The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-07-24 00:00:00

A MYSTERY OF PARIS.

A story of a mysterious package fs now going the rounds '
I
of the French journals.
A few days back &waggon belonging to the Orleans
Railway Company might have been seen to stop on ,
the Pont d'Arcole; two men who accompanied it aps .
peared to consult together for a moment, and then,
after looking round in all directions, as if to satisfy
themselves that they were not observed, they took
from their vehicle a wicker basket, carefully closed,
' which they launched over the parapet into the Seine,
and then drove rapidly off.
A man engaged in fishing below the bridge had,
however, observed the net, and having got the package
to land, opened it and found it to contain fragments
of flesh, amidst which he thought he could distinguish
a human leg. Ho took the basket to a commissary of
police, and a medical man being sent for decided that
the contents were human remains cut up, and iu an
advanced state of decomposition.
The police naturally supposed that they were on the
traces of a crime ; the railway men being arrested de-
clared that the person to whom the parcel had been
comigned had refused it in consi quence of the carriage
bi Mg unpaid, and as they found it to emit a horrible
stench they resolved to get rid of it by throwing it into
the river. This explanation did not appear satisfactory,
. I and the investigation teas carried further. The person
, I to whom the package had been addressed was then ap-
plied to, and the mystery WM cleared up ; his brother,
, who resides in the Pyrdnive, having shot a fine bear,
had sent him a leg stripped of its fur; but in conse-
quence of the hot weather and some delay in the de-
livery, the game had become spilled. He consequently
' refused to take the parcel, and intends to sue the
company for the loss occasioned by the delay.

AN UNFAITHFUL "HELP-MEET."

In the Divorce Court, in London, the cause of Ames v.
Ames, Robinson, Gourley, and Ilelfenstein " has been tried,
and was a husband's petition for dis,obition of marriage.
The respondent and the co-respondent Gourley flied answers
denying the adultery charged in the petition. One of the co-
resrondents, Robinson, is deed, and it was stated that the
other one, Helfenstein, was out of his mind.
Th.t petitioner is a gentleu]an of independent fortune
resid ug in the neighbourhood of Clifton, and he married
the rispondent, the Countess von Poelzig, a German
lady, in July, 1854. They lived happily together until
the autumn of 1867, when they were staying at an hotel
at Filey, in Yorkshire. A letter addressed to Mrs.
Ames by Dr. Helfenstein accidentally fell into the
hands of Mr. Ames, to which there was a poetscript
in German, which attracted his attention. On having
it translated he found that it indicated an improper
degree of familiarity between his wife and lielfenstein.
Mrs. Ames, on finding that her husband had discovered
the letter, ina.de a full confession of her guilt, not only
with Dr. Helfenstein but with the co-respoudent
Robinson, and with Dr. Gourlay and other persons.
She afterwards wrote out this confession in the form of
a letter to one of her relatives and signed it. Dr. lied
fenstein was described as a literary man, and Dr.
Gourlay is a physician, practising at Weston-super-
Mare. After Mrs. Anies's confession, Mr. Ames
sent her to her family in Germany, and presented this

petition. _
No detence was offered on behalf of Mrs. Ames, and
the only question was as to the adultery with Dr. I
Gourlay, her confession being no evidence against him.
Dr. Gourlay had attended the children of Mr. and
Mrs. Ames, while they were staying at Weston, and
also at Clifton, and was a frequent visitor at Mrs.
Atneis house. Dr. Gourlay's case was that there was
no greater intimacy between himself and Mrs. Ames
than was fully explained by his professional duties as
the medical attendant of the family. Mrs. Ames was
unwell at the time when he visited her, and took a
great deal of medicine. She was very musical, and
Dr. Gourlay was also fond of music. They were often
in each other's society, but there was no guilty inti-
macy between them.
The Solicitor General addressed the jury for Dr.
Gourlay, and pointed out that the termsof Mrs. Ames'
confession were inconsistent with the evidence on which
the petitioner now relied in support of the charge
against Dr. Gourlay. lie submitted that the evidence,
independent of the confession, was altogether insuffi-
cient to establish the charge.
The Judge.thdinary summed up, and impressed on
the jury the necessity of disregarding the confession
, of Mrs. Ames in considering the case against Dr.
Gourley.
' The jury found that Mrs. Ames was guilty of adul-
' tery with the co-respondents Robinson and Hellen.
; stein, and that Dr. Gourlay was not guilty of adultery
with Mrs. Ames.

A RAILWAY COMPANY AGAIN!--
DAMAGES, £175.
At the Warwick ashisfis, last week, the cause of' Dancer v.
the Midland Railway Company" was tried, and was an action
brought to recover compensation for injuries alleged to have
been caused by the negligence of the def endants' servants.
The plaintiff, a young man aged 21, was a porter in 1
the .mploy of the London and North-Western Railway 1
at the New-street Station, Birmingham. His wages
were 15s. a week, and his duty was to attend to the
passengers on the departure and arrival of the trains.
The London and North-Western Railway Company
are the owners of the station, but the Midland Rail-
way Company, by agreement between the two com-
panies, have a joint user of the station, and, in con-
sideration of a certain annual payment, they also have
the joint services of the porters and other servants of
the London and North-Western Railway Company.
There are many platforms and lines of railway for the
departure and arrival of the trains, and the statibn is
traveised by a level crossing where signalmen are
stationed to stop approaching trains, the practice
being for trains to stop short el the level crossing
whenever the red flag, the danger signal. is exhibited.
On the 18th of August, 1868, the plaintiff was carrying
on his shoulders the box of a passenger who had
arrived by the London and North-Western train.
: When he arrived at the end of the platform a train
belonging to the defendants was approaching clogs to
the level crossing where the signalman was then
exhibiting a red flag. The plaintiff saw the danger
pi,:nal, but did not look to see if a train was coming,
and, as he turned on to the crossing the buffer of the
engine belonging to the defendants' train caught him.
He was thrown down and severely injured. His left
arm was afterwards amputated. and he has since to a
great extent been unable to work.