The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-14 00:00:00

man, hut who in reality was the husband of the prisoner at
the tar, who bad a number of children by him. The
prosecute': limed with him until May, 1842, and there
children were the issue of the marriage. In that month it
became necessary that they should separate, and they did
so, and she took a residence at No. 3, Kagcnt•atreet,
End, where she carried on the business of a milliner and
dressmaker. The furniture she placed In that hause was
not purchased by Iredale, or with his money. It had not
been ..t all at the lodgings she had occupied wit► Iredale,
but was purchased by her after she parted from him. The
learned counsel said she had money of her own, and was
quite independent of her quasi husband; so that there
could be no pretence that the property stolen belonged to
Iredale, or that the prisot•.er had any ri.tlit to it.
The prosecutrie, having deposed to the above facts, went
on to say that she had from time to time been 'greatly an-
noyed by " the woman there," as sho designated the pri-
soner. On one occasion she came to the house in Regent-
street, and said it was her husband's, and she should re-
main. She took off her bonnet and shawl, and assumed the
position of mistress of the establishment, helped herself to
what she pleased, and threatened, if she (witness) dared
to make her appearance in the kitchen, she would
have her life. Iredale hail been to the house, but not often.
On the 2.ind of December the prisoner came to the house
and smashed fifteen squares of glass ; on Easter Monday
she came again. A boy belonging to a lodger opened the
door wheu she knocked, and at that time she happened to
be in her bedroom and but partly dres4ed. The prisoner
rushed up-stairs with a penknife open in her hand, And
using horrible oaths and imprecations declared that she
would have revenge on witness and her bastards, as she
termed her children, and that she would have het life.
Witness tried to prevent her getting into the (tont room,
and in so doing received a cut in the wrist from the pen-
knife. Feeling that her life was in danger she snatched up
her youngest child, and was about to rush down the stairs
when the prisoner gave her a violent pusb, and she fell with
her child from the top to the bottom. She got up and went
for refuge into the house of a neighbour, where she fainted.
When she got back to the house she found the prisoner had
carried off two counterpanes, two sheets, two blankets, two
table lamps, a tea kettle, a work box, a silk dress, a silver
watch, a victorine, and sundry other articles. All these
things, except the lamps, were her own property, and were
purchased after she parted from Iredale. The lamps had
been left with her to sell. The only thing that had heed found
was the tea kettle. The prisoner well knew that the thing
did not belong to Iredale, and t►at she had bought them
herself. _ .

Cross-examined—The articles she would swear were not
beught whilst she was living with Iredale. She had
means of her own, and was quite independent of Iredale,
who allowed her 15s. per week. Sho lived at his lodgings
aft r they parted in May, last year. lie went to Luton in
Bedfordshire. She had three children.
Mr. O'Brien—llan't you know that the prisoner is the
legitimate wife of !mice, and that she and her six children
have been in the workhouse while he was living with
you ?
The witness paused, but afterwards said, she knew no-
thing of the sort. lredale placed bin children by " this
woman " in an asylum—from which she induced them to
run away. lie had good cause for leaving her, she had
found out.

The Amistant Judge—Don he viait you now?
The wituess—He has been to visit me to pay me the
money for the support of his children, but I know no more
of him since the Bth of Nay thaa of any gentleman in this
court.

The prisoner seemed astounded at this answer, and kept
continually vociferating instructions to her counsel.
The Assistant-Judgo asked the prosecutrix how long
after she was married to Iredale it was before she disco-
vered that he had a wife living.
The prosecutria—Three years and a half. I married
him as a single man. I believed that he was not married.
I found that he was married in 1845, and lived with him
seven years afterwards. I left him because of this woman's
annoyance, and believing that my life and my children's
were in danger. I was determined that I would have no
more of the nuisance of this woman, and left him.
.11e

now Haas at Bow. He does not visit me on terms of inti-
macy. Ile comes to pay me the money for the children. I
do not know what his wages are. Ile is a retortsettcr.
Prisoner—Four pounds a week is what he has.
Mr. O'Brien suggested that upon this evidence no charge
of larceny could be substantiated. The prisoner had goal
reason to believe that every article in the house of the pro-
secutrix was her husband's, and bought with his money.
The man Iredale was pointed out in court. The prisoner
avowed that he was there through her having subratnaed
him, and appeared delighted that eke had succeeded iu
bringing him to hear her tried.
It was stated by the counsel (Mr. O'Brien) that the in-
structions for counsel to prosecute were given by Iredale
himself.

The proseentriz swore that before seeing him there she
had not seen him foe P month.