Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 Wife. -Bennett v. Underhill.-Mr. Scarlett stated, that this action was 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 his wife. The defendant had come from Bristol to Manchester in company with the lady whom he 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 Walpole 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 appear that the lady's linen was marked with the initials of "Sarah Underhill;" 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's daughter-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 inan and wife, for they were very often quarrelling. 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 the liberty of walking up after 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: Mrs. 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. Underhill's going into deep mourning upon the death of his sister.

She

Sarah Cartney (Mrs. Underhill), a very handsome young woman, stated, that she had the misfortune to become acquainted with the defendant in 1811. 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 hearing 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 appa

rently

rently a man of property and substance; 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 471. 8s. 6d.

WAGERS.

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 case 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 100 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 501. 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

shall

shall perform a stipulated task, which it cannot do. The responsibility certainly lies upon the contract."

Verdict-For the plaintiff, damages 501.

Chief Justice" Gentlemen of the Jury, you will recollect that pounds are always guineas on the turf!"-The verdict was accordingly altered to guineas.

Ditchburn v. Goldsmith.-This was an action between inhabitants of Gravesend, upon a wager laid by the defendant, who was a preacher of the doctrines of the late Johanna Southcott, of 200l. to 100%. that she would be delivered of a male child on or before the 1st of November last. Before Mr. Serjeant Best could state the plaintiff's case, Mr. Serjeant Onslow, for the defendant, objected on the grounds of indecency and ludicrousness that this action ought not to be tried, and cited Da Costa v. Jones (Cowp. 729.) which was a wager upon the sex of Chevalier D'Eon, in which Lord Mansfield held such wagers void as would "affect the interest or the feelings of a third person; for instance, that such woman has committed adultery, or that an unmarried woman has had a bastard." In that case the defendant's counsel objected at the trial, that the plaintiff ought not to recover, because it was a wager upon a question tending to introduce indecent evidence: to this it was answered, that the objection was upon the record, and Lord Mansfield being of that opinion, overruled the objection; but afterwards, when the case came before the whole court in arrest of judgment, his Lordship VOL. LVII.

said he was sorry that the answer given to the objection made at the trial "that it appeared upon the record" had been so hastily given way to by him; for though the indecency of evidence is no objection to its being received where it is necessary to the decision of a civil or criminal right, yet the witnesses should have been told that they might refuse to give evidence in a case where two men, by laying a wager concerning a third person, would compel his physicians, relations, and servants, to disclose what they knew relative to the subject of the wager. The learned serjeant added, that the subject of the present wager, Joanna Southcott, was a single

woman.

Mr. Serjeant Best answered, that Lord Mansfield, in the very case cited, said "a wager whether the next child shall be a boy or a girl hurts no one;" and he should be able to prove, that the defendant had, in one of his public lectures, declared that Johanna Southcott was to be married by proxy, that the child might not be born a bastard.

The Lord Chief Justice (Gibbs) said, his difficulty was not whether the present action was maintainable, but whether any Judge had on that account refused to try a cause.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow and Mr. Comyn, for the defendant, instanced Lord Loughborough, who in an action upon a wager "whether there are more ways than 6 of nicking 7 on the dice, allowing 7 to be the main and 11 a nick to 7," ordered the cause to be struck out of the paper; and the whole Court of Common Pleas afterwards refused leave to restore it U

(2 H.

(2 H. B. 43); and Lord Ellenborough, who refused to try an action on a wager on a point of law in which the parties have no interest, and the whole Court of King's Bench afterwards agreed in the propriety of such refusal (2 Campb. 408).

The Lord C. J. Gibbs stopped further argument by saying that he would suffer the cause to proceed with a view of making an end of such cases, out of mercy to the parties.

Mr. Serjeant Best then stated his case, and proved by William Gordon that the bet was made at Gravesend on the 5th of September last, and by Dr. Reece, that Joanna Southcott was never afterwards delivered of any child. Upon cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant, Onslow, the Doctor said that he had never heard of her having a husband, and that she passed for a single woman.

Lord C. J. Gibbs.-Now that the wager involves the question of a single woman having a child, I won't proceed with the

cause.

Mr. Campbell (with Mr. Serj. Best) suggested, that the woman herself gave out that she was with child, and prophesied that that child would be a male, born before the 1st of November. Were she alive, therefore, she would have no right to complain of her feelings being hurt.

Lord C. J. Gibbs.-So I am to try the extent of a woman's chastity and delicacy in an action upon a wager. I chose to wait till the fact of her being a single woman came out. There is a wide difference between a wager, whether a married woman's next child

shall be a boy or a girl, and whe-
ther a woman shall have a child
at all.
Call the next cause.

LIBELS.

The King v. Sir N. William Wraxall, baronet.-The AttorneyGeneral obtained a rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against this defendant for a libel upon Count Woronzoff, in a work lately published by the defendant, entitled"Historical Memoirs of my own Time." The libel related to the death of the first wife of the Prince of Wurtemberg, who afterwards married the Princess Royal of England. The author commenced his book with saying, that he related the events that he either witnessed, or of which he received the accounts from respectable testimony. The present prosecutor denied upon oath every word of this libel, of which the following were the principal passages :-"I have heard this subject agitated between 1789 and 1795, when great uncertainty prevailed respecting the point, though it seemed to be generally believed that she was dead, and that her end had been accelerated or produced by poison. It was natural to ask, who had caused the poison to be administered? Was the Empress herself the perpetrator of this crime? And even if that fact should be admitted, was not the Prince of Wurtemberg tacitly a party to its commission? Though no positive solution of these questions could be given, yet when the fact of the Princess's death came to be universally understood, many persons doubted the inno-cence of her husband. The King

of

« PreviousContinue »