« PreviousContinue »
pincss; her conduct, until that period, and for some time afterwards, being represented as uniformly correct in the discharge of her duties as a wife and mother. An alteration in this conduct was first noticed by the Dowager Coun* tess of Roseberry, towards the end of the year 18J3, when she observed her daughter-in-luw disposed to advocate principles inconsistent with her domestic duties and previous behaviour. In March, 1814, Lord Roseberry left town for Scotland, upon the occasion of his father's illness, whose dea(h, which was then hourly expected, shortly afterwards took place. He then returned to town, and remained about three months. It was at this time that several letters passed between Sir Henry Mildmay and lady Roseberry, ■which were produced in the cause, and evidently showed an undue intimacy between them. They were couched in terms of the warmest affection, and pourtrayed the feelings of Sir Henry Mildmay in the strongest language.— Lady Roseberry, too, at this time, was in the habit of often walking in Kensington- gardens, where she was met by Sir Henry, and the progress of this intimacy produced in her a great indifference of behaviour towards her husband. He remonstrated with her, and subsequently forbad Sir Henry his house; but finding they had still many opportunities of meeting, he determined to withdraw from London. Sir Henry's letters to lady Roseberry about this time expressed the greatest uneasiness at this determination, conjured her, if possible, to avert it, and expressed his determination to fellow them in disguise. They
repaired to the Earl's seat in Norfolk, and afterwards to another seat in Scotland; and it was here, in October, 1814, that those acts took place which formed the foundation of the present proceeding. Lady Roseberry adopted a practice hitherto very unusual with her, that of taking lonely walks by herself, rejecting the company of the Dowager Countess. The latter was rather alarmed at this, and though not suspecting that any criminality had as yet passed, she determined to watch her motions. Sir Henry, under the assumed name of Colonel Dc Grey, had repaired to Scotland, and taken up his abode at an inn in the neighbourhood of Lord Roseberry's, where he suffered his beard and whiskers to grow, and otherwise disguised his appearance. His lordship's family at this time consisted of himself, the Countess, the Dowager Countess, and his brother, the honourable Mr. Primrose, besides occasional visitors. They usually dined at six o'clock. The ladies retired about seven, and were joined by the gentlemen about nine. Lady Roseberry usually made some excuse for leaving her mother-inlaw, and retired to a suit of rooms on the ground floor of one of the wings of the building. They eon« sisted of a library, anti-room, a bed-room, called the red bedroom, dressing-room, and some others, all of them communicating with each other, and with the windows looking out upon a terrace ; just below which there was a leaden cistern, by means of which it was not difficult to ascend the terrace,and enter these rooms by any of the windows. TheDowager Countess, in the course of her watching,
Watching, had observed a man descend from the window and walk off by this way. This she communicated to the Hon. Mr. Primrose; and one afternoon, about ten minutes after lady Roseberry had retired as usual, he repaired, with some of the servants, to the doors of the bedroom, which he found fastened. They endeavoured to force one of them open, when it was opened by lady Roseberry; Sir Henry was then discovered by the side of the bed, dressed in a large blue jacket and trowsers, and a red waistcoat, covered with a profusion of pearl buttons, and armed with a brace of pistols.— His beard and whiskers were much grown, and his appearance altogether so much altered, that Mr. Primrose dtd not at first recognise him. The handkerchief which lady Roseberry had worn round her neck at dinner was off, and her gown unpinned, thougli not so as to expose her bosom indecently. The bed was indented in the centre, as if pressed by an extraordinary weight, or by persons leaning against it; and the carpet, which had been nailed down, was stretched and forced up near the bed, and was much dirtied, as if pushed with muddy feet. Lady Roseberry seemed to express contrition, and endeavoured to prevent any contest between Mr. Primrose and Sir Henry, who, after some conversation, was prevailed upon to retire through the window by which he entered.— Lord Roseberry did not see his lady afterwards. He delivered her writing desk into Mr. Primrose's possession, who took from it the letters exhibited in the
Court. Lady Roseberry remained in the house that night, but the next morning took her departure. She had been recommended to return to her father; but being joined by Sir Henry Mildmay, they were traced to London, having slept together at an inn on the road. They then took up their residence at Sir Henry's house, in Lower Brookstreet, but have subsequently repaired together to the continent. An action was brought by Lord Roseberry against Sir H. Mildmay, who suffered judgment by default, and a verdict with 15,000/. damages was returned against him, on the execution of the writ of enquiry.
Upon this evidence Lord Roseberry's counsel submitted that the necessary facts were fully substantiated to entitle his lordship to the remedy he prayed.
The counsel for lady Roseberry admitted that it was impossible for them to offer any observations to resist the effect of this evidence, which they therefore left to the impartial consideration of the Court.
Sir Wm. Scott recapitulated the circumstances of the case. The letters were without date, but from some passages in them, it was easy to assign dates to them. They appeared to have been written about March and April, 1811, and alluded to a former correspondence, so that the origin of the connection did not appear. At whatever time it may have commenced, it was, however, sufficiently manifest that at this time the connection subsisted in a high degree of criminal intimacy, and it was impossible not to assent to
the observation that had been made, that letters of this nature could not have passed from any man to a lady holding the rank in society of lady Roseberry, unless she had permitted to him the last familiarity. The language of them was such as plainly evinced that he had acquired the most complete dominion over her affections and person, and had exerted it to the repeated gratification of his guilty passion. Lord Roseberry was truly miserable on first observing the alienation of his lady's affections, and had taken the course which every man of sense and honour would have taken under his circumstances. He gently remonstrated with her, and forbad Sir Henry the house; but finding this ineffectual, he withdrew his family from London. Sir Henry, however, followed, and those circumstances took place which had led to the present proceeding. He then alluded to the transactions in Scotland, and observed that though the witnesses who detailed them did not go on to express their belief of adultery, yet that such could be the only legal inference to be drawn from the facts they stated, and it was an inference which the Court was bound to draw. The subsequent adultery was more definite: the servants at the inn proved seeing them in the bed together, and others subsequently found them living together without reserve until their departure for the continent. Upon the view, therefore, which the Court had taken of the evidence, it was unnecessary to add any observation, as none could add to the forcible impression which it must make on
every considerate mind. It was certainly but a poor compensation to the injured husband to grant him all that was within the power of the Court to grant, in acceding to the prayer which he preferred by the present proceeding, that he be divorced from all further cohabitation with this lady: to that remedy, however, as far as it went, he was fully entitled. The sentence of divorce was signed accordingly.
Liability for an apparent Wift. —Bennett v. Underbill.—Mr. Scarlett stated, that this action \\i brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Bennett, to recover a sum of money for board, lodging, and necessaries furnished to the defendant and a lady who passed as bis wife. The defendant had come from Bristol to Manchester in company with the lady whom be had every where represented as Mrs. Underhill. He had taken lodgings for himself and her at the plaintiff's house, in the neighbourhood of that town, and had continued to occupy them till such time as he had found convenient to abandon her. For a certain period after taking the lodgings, he had regularly paid what was due for the occupation of them, and the expenses incurred for the board of himself and Mrs. Underhill; but he had at last departed, leaving the lady without the means of discharging a large arrear of debt. He remembered a cause similar to this tried in the Court of Exchequer, where General \Valpole was defendant. It was for board and necessaries provided for Mrs. Walpole. The General, who was a gentleman pretty far advanced advanced in life, had formed an intimacy with a young girl, and had permitted her to assume his name, and pass for Mrs. Walpole. Upon that occasion his learned friend, Mr. Jekyll, had made a ■very ingenious speech on behalf -of the General; but the Lord Chief Baron observed, that if young gentlemen would do such things, they must pay for them, and accordingly a verdict passed against the General for every article with which the pretended Mrs. Walpole had been furnished. The present case was as clear against the defendant as any thing possibly could be. It would apj»«ur that the lady's linen was marked with the initials of'' Sarah ■ Underbill;" that her trunk had the same name upon it; that she was visited by the defendant's brother; that the plaintiff represented as a reason for his mother not visiting her, that he had married her without his mother's consent. It would also appear that upon the death of the plaintiff's sister, the supposed Mrs. Underhill had gone into such mourning as was usual for a near relation. If the defendant was not liable, the plaintiff was altogether without remedy; for with respect to the lady, she could not be considered as his debtor; she had made no contract with him, and he had therefore no right to call upon her for payment.
Mary Johnson, the plaintiff'* daugbter-in-law, proved that the lodgings were taken as for Mr. and Mrs. Underhill. The lady was always styled Mrs. Underhill. All her linen was marked S. U. and the nails on her trunk described Sarah Underhill. She cer
tainly considered them as man and wife, for they were very often quaiTelling. Upon one occasion he proceeded so far as to strike her. The witness's mother went up stairs to see what was the matter, and she, the witness, took tlte liberty of walking up alter her mother. Mrs. Underhill said she would leave the house; upon which the defendant desired Mrs. Bennett not to mind her; he would pay the lodging, and every thing else. Upon her cross-examination, she said that the defendant took her father's lodgings: Mr*. Underhill was an entire stranger to the family. She had never known her go by any other name than that of Underhill, until subsequent to the defendant's marriage to another lady. The witness proved the visits of the defendant's brother, and Mrs. Underbill's going into deep mourning upon the death of his sister.
Sarah Cartney (Mrs. Underhill), a very handsome young woman, stated, that she had the misfortune to become acquainted with the defendant in 1811. She accompanied him to Bristol, and lived with him till 1813, when they returned to the neighbourhood of Manchester. She always passed by the name of Mrs. Underhill, by his authority. She was never, while she lived with the defendant, known by any other name. She had every assurance that he would marry her; and the first intimation she had of his having deserted her, was by bearing that he had married another lady. He had quitted her upon pretence of business but a short time before, promising soon to return. She said he was apparently rently a man of property and sabstance; he kept two saddle horses, and a pony, which she used to ride.
Mr Topping.—He should forbear making any observation, or adducing any evidence calculated to affect the character of the person who had taken the name of Mrs. Underhill; as he felt that by so doing he should not be able to alter the verdict, which, upon the evidence, must be for the plaintiff. The truth was, the defendant, when very young, had become enamoured of this lady, but passion having ceased, and reason having assumed her empire, he had formed a more suitaable and honourable connection.
Sir Simon Le Blanc observed, that when the defendant quitted his lodgings, leaving behind him the lady who had passed for his wife, if he had meant to withdraw himself from future liability, he should have given the plaintiff notice of his intention, but he had not done so: he had departed clandestinely, and no tidings were heard of him till the report arrived of his marriage. There could be no doubt that his liability continued. The Jury were of the same opinion, and their verdict was for the plaintiff, to the full amount of his demand. —Damages 47'. 8s. 6d.
Chester Assizes.' Sir T. Massey Stanley, Bart. v. Hodgson.—This was an action against the defendant, a gentleman of the first respectability on the turf, for the amount of a bet which was refused to be paid, as being against the laws of the turf. The cose had been argued before,
in a court of another description, but although a court of honour, (the Jockey Club), the members had no power to issue writ or process, to compel the execution of their judgment. The case was as follows:
In 1811, a party of sporting gentlemen dined at Colonel Barnston's, in Chester, amongst whom were the plaintiff and the defendant, a gentleman of fortune at Liverpool They each had a filly a month old, and it was agreed by the parties they should run a match at Chester races, 1913. Sst. each, for 10O guineas, h. f. Sir Thomas brought his filly to the post, but no horse of the defendant's made its appearance. Sir Thomas's jockey weighed, and it afterwards came out that the defendant's filly was dead. The learned counsel observed, that the stipulation of the half-forfeit was to guard against accidents, which horses as well as men were subject to. The wager had been won up to the extent of one half of it; and the law of England would shew that the defendant was bound to pay the 50/. for the recovery of which the action was brought.
The Attorney-General submitted to the court, that the act of God had rendered it impossible for the defendant to fulfil his part of the contract; and that such rule of law was equally as appli* cable to brutes as to mankind.
Chief Justice—" Here not so, undoubtedly; a man undertakes that he will do so and so, and binds himself to the performance of it; he is responsible for the non-performance of his agreement. So with a horse; a man may bind himself that his filly