The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-09 00:00:00

Lab). Intelltgenct.

EQUITY COURTS.-iESTIRDAT.
iiirtiall Tat Lou. Jr•ilen ur Arms-
IN iti Tilt EARL. Or ELDON, ♦ LUNATIC, ♦ND IN RE

THE 311.11.HC11T SUCIETT.
In ita, Lord Eldon, who, with Lerd Teignmouth and
Mr. Becanquet, held the sum of 6,3201., as trustees for the
society, became a lunatic, and since that time a Mr. Len-
rhyn had ht en approved of, as trustee to act in the place a
the lunatic, by resolution passed at a Infecting of the society,
held in February last. her. l'enrhyn had accepted the
trust, and the present petition was presented by him and
Lord Teignasouth and Mr. liosanquet, for =Drier seating
in them so trustees the trust fund which still remained
atondieg in the names of the original trustees.
Mr. Cairn., in support of the petition, said the facts ap-
peering up, a it were all verified by the altilavit of Captain
F. L. Wood, the secretary of the society.
Their lordships made the order, subject to Mr.
the registrar, being satisfied from the rules constituting the
society. th,tMr. Pearhyn had been duly and formally ap-
pointed as trustee.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCIL-YESTERDAT.
arITINGS AT NW hilt" IN LYMAN. - Enroll USD CANT NALL

..-.;SU .F.l ur.
CRIM. CON.—MITCHELL r. TILE PRINCE OF
ARMENIA.
This was an action to recover damages for an alleged
Brim eon. between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. E. James, tI,C., Mr. Wordsworth, and Mr. Mane.,
were he the plaintiff; Mr. Maeauley and Mr. T. J. Clark
appeared for the defence.
Mr. James said the plaintiff was a gentleman holding
the position of Sheriff and Chief Magistrate of Hong-Kong.
The defendant was • foreigner, whopassed by thehigh sound-
ing title of the Prince of Armenia, and whose means, if he
were believed, were considerable. He was introduced to
the plaintiff's wife in 1852. The lady was, before her
marriage with Mr. Mitchell, the widow oft Mr. Kirby, and
bad one child. The plaintiffand Mrs. Kirby were married on
the Ist July, 1614, at the British embaasy,at Hong-Hong. Mr.
Mitchell was then 33 years of age, and Mie.Kirby 27. In 1852,
Mrs. Mitchell came to England to make arrangements for the
education of her daughter, Mr. Mitchell consigning her, so '
to speak, to the care of a Mrs. Leigh, the wife of an inti-
mate friend of his. Mrs. Mitchell accordingly came and
stayed at Mn. Leigh's; but, after a time, she went to
a Mrs. M•liiags, at whose bearding house she resided until
the 16th of June. About that date she was introduced to
the defendant, who was • friend of M. Louis Blanc, at •
meeting of some refugees. She was then living at Mrs.
Id Whop'. One day she came home and said that the de-
fendant proposed to come to reside at that lady', house.
When the nines came he selected • room with •
very thin partition, adjoining tho room of Mrs. Mitchell,
At this place the connexion commenced. The at-
tentions paid by the defendant to Mrs. Mitchell be-
came the subject of comment among the boarders, and one
day • servant going into the drawing•rcom saw sufficient
as the learned gentleman believed, to show that improper
intercourse had taken place. Again, one morning the little
girl of Mrs. Mitchell was found crying, and on being asked
why, stated that her mother had not been to bed all night.
This was on a Sunday, and a watch being made, Mrs.
Mitchell was seen to come out of the defendant's room. Mrs.
Mullings insisted upon her leaving her house upon the
Monday. The Prince took apartments for her, and con-
stantly visited her. Since she first left Mrs. Mulling.'
she had moved several times, but at all her lodgings the
Prince visited her. Not only did he do this, but he
pawned a watch, the wedding gift of Mr. Mitchell. In
the latter end of 1852, Mr. llilyard, who formerly knew
the plaintiff, hearing of these fact', wrote to Mr. Mitchell
and acquainted him with the infidelity of his wife. He had
come over here to prosecute these proceedings, and although
his salary was not large—being in fact 1,0001. a year—yet
the expenses to which he had been put were very consider-
able. It would be put, be believed, to the jury that they
ought net to give excessive damages, because of the
poverty of the defendant. He (Mr. James), however.
begged to remind the jury that it was only by proceeding '
against • man for damages that the law of England affirded
any means of punishment for such an offence as Chit. He
trust( d that they would show the defendant that while he
sought the protection and hospitality of this country, he
would also be bound to respect its laws and its citizens.
The Rev. Mr. Stanton was then examined.—lle said, I
am the chaplain at Hong Keng. I know the plaintiff. I
knew Mrs. Mitchell when ste was Mrs. Kirby. She had
then two children. One died before her marriage with the
plaintiff : the other, a little girl, survived. I performed the
marriage ceremony between the plaintiff and his wife. My
wife was present. Mr. Mitcheil introduced his wife to the
list society of the place. Ile was most kind to her.

OfenMi;amined.:-Mrs. Mitchell did not treat her bus-
kid la kindly as be did her. I only knew Mrs. Mitchell as
.Yes. Kirby about four months. Mr. Kirby died a few
MlNstlas Wore the marriage. Mrs. Kirby then lived in
Menge. I left Hong Kong in 1850. Mr. Mitchell is in
lbgland. I have seen Mrs. Mitchell a few days since at
her lodgings in Devonshire-street.
Mn. Leigb.—l am the widow of the late consul at Amoy.
My husband is dead. I know NIL Mitchell. I received•
letter from him um his wife coming to England. Mn.
Mitchell and her daughter arrived upon the sth of nor
They came to my house in Burton Crescent. They MINI
over under the care of Dr. Stewart, who was an elderly
gentleman. and his wife. She was with me sin weeks.
She left on the 15th of June. She then removed to a
benriling-home in Weymouth-street. After that time she
did not visit as Isiah. Her conduct was perfectly correct
in my house.
Creesdnamined-1 expected from Mr. Mitchell's letter
that Mrs. Mitchell would stop permanently with me. She
left me upon the incites that it would be cheaper to go to
• bisarding-hoee. A Mr. Angel used to visit her. He was
not married.
Mrs. Esther Mulling'—l reside at 35, Weymouth-street.
I keep a bonding house there. lam the widow e f Cap-
tain blallinn, of the Victory. (The witness here left the
court apparentl overcome by her feeling'. Iler husband
was lately murdered by the coolies.) I took the house in
Weymouth street on the llth of August. Mrs. Mitchell
and her Child were then boarding there. There were other
bander& Mrs. Mitchell stayed a month. Mrs. Mitchell
then had a bed-room on the 2nd floor. I put her into a
better norm on the first floor. About the 14th August the
defendant called to en Mn. Mitchell. He ems to beard
in my house on the Ist of September. Between the 14th
of August and the let of September he called very often.
When be came to board he selected a room on the second
floor. This adjoined the room previously occupied by Mee.
Mitchell. There is only a thin partition between the two
rooms. A day or two before the defendant came to my
house Mrs. Mitchell went back to her old room, next to
that ultimately occupied by the defendant. Before the de-
fendant came, Mrs. Mitchell sat at dinnertime at my right
band. The defendant sat near the door. tipon the Prince
coming, Ides. Mitchell shifted ter seat to the place
neat the defendant. The defendant was constantly
Innis, Mrs. Mitchell she was very beautiful. Mrs.
Mitchell and the defendant occasionally went out together.
They have remained out together until past ten o'clock. I
remonstrated with Mrs. Mitchell upon the levity of her
conduct. 1 recollect the &dewiest and Mrs. Mitchell com-
ing home one day from the boon:niter's. I had a .errant
named Sarah Bitch. She made a communication to me a
few days after. I recollect on Sunday morning before
Mrs. Mitchell left, Wing awakened about five o'clock by
her child crying on the drawing room haling. Dr. Stewart
and his wife were then living at my house. In consequence
of what the child said I went to Dr. Stewart's bedroom. I
told him what the child said. I and the Doctor went u p toM rs.
Mitchell's bedroom door; she was not in her room ; 1 then
went to the defendant's door, knocked, and said, " Is Mrs.
Mitchell here he said, "No." I went down stairs, and
in a few minutes came up again and knocked at the defen-
dant's door. lle said, " Mrs. Mitchell is not here, she is up
stairs.- I went up stairs, leaving the Doctor at her door.
She was not up stairs. 1 searched for her everywhere. 1
came back to Dr. Stewart, and we waited five nr mi-
nutes. The Prince then opened the door and asked me if I
had found Mrs. Mitchell. I said, " No, but there she ie."
She was at his back going out of his room to hers. She wee
in her rightness n. The defendant was in his shirt. An
hour after Mrs. Mitchell rent for me. In the course of the
day she left the house by my des.rs. Before they went the
rnace had gone out two or thno times.
Crete-examined—l last saw Dr. Stewart in February. I
Saw Mr. Mitchell about a month ago. The defendant did
not leave upon his own notice. I desired him to quit my
house. In December he commenced proceedings against me,
in reference to the statement lam now making. I know
Mrs. Newton. I never commissioned her to go to the
defendant. There is a water-closet upon the second flier.
Mrs. Mitchell did not profess to be ill upon the day before
shevras found by me in the defendant's bedroom. I have
several daughters; none are subject to fits. The defendant
did not say " Perhaps Mrs. Mitchell is up with your
daughter." I have never said that I did not see Mrs.
Mitchell, but that it was Dr. Stewart who saw her.
harsh hitch—l am a mimed woman. I was living in
September at Mrs. Mullinge. I remember some boots
coming home fur Mrs. Mitchell. I went op stairs to Mrs.
Mitchell's bedroom with them. I did not find her there.
and so came down to the drawing.room. I knocked twine
and heard no answer. I went in. (The witness them
described the position of Mrs. Mitchell and the defendant.
which wax such as to leave no doubt upon her mind then
criminal tatPrcourse bed taken place between them) I
mentioned this to au mistress after a convention I hand
at the dinner-table about Mrs. Mitchell and the defendant
Cross-examined—The drawing-nom is the public-room.
Redutamlned—The room is seldom used in the
Lord Campbell asked Mr. Ilscauiey whether he proposal
to contradict this evidence. If ho did not, he doubted
whether the case need go further.
Mr. James +aid he should wish himself to call some other
witnesses, as their testimony might weigh upon the question
ol damages.
Amalie Lswington was Ilion ezankinad—l remember the