The Express.
London, England, 1866-12-10 00:00:00

THE E

foul language, and he alao heard what aloe maid about tl
Pope.

-It was Yrs. Twiss that celled the

policeman down.
George Marshall, a police constable, said that when he
law the plaintiff going away she was crying, and said her
mistress had been ill-using her.
Dr. Blenerhasset said that the plaintiff came to him on
the morning of the 18th. October. He examined her face,
neck, and shoulders. She was contused about the eyes,
neck, and shoulders. The skin was slightly black and very
red. This would be caused by her being pulled about
and shaken. He saw her three times, and his fee was two

guineas.
Mr. Denman, in addressing the jury for the defendant,
said that the filthy language and had conduct imputed to
Mrs. Twiss was an entire fabrication of the plaintiff and
her witness ; end that the truth was that the plaintiff her-
self was drunk, abusive, and violent. He would also
show that Mrs. Twiss had never struck the plaintiff.
Mrs. Agnes Twirls said that she heard that the plaintiff
was going to leave on the 17th October. On the morning
of that day witness gave orders for dinner, but the plain-
tiff did not answer her. Witness soon afterwards said, " I
hear you are going to leave me ; if so you had better tell
me." She said she was not going. Some time afterwards
she was going out, and witness asked her where she was
ing. She said, "To get lodgings." Witness said she
thought that the plaintiff was going to stop her three
weeks, and that it was very unjust treatment on her part.
She said " Yes ; and I'll show you what an Irish row is
when I come back." The plaintiff returned about 5, and
soon afterwards she heard a noise in the kitchen, and
went down. She asked the plaintiff why she did not take
her boxes sway quietly, and she then saw that she was
drank. She was very
_much excited. She was rolling up
against the staircase balusters, and she threw herself upon
her boxes, and fell over them. She wu screaming vio-
lently without any cause. Witness said, " Woman,
will you go," and she went for a cab. This
was about seven. Hearing talking outside witness
called the constable down. Most decidedly witness
never used the language imputed to her. Witness had to
tell the police magistrate the language the plaintiff used,
and then she turned round and said that it was witness
who used the Ltnguarge. This was the first time witness
heard that the words were imputed to her. When the
policeman came witness took hold of the plaintiff's shawl
and turned her round and said, " Woman, will you go!"
This was the only assault she had committed. The police-
man, Power, came to her house some days after and said
that the plaintiff meant to trump up • fine case against
her, that she had already paid 51. down, and that she had
been to a surgeon, and would swear she was beaten black
and blue. He said it would be better to give her a 51,
note to smother it ; but witness said she would not give
her a farthing. He said he would try to frighten her and
to stop the case. Witness said, " Pray don't stop it, as far as
lam concerned I would rather it went on." I said I wished
she would take away her large box, but he said she had
better not send it anywhere for her, as it contained 801.
in money. He made other attempts to induce witness to
compromise the matter. Meet certainly witness was not
intoxicated. She did not driuk port wiue out of a tea-
cup. She never drank port wine- She had no wine ex-
cept two glasses of claret with her dinner. What she
drank out of the cup was tea. She never used vny of the
dieguatinglanguaga which had been mentioned. It was
the plaintiff used it. She never threatened to strike the
Cross-examined--She did not offer the policeman drink.
The whole of the statements in reference to her language
and conduct were untrue. She was not in the habit of
being intoxicated. She was never drunk at the Royal
Oak, and was never brought home from that house. She
bad never had anything to drink at the Gloucester Arms.
Miss Florence Twins, the daughter of the defendant, who
was present during the whole disturbance, said that the
plaintiff swearer' to be drunk. She was using violent
language and swearing. The defendant never struck
plaintiff, nor tossed her boxes about, nor well any of the
horrible expressions deposed to by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff was using language of that description. It was
not true that the defendant was at all intoxicated.
To the Lord Chief Justice—There was no wine in the
kitchen, and none was offered to the policeman.
Sarah Kitchener, a charwoman, said she was at work at
Mrs. Twiss 's in October last. The day before the dis-
turbance the plaintiff said she should leave on Thursday,
and witness told Mrs. Twiss. On the 17th October the
plaintiff went out at 10 and came back about half-past
i.
She was then intoxicatesl. Witness hail seen her intoxi-
cated several times before. When witness was helping
her to pack up her boxes, the said that she wiehed that
her mistress would strike her, soil she would let her know
what an Irish row was. The plaintiff was down
the upon her
knees throwing her arms about, and praying to blessed
Virgin to help her.
blr. Denman—That is how theybegin an Irish row I sup-
poste.
Witness—Yes. (Loud laughter.) Mrs. Twiss never
struck the plaintiff, nor used the bad language.
Mr. Denman—Yon can tell us what the language was ;
you are not, I dare say, so particular as your mistress.
Witness—Yes. lam very partical.sr. i Loud laughter.)
She could not repeat it. She heard the plaintiff call upon
the holy Pone.
Cross-examined—She had on one occasion put the plain.
tiff to bed because she wee drunk. She had been to chapel.
Mrs. Twiss was abroad at the time.
Mrs. Twins, in answer to the jury, said that she asked
the policeman to take the plaiutitf away, but he would not.
Stella Goldsmith, the housemaid, said she was no rela-
tion to the defendant. When she let the plaintiff in at
five o'clock on the 17th of October she was drunk. The
plaintiff was full half an hour en the floor praying. She
called Mrs. Twiss names. She sail, "D— your eyes,
I'll make you remember this." She said she only wished
her mistress would hit her, she would make her pay dearly
for it. It was not true that Mrs. Twiss used the bad lan-
guage imputed to her. The Vaintiff herself used it. Wit-
drank the Sunday night before she left. She was drunk
about twice a week.
Mr. Edward Twiss, the defendant's son, gave similar
testimony as far as he saw the disturbance.
Mrs. Twigs, in answer to the jury, said that she took the
plaintiff without a character, because she could not get
one on account of her having been abusive.
The plaintiff was also recalled, and said that she slid
not in fact have a character, but it was because the de-
fendant did not want one. Witness could have got a
diameter.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said that it
was admitted that Mrs. Twins laid hold of the plaintiff's
shawl, and this technically amounted to an assault ; ao
that the real question was which story they believed,
that for the plaintiff or for the defendant, as upon this
would depend the question whether the damages should be
represented by the smallest coin of the realm or by an
ample sum. His lordship, in going through the evi-
dence. commented strongly upon the fact that Mrs. Twigs
was questioned as to drinking at public-houses, without
any attempt being made to move the imputation.
The jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff—damages, one
farthing.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-DEr: S.

A Pitting in banco had been appointed for to-
day for the purpo,e of giving judgments, but in conse-
quence of there being none prepared for delivery, their
lordships did not ovule iuto court.