Trial for Crim. Con.

Trial for Crim. Con.

Sporting Magazine June 1799 at 136-138

COURT OF KING”s BENCH JUNE 13, 1799.

HENNET v. DARLEY.

Mr. Garrow said that the plaintiff, in this action, complained the defendant had seduced his wife from her duty and affection, had been criminally connected with her, and had harboured and kept her away from him. There could be no case stated to a jury that came nearer home in the feelings of every man, than the one he had to lay before them on the part of his client. He was ready to admit there were different shades of aggravation with respect to the injury sustained by a husband whose wife was dishonoured. In some cases it was beyond all compensation; in others, it was the duty of juries to estimate the damages at a very low rate, and in some to give none at all. In the present instance, he defied the defendant to throw the slightest aspersion on the plaintiff, with regard to his conduct towards his wife, or shew that he had been, in the least degree, instrumental in her seduction. The plaintiff had been a notary public, residing in the Temple, and had married his present wife on the 21st of January 1795; she was a beautiful and amiable woman, at least, so he thought; her beauty every one admitted. As a proof of his affection for her, his object was to rescue her from the hands of the defendant, flattering himself he might still derive happiness and contentment from the society of one, in whom all his hopes had centered. The defendant, to whom he imputed that he wished to live with the unfortunate plaintiff’s wife, with a view to live on the property she had, described himself as of the profession of the law, a profession which had been lately declared from the bench to be as proud and honourable a one as any on earth. Enquiries had been made, whether his description of himself was true, and it had been discovered that many years ago he had entered his name at the Temple, where they had never since seen him; but that he was very well known at the west end of the town, by the appellation of the Counsellor, though his more general denomination was that of Teddy the Irishman. When the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was living in a state of adultery with his wife, he forced open the house in which they were, and took her home; but it was to no purpose, for the defendant immediately persuaded her to return to him; and their place of retreat was now entirely unknown.

Mr. John Roberts said he was present at the marriage of the plaintiff and his wife at St. Dunstan’s church. He had seen them frequently afterwards, and they lived happily together. He did not know she had any children before her marriage. He never knew her to have lived in Margaret-street or Wells-street. He said the plaintiff had lately been entered at the University of Oxford, for the purpose of taking his degrees for the church.

Mr. Erskine asked this witness what he was? He replied he was a sadler in the Strand, and he had the honour of making him a saddle. Aye, said Mr. Erskine, but you don’t come here to saddle my client with the costs.

Mary Cunningham said she was hired eight months ago to live with Mrs. Hennet, who then went by the name of Miss Raines, at No. 77, Margaret-street. It was a very elegant house, handsomely furnished. Mrs. Hennet came there occasionally at different hours, and met the defendant, and sometimes slept with him. Upon her cross examination, she said Mrs. Hennet was visited by several gentlemen, particularly by Sir Thomas Durant, who had furnished the house for her, and with whom she also slept. The witness was informed by a Miss Johnson, who lived in the same house, that Miss Raines was a married woman; and in fact she had been sent to Mr. Hennet’s chambers with his linen, with a pretended story of her being his washer-woman’s daughter. She had no reason to believe he knew his wife had a house in Margaret-street.

Mr. Davenport, the plaintiff’s attorney deposed, that upon Mr. Hennet’s being informed of his wife’s living in adultery with Mr. Darley, he accompanied him to the house in Margaret-street, where the door was broke open, and the lady forced away to the Temple; but that she left her husband again the next morning, before he was up. The plaintiff received his information on the 6th of Marcy last, but did not go to reclaim his wife till the 12th. He admitted that an action had been brought against Sir Thomas Durant, and that Sir Thomas had consented to the plaintiff’s having the goods in the house. He said he had known Mr. Hennet twenty-four years, and never knew a worthier man.

James Murrell stated that the defendant and Mrs. Hennet lodged at his house for four weeks as man and wife. The defendant afterwards told him that the lady was the wife of an old man, who wanted to rob her of her fortune. From his house they went to Mount-street where they staid five weeks.

Mr. Lowten said he heard of Sir Thomas’s connection with Mrs. Hennet about the beginning of March, and that they were taking up goods of tradesmen; upon which he immediately apprised Mr. Hennet of it, who had acted upon his information in the manner before described. He had known him thirty years, believed him to be a very respectable man, and wholly unacquainted with his wife’s having a house in Margaret-street.

Mr. Erskine asked, whether upon this evidence the action could be supported?

Lord Kenyon said, the second seduction was proved with a vengeance, and the parties had since lodged four weeks together. Suppose the plaintiff had forgiven her former adultery; he might have done so; such forgiveness was attended with very important consequences in law; it restored her to her right of dower.

Mr. Erskine regretted that this cause should have been instituted, not that he felt the least apprehension with respect to discharging his client from the consequences of it, but because in dining so he should be obliged to bring forward many respectable witnesses, whose names he was sorry should be made public upon such a transaction.--To shew how little the plaintiff was entitled to recover, he would prove, that his wife had been cured of a disgraceful disorder under his own roof, at his own expense; that after she was cured, he suffered her to go to balls plays, masquerades, and brothels, unattended; that when her intimacy with the defendant was discovered, and the furniture of the house in Margate-street had been removed to the warehouse of Mr. Hudson, the plaintiff wrote a notice to this effect: That they did not belong to Mr. Darley, but had been provided by Sir Thomas Durant, Baronet, who had agreed they were not to be given up, except upon the order of him, Jas. Hennet. He would also prove that her chastity had been violated in the plaintiff’s own chambers, and that when he entered and found her on a sofa with a gentleman, he apologized for the intrusion. He inferred from the conduct of the plaintiff, in delaying to reclaim his wife from the 6th to the 12th of March, his acceptance of the goods as a compensation for her use and occupation by Sir Thomas Durant; his serving an action upon Sir Thomas, and the day after taking her back; and from the whole complexion of the case, that he was not entitled to the relief of a court of justice.

Mr. Downing, a surgeon, deposed to the first fact mentioned by Mr. Erskine; but he could not say the plaintiff was acquainted with the nature of his wife’s complaint. The Miss Johnson, whose name had been mentioned in the course of the cause, he remembered to have seen a patient at St. Bartholomews.

Mrs. Branscomb, the niece of Mrs. Hennet, stated, that the maiden name of the latter was Bridget Maxwell; that she had had two children before her marriage with the plaintiff; that she lived with her afterwards at the Temple, at which time she went to plays, masquerades, and other places of diversion without her husband, and usually returned late; that she was a handsome woman, about twenty,and for the three months she lived with her constantly went from the chambers at night dressed; that she used to bring presents and money back with her, which she gave to the plaintiff.

Mr. Hudson deposed to Mrs. Hennet’s living publicly with the defendant at Margaret-street; he also confirmed the observation of Mr. Erskine respecting the notice sent him by the plaintiff, not to deliver the goods.

Mr. Baker, the gentleman alluded to with respect to the sofa scene, said he did not believe Mrs. Hennet to be a woman of virtue.

Mr. Brutton said the plaintiff took his wife home the day after he had served Sir Thomas Durant with a copy of a writ. On his cross-examination he said that Mr. Darley and Mrs. Hennet now lived under the assumed names of Mr. and Mrs. Danvers, at a grocer’s in Richmond. He added that he had frequently seen Mrs. Hennet from Margaret-street to the Temple, and that she used to sleep one night with her husband, and the other with Mr. Darley.

Lord Kenyon.--After this evidence, I think the present action cannot be supported. Of the sense I entertain of injuries of this nature, every one who has attended to what I have said on former occasions must be fully acquainted. It has been my good fortune to have received a religious education; and the contemplation of offences of this kind often breaks in upon my repose. It also breaks in upon the repose of society; for the security of society is never so much endangered as by the prevalence of individual vice. Whenever a case of this sort has come before me, I have never, I trust, been wanting in my endeavours to put a stop to this growing crime of conjugal infidelity; but let us see how these parties stand; let us see whether the plaintiff has not contributed to his own disgrace. I do not wish to press particularly severe upon him; but I cannot help observing, it appears that he, a man living in the Temple, has suffered his wife to go dressed to balls and plays at improper hours, and I think a man who does that, has no right to complain if his wife should be debauched.--The plaintiff must be non suited.

Accordingly the plaintiff, under his Lordship’s direction, was nonsuited.