The Express.
London, England, 1864-01-18 00:00:00

GUILDHALL

Mr. Thomas James Pullen, a solicitor, of No. 1, Iron-
monger-lane, Cheapeide, was summoned before Aklerman
Gabriel and Alderman Copeland, to show cause why he
should not be adjudged to be the putative father of Kiss
Caroline Charlotte Gibsou's illtaitiniate child.
The complainant, a young lady of considerable personal
attractions, said—l now reside with my father, but in 1861
I was in a situation at Mr. Harbinger's, in North-street.,
Brighton ; and it was about April or May of that year I first
becameacytuanted with thedelendant. He pruniisedto marry
me; and eventually, I think it was in Augustor September of
the mans year, an improper intimacy commenced between us.
He used to come down to Brighton every week, and the inter-
course took place is the parlour at the back of the shop is
North-street, where the defendant wee in the habit of visit-
ing me. The intimacy continued until November, 1862,
and my child was born in the January following. I saw the
defendant several times after the birth of the child, and he
never denied that it was his. He told me that he was in
difficulties, and could not do anything for me then, but if
would not trouble him be weld ultimately put me into
business. During my confinement a friend of mine applied
to him for mosey for me, and he sent me a Post-office order
for 2/. The letter eticloaing it was in has handwriting. It
also bears the address of his office in Irontuonger-lane. I
afterwards received another Post-office order for 1/., purport.
big to come from his brother, a boy of 14 )earsof age. The
letter enclosing it was signed A. Pullen," and informed
me that the defendant vu coming down to see me at
Brighton.
Cross-examined—l have lately gone by the name. of
"Jessie" and " Pullen." I have been convicted of receiv-
ing goods knowing them to have been stolen. but 1 did it
only to save my brothers, who were indicted for stealing
those goods. I was indicted for receiving the goods from
my brothers. I was sentenced to twelve months' impriaou-
ment, but it was afterwards commuted to ma months. All
that occurred before I knew the defendant. He came t)
see me on the day that the Volunteer review took place
at Brighton. That was in April, 1862, awl the intercourse
of that intimacy resulted in the birth of the child in January
180.

The complainant's father gave evidence relative to the
action for breach of promise of marriage sod the offer of the
defendant to pay 501. in consideration of his (defendant's)
bankruptcy, he at the same time alleging that the rest of
In, creditor, bad agreed to inuept a shilling in the pound.
The father was anxious to come to some arrangement about
the child, bat the defendant said be would rattle the other
matter tint. Defendant did not repudiate the child.
The defendant was then sworn, and, while admitting that
be bad had improper intimacy with the complainant, said it
ceased at the end of IS6I. He had no recollection of the
letter referred to.

Some other evidence was given with regard to complain-
ant's present place of residence, with the view of upsetting
the civic jurisdiction, after which
Alderman Gabriel said—My brother magistrate (Mr.
Ableintas Copeland) and I have given the evidence our
most careful consideration, and we have come to the con-
clusion that the defendant is bound to maintain the child.
We therefore make the usual order for half-a-crown a week.
The defendant immediately gsve noticed appeal.
CLERKENWELL.

A reapectably•atti luau, upon IY •r. ',court taking
his seat, said—Sir, I want your advice and resistance, for
waist to go back rod live with my wife. lam iu love with
her, but I am jilted, and you are the only person that am
amiat nie.

Mr. D'Evoconst inquired if the applicant was living with
his wits. •

The Applicant—No, and I can't live by mystilf, and for
this simple reason-1 earn 184. per week, out of which I
allow her 'Js., and it can't be dune to live and keep your
rent paid out of the remainder. I have asked her to
allow me to go hack and live with her, but she will not. She
has a Mite for the gigs, and says that if I *rot back to her
■he would not get on so well. Oh, wicked woman. that she
could scorn true love for the sake of glory ; and although
I know that she deserves not the love and the priceless food
affection that I bestow on her, yet would Igo back to her,
but she will not allow me.

Mr. D'Eyncourt said he could not help the applicant. If
he wished to have his wife hack be lied better apply to the
Divorce Court for restitution of conjugal rights.
The Applicant—But 1 Lave not got the motley. Her
beiog away from me makes me unhappy, and breeds in me
intiumerable evils, discomfort, disorganisation, and neglect.
And *list 01u be worse than that for if I allow them to go
on I shall lose my situation and my wages. If you were
to send one of your officers with me I have no doubt but
that she would come to her *eases. I was wrong, very
wrong, when I left her, and agreed to let Ler have tie
money. tio, lam not a heartless. selfish man, and would
sootier that she should have the whole of my money than
she should he dissatisfied with me.

Mr. D'Eyneourt told the applicant that he could not assist
him, and the hest thing the applicant could do would be
to go to his wife, and persuade her to niter the arrangement
he had himself made.
The appliant thanked his worship and retired.

WORSHIP-STREET.
Stephen Cairns, a tall and powerful man. 40 years of op,
and described as a labourer, was charged before Mr. Cooke
with violently assaulting William Good )ear, sho appeared
to be much older than the dehndant, of slighter build, and
whose forehead was bound with hospital rollers.
. . .

The complainant deposed—On the night of the 20th Nov.
last I was in a public.bouee near my home in Whitechapel,
and saw thin man and his wife drinking at the bar. He
scummed me of having made her tipsy on a former night, and
also with behaving very improperly to her. lof ass=
denied all this, and she spoke not • word nee way or tips
other. After sours further words between us I moved
towards the door, thinking it better to leave than amuse a
greater disturbance, but bad rely moved • few steps when,
chancing to turn round suddenly, I received • heavy blow
on my forehead. It was cut open, and bled sliockinta;Lti
so fact, I was mach injured that I have been in the
Hoepital ever since that time. The blow was given with a
quart pot, and he did it. I gays him into custody for the
assault. He was brought here and remanded until I got
bettor, but I think the use of my right eye has goes.
Defendant—Why now, didn't I bud you drinking withmy
wife at the bar when I went in ; sad didn't I jeer you about
your having done the same before ; and didn't you tall ms
of the intimacy with my wi!e, and wasn't that enough to
make a man is a passion
. . . . .

Complainant—r&ot any of this is true ; it is just the
reverse. You were there when I went is, and so wee your
wife.

Defendant—Now, call my wife ; she 4..11 tell yon.
Mr. Cooke—l cannot have Ler sworn, hut will bear her
Tendon of the matter if you both wish.
Both men appeared 1111Xi0O1 that it should Le so, and a
woman came forward as defendant's wife to establish on
which side lay the falsehood ; but considerable astonish-
ment was created by her coolly ..s,erting that in oue
puti-
cular, at least, there was a mistake, iouruncti es on the
night in question she hadnot been in the public-house at all,
the fact being that she was too drank to leave her bed. Every
attempt to ioduce her to alter this statement was met with
an iocreasuag persistence in being " quite right herself," and
both men wrong.

Defendant, in reply to questions from the magistrate,
admitted that he had struck complainant, but declared that
it was with his fist, not a pewter measure, and urged that it
was consequent upon the complainant's provoking conduct
and language.
Mr. Cooke, in dealing with the case, remarked upon the
extraordinary contradiction made by the woman, and said be
believed that the assault complained of had been committed
by defendant, and with the quart pot, as deposed to. More-
over, it was sot to be tolerated that under any circumstances,
however provoking, such serious attacks were to be per-
mitted to pare without a corresponding amount of punish-
ment. It was a mercy that defendant in this CllB was not
standing in the dock to answer a much graver eburv. He
had, however, been in prison for a long time, and the sen-
tence now pealed wan that of a further imprisonment of one
mouth, with hard labour.