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. * *

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...

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!