1831. Adjourned Sittings at Westminster, after Hilary Term, 1831. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE ALDERSON. (Who sat for the Lord Chief Justice.) Feb. 10th. In an action for criminal conver sation, the plaintiff will be entitled to a verdict, unless he has been in some degree a party to his own dishonour, either by giving a general licence to his wife, to conduct herself as she pleased with men generally, or by assenting to the adultery with the defendant, or by having WINTER V. HENN. CRIM. CON. The plaintiff, better known by the name of Spring, the boxer, and champion of the English prize ring, kept the Castle Tavern, in Holborn, and the defendant was a hatter, carrying on business in that neighbourhood. The plaintiff and his wife were married at Hereford, in the year 1821, and then came to London, and lived for two years in London, keeping the Weymouth Arms; after this, they returned to Hereford, and kept the Booth Hall Inn, there, for about three years, and then came to London again, where they continued to reside; and according to the evidence of a brother and sister-in-law of particular act of the plaintiff, and two or three other witnesses, at each of these places lived very happily together. But it appeared, that the wife went to live with her father for a time while they were at Hereford, in consequence of some disagreement; but the witness who proved this, denied that he had any recollection of her being turned out of doors by her husband, for being too intimate with a gentleman. It also appeared, that he had, in London, pushed another gentleman out of the house, and said that he had put him under the pump because he was too fond of his wife. With respect to the elopement, it did not appear with whom, if with any one, Mrs. Winter left her husband's house, but it was proved, that, on the 27th of August, 1830, the defendant called at the Mulberry Tree public-house at Stepney, between 10 and 11 in the morning, and ordered some totally and permanently given up all the advantage to be derived from her society. refreshment, and said that he expected a lady would be with him in about an hour. About that time he came again and the plaintiff's wife with him in a gig, they dined at the house. Towards evening, the weather became very wet, and they went, as they said, to a friend's house, but returned, saying the house was so full they could not sleep there. After some difficulty, they were allowed to sleep at the Mulberry Tree, the defendant saying of the plaintiff's wife-" She is a married lady and will put up with anything, she will sleep in the children's bed." They slept together that night, and the plaintiff's wife remained there till the 8th of September, the defendant coming and being with her for some time every day, in the bed room, but not sleeping with her after the first night. The day before she left the Mulberry Tree, the plaintiff came there in a gig, with a gentleman. She came down, and seeing him, said " Hullo Winter, what brought you here?" He made no reply, but remained an hour in the house, and then went away. Taddy, Serjt., for the defendant.-The plaintiff is to have compensation for what he has lost, and if he has lost nothing, he is entitled to nothing. It goes not only to the damages, but to the action; because the ground of the action is, the loss of comfort and assistance. On the part of the defendant, a letter written by the plaintiff to his wife, was put in and read. It was dated July 26th and was as follows: "After receiving your farewell letter, I was rather surprized at receiving another from you. As far as regards your seeking that kindness from strangers, which I deny you, you seeked their favours when you had me to fly to, therefore I do not wonder at your doing so now. You say, you will bid adieu to England and deception; had you bid adieu to deception, you would not have been now in a 1831. WINTER v. HENN. 1831. WINTER v. HENN. situation to bid adieu to England. But whosoever may be the partner of your flight, I hope he will make you more happy than I bave been for a long time, or ever shall be. You say I had been too hasty in forming conclusions as to your conduct. I cannot have been very hasty about it. It is now more than five years since I found you out at Hereford, besides many since, and now I can hear of many before. That does not seem very hasty, for I was in hopes you would see it before it was too late. Unhappily for you and me, you seem to think the only thing you have done wrong is leaving your home. That was entirely wrong, but when you had an appointment you never broke your word. I do not wonder at your not going to Hancock's when you left home, as the big house in Soho Square is nearer and much more suitable for the purpose. You know the rules better than I do. You say that you have no money; what business has your father with the money? You committed the robbery, and should not, by him, be deprived of the plunder. Was I ever so inclined to send you any thing, you prevent me doing so. I could not send it in a letter, nor would I send it to that infamous old hag at the building, where I know you do not live, nor have not for so long a time. As for your mother's rings, I do not know where to find them, or I would send them, however unworthy you may be of such a mother. Were she alive now, to see her daughter in such a situation, she would say, you are unworthy of her knowledge. The reason you give in not meeting your uncle tells me very plain what your feelings are, as to me personally, only for pecuniary feelings; or, had you ever wished to have seen me again, I should have thought there could not have been a better or more proper opportunity than to have seen me in the presence of your uncle; but I assure you that it was not intended either by him or me that I should be there. You begged of me to allow you to explain yourself, but, to my great surprise, you have never at tempted it. As yet, you say, you are living in seclusion, but I know more than you wish. I am sure, if you had ever wished to have seen me again, you should not have kept one thing from me whether it was for or against yourself; but of many questions you answered two, but not accounted where you slept, or where you have been since you have left the buildings; though, was I so inclined, I could walk from my door to where you are, blindfolded almost. I should like to know, if your father have got the greatest part of your money, and he only sent you 10s., how you live and pay rent. But I suppose your hackney coach friend provides you with all you want. Postscript. I find you are as fond of hackney coach friends now, as you used to be formerly of a stage coach friend; all the difference is, that you used to go and see him, this comes to see you." Wilde, Serjt., in reply.-No topics have been urged for the defendant, which make the duty of the plaintiff's counsel at all painful. There is nothing which reflects disgrace upon the plaintiff. As far as good conduct and good feeling are concerned, he stands without exception. The letter produced was written at a period the most improper to be selected. It was written in answer te a letter sent by the guilty wife, to induce him either to take her back, or to give her pecuniary assistance. It was written under the influence of wounded feelings, at a time when she had left her home, as he thought, for ever. People, at such a time, pour in their accounts of all that they have heard about the wife; and, taking the whole letter together, it proves not that the plaintiff had found out and knew of himself the facts, but that others had just then told him of them. His conduct in the transaction as to the pump was quite proper; according to the evidence, it only appears that the gentleman was fond of his wife, and not that he had ever been intimate with her. If the facts in the 1831. WINTER บ. HENN. 1831. WINTER V. HENN. letter were true to the plaintiff's knowledge, they might have been proved. If her general conduct had been bad, they might have called many witnesses to prove it so. It does not, as is said on the part of the defendant, go to the action. The misconduct of the wife will not entitle the defendant to a verdict, unless indeed the husband assented to it; and there is no pretence for that in this case. ALDERSON, J., (in summing up), said.-There are two questions in this case:-First, whether the defendant is entitled to the verdict or not; and, secondly, if he is not, and the plaintiff is; then, what amount of damages ought to be given. I apprehend the law to be that the plaintiff will be entitled to recover, unless he has, in some degree, been a party to his own dishonour, either by giving a general licence to his wife to conduct herself as she pleased with men generally, or by assenting to the particular act of adultery with this defendant, or by having totally and permanently given up all the advantage to be derived from her society. If you should be of opinion that the plaintiff has done any of these three things, then the defendant will be entitled to your verdict. With respect to damages, if you are of opinion that the plaintiff's wife would be of no service, but, on the contrary, a disservice to himself and his children, in that case, a small amount of damages will be sufficient. From the letter, it does not seem that the plaintiff has misconducted himself. And it does not appear to me, that any amount of damages, however small, will be any reflection upon him; because, though he has conducted himself with the utmost propriety, yet he may have lost a wife who was worth nothing. In the letter, he speaks about having found her out at Hereford, five years ago; and it seemed, from the way in which the brother gave his evidence, that he also had heard something about it. There is a part of this letter which may also be material for you, when you are considering whe |