The Express.
London, England, 1859-05-05 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF TAE DAILT NEWS.

i•ii
wei
pda
Pad
mid
pad
p•ld
p.!l

Sir,—The following lee temptation of 4 dOCLIFIII34II whieh
has been published in the odic3*l4,l4nm( de St. Peterstateri :
Ws are authorised to declare, in the most positive manner,
that then exists no treaty of alliance, either defensive or
offensive, between Rusk and any power whatmevee."
The original is in these words :
" Noes soarer autorteds i declarer, de la mani4re la pins
paddy; qu'd n'ealste ennui trite(raffinate, ni defensive ill
Ultimates, entre la Rum& et sumac puissance quakooque."
aemultansowily with this daelarivion the Russian govern-
ment, induced by the state of politic.' complications, his
aimed it to be notified to the eaWitivers to the Three par
Cast. Loin not only that it liberates them from future
awestr.awes'epos their engagements, but that It has antaoryed
repayment to them of all the sou) s they have already pill
atcatat at this.

It is truly gratifying, elr, to be able to give publicity to
Qom labia millisanrell of the Imperial Rosman governmaed
through the columns of • joureal of your respectability, and
to which the public attaches so much credit. In applying to
yon to do so, I take the opportunity of adding some observa-
tions on caoln stateimen4l lately pot forth by a public
journal, end so justly atigroathed by yourself and other;
relative to Rueie.

~Blnca the
deciration of peace Ramie hes not enrolled a
'Meta come:Apo; but she has disbanded large nconbem both
of her land and sea forme and returood them to their villages.
Her dockyards sad armeals have been almost at reef, while
all her energise ham beets conomtrated spots, and her go-
vemroent tuumaittingly °cooped with, measures directed to
the development of her isternal resources, and to the ad•
meanest of bar people in wealth, prorperity and comfort.
Lastly, sir, that the 1311 D to which reference le mode above
was somtroctecl solely with this view, and not for purposes of
gm, Is demonstrated by the foremost of its sonditnne having
bow, that In the event, not alone of imetititior, but of grave
political complications, Chore who bad subscribed to it should
ems from payments until the ammo and effeate of such
events should have paved.
AU these, dr, are hots patina to the world, sod mo public
joitrrlist can plead igeoranos of oblate of them.

I have seem "With aticere vine the news et Iseetseeshis
sees se irseeisood with certain of the statements teemed to
es betalllbly dead readers lato the belief of those paths
bar* isdigwatly refused to cro•operate in the allegros bit.
dime deslise el the Itass'aci government upon the erettshty
sad awry of the Belch public The Stews of these pee-
iwq: or may sot endorse the isdigalthe klested la ths
Uri= gerwasseet ; but shosid ft be memesary, a dereesest
et the reel teats, involeing a Most demist, owe be etym.
Keemerhile, the noble beenag of the Ranieri sovetaftest
will be admired by every wind capebie of ea bosserehis;ses-
Sissesi

quZert the writer of the City articles od the pew in
prevents soy retwesos to him, tett the
el is may learn that the peblie Eli not puniatil=re
&law with impunity, nor wOll they be Ale le owed thew
rhos hem =poetize and releibsties.-1 ea, ibe,
1171, OW Band-Met, YAM 4. CsAsiis SAL.

Rata inttilfgaut.

COURT OF COMMON PLF.AB.—MAT 4.
stump at Nil Mme Loadda.—(Eisisre Mr. Joao,
W s Cosmos Ivry.)
COOTII V. LLOTD-ADCLTINT AND CONDONATION.

This was an action to recover 121. for board and led,ging
Wad to the WMhis el Captain Lloyd, E.N., who denied h
Mr.ttratem and Mr. Patchett appeared for the plaintiff,
sad Mr. CMOs" and Mr. Frisch for the defendant,
Kr. Lanka to °pada( the we. said that the action had
=.3ly bean brought la the Lembeth County Court, but
eit removed at the Mama ref the defendant into the
sapirke court, qua the ground that important questions of
law were involved In the case; and, indeed, the ques-
tion of adultery and condonation of adultery must
arise. Mrs. Lloyd married la 1847, and after a
taw weeks' residence with her husband in the island of
hem be went to the But Indies on sweice, and wars away
for three yews. Dormshis absence disputes took place
between some members of his Waft and Ms. Lloyd, and
she in consequence left Jersey and went to her brother, at
Fort George, Inverness. Whilst there she became acquainted
with Mr. Winslow, with whom she committed adultery, and
• child was born. When Captain Lloyd returned his wife
visited him at Chatham, and having confessed her fault bet
ciao wee eandueed, not only by Captain Lloyd's forgive.
amm, bat by his sleeping with her afterwards. The leaned
cowed them detailed the fasts deposed to by the witnesses,
and be ideo named to plunges in letters written by Captain
Lloyd, to show the captain's knowledge of what had taken
place. In one dated December 12, 1862, and tiddreseed
to Cdei Wren', Mrs Lloyd's brother, he mid that he had
sees Lloyd, "mad dpi' suceeded in eliciting from
bar that she had had a child by Mr. Window," and ha added,
"she confessed what she bad dials,, white I have in her own
handwriting, end I forgave her: Ice another letter ad-
dressed to hie wife the captain said, " What • twofaced
blackguard your brother Emit be, to let a slater of hie nourish
an itlegitimate child to my disparagement, morally and pe-
cunianly apeaking ;" mad the learned counsel explained that
this we. an animism to the fact that Captain Wrarg, in order
to screen hie sister, had said that the child, which we. in his
house, was his and not hen.
. _

ilarshWister, the plaintiff, wasexamined, and said—l
have married my ptesent husband sham the commencement
of this salt. In February last year I lot meta apartments,
No. 4, Elmirrs-road, Old Hint-road, to Mrs. Lloyd, at 7e. ed.
a work. I have boarded sad lode* her aver. @Moe, My
claim sp to tits ortesersent of theindtta 124

did net know her beim. the ante to
Ilve at my Mesa. I let lodgings. She lead no did with
is whoa dm lest came, but about eight weeks shieweids
Its Wu& a shild. It was a boy, and seven or eight
eli. 1111 set ssertrin she was married until feui her
medlisde of meshes. I knew nothing of her peerless his.
tory. I mot le the pelles-osort to know what I wee to de
with Mao* am kid ris write to her husband. I wrote
to her bedisw4 M Sheeness, stating that his lady
woe at say liews• and out of her mind, and ea•
a bops that would take one of her.
paring he
the present U.S the is oceseloasliy out
of her mind. I band she woo eat of bee mind a iket-
night or three weeks after aloe ems to my haves. I got no
answer from Captain Lloyd. I had en hint ha Masao
and Mn. Lloyd wee with mo. My MOW wag to seeetsea
mu me his wits or not. No we sighed ber imy boom bat
Is mike& shistduits. Sometimes ales would my the child
we Ws; sawatimei that it was her brother's, and at other
those the would say that it was a dear friend's, whose nose
she would not divulge. At other time she mid he father
wee at Shinners, and I understood that she alluded to
Captain Lloyd.
Mrs. Penis Lloyd—l was married to the gewthmsa who I.
now Captain Lloyd in 1847. I lived with Mtn two months
bJassy, and atter that he laft for envies la India. B. had
sheer and his mother close by our haus in Jersey; end
after he hod ions differences arose between me and Me
family. It woe quits the talk of the Island. I had a bey by
Captain Lloyd, and when that child wee about to neentaa
old I left Jersey, and went to Fort George, the residates of
my brothar, who le in the Artillery. I saw my husband at
Chatham—l think in December, 1862, or January, 1863. I
was invited by him to pto Chatham. He wrote to me to
go to the San Hotel, and he would meet me. I arrived
thin., and found he had engaged a room for me. I stayed
there that night. I efterwards wee to other loMtip in
Chatham. He asked me to give him an account of the time
I bad bees absent, and hinted that I had been unfaithful,
but he said what hurt him most was my went ef conadiewe
in not confessing to him, and that If I did creme he would
forgive me. fie did not my the last part, but
he hinted it. He took me to Hammond-hill, Chat-
ham, when his son was, and It was thee that I
remained a week or more. On the first day he stayed with
me at the hotel until evening, and then went to his ship. I
confines& to him in writing that I had been vitiated to
him, bat I efterwards goetradlcted it. I told Una had bad a
WM, bat not by Mr. Winslow. Homed over the written con.
fent= twice. I wee seated In an arm chair. He tame and
belt down at my feet, sad Ideeed me on the rushee, and
said, "rhlllts, I forgive you and will receive ion as my own
dear wife, the same as if this had never happened." He ton
the paper, and mid, •• I tam this up that it shall sane bear
whams splint you." Alter be tor, up the paper we he a
long emmenetion together. He said he wog afraid of
=tin wiled to the meek*, but u, path, our two
together, we could imago a, plea so that
it would set be Mown, he Amid be very glad.
We aceordiegly arranged between we that I should go to
Pews with the two slender, remain them some dins, and
whoa I returned my the child was so meek younger than he
really wog. Hs oohed me if Mr. Wiselow us the father of
the child. I mid he was. He said be wee a rink man, and
attAcm well for hie folly ; and he also said that if he
t rumgy to go out on half-pay he would go on
the Guiltiest, and I should go with him. Hearing that, I
said that I had 2001. a year, and then, as I tell you, be
settled that I should go to France with the children. I
"teemed" that Mr. Winslow allowed me that, but it was
not the truth. I had 401. a year allowed me by Mr.
Winslow. Captain Lloyd offered me money, but I de•
cline to take it. I bad left my wedding ring
and all the trinkets which my husband had given
at Jersey. At Chatham my husband placed
the wedding ring again on my Linger. He slept w,th
me one night during my stay at Chatham. It wee the night
saw he gm me the wedding slog, and the following mot n-
lag I left. Oa the following morning he had changed hie
sbd ; be thought I bad better not remain at Chatham, but
go back to my lodgings I. Leaden with the child. I have
name seta Mr. Window Ahem I omfes,ed to my husband.
Cress-examined—l let the house in Jersey ice 11. le. a
wiek. I will seem my husband did not nod me 4101. whilst
be was in India 1301. in 1848, 1061. is 1849, and 1764
In MO. I might have received the former sum, but oartairtly
not the letter.

114707161—was it at avows that Mr. Window b.-
mot** fatkar a/ par ahlAt

Witiasm-1 have not said it wee Kr. WMslow's child.
Mr. 011eIley—But he was the father ? •
Witham—Ha was not. I will not nell yea who was the
falba. Mr. Window did allow sae 401. weer.
Kr. O'Malkry—What for ?
Witnem—Bmaluss I waa poor and la want.
aired to allow a 1001. a year. There was no hood pro-
pared far that purpose. I &gni him if he would allow as
mom thin 401. a yarn end be mid he could sot.
Mr. O'Malley—Why did you ask his to allow yon sore
than 401. • yowl'
Whams—How could I exist on that. Its allowed it me
for friendship. Ile was a moat intimate friend of my
brother.._

—Mr, &Malley—Yon say ho is not the father of the child?
Wham—No, 1 did not.
Mr. O'Malley—Then what do you say ?
Witness—l piey I refuse to answer the que•tfon.
Mr. Judas Williams—Yon most unquestionably said so.
Do on say he le the father of the child ?
Witneee—Am I bound to answer that question?
Mr. Jostles Williams—Yee, why not?
Witness—Well, then, I will tell the truth; he is. He
allowed me the 401. a year for the support of the child. He
may
_have given me as much as 3001. -I may hare had 5001.,
ineludbg the money for some railway share, which Mr.
Winslow sold for me. Mr. Winslow had a wife and family
living with him. He visited at my brother's house and I
visited at his. After I left Inverness Mr. Winslow saw me
in London. My second child was born in Dahlia. I went
to Belgium before I went to Dublin. During this time
Captain Lloyd's child was with my aunt in homey. I went
wp the Rhine. I was on the Continent two menthe, and I
wee to Dahlia five or eta months before I wee confined.
Mr. Winslow paid the =pinto of these journeys. He went
with meat the Continent, and afterwards to Dublin. He did
hat remein till the child was born. Ido not know when he
is am He was in Germany when I lut heard from him. That
is more than two months ego. I do sot know whether it Is
those maths. I have not wen him since two months before
the birth of to child. Mr. Winslow and I lived ether.
I manta recollect where, but I think it was at the Bedford
Hotel. It was in Coveet•gerden. I cannot tell yen the
date. It wee nine months before the child was beta. The
child was baptised at Greenwich as Edwin lam Lloyd.
When Mr. Winslow lived with me I weed ea Mrs. Wiseknr.
I waa in Paris for three years, and I paid my own evens.
1 had many, and 1 did embroidery. In the latter pert of
16661 lived at Grey'weehart, hielscmetreet, Greenwich, and
was maned of my child there. Captain Lloyd is the father
of that child. I told Captain Lloyd of it on board ship.
Mr. O'Melley—On your oath, did Captain Lloyd ever
know of it till this moment?

Wit;;:ifee. It ;;a 7a. girl. Early la 1856 I cams over
from Paris to MO Captam Lloyd, and I saw hint at Chatham.
I brought my emend child with me. TOO third child is dead.
On the occults whoa my husband forgave the adultery, I
told hint that I hod been surprised in 0001(Pluomos of having
been dragged by Mr. Winslow, and that I hod never Mid
any istarmems with Mr. Winelow except on that occasion
on whkk hedrmamd me. I hove said that Captain Lloyd
romolsol la my room WI night after I had roofs:med. That
vow the oriiral the day on which I had taken pohos.
Mr. 0' —Had you not taken 'Mom became bs we-
fumed to I.lm y on after your avow..l
Witmes—For the presaut he did. That was why I took
poison. I tried to poison myself. My husband was out
walking whoa I took the p&eoa. It was laudanum. He
pv• me emetics. I was very 111 all night and the nest day.
Mr. O'Malley—Did you oak him as a dying requtet to
maid the night in your room?
Witness— I did Dot. I did sok him, but I did 'atoll him
I was dyfog. The emenca were gives to me icaisedlotely.
/WPCS( he slept with res that ninon I have a rerolb Weft of
what occurred. I do sot know the name of the hotel. I do
tot know Chatham. 1 wont back to Pori& 1 ow him hi

the summer of 1867, dine my third child was bore This
wee on board the Edinburgh. I tol him of the thud child.
Ey husband invited me to dice at the mere. Captain Hal-
steed, who commanded the vessel, did sot tarn me out of the
ship. I begged to see him, became the moment
ilgigs. to
speak of money my husband changed from being ki end
said he would give me nothing till my brother the
died of separation. Captain Halsted spoke very politely,
and said ladies were not allowed to remain on board, and he
could sot interfere between man and wife.

Re-examined—My husband corresponded with me con-
stantly whilst I wee in Paris.
At the coeclueim of this witseaa's evidence the farther
bearing of the case was 'dimmed until Thursday.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—MAT 4.
The court sat In bum, and beard argumesta in oases in
the special paper, which Win totally destitute of public inte-
rest.

Sittings at NW Prigs, at Galkthall.—(Before Mr. Baron
Watson and Cosmos Juries.)
COPE &ND OTHILIa V. COII3I—THICICIAI TRAM

The declaration alleged that the defendant had Whined
the plaintiff.' servants to leave their service while under a
written agreement, sad to enter into the defendant's emelce.
The second omit charged the defendant with having har-
boured the plaintiff,' servants.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. O'Malley sad Mr. Norman were for the plaintiffs ;
fenand Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Lewis represented the de.
ptut._

The plaintiffs were cigar =nelson:rare at Liverpool, and
the defendant, Elias Cohan, carries on the same burliness in
London. On behalf of the plaintiffs the case wee that in
November, 1867, the defendant came down to Liverpool and
engaged two women, who were under written agreements
with the plaintiff, to come up to London and work for him.
The plaintiffs wrote to the defendant, stating the fact of the
*agreement, and requiring the defendant to discharge the
women under a threat of legal proceedings. The delmdant
did so discharge them, but took them again into his employ-
ment, en which this action was brought.
The plaintiffs' case having timed,
The learned judge said there warno proof of any wrong
Intention in taking the women into his employ, they having
represented they were free, and the charge of seducing them
away from the plaintifh' employ entirely failed ; but the
charge of
Ha having harboured them wawa be analabeed.
Mr. wkins, as behalf of the &Maim; mid be had ea-
ger& them, ea the plaintiffs would not gay their espenees
back to Liverpool.
A verdict was then taken by consent for the plaintiffs, with
L. damages, each party to pay their own costa; the
plaintiffs stating their belief that the women had misled
the defendant.