sliop, andI asked if there was any answer to the note he hadi sent ? Tue writness was sent up stairs to aslt for an answer, atid the nursery-maid came partly down Stai-s, and told him to walk uip. He went up. Before this, the witness had never seen him in thle houlse. Some time after he again passed into the house. ['Tlie witnegss stated circumstancessimilar to those deposed to by the last witness.]1 Cross-uixanmined.-Mr. Hiolmer has ta-p brothers tind a mother living, but no sister. ElizabethbBishop, the nursery-maid, is in court. Benjamin Boyce, a man employed for six years in the warehouste of Mr. Iloloier, said he recollected Mr. Colleti calling about a letter, which Bishop had brought in and taken UP stairs about three mi- nutes before. He went up. Before this the witne.sslied not seen -him. Mlarv Anne -yres, a widowv, whio had assisted for three years in the fan~lily of Mlr. Holmner,. recollected in January a letter being bogt by Elizabeth Bishop tM RsHohner. Mrs. Holmer said "Iknowothiig shot thebusiness; tell the gentleman to walk up."' He camne several times-after thlis. Site had conveyed thr,ee letters from -Airs. Holnier to Air. Collett, and bed hieard Mirs. Holmner edtreat MVr. Collett to go away directly, as she expected her husband-home. SlTm. Nicholson, sliopsuan to thse plaintiff, confirmed the evidence ofteprevious uinse st ia they heard in the kitcheni. H6 never saw Air. Holmer behave ill to his wife, though lie bed hea-rd little quarrcls. He gave information to a friend of his mnabtcr of what he had heard. Mr. Hlolmer wvas in a large wa of --ies,An Uross-examinede. Mr. Holmcr`s miother and Mrs. Holmer's sister visited theni; but no other ladies. Air. Shepherd, *Mr. Holmer's partner, said Mlr. Hlolmer's duty was to travel. Mlrs. Holmer was a -ood.looking woman. He always appeared attached to his wife. They appeared to live com- fortably together. The witness generally dincd with them on bis return from a journey. Alrs. Shepherdl had dined once or twice with them, he had been married to heronly 12 months.When he returned from Journies, he was accustomed to bring her presents. The witness lived at a distance from the houise of business. Cross.examined.-He never was before Christmas. 1822, called in to mediate between Mr. and Mlrs. Holmer. Hle never heard Mlr. Holmer insinuate any thing respecting himself ard IMlrs. Holmer. Re-examined._He understood Mir. Collett to be the son of the meniber for Cashel, in Ireland. -He appeared to be 25 or 27 years of age. Mliss l\lar.Alen said, she wasintimate with MIr. and Mirs. Holmer, and had known them five or six years; Prior to January, 1823, they appeared to live very happily. Shie had not dinedl with thiem, nor was she much with Mrs. H0olmer. This was the case for the plaintift. The ATTOnXEY-(E3EEaAL addressed the jury for the defend- ant. WVhat, he asked them, could ther think of the extraordinary evidence whtich they had just heard? Ilis learned friend felt that the foundation of hiis whole cancethe basis on wbiclh alone he could rest his claim for darages-ws the previous harmonv and comfort which he charged the defendant wvith dlestroying; and> wht proofs of that appiness did h ofFer? H}e called only witneMieslsightly acquaintledl witithae pazties-.ir. Shepherd, who lived at a dis. tance, and who sawe diem only - ori - formal occasiohs, or at times of lb.uahies, ustl -Miss Marsdf-who-ever dihed-ith4tArem, ar.d who haa notbien-snuchs wvitith MAlrs. lolmer. And whor hbd th6Y, ,brborna to call ? -They had 5tt court Ellizabeth Bishop, the nu.rerv-! naid, who had liyedtilree years in the family_.-wbo was thie. partj through w'Orin the propoals for the guilty intercourse were said to have plssed, and vet they did not dare to edll her. They ba4 in coourt Mfiss Colburn,.the sister of the lady, w!,o i#as a mdot unex- c*ntionahle witness, and yet whom the'y had declined to examine. 'Why ? Because they were conEcious that those witnesses, on their croes-examination, vould confinn what had- been stated by the father. that Mt. anml llrs. Holmer lived unhappilt, and would de- stroy the inference whlch they wished the jury to deduce frsnm the vegueand inperfect evidencetlhey had given. Fromi hesamefeani they had omitted to call the mother of the plaintiff,'ilio used to visit hin ; anid the fa her, vho had ample opportunity of observing the terns on which he lived withi his wi'e. But were the juryi orally satisfied that the criminal intercourse, which was the ,roun:I of ac- tion, though undoubtedl1v sought for by the defendant. had ever been accomplished ?' (The learned Attornev-General here entered into an examination of the- evidence, 'to show that it did not conclusivelv establish the chief fact in the cause.] If, however, they thought the evidence on this point conclusive, they could not regard the case as justifying a verdict for coiisiAera- ble damages. Here was no art of seduction employed-no labo- sious process: a glance, and an anonYm(ous letter, formed the. whole 6f the temptation. Was any friendship violated ? None. Any arts employedf ? None. WSras there, in truth, any seduction ? None, unless on the part of the lady, who, being older than thede- fendant, was most likely te act the part of seducer. At all events, here was a young man who was struck by a handsome woman in the street-who there exchanged glances with her-whoobtained ad- mnission to her house the mment he sought it; and *ho wa eniter- tained there by her in the tmnqt opem manner; and without disguise. Surely the value of such a wife was not to be estimated verv higIhly nor was the conduct of the defendant to be considered as belonging to that class of aggravated cases which were justly visi:ed witl am- ple damages. The rIonD CIISEF JtrSTICE summed Up the case to the jury. The first question for their consideration was, wilethier it wac made out to their satisfaction that the criminal conversation charged had actually taken place. In considering the evidence on this .suhiect, it lvas not immaterial for them to recollect the alteration which took place in the conduct of lMtts. Flolmer after shte became acqxiaint- ed with the defendant; that; having before that time been a tender mother, she became violent to her children: that she grew more passionate to her husband; and that she began to indulge in stron< liqunrs. If this 'act was made out to their satisfaction, thev would find for the plaintifF; and, if so, in estimating the amnunt of the da- mages they would consider all the circumstances-the degree of proof they had heard of previous happiness, ani tl,e manner in which the connexion began-because where it appeared that great art and labour had been employed in setlucing die affections of a womin, it was fair to infer that the loss of the hisband was much greater than when she appeare(I ready to consent to her own ruin. The jury, after consulting for ten minites, retired and after being absent a quarter of an hour, returned a vetdict for the plaintiff -Damages 5001. BtAN'DT V. 01t1wSON. This was an ac ionon the ease, against a silk-merchiant, for falsely representing that a person (named Gellinghawn) was worthy to be trusted. It was proved that after the reprosentation alleged. tile plaintiff trustel the person in question with goods to the value of 3711. 4s. 3d., whien he w.as really insolvent; and evidence was adduced to show that the defendant was aware of the CirCnunstance. I\r. SCATILETT araued that the representation was evidently made bama fIe, and that the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses were undeserving of credit. The l.ORD CntrF JUSTICE left the jury to decide whether the defendant hnd wilfuilW stated what was untrue. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 37il. 4s. 3d. COUli OfNC RF.N('H- OT1T.DUAT.L. APRIl. 15. I -._ bTO1tRIs9A%n Wr'%'qTnN V. PATON.