The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-09 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 9, 1853.

Ciees-examined by Mr. Crowder—The action was
brought leg March, and this took place in June. 1
am • shoemaker. The plaintiff worked at Sitli-hury -
terrace when he slept at the defendant's. The plaintiff 's
wife had been living in the service of the defen-
dant for eight years. Ho heal known the family
for several years. The plaintiff was first in his
service three or tour years ago. My brother's wife acted as
defendant's assistant and housekeeper, and attended to
the female patients. I know Mrs. Robinson. My brother
visits her, I believe. I don't know that my brother lives
with her. He sometimes lives at Salisbury-terrace. I have
been at two o'clock in the morning at Mrs. Robinson's, and
then left him there to finish the night. lam cot aware that
Mrs. Robinson is a woman of the town. I knew nothing
about her before the last two months. The plaintiff has
other means of existence beyond what Mrs. Robieson gives
him. lam not aware that they live together as man and '
wife. He ale, ps with her. I first knew of his connexion
with her last March, since his separation from his wife. I
persuade° my brother to leave the defendant's house. The
plaintiff and his wife slept at the top of the house in Bruns-
wick-square. The servants slept in the rooms below them,
and the defendant down stairs. After plaintiff left the
house, his wife remaining there, he continued to make
boxes for the defendant until February last. When the
plaintiff's wife lived at Salisbury-terrace I did not hear her
complain of his visits to Mrs. Itobiuson. I recommended
my brother to bring this action.
Re-examined—The plaintiff had no connexion with Mrs.
Robinson until five months after his wife left him.
Mr. Meadows—l am a hairdresser at 25, Lloyd's-row, St.
John's-street-road. On the 27th Jane I went with my
friend Bradshaw to Memory. Near the River Cottage, at I
five or six in the evening, I saw plaintiff and his brothee,l
and some others. They are all disinterested parties to me-- I
complete strangers. An alt 4:cation war going on. These
were two females present. Plaintiff's wife pointed to plain-
tiff, and said, " You are my husband, I know." He said
he had found her out at la.t. The witness corroborated
the account given by the last witness as to what had taken
place, but said that the defendant, a gentleman in spectacles,
had not come out tiil the end of the conversation, when be
told them not to make a disturbance, and said the pleintiff
must take his remedy.
Cross-examined—The plaintiff explained to me there mid
then what were the names of the different persons. They
said an action had been commenced, and asked for my
name and address.
Mr. Bradehaw, a watchmaker, was called, and spoke *
the same facts as the last witness.
Mr. Desborough, a locksmith, who had done some work
at the River Cottage, proved that he had seen the plaintiff's
wife there.
Mr. Crowder then addressed the jury fir the defendant,
and characterised this se one r f the most disgraceful actions'
ever brought into a court of jastice. It had been said by his
learned friend that evidence would be given as to what had
taken place in Brunswick-Kt:lre, but neither the brother of
the plaintiff's wife, nor any one of the servants, had been
called, although ono of them, at least, had been sub-
peenaed. The action was commenced in March, when
there was not the slightest proof of any criminal
intercourse between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife,
except the story told by the plaintiff's brother as to what
had taken place more than a twelvemonth before, Not the
slightest familiarity, except on that occasion, had been
noticed between them, end even this circumstance had no:
been mentioned by John Beare to his brother fur several
months. Either, therefore, it was an abominable falsehood,
or he considered that it amounted to nothing. In this ac-
tion, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant could be called
as witaessee, and thus it was impossible to contradict what
John Beare had stated. But, alter the communication had
been made, the plaintiff left the house, and permitted his
wife to remain behind. If he was not to he considered a'
disgrace to society, no suspicion had, therefore, been raised
to his mind. In June, 1853, the occurrence had taken place
at Hornsey to which John Beare had spoken. With regard
to what he had said had token place in the morning, it was
so perfectly absurd that he submitted they could place no re-
liance on it. Then canoe the occurrence of the evening. He
could not see why it should be supposed that it was more
wrong for Mrs. Bears to go down to Horns& y than the ser-
vant Cohen. As she was living separated from her
husband on account of the repeated misunderstandings
between them, he might perhaps have acted more prudently
in not receiving her, although she had been a useful and
attentive servant to him for many years. It was impossible
that the defendant could have been so foolish, while this
very action was pending, to make the admission which had
been spoken to as having been made on the evening of the
27th June. Mr. Mau had merely said, according to the
statement of the witnesses called to corroborate John
Beare, that they must not make such a disturbance on
his premises, but must seek their remedy elsewhere. Mrs.
Beare's brother was still in the service of the defendant,
and it could not be sus posed that he would countenance his'
sister's living there in • state of prostitution. Us sub-
mitted, on all these grounds, that the defendant was entitled
to their verdict.
No evidence was called i r the defence.
Lord Camsbell summed up, telling the jury that they
had to consider whether upon the evidence they were con-
vinced that before the 30th of March, when the action had
been commenced, the nefendant had committed adultery
with the plaintiff's wife. Setting aside what had taken
place on the 27th of Jut.; there would certainly have been
no evidence to that a fLet, except what John Beare had
seen in February, 1851. lie must say, he thought evi-
dence as to indecent liberties having taken place between
the parties in such a case as this, at • lime when criminal
intercourse was supposed to have been already com-
mitted, was exceedingly improbable. If they believed,
however, what John Beare had said with regard
to what took place on the 27th of Jure, it amounted
to an admission, on the part of the defendant, that
he had been guilty of adultery; but his evidence varied
from that of the two other witnesses, who were present on
the same occasion, as their account of what passed would
not prove any such admission. They must consider whe-
ther, under all the circumstances of the case, the criminal
conversation alleged to have taken place had been made
out ; and if it had they would give the plaintiff such damages
as they considered ho ought to receive, if not they would
find • verdict for the defendant.
The jury retired, and in about half an hour returned and
gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with 251. damages.

00UAT OF

r.-YESTERDAT.
L IVA!4S.

BEFORE we.
ICI Ri BROCR.
The bankrupt, Edward Brock, tailor, of Saekeille•street,
Piccadilly, applied for his certificate. His accounts ex-
tended over three years and a half prior to the failure. At
the beginning of MO, he was in a deficiency of 2,9061. ;
he now owed to unsecured creditors 3,7471. ; to those hold-
ing security, 976/. ; ditto secured on wife's property, 2,9501.
The assets were put down at 1,0501.; property held by cre-
ditors, 970/.
Mr. 0. Richards, for the assignees, called attention to the
large deficiency, nearly 3,000/., with which the accounts
commenced, and to the excess of the expenditure over the
profits, the latter being 2,431!., and the former upwards of
4,0001., the private expenditure being at the rate of 5001.
a year. There were also heavy items for interest and law
charges, together 1,173/. The bankrupt had been in prison
six months; and if this were considered as rendering a sus-
pension unnecessary, the assignees hoped the bankrupt
would only receive a certificate of the third class.
Mr. Sadgrove, for the bankrupt, explained that the
deficiency had arisen from the bankrupt taking his father's
business with all its liabilities. He had hoped, by a few
years of attention and industry, to redeem hi:smelt, but had
not succeeded. The present creditors, however, well knew
of the deficiency.
The bankrupt was examined, and deposed that he had
incurred great loss through several house*, the property of
his wife, remaining inlet. His expenditure bad been
necessarily heavy, owing to his large family. The law ex-
penses were owing to the creditors, not himself. He had
been ircp.isoned at five suits. He wished to make an
arrangement with the creditors, by an assignment, which
was not carried out. lie had been obliged to borrow some
money at larger rates than the common interest, but the
creditors had had the benefit of a great deal of the interest,
which had been paid on their bills. The large deficiency in
18•i0 arose from hi. taking his father's business. The cre-
ditors had been aware of his circumstances for three years.
lie called a meeting at that time, and they advised him to
struggle on.
His Honour said the certificate would have been ad-
journed for a very considerable period, and would only have
been of the third class, had it not been shown that the dal
Mersey was known to the creditors, and that he carried nn
the business with their sanction. He had acted imprudently
in securing debts on his wile's property, and is incurring a
larger expenditure than his means would justify. The cm-
tificate must be adjourned for six months ; when granted to
be of the second class; protection in the meantime. _ .

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-YEiTERDAY,

scrota no.

ruzLuro.

IN RE RICHARD BUTLER. - RAISING MONEY AT 300

PER CENT.

This insolvent, who was a couch-smith, cpplied to be din-
charged from prison. There was no opposition.
Mr. Commissioner Poi Hips remarked that le saw the
applicant had three times before been an insolvent. This
was his fourth application.
The insolvent admitted the fact. lie had been obliged to
raise money at 300 per cent.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips expressed his surprise. He
hundred per

had heard of 60 or 80 per cent. Three hus. per cent .
How could he eapect to keep out of the court if he raised
money at 300 per cent. ? His Honour added that in his
opinion it was a very wicked thing for persons to take 300
per cent. oo ace .unt of the necessities of a man. It was an

amouut.

The Insolvent was ordered to be discharged.
IN RE JOHN H. LtOVD.—PROJECTINO A PUBLIC COMPANY.
This insolvent, who had promoted a company styled the
City of London Brewing and Malting Company, was further
beard on his petition.
Mr. &rood opposed for Messrs. Sarl, silvenmiths, of
Cornbill ; and Mr. Cooke supported.
The inquiry occupied some hours. The insolvent had
projected a company and issued prospectuses. The capital
woe to he 300,000!., and to be raised to one million. The
affair turned out a failure. The prospectus issued was read.
It described in glowing terms the benefits to be derived.
Shares were allotted, but none issued, and only 10f., it was
stated, bad been paid for a certificate of allotment. The
offices were in Cornhill, and the insolvent obtained on ac-
count of the company 521. of plated articles of the opposing
creditors, which he soon afterwards pledged, and had sold
'the duplicates to Mr. Denton, an oil merchant on Dow-
common, in whose employment he had been as collector and
{Weller.

, Several witnesses were examined, including the secre•
tory of the pr. jected cotn;eny.
Mr. Denton was examined on the purchase of the dupli-
. wee of the insolvent.
Mr. Sirgnod complained of the amended accounts which
had been tiled by the incolecn:. The learned couosd re-
quired the attendance of the pa wubreker to eh when
the articles were piedged,
After a discussion the ease WY adjourned for the at-
, tendance of the pawnbroker.