| Notes |
- Ensign, Feb 1794; Lieutenant and Captain Sept. 1796; Adjutant of the 1st Battalion, Jan. 1, 1797; Brigade-Major, Aug. 1805. "He embarked with General Wynyard's Brigade of Guards of Sicily in June,1806 during Napoleonic War and served there until Oct. 1807 when the Brigade embarked as part of the force under General Sir John Moore, destined for Lisbon. Owing to adverse circumstances the expedition proceeded to England, arriving there in December." [The Royal Engineers Journal]
Court of King's Bench, Dec. 10, Before Lord Ellenborough and a Special Jury. Moore v.Durnford
Mr. Holroyd stated, that this was an action brought by John Moore, Esq. against Anthony William Durnford, Esq. for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife, in which the damages were laid at L.10,000. The defendant had pleaded not guilty, and on that, issue was joined. Mr. Erskine said, he was a counsel for the plaintiff, who had preferred his complaint against the defendant, for adultery with his wife. Mr. Moore had been married to this lady as long ago as the year 1788. She was the only daughter of the brother of the Earl of Meath, of course she was of a noble and honourable family. She was, at the period of her marriage, eighteen years of age, and her husband, the plaintiff, was twenty-four. He had then recently returned from his travels, and she had just finished her education at the boarding-school in which her father had placed her. She was not only a lady of superior beauty, but of a superior mind. He was not sure wether, not and then, such accomplishments as this lady possessed, did not lead to the unhappy catastrophe that formed the subject of the present action. Unless superior accomplishments were mixed with extraordinary virtues, they were extremely apt to lead the mind astray. If he was to chose a wife for a son, or a friend, he should prefer a lady of a sound understanding, with those feminine virtues which constitutes woman's chief praise. The plaintiff, soon after he beheld a lady of such uncommon personal endowments and high attainments, married her. She was the mother of three children, the eldest fourteen, the second eleven, and the youngest four or five years of age. She was peculiarly capable of conferring the greatest advantages of her family, the that education which few children could look up to from a mother. It was fit he should say, that during the long course of the plaintiff and his wife's living together, to the date of this criminal connect, the plaintiff had no reason to doubt her chastity or honour; or on the contrary, it was impossible for him to establish the fact of any adultery having been committed under his roof. For some months before her elopement, her husband observed a difference in her behaviour, an unusual degree of coolness, but without being able to discover the cause. Previous to this time, the defendant had frequently visited at the plaintiff's house, but there appeared no particular intimacy between him and the plaintiff's wife, that could justify the least suspicion. When a husband was careless of the honour of his wife; when he suffered her to be approached by a man, professing that his object was something beyond common gallantry and politeness; so far from his being entitled to be received in a court of justice, he deserved to be discarded with contempt, and shunned by society. Nothing was more disgraceful or dishonourable, than for a man to neglect his wife, and suffer her to be seduced under his own eye. Such a man justly became the victim of his own folly. It was impossible for any one to insinuate this of the plaintiff; he was, if possible, to jealous of his honour; he was so attached to this lady, that the could not even bear those freedoms which women of the most virtuous inclinations might indulge in, without inducing a suspicion of the prejudice. He mentioned this because so many cases had occurred, and probably would occur again, of men who had been privy to their own dishonour, claiming damages at the hand of a jury;: and because he thought it necessary for a husband, persecuting such an action as this, to repel the least imputation of his having been accessary to his wife's dishonour and his own disgrace. Mrs. Moore had first become acquainted with the defendant, at a public breakfast given by the latter. Their means of forming a mutual attachment were facilitated by the defendant's visiting him with her mother, and receiving his visits. The defendant was considered as a man of character, and therefore the plaintiff had not the slightest idea of his attempting any thing improper or dishonourable; but he incense he offered at the shrine of his wife's beauty and accomplishments, won her to his love; and she became too affectionately attached to him for her future happiness. Her fatal passion was the cause of her deserting her house, and abandoning her husband, her friends, family, and children. The plaintiff was for some time unable to discover the place of her retreat; but at last he found her living with the defendant, and was enabled to procure that proof which now be laid before the jury. He immediately put an end to all further communication with his wife, and brought the present action.—The learned counsel said, he was persuaded that, after the many cases of this description, submitted to the consideration of juries, it could not be necessary to enlarge upon the consequences of such a crime as that of adultery. What a husband's sensations must be on such an occasion, the feelings of those who heard him better described than any languages he could employ. He left the case in the hands of the jury, confident he should receive that compensation in damages, such an injury merited, unless the defendant could break in upon his claim, by showing misconduct or neglect on the part of the plaintiff.—He should not be able to lay before the jury any evidence of the fortune of the defendant, otherwise than that he was an officer in the Guards; but his Lordship would tell them, that it was unnecessary to do so, and that the damages to which the fortune of the defendant might be inadequate, he must pay in his person. Mrs. Maria Tidswell said she was present at the marriage of the plaintiff and his wife, in the month of May 1788. She knew the lady before her marriage, when she was Miss Brabazon. Mr. McCarthy was acquainted with the plaintiff, who was a gentleman of fortune, resident at Berkhamsted, in Hertfordshire; he had intimately known him and his wife eight or nine years. Mrs. Moore always appeared to be a woman conducting herself in a domestic and virtuous manner. He had no reason to believe she was inattentive to any of the duties of a wife. The defendant was received in the family as a visitor. Mrs. Moore had three children. He never observed any irregularities on the part of the plaintiff, or any unwarrantable liberties taken with his wife. As far as he saw, they appeared to live comfortably and happily together. The lady was, he believed, a very accomplished woman; she was the daughter of the Earl of Meath's brother. On his cross-examination, he said, Mr. Durnford visited the family frequently; but he never remarked any thing in his conduct that could give the last suspicion to the husband. Mr. John Crane said he lived at Acton; he knew Mrs. Moore, and remembered her coming to lodge at his house on the 3d of July last. A Mrs. Gill had taken the lodging for her. He knew the defendant; he drank tea three times with Mrs. Moore, while she was at his house. She quitted his house on the 19th of July; she went away with Captain Durnford. Mr. Raper stated, that he was a neighbour of Mr. And Mrs. Moore, at Great Berkhamsted. He was often at their house, and had opportunities of seeing the company that visited them. He never observed any thing improper of immodest in Mrs. Moore's behaviour: she was a woman of more than ordinary accomplishments; she was very capable of educating her own children; she had no governess in the house to superintend them. The behaviour of Mr. Moore towards his wife was uniformly that of an affectionate husband. He never knew any improper company admitted to Mrs. Moore's society, or any gentleman visiting her who professed more than the ordinary gallantry due to the most virtuous of her sex. Mrs. Taylor said, she lived servant with Captain Durnford, of Breakhill, on the 20th of July ;last; she had before lived in his service at Great Berkhamsted: she remembered Captain Durnford giving a public breakfast to the gentlemen and ladies in the neighbourhood. The people of condition and fashion were there. Among the rest Mr. And Mrs. Moore. The witness was certain she knew her, for she came into the kitchen with Mr. Durnford's brother's wife; she had seen the same lady since at Brockhill; she was there before the witness came from Berkhamsted. There were two men servants and a woman servant in the family, at Brockhill, before the witness went to live there. The woman servant left the house on her arrival. There was no one in the house but Mr. Durnford, Mrs. Moore, the two men servants, and herself. There were two best beds besides the servants', but only one that was made. That bed the witness always made herself; she was certain the other was not made. When she made the bed, it always appeared as if it had been slept in by two persons. The defendant and Mrs. Moore breakfasted, dined, and lived together. On her cross-examination, she said her master was a very young gentleman. Mr. Ganow observed, that he hardly knew any part of his professional situation which was less pleasant than the duty he had now to perform. He had the task imposed on him of defending a very young man, whose passions, inflamed and seduced by the accomplishments of this lady, had placed him in the unfortunate predicament in which he stood, He was in no condition to deny the fact of a criminal intercourse: he had no evidence to offer by which he could impute any misconduct lo the plaintiff, or which could justify him in desiring the jury not to find a verdict against the defendant. The only remaining question therefore was, what damages ought to be given. Damages, in cases of this kind, must always depend upon the circumstances adduced in evidence. There were no actions which differed more in their various shades than those for criminal conversation. There had been cases in which juries were justified in giving large damages. Others in which the smallest were too large; and there were others, of a middle class, in which juries were bound to observe a course between the two extremes. The present case, he admitted, had been most fairly and candidly opened by his learned friend, who had refrained from pressing it beyond what the facts would bear. Imitating his candor, he would abstain from any observations that might add to the sufferings of the injured husband. He had only to present to the jury a very young and unfortunate person, who was called Captain only from that courtesy which applied such a title to every subaltern officer in the army. He was merely a Lieutenant in the Guards, and had no other means of support than what his pay as such afforded. This young officer unhappily found himself placed by accident in the neighbourhood of a lovely and accomplished lady, whose beauty he was unable to resist. He was not the intimate friend of the husband; he had not broken through the laws of hospitality ; he had not seduced the wile of his friend. He was a very young man, of an agreeable and prepossessing manner, who had been in the habit of occasionally visiting the family of the plaintiff; he was not domesticated in his house; not even on any occasion did it appear he had taken a bed at it; but, by one of those fatalities too often seen in the world, he had become attached to a lady whose charms he ought to have resisted. "All I have to say," observed the learned counsel to the jury, “is this, in your justice be merciful. The defendant has been guilty of an offence which I cannot justify; and if I had the powers of my learned friend, to make an eloquent address on his behalf, the question must come to this, what damages ought to be given? that question must be determined by the facts. Recollect, it is not the case of an hoary adulterer, seducing every woman that comes in his way; it is not the case of a man ingratiating himself into a family, and for the mere gratification of an unlawful passion, destroying the peace and happiness of a husband. The defendant, I repeat, is a very young man; it is a calamitous case for all parties; and I know I cannot do better than leave his case in the hands of the noble judge and jury, who are so competent to the discharge of their duty." Lord Ellenborough observed it had been properly suggested, that cases of criminal conversation were of various complexions, and capable of various degrees of aggravation. He had only to observe, that in the present one there did not appear to have been a train of seduction laid by the plaintiff. It appeared that the lady was away from her husband, for what treason had not been proved, that she took a lodging on the 3d of July, at Acton, and quitted it on the 19th. That during the time she was there, the defendant visited her three times; but there was no evidence to show that the had seduced her to leave her husband's house. Having been antecedently a visitor in her family, and interchanged those common civilities usual among persons of condition ; the defendant found her at this lodging, and afterwards went away with her to Brockhill, where they lived under circumstances which made it fair to presume a criminal intercourse bad taken place; they slept together in the same house, in which there was but one bed made up, consequently the jury must suppose a criminal intimacy, especially alter the evidence of the servant, who had stated, that the bed had the appearance of two persons having slept in it. It was hardly necessary to recapitulate the evidence. It appeared the plaintiff's wife, was, before her marriage, a Miss Brabazon, daughter to the brother of the Earl of Meath; that she was an accomplished lady, of engaging manners, and that she had lived happily in the society of her husband. There had been no account given of her departure from her husband's house. He did not think that, in the absence of all evidence, respecting the cause of her departure, that the Jury ought to fix her seduction on the defendant; they could only judge from the evidence before them. As the defendant had met her after she had quitted her husband, it was possible that compassion for her situation, on hearing that she had fled from her house and family, might in some degree, have influenced his solicitations. That he was liable to damages there could be no doubt, for he had put the seal on the husband's dishonour, and for ever rendered it impossible for him to receive his wire again. The crime of original seduction was not fixed on him by the evidence. These were the only observations the case suggested. The jury would give such damages as constituted a fair compensation for the injury, stripping it of the circumstances of previous seduction, and of those higher aggravations which usually attended cases of deliberate means to alienate the affections of a wife they would recollect the defendant had found the lady in a state of separation from her husband, and in that situation had seduced her to his arms. The jury retired about halt an hour, and returned with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, One Thousand Pounds. [The Sporting Magazine. London. pg 139- Dec. 1802]
|
1775 - 1849
Home
Search
Print
Login
Add Bookmark
Find
Surnames
Bookmarks
Places
Dates
Cemeteries
Search
Photos
Documents
Histories
Recordings
Videos
Albums
All Media
What's New
Reports
Statistics
Notes
Sources
Repositories
Contact Us
Individual
Ancestors
Descendants
Relationship
Timeline
GEDCOM
Suggest