The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-15 00:00:00

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock, Mr. Justice Wightman,
Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Baron Channel). and Mr.
Justice Mellor.)
THE QUEEN r. STEPHEN JOSEPH MEANT.

The prisoner, who it will be recollected, has gained some
notoriety in connexion with the International Exhibition
from represeotiog himself to be connected with the
newspaper press , was tried and convicted on the
Bth October last at the Middlesex sessions, before Mr.
Joseph Payne, deputy-assistant-judge, of obtaining good'
by false pretences by means of a letter purporting
to have been received by him from the financial
department of the International Exhibition, but
which was proved to have been a forgery. The
jury on the trial returned a verdict that the
prisoner had obtained the goods in question by
fraudulent representations, but they believed be
intended ultimately to pay for them. This verdict
Mr. Payne refused to receive, and several members
of the bar (the prisoner being undefended by counsel)
then urged that it was a verdict equivalent to
one of not guilty, and ought to be entered as such. The
jury retired, and afterwards came into court with a verdict
of guilty. Some further discussion ensued, when Mr.
Payne remanded the prisoner till the following sessions,
in order to take the opinion of the assistant
judge (Mr. Bodkin) on the point. When it came before
that learned judge he expressed an opinion that the first
verdict was one that ought not to have been received
by the learned judge who presided. in that form. Mr.
Payne told the jury that if they thought the prisoner
did not mean to defraud, they ought to have found
him not guilty. He (Mr. Bodkin) was prepared to act
upon the second verdict 64 not a magistrate who was pre-
sent been of opinion that the first verdict was an acquittal.
Under the circumstances a case was stated fur the opinion
of this court as to the finding of the jury.
Mr. Dickie appeared for the prisoner, and Mr. Kemp for
the prosecution.
After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel,
The Court held that the finding of the jury ought to have
been received as a conviction.
Conviction affirmed.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

IfEAVAN V. BEAVAN.-ANOTHER CLANDEISTINEMARRIAGY„

Mr. Serjeant Shee and Dr. Spinks appeared for the peti-
tioner; Mr. Francis and Mr. Tidawell for the respondent.
This was another of that large class of marriages which
aro entered into rashly and without the concurreoce of the
parties' friends, and which afterwards come into this court
for dissolution. The petitioner, Mr. Arthur Henry Beaver;
was the son of a solicitor now deceased, and was a ward in
Chancery. Having unfortunately become acquainted
with a women of bad character, named Emily
Louisa Dale, who was very much his senior, he
was induced to contract • clandestine marriage with her
by license at St. Paul's Church, Camden-square, St. Pancras,
on the 29th of November, 1860. The connexion having be-
come known to his friends be was sent out of the country ;
and the respondent was alleged to have afterwards returned
to her old way of life. The defence was a denial, coupled
with a plea that the petitioner had deserted her without
reasonable excuse, apd had treated her with • neglect that
bad conduced to the adultery.
Mr. Charles Shnrnptoo, the clerk at St. Paul's, said that
the night before the marriage be saw the parties, and asked
the youth if he weed age. Witness doubted the accuracy
of the statement, and tithed him again if he was sure he was.
He again replied in the affirmative. The woman had •
thick veil on, so that witness could not see her face. Wit-
new therefore asked her the same question, and she also
'aid she was of age. The next morning they came with-
out witnesses. Asked them where their witnesses were?
They said they had none, soil asked witness to be one.
Spoke to the cleret man in attendance, and he said that
witness had better do what be was requested. The woman
said she would go and find another witness ; and shortly
afterwards retuned bringing an oldish woman, who signed
the register. A short time afterwards, the respondent came
again to witnesa's house ;_ehe said that her husband had
been taken away, sad asked witness to go to a solicitor. De-
dined to interfere, having only acted officially and knowing
nothing of the parties. Had once seen them together in
Camden-road ; and witness's attention was attracted by the
vet,' remarkable voice of the respondent.
Cross-examined—That was shortly after the marriage.
Mr. Hugh Job Cadell Beavan—My brother, the peti-
tioner, was sixteen yearn of age in April, 1860.
Cross-examined—ln November. 1860, we were both living
at home with my mother at No. 13, Blaadfordsquare,
Regent's-park. .1 went abroad soon after. I was never
present when the petitioner applied to my mother for pecu-
niary assistance. I never saw the respondent at my mother's
I have heard that my mother has been applied to
for money, but she seat the letter at once to her solicitor.
Idu not think the respondent has had soy assistance from
my family since my brother was separated from her.
Cross-examined—We were all wards of Chancery, am:Vey
brother bad no means of his own.
William Hoes, a policeman, said that he heat knew the
respondent about two years ago. She was then living
near Bedfordsquare. There were several women
in the house. The respondent was living with
her mother, and she had with her two ehildren of
the ages of eight and nine, The respondent's age
was about thirty-five or thirty-six. The bouae was •
brothel. He lied seen the respondent take men there in
August, 1880, and conduct herself in the streets like a loose
woman. In December last, in consequence of instructions
he had received, witness looked for her, and on the '2nd he
found her living with the petitionerat No. 6, Victoria-terrace,
Camden-town. Followed them on the 22nd to the court
of the Master of the Rolls ; and saw the petitioner go into
the judge's private room. Afterwards accompanied the pe-
titioner to the chambers of his uncle, Mr. Charles Beaver,
in Stooe.buildings. Saw the petitioner's mother there.
Was called in, and in the petitimier's presence received di-
rections from the uncle and mother to take him to Liver-
pool. The young man said nothing. He afterwards asked
witness what he was going to do with him at Liverpool?
Told him he did not know, and that his uncle
would tell him. He said, " I won't go." Replied that
if be resisted, he should put hardcuffs on him. He said
nothing to that. Took him to Crewe the same night, and
the next morning went on with him to LiverpooL He
went quietly. His mother and node were with them. At
Liverpool witness slept in the same room with him, and
fouud that he had a disease on him at that time. Put him
on beard the Victory, Captain Jones, bound for Melbourne;
and stayed with him till the ship sailed.
tlermis-examineel—Took the petitioner intoctudody without
a warrant and on the authority of the uncle alone. No
charge was made against the young man.
Peter Baron Matthews, clerk to the solicitor of the family,
served the parties with an order of the Court of Chancery.
Was present when they were examined, on the 22nd of
becember, 1860, before the Master of the Rolls.
The Master spoke to the respondent of the con-
tempt of which she had been guilty in marrying a ward
of Chancery without its sanction. 'rhe Muter of the Rolle
ordered him into the custody of his guardiaae, and directed
that they should have power to send him abroad. He also
enjoined the respondent not to attempt to bnld
any iotercourse with her alleged husband. (The
order was reed.) Oa the 12th of Jawasry
the respondent appeared to answer for her contempt. On
the Ist of November last the witness went to London.