Please Please Please possible Ariel alert.

[HarrysMum]

I cannot get this to a size I can read.

Can anyone go to this site...
http://welshnewspapers.llgc.org.uk/en/home

and put "Myles Ariel" in the search box.

It's the first hit I want to see. I can open it but can't get it to a size I can read. It just gets bigger and more blurry.

Thanks.

[Phoenix]

It's Agatha!

Bit too close to work time to type it out, but it is perfectly legible in my firefox browser.

[Phoenix]

omg if sofas could talk!

[kiterunner]

I was going to type it out for you, Libby, but then I realised how long it is!

Here is the first part:

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER
TUESDAY
[Before Mr. JUSTICE CRESWELL]
CRIM. CON. - CLARK V DUNSFORD (Special Jury.)
Counsel for the plaintiff, the Attorney-General (Sir F. Thessiger), Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Butt, Q.C., and Mr Ballantyne. - Attorneys, Messrs. Brittan and Son. Counsel for the defendant, Sir Thomas Wilde, and Mr. Sergeant Chaunell. Attorney, Mr Brooke Smith.
Mr. Ballantyne opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Mr. Edward Clark, solicitor of Bristol, and the defendant, Mr. William James Dunsford of hte same place, and the action was brought to recover damages for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife, and the damages were laid at £10,000.
The Attorney-General, after a brief introduction, said - The plaintiff is a solicitor of considerable eminence and of extensive practice in the city of Bristol. He became acquainted with his wife in 1839, in consequence of a union which had taken place between their families. The father of the wife of the plaintiff, Mr. Myles Ariel, a West India merchant, had united himself to the elder sister of the plaintiff: this of course led to the closest intimacy between the families. The plaintiff had thus many opportunities of seeing the younger daughter of Mr. Myles Ariel, Miss Agatha Ariel. She was a young lady, 18 years of age, and of great personal attractions. An attachment sprang up between them, and with the entire concurrence and approbation of the families on both sides the union took place in June, 1839. The ceremony was performed by a brother of the plaintiff's, and it was attended by the mutual relatives of both parties. The plaintiff evinced no want of liberality in the settlement. The young lady was entitled to a small fortune, arising from a share in some freehold property, which was estimated to be of the value of £2,000; that was introduced into the settlement, and to it was added a sum of £5,000 given by the plaintiff out of his own funds. This property he settled entirely on his wife for her own separate use, leaving to himself nothing but the chance of survivorship and giving a power of joint apportionment among the children or the two surviving ones. Immediately after the marriage Mr. Clark, whose professional success enabled him to live in great comfort and even luxury, took a house in Berkeley-square, Bristol. He there lived in a state of perfect affection and of entire happiness with his wife. Their union was crowned with that, which under other circumstances I should have called a blessing, a numerous family. Five children were successively borne to the marriage, & when the wretched woman left her husband's home she was in the way to become the mother of the sixth. * *

[tenterfieldjulie]

Lib, Do you want me to type it up and send it to you? Julie

[kiterunner]

But it's too interesting to put down! I'll continue typing it out...

[tenterfieldjulie]

We crossed Kate.. Ooh good fascinating stuff .. oh how the rich lived lol

[Phoenix]

Libby, it looks as if this was a syndicated story and there are another three versions on fmp.

[kiterunner]

But let no man promise to himself permanency in any good which is centered in only earthly objects. A fair and brilliant scene of happiness was before the view of the plaintiff; it vanished in an instant at the foul touch of the spirit of unhallowed lust. The defendant, unhappily for the plaintiff, became a resident at Bristol. He was a young man who had embraced the medical profession, and he, unfortunately, became partner with the elder brother of the plaintiff, a surgeon in very considerable practice in Bristol. He paid a sum of £1,000 for the partnership, the conditions being that he was to have a certain share of the profits, to be increased from time to time according to the terms set forth. The defendant was a gentleman of prepossessing manners and appearance. Of course his connection with the plaintiff's brother led to an immediate introduction to his house. He became his intimate friend. He was also the medical attendant of his wife. He was there in double trust - first he was bound by all the sacred rights of hospitality to respect the confidence reposed in him, and then by the yet more solemn obligations of his professional character, which necessarily induced that unlimited reliance on his honour and integrity, which we are all compelled to bestow on the members of that honourable profession, and which, to their credit be it said, is so rarely abused. And if all this was not sufficient to render the defendant an object of entire reliance and security, it will be found in the fact that he was actually engaged to be married, and was married on the 11th day of June, 1844, to a young lady of most respectable connections and that period is one to which, for several reasons, I am most particularly anxious to direct your attention. You will find that in 1844 the visits of the defendant to the house of the plaintiff became more frequent and of longer continuance.

[ElizabethHerts]

Libby, I saw it and longed to reply but I have to go out to Pilates and needed to shower first. I wouldn't have made it if I had started transcribing it, and I knew there would me lots of willing helpers.

Fascinating stuff!

[kiterunner]

The mode in which he was admitted and received, the length of time to which his visits extended, excited the curiosity and suspicions of the servants, but the plaintiff himself was utterly ignorant of all that was proceeding under his roof. His offices were at a distance from his house; he was compelled to attend very closely to a great extent of professional business, and not only was absent during the day and evening, but the nature of the employment of himself and partner frequently called him from the city. If he had been aware of the defendant's frequent visits to his wife, they would not have excited the slightest feeling of suspicion in his mind; he knew that the defendant was his friend, and that he was also their medical attendant; but he was utterly ignorant of all the circumstances and had no notion of the dreadful blow aimed at his happiness. A change, however, took place in the conduct of his wife towards him. From being kind and affectionate, she became indifferent and abrupt. As her intimacy with the defendant advanced, she becamse careless of her household duties, and negligent of her children - that sure sign that the mother's heart is corrupted. There was altogether a marked estrangement and alienation in her conduct towards the plaintiff. He bore all with patience and gentleness, and trusted by the exhibition of all the warmth of affection to gradually recal her to a sense of her duties. On the 5th of Aug., 1845, the family went to Weston-super-Mare, a watering place at a short distance from Bristol. That place was selected for its convenience for the plaintiff, in order that after his daily attendance on his professional business he might return in the evenings to his family. The persons who composed the family, and who accompanied them to Weston, were the plaintiff and his wife and their five children, two young ladies, distant relations of Mrs. Clark's, viz. Miss Kate and Miss Caroline Kirby, and Mr. Myles Ariel, the brother of the plaintiff's wife. The family remained at Weston until the 15th of September. The plaintiff was obliged to be absent on two occasions, being called by professional business to Exeter. He left home on the first occasion on the 18th of August, and returned on the 24th, and on the second occasion on the 6th of Sept, returning on the 9th. On the 15th of Sept. he went down to Weston to see the family off on their return to Bristol. On the 16th he left again for Exeter. Very soon after his departure the dreadful discovery was made of the circumstances into which we have to inquire.

[kiterunner]

Before his return his unhappy wife was removed from his house and taken to a married sister's at Newport, Monmouthshire, and they never met again. Gentlemen, the altered conduct of the wife of the plaintiff, increasing as I have told you, by her closer familiarity with the defendant, became so painful and distressing to the plaintiff, that before he left home on the last occasion he entreated the interference of his brother, Mr. Henry Clark, who was older than himself, and whose professional character promised to give him some influence over the mind of his wife. Mr Henry Clark called in Berkeley-square. The plaintiff's wife shut herself up. He called again on the following day, and was admitted to an interview. The servants were aware of his interference, and of some portion of the extraordinary conduct of the plaintiff's wife, and as Mr Henry Clark was leaving the house and giving some orders to the nurse about the children, she hinted at some disclosure. Mr Henry Clark was so little prepared for what has since followed, that he repulsed her confidence, and it was not until the 19th, when he again went, that the servants having made up their minds that all they knew should be told, a communication took place of those painful and disgraceful particulars which it has fallen to my lot to have to detail. It appears, as I have already mentioned, that in the beginning of the year 1844, the visits of Mr Dunsford were more frequent, and of longer continuance than usual. The curiosity of the servants was naturally roused by the peculiar circumstances which always accompanied those visits. They were desired to prepare luncheon, and if any person called to see the plaintiff's wife they were always to be shown into another room. The visits continued sometimes for three or four hours, or longer, and contrary to Mrs Clark's usual custom with other visitors of ringing the bell and having them shown out by the servant, the bell was never rung when Mr Dunsford quitted, but he let himself out. The first occasion on which any impropriety can be traced to the defendant was the 7th of June, 1844, only four days before his own marriage. He came about eleven o'clock in the day; he was shown first into the drawing room, in which the servants were engaged, and they were desired to take luncheon into the library, and into the library Mrs Clark and Mr Dunsford went together. It will be proved to you that the blinds of the library were drawn down immediately after their entrance, and that the door was locked or bolted. Beneath the library was a place called the pantry, in which all movements above and all conversations could be heard. Excited by the curiosity produced by the circumstances which I have mentioned, and not unnaturally desirous of discovering the truth of their suspicions, one of the female servants got upon the dresser of the pantry, and was thus brought close to the ceiling, which divided the rooms, and she hears most of what took place above. She heard the parties above move towards the sofa, and she heard movements above upon that sofa. I think that the circumstances which she will detail, and which it is unnecessary for me further particularly to enter into, will satisfy you that at that period, on the very eve of the defendant's marriage, the act of his adulterous intercourse with the wife of the plaintiff was consummated. The day will be fixed, beyond the possibility of doubt, on the 7th of June, 1844. The defendant four days after that was married.

[HarrysMum]

Thank you all, speshly Kite.

Most of that is in the Times article but there is more detail here.

I really didn't mean for you to type it all up......I just wanted to know how you managed to read the article. I could see it but the font was huge and only got about 3 lines on the page. I can't get it smaller no matter what I do....

[kiterunner]

The family of the plaintiff were absent also after that at some watering place, and subsequently for a short time in London, and so there appears to have been a break in the guilty intercourse between the parties until the month of May, 1845. At the beginning of that month the defendant called at the plaintiff's house for the purpose of vaccinating the youngest child. That operation, as you are probably aware, occupies not more than a few minutes, but the defendant remained in the house three or four hours. Eight days after that, about three o'clock in the afternoon, the nurse was desired by Mrs Clark to take the children out for a walk; she remonstrated as the weather threatened, but Mrs Clark repeated her orders, and directed that the children should be taken to College-green, where, if the rain came on, they could get shelter. About a quarter of an hour after they were gone the defendant made his appearance at the house, and the nurse and the children were driven home by the rain soon after. When the nurse arrived at the house she was desired to bring the youngest child into the room, and the operation of taking some matter from the arm was performed. The nurse left the room, but in consequence of what had taken place the servants became attentive listeners: they heard the defendant complaining to the wife of the plaintiff of incautious language which she had used calculated to excite suspicion. The nurse heard him say to Mrs Clark "If I do love you more than any other woman why talk and induce people to suspect it!" At this time also the library blinds were drawn down, and another servant in the pantry heard the same circumstances as before; expressions of endearment from the defendant, and all those circumstances again occurred which can leave no doubt that the criminal act was repeated under the plaintiff's roof. Gentlemen, these communications left no doubt on the mind of the brother of the plaintiff that a criminal intercourse had taken place between the parties. All this, however, rested on the testimony of servants liable to error; their suspicions required to be confirmed. Mr Henry Clark was satisfied that the parties had met at some other place than under that roof, and he exerted all his diligence to discover that place. A clue was given by a letter which was intercepted, and which directed their attention to No. 17, Norfolk-street, Bath, as the place where their inquiries would be successful. They immediately went there, and learnt those particulars which, I apprehend, even if the relation of the servants left any fair or reasonable doubt, must at once lead you to the conclusion that this guilty intercourse has occurred. It appears that about the 16th of July, a gentleman who gave his name as My Lyde, called at the house, 17, Norfolk-street, Bath, belonging to a lady of the name of Needes, but at that time in the occupation of her sister, Miss Withers. The defendant - so I shall call him, for his was the Mr Lyde - represented himself to Miss Withers as a person who had privately married a lady who was objectionable to his friends, and that it was necessary he should meet his wife in secret. He expressed a wish to take the apartments, and said he hoped his wife would give him a meeting there. Miss Withers stated to him that it was necessary she should write to her sister to obtain her consent to the letting. On the 25th of July a letter was received by Miss Withers in the hand-writing of the defendant, and signed William Lyde; it bore the Swindon post-mark on it, and to that letter it is necessary that I draw your attention. The upper part has been cut off, owing to a circumstance which I will presently mention; but the remaining portion runs thus (the learned Counsel read the note, which was to the effect that circumstances had prevented the writer calling on Miss Withers on the day he had appointed, and that he should be glad to know if he could have the lodgings on the terms stated; if so he should want them next week, and that she (the landlady) was to write to him an answer according to the direction contained in the note); Miss Withers cut the address off which was contained in the letter, and gave it to her nephew for the purpose of his replying.

[Shona]

Astonishing detail. The image of the servant girl standing on the dresser in the pantry to hear 'the movements on the sofa' in the room above made me smile.

Thank you for transcribing the newspaper report.

[kiterunner]

That portion of the letter is unfortunately lost; but the nephew will tell you that the direction was to "William Lyde, Esq, British and Foreign Hotel,
Hanover-square, London." Let me pause here for one moment to detail to you the dreadful particulars under which this letter was written. The
father of the defendant had been in the habit, when he came to town, of using this hotel, in Hanover-square. He arrived about a week before the
19th of July; he was taken ill there, and on the morning of the 20th he died. On Monday, the 21st, his body was taken from the hotel into Wiltshire,
to be there interred. I have told you that this letter of the defendant bears the Swindon post-mark. It is apparent, then, at what a moment that
letter was written. Can anything be more appalling than this circumstance? If there is any one idea more entirely calculated to repress all carnal
and worldly thoughts, it is the dread idea of death. If there be any affliction which can purfiy the passions, it will be found in the death-bed of a
father, and yet with the dead body of his father almost in his sight, the defendant was contriving the means of indulging again a licentious passion,
involving the complicated guilt of a double adultery. The letter was answered, and the answer received by the defendant; he made his appearance
at the lodgings on the 29th of July. He saw Miss Withers; she enquired of him if he had received her letter, and he stated that he had, so that there
is no doubt it reached his hands. He immediately took the apartments and occupied them that night, and stated that on the following day his wife
would meet him there. On the following day not his wife but the wife of the plaintiff came. She was with him in those apartments for the greater
part of the day, and she left towards the evening. She came again and met the defendant on the 3rd of August, both these occasions being before
the family removed to Weston-super-Mare. Gentlemen, the movements of the plaintiff's wife during the time of the residence at Weston become
now most important. I shall be able to prove to you most clearly and distinctly that the wife of the plaintiff was the person who visited the
defendant at those lodgings, and remained with him under circumstances, which I should be ashamed to doubt that you can hesitate in coming to
the conclusion that a criminal intercourse took place between the parties. The plaintiff's wife had opportunities of being absent whilst the family
was at Weston, and those opportunities she embraced. I have told you that the plaintiff left Weston for Exeter on the 18th of August and was
absent until the 24th. The house in Berkeley-square had been dismantled' there was only a bed left for Mr Clark and one for a servant. Immediately
after Mr Clark#s departure for Exeter, Mrs Clark ordered the carriage and drove to Bristol accompanied by Miss Kate Kirkby. She slept with Miss
Kirkby that night on the only bed in the house in Berkeley-square. On the following morning she went out early and whether Miss Kirkby
accompanied her it is impossible to say, but on that day, the 19th of August, when Mrs Clark appeared at the lodgings in Bath no one
accompanied her, and she met the defendant there, remaining with him the greater part of the day and not going to Berkeley-square until seven in
the evening. On the 26th of August, Mr Dansford, who had been at the Hotel in Hanover-square from the 22nd, wrote from that house to Mrs
Needs, saying "at present I intend coming to Bath tomorrow, so have my rooms in readiness; perhaps I shall not be able to leave town before night
and shall not arrive until half-past-one in the morning, so I must put you to the trouble of letting one of your servants stay up for me." The
defendant Dunsford, under the name of Lyde, came early on the Tuesday morning. Mrs Clark, who had left Weston-super-Mare the day before and
slept in Berkeley-square, appeared at the lodgings again on that day, and again remained with the defendant throughout the day. All these
circumstances taken together can leave no doubt on your minds that we shall have established conclusively the fact of a guilty intercourse between
the parties.

[kiterunner]

Sorry, having internet problems at the moment.

[kiterunner]

But if there should be any lingering particle of doubt yet remaining, it will be entirely removed by the statement of the defendant himself, who, as it appears to me, has most clearly and unequivocally admitted his guilt. Of course, gentlemen, it was important after all these circumstances had been collected by Mr Henry Clark that he parties should be identified. Accordingly a person of the name of Hall, a police-officer at Bath, was employed to bring Mrs Needes to Bristol, and to give her an opportunity of seeing Mr Dunsford and the plaintiff's wife, for the purpose of ascertaining if they were the parties who had met at her lodgings. On the 24th of September she saw Mr Dunsford at his own house; she said to him, "Oh, sir, what a scene of misery have I just witnessed, and what dreadful trouble you have brought us all into." The defendant made no answer. The officer who had introduced Mrs Neeles had given him warning of her coming; he had told him that he had brought the parties over to identify him as the person who had taken the lodgings in the name of Lyde. The defendant appeared confused, and said, "What is done cannot be undone." He said also that the proceedings were vindictive (he had been at that time served with a writ); he said the proceedings were vindictive, and if the parties went on he should defend himself, and it would be shown that he was not so much to blame as the other. Mr Henry Clark had not, until now, seen the defendant since the discovery until this very 24th day of September, and after the identification by Mrs Needes, and the conversation with Hall. Mr Clark then spoke to the defendant in strong and feeling language; Mr Dunsford replied "that the scene of Joseph and Potiphar's wife had been acted over again to the very life;" and he then proceeded to blacken the character of the unhappy woman, whom his crime has reduced to the lowest state of degradation and misery. He said "you do not know what a fiend she is, a thousand times have I had it on my tongue to tell all, but I restrained myself." Mr Clark begged him to say nothing to criminate himself, on which he said, in a combined tone of levity and vulgarity, "I shall defend the action, and if it goes against me I will sell all my traps and be off."
After making a powerful appeal to the jury the learned gentleman sat down, and witnesses were examined in support of his opening statement, which was fully supported by the evidence. The court rose at four o'clock.
WEDNESDAY.- The case was proceeded with this day. After several witnesses were examined, who merely confirmed the opening of the Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Wilde addressed the jury in reply. Mr Justice Creswell, in summing up, said the charge rested on circumstantial evidence, and the jury were not to take the facts singly, but the whole together, and see whether they led to a conclusion one way or the other. The evidence adduced was of three portions - first, of the acts done at Bristol; secondly, at Bath; and thirdly, the conversations of the defendant himself.
The jury, after about 20 minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with Five Thousand Pounds Damages.

[kiterunner]

Wow, that was fascinating! I particularly love the eavesdropping servants climbing up near the ceiling.

[kiterunner]

Thank you all, speshly Kite.

Most of that is in the Times article but there is more detail here.

I really didn't mean for you to type it all up......I just wanted to know how you managed to read the article. I could see it but the font was huge and only got about 3 lines on the page. I can't get it smaller no matter what I do....

Libby, I had trouble getting it the right size to see too. If it was big enough to read it comfortably, the second column was partially obscured, so I had to click the minus sign and shrink it to be able to see that part. I've had this kind of trouble on there before and not figured out how to make it work properly, which is why I thought it would be easier to type it out so everyone can read it. It is still on a beta test so hopefully will work better when they have finished testing it.

[HarrysMum]

Thank you very much.

I still wonder how much of the story is true. Dunsford was the doctor working under Henry Clark. Maybe Clark had a reason to make his life miserable?

Agatha's mother, Elizabeth Ariel (nee Naylor) was an only child (after her brother died in childhood). She made a will leaving a fortune to her children as well as her husband, Myles. She used Myles' solicitors so they should have got Myles' permission, as was the law then.

After Myles and Lucretia Clark (Edward and Henry's sister) got together, the will was overturned.

Myles "dropped dead" the following year. 1840.

So really there was only Agatha to be "sorted" to have the the Clarks take over the Ariel (and Naylor) money.

Dunsford married Matilda Amelia Slater Crowdy while all this was going on. She was a wealthy lady from Highworth Wilts. Dunsford's grandmother was Lyde.

Dunsford suicided some years later.

I also always find it interesting that Edward Clark takes the child Agatha was carrying. Did he know the child was his?

So many questions....

[tenterfieldjulie]

Libby, for those who don't know!! What happened to the children and briefly .. to Agatha?

[HarrysMum]

Julie......the six children of Agatha and Edward (although how Edward knew they were all his is beyond me) stayed with Edward. He remarried and had a couple more.

I have tracked them fairly well.

Agatha is next sighted marrying Francois Giacobbi in Paris in 1848.

Edward has himself as a widower in 1851, but we have no absolute proof that Agatha is dead by then.

There are various mentions of her estate in papers but until I see her death cert???

Agatha's sister, Elizabeth died in Wales. Her brother, Myles came to Australia and promptly went missing. Her baby sister, Mary, lived with her stepmother, Lucretia (nee Clark) until after Lucretia's death in 1889 and then went to Italy and married Roberto Bompiani. She died back in England.

As for Agatha and Edwards children, they interestingly kept the Ariel names (Ariel, Kirkby, Eyre) in their names through many generations.
That always makes me wonder as surely if their mother was so bad they would not have done that. Unless of course, their father just told them she died, but you'd think they would have heard the truth later??

[tenterfieldjulie]

Edward may have had doubts about siring all the children, but felt they were his children, as you do with adopted children. I am surprised that Agatha didn't try for custody as she certainly had enough money and was well connected to fight for them. Maybe she wasn't very maternal and as she probably had been bought up by nannies just decided she needed a new life.. Who knows maybe the marriage had been arranged and she wanted a different life .. she certainly had that.
I had a tricky situation the other day in my friend's shop .. a woman in her late 40s was browsing and asked do you know such and such.. D said no but I would .. asked me if I did .. I said yes .. she said I've just been to his funeral (in another place) I said Oh that's sad ... she said Yes he's my father .. I must have looked a bit confused .. she said oh the wife and daughter's won't want to acknowledge me but the son does .. he got my mother pregnant and she came and lived with him and his parents but they didn't get married .. I said Oh yes I think I remember my father saying something .. she looked rather pleased .. and said Oh that is nice that someone knows ..
Later I started thinking and I remembered what my father had said and it wasn't as I had said .. It was that the man who died was sired by one of the squatocracy ... oops .. I'm sure that the few elderly locals who are left would remember.. so history was repeating itself.. I can remember Dad not being impressed that the man who has just died, his natural father (who I think was married) didn't support the mother .. History repeats itself.

[tenterfieldjulie]

Edward may have had doubts about siring all the children, but felt they were his children, as you do with adopted children. I am surprised that Agatha didn't try for custody as she certainly had enough money and was well connected to fight for them. Maybe she wasn't very maternal and as she probably had been bought up by nannies just decided she needed a new life.. Who knows maybe the marriage had been arranged and she wanted a different life .. she certainly had that.
I had a tricky situation the other day in my friend's shop .. a woman in her late 40s was browsing and asked do you know such and such.. D said no but I would .. asked me if I did .. I said yes .. she said I've just been to his funeral (in another place) I said Oh that's sad ... she said Yes he's my father .. I must have looked a bit confused .. she said oh the wife and daughter's don't want to acknowledge me but the son does .. he got my mother pregnant and she came and lived with him and his parents but they didn't get married .. I said Oh yes I think I remember my father saying something .. she looked rather pleased .. and said Oh that is nice that someone knows ..
Later I started thinking and I remembered what my father had said and it wasn't as I had said ..
It was that the man who died that was sired by one of the squatocracy ... oops .. I'm sure that the few elderly locals who are left would remember.. so history was repeating itself.. I can remember when Dad was telling me that he was not impressed that the man who has just died's natural father (who I think was married) didn't support the mother .. History repeats itself.