Cambridge Chronicle 14 Apr 1826: John and Susanna Seville guilty of keeping a disorderly house

The King, on the prosecution of the overseers of the parish of Trumpington, against John Seville and Susanna his wife.--- This indictment charged the defendants with keeping a certain ill-famed house in the said parish, and suffering therein drinking, tippling, and other disorderly conduct. Mr Hunt, in opening the case, said it was of a nature which would not allow, nor did it require, much preliminary introduction. The indictment had been very properly preferred by the overseers of the parish, who considered it as their duty to endeavour to put a stop to such a nuisance, by which every species of vice was encouraged, and the morals of both sexes so much depraved. He should not, therefore, detain them with any further remarks, than by merely stating that he felt quite certain, after the jury had heard the evidence which he should produce, they would not hesitate to convict the defendants, and thereby show their abhorrence of those characters who would encourage such nefarious practices.

The first witness called was Lydia Stearn, who stated, that about two years ago she went to the house of the defendants for the purpose of having her fortune told, which was done by the wife; soon after which, having left her situation as servant to a tradesman in this town, she went again to the defendants’ house, and asked if she could have a bed that night for herself and a gentleman, when she was told by the defendant’s wife that she could; the gentleman came and passed the night with her, and on his going away early in the morning he paid the wife for the lodging. The witness then stated many similar circumstances which had occurred at the defendants’ house, and from which it appeared that the witness and several other girls had been in the habit, during the last two years, of going backwards and forwards to the house of the defendants, sometimes stopping a fortnight, and at other times a longer period, and that they frequently invited gentlemen to accompany them thither, in which they were encouraged by the wife, who generally received some money for the use of the rooms.

-- On the cross-examination of the witness by Mr Pryme, whose principal object appeared to be to endeavour to prove that the girl was now giving her evidence with the hope of gaining some reward, the witness stated that she had no such object in view, but that having experienced the ill effects of her recent conduct, she had lately returned to her parents, and now came forward to support the present charge in the hope of deterring others from pursuing such a line of life, and punishing those through whose influence and encouragement so much harm was accomplished.

Several inhabitants of the village were called, particularly two neighbours of the defendants, who proved their having frequently seen gentlemen and girls go into the defendants’ house, soon after which beer had been sent for; and likewise that persons of the above description have very often come to their house to enquire for that of the defendants. The overseer stated that the defendants had received relief from the parish for several years past; that they kept no shop, and appeared to have no regular mode of gaining a livelihood. This statement was corroborated by the other witnesses. – The landlord of the house in which the defendants resided, stated that they had been tenants of his more than two years, at an annual rent of £16 of which sum they owed him £5 or £6 only.

Mr Pryme contended that not one tittle of evidence had been produced which could support the charge laid in the indictment except the evidence of the first witness, and she merely proved that the defendants had allowed strangers to reside in the house. With respect to the charge of tippling and disorderly conduct, no fact had been established; one of the neighbours had said that he had seen beer carried into the house, but that might be for the use of the family. No riotous or disorderly conduct had been proved to have taken place, although several of the witnesses resided within a door or two of the defendants. The only evidence, the learned counsel contended, produced in support of the charge that the defendants’ house was one of ill-fame, was that of the first witness, whose testimony, he said, could not be credited, in consequence of her bad character.

The Chairman, in summing up, said that nothing had been proved against the defendant John Seville, who must therefore be acquitted; but with respect to the female defendant, he considered that the charge had been clearly proved against her, for even if the jury doubted the testimony of the witness Lydia Stearn, (but of which he saw no reason for them to do, as she was not likely to gain anything by it, but was rather exposing her own disgrace,) her statements as to the frequent visits of both males and females were corroborated by several very respectable witnesses. It likewise did appear most probable that the defendant, as stated by the first witness, did encourage and receive money from the visitors at her house, for she was paying a rent of £16 a year, without any ostensible or honest means of gaining so large a sum for the payment of a house for her own occupation.—

The jury, after a few minutes’ consideration, found Susanna Seville guilty. – The Chairman, in addressing the prisoner, told her she had been found guilty of a most immoral offence, and convicted of the most disgraceful conduct. It was also in the recollection of the Court, that above twenty years ago she had been found guilty of a similar offence, and suffered the punishment of the pillory. It was not, therefore, that the Court expected, from the sentence it was about to pass, the defendant would, at her advanced time of life, entirely refrain from her evil habits; but with the hope of deterring others from following such an immoral course of life, the sentence of the Court was, that she be imprisoned two years, and at the expiration of that time find two respectable sureties to be bound in the sum of £25 each for her good behaviour during the space of two years, and be further imprisoned until such sureties were procured.

Return to 1826 page