286 
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. Thelanguage of them 
was such as plainly evinced that 
he had acquired the most com- 
plete dominion over her afiections 
and person, and had exerted it to 
the repeated gratification of his 
guilty passion. Lord Roseberry 
was truly miserable on first ob- 
‘serving the alienation of his lady’s 
‘affections, and had taken the 
course which every man of sense 
and honour would have taken un- 
der his circumstances. He gently 
' remonstrated with her, and for- 
bad Sir Henry the House; but 
finding this ineffectual, he with- 
drew his family from London. 
Sir Henry, however, followed, 
and those circumstances took place 
which had led to the present pro- 
ceeding. He then alluded to the 
transactions in Scotland, and ob- 
served 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 con- 
tinent. Upon the view, there- 
fore, which the court had taken 
of the evidence, it was unneces- 
_ sary to add any observation, as 
~ none could add to the forcible im- 
pression which it must make on 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 
1815. 
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 acced- 
ing to the prayer which he pre- 
ferred by the present proceeding, 
that he be divorced from all fur- 
ther cohabitation with this lady: 
to that remedy, however, as far 
as it went, he was fully entitled. 
The sentence of divorce was sign- 
ed accordingly. 
Liability for an apparent Wife. 
—Bennett v. Underhill.—Mr. 
Scarlett stated that this action was 
brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Ben- 
nett, to recover a sum of money 
for board, lodging, and neces- 
saries 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 neigh- 
bourhood of that town, and had 
continued to occupy them tillsuch 
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. Under- 
hill ; 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 
