Charles Honeysett, the innkeeper of the Swan Inn at Tunbridge Wells, accused a Mr Buckland of having criminal conversation with his wife and sued for damages as “his affections had been blighted and his happiness destroyed.”
At a time when divorce was impossible for most people, a divorce involved a private Act
of Parliament, suing the “seducer” of your wife compensated the husband for the damage to his own reputation from being cuckolded. It also served to ruin the reputation both of the wife and the “seducer” and would effectively end the marriage. It was a very public way of conducting your business. The case was held in the Court of Criminal Pleas in London, was noted as being an unusual & sensitive matter and then was written up in detail by the local papers!
Charles had previously been in the army, then had been a spirit merchant before marrying Mary Boulding in 1812, when he was 27. Shortly after that they left East Grinstead and went to Tunbridge Wells, where he had run the Inn and his wife was often to be found in the bar.
The bones of the case
By 1823, which is the year of the reported criminal conversation, the couple had 5 children, one newly born and lived at Bowling Green, not far away. The prosecutor suggested to the jury that they, being married men, would understand the anguish of a man doubting the paternity of his youngest child, although no evidence was brought to show that the affair had started that early.
Mary Honeysett, nee Boulding came from Cranbrook, Kent where her father farmed the tithes. She married young, probably at 16 or 17, but the defence lawyer suggested she may only have been 15. The defence also suggested that they may have had a child before marriage but this was not pursued. She was said to be a small very good looking woman of not yet 30. The defence lawyer could find no witness to substantiate his suggestion that Charles had previously been brought before the magistrate in Canterbury because of his treatment of Mary. These points were seeking to attack Charles’ reputation.
Mr Buckland was described as a local married man, reputedly with no children.
The accounts of witnesses agreed that until Mr Buckland started turning up at the Inn and accusing Charles of treating his wife badly, the couple had rubbed along very well together. Mrs Honeysett did not always occupy the same bed as her husband but was nursing a new born child.
After a big row at the Inn over Mrs Honeysett, Mr Buckland was thrown out of the Inn by Charles. Later that evening, Mary apparently snuck out of the house to meet Mr Buckland in a copse on Lord Abergevenny’s estate nearby where they indulged in the so called criminal conversation. The reason the court knew this was that several of Mary’s neighbours had followed them and caught them in the woods. The neighbours said that they were on a normal evening stroll and had just been curious, no one had asked them to follow her. Mr Buckland adjusted his clothing and ran away. Mrs Honeysett returned home.
So far my sympathies, and very likely the jury’s, are with Charles.
All is not as it seems
Witnesses then told the court that Mr and Mrs Honeysett had lived and slept together since the “transaction” that had caused the complaint. This was clearly not seen as normal behaviour for a man whose ” happiness has been destroyed”.
At this point, the defence lawyer produced two letters, written on the same date, on the same paper. They were both to another Mary Boulding, Mary Honeysett’s cousin, one from Charles and one from Mary. Both exhort her to come to court at their expense, to tell everything she knows about the affair, she is “to be explicit and give every information that would bring this business to an end”. Charles’ letter states that they are very happy together and expect to be even happier in the future.
The case falls apart
Charles is accused of either setting the whole thing up and defiling his wife himself, or at the least making her ruin her reputation so that he can profit from the event. The defence states that a man has to have a reputation for it to be damaged and Charles has none. His prosecutor agrees; even if Charles wins, the damages would be negligable. He stops the case himself by withdrawing a juror. The judge agrees that stopping the case is the best outcome.
So, what do you think?
Did Charles see a well off man clearly attracted to 
his wife and set up the adultery himself? Were the neighbours set up to “catch them at it”? Why would a mother of five, nursing a baby, sneak into the woods with another man? Is Charles out to make some money after the event? Or do you think Charles is just trying to make the best of a bad situation?
Do you know any more about Charles Honeysett? Where was he born and when was he in the army?
Sources
1. The Kentish Weekly Post, 13th July 1824, reporting on the case held in the Court of Criminal Pleas, London.
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk
2. Church register of East Grinstead parish church, as transcribed by Sussex Family History Group
http://www.sfhg.org.uk/