The Express.
London, England, 1866-06-15 00:00:00

Was intertisnict•

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Jrms 14.
After Term Nisi Prins Sittings at Westminster.—(Before
the Lord Chief Justice and Special Juries.)

CHATFIELD LED WIFE v. corEßrozo AND
This was an action for a malicious prosecution under
most peculiar circumstances. The defendants pleaded not
guilty, and that they had reasonable and probable cause for
what they had done.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q. 0., and Mr. Ribton were counsel
far the plaintiffs ; Haddleaton, Q.C., Mr. fferjeant
Ballantine, and Mr. Metcalfe, were counsel for the defen-

dents.
Mr. Chambers, in stating the case to the jury, said the
plaintiff was foreman to Mr. Derby, a builder, and he re-
sided with his wife at 27, Sussex-street, Pimlico, where
she carried on the business of a dressmaker. They else let
a portion of the house to lodgers. The husband was away
all day, and it would appear that on the 13th June last a
number of policemen went to the plaintiffs' house, pro-
duced a paper, took Mrs. Chatfield into custody, and then
to the police-station, where she was charged with
keeping a " disorderly" house—a house of ill-fame.
It would appear that in these cases magistrates were
powerless, for according to the law any two inhabit-
ants could sign an information and call upon a constable to
put it in execution, and when the party was brought before
a magistrate he was bound to hold the party to bail (with-
out hearing evidence for the defendant) to appear at the
sessions to answer any charge that might be preferred
against him at the sessions ; consequently Mrs. Chatfield's
remonstrances before Mr. Arnold, the magistrate, were of
no avail, and she had to produce bail for her appearance at
the quarter serious. The husband and wife were subse-
quently indicted for keeping a house of ill-fame, and
while the case was being tried the assistant judge said
there was no case against the husband, and the jury ulti-
mately acquitted the wife. The dressmaking business had
been entirely destroyed, and the plaintiffs ruined by these

proceedings.
Mn. Chatfield was then examined, and also her hand.
The necessary formal evidence was then put mush evi-
dence was also called to character, and that the house
was conducted is a reputable and respectable manner.
Mr. Huddleston submitted there was no case against the
defendant. By the act the persons who complained, who
were to give notice, were to be two inhabitants paying " soot
and lot." They were to give notice in writing to the con-
stable, and he was to go with them to the justices and
swear to the truth of the information, and enter into recog-
nuances to give material evidence at the sessions, but the
person to be bound over to prosecute was the constable.
The Lord Chief Justice said that was so, but the inhabi-
tants set the constables in motion. There was a technical
difficulty to a certain extent, though he did not thinkthere
was much in it, and if necessary he would give the defend-
ants leave to move.
Mr. Huddleston said that would do for his purpose.
He then proceeded to address the jury, observing that
when theyhad heard the whole of the facts they would be
et opinion that this Ina a speculative case. To convict
the defendants they must be of opinion that they had not
reasonable and probable cause for what they had done.
The defendant, Mr. Comerford, was a partner in the
firm of Comerford and Co., notaries, m Tokenhouse-
yard, having his private residence in Winchester-street,
in the neighbourhood of Sussex-street. It would appear
that the houses in this district were hastily run up, and
the builders being anxious to let them were not over par-
ticular what tenants they let the houses to. The conse-
quence was that the houses became inhabited by per-
sons of notorious character, to the utter dertrua
tion of the neighbourhood and annoyance of the few
respectable persons who bad taken houses there.
There were nightly scenes, of dissipation. Women in
gay dresses were seen going off to the Argyll and
Cremorne, and returning with gentlemen. There were
constant querrellings with cabmen, and drunken scenes of
the mart disgraceful character were nightly enacted.
Things had got to such a head that the Bev. Mr. Belcher
and the respectable portion of the inhabitants took action
upon the matter, and a committee was formed for the
purpose of getting rid of this intolerable nuisance. The
defendant, Mr. Comerford, was a member of that com-
mittee, and evidence was laid before them as to
the real character of the house, which rendered it imprra-
tively necessary that they should take proceeding against
it. Dr. Dew, who lived opposite, had for some time no-
tioed what was going on at this house, and from what he and
Dr. Walker stated it was determined to proceed against
the occupier. The learned counsel then stated that he
would unmistakeably show the jury the real character of
this house. He would call before them the servants who bad
lived in the house, and show that in many instances Mrs.
Chatfield had received the miserablepittance given bygentle-
men to the servants. This was a public proceeding on the
part of the defendants, and the 101. which the overseers
were obliged to pay to the informers on the conviction of
the keepers of disorderly houses had been handed over to
charitable institutions.
Mr. Comerford was then called. He said he was in-
duced to act principally on Dr. Dew's evidence. His re-
presentation of the house was that it was conducted in an
improper manner ; that different men visited the house at
night and left in the morning ; and that, from their man-
ner and dress, there could be no doubt the females were
prostitutes. The doctor said that on one occasion he saw
a male and female with their arms round their necks in a
state of nudity at one of the windows, and that it might
have been seen by the opposite neighbours. He had every
reason to believe in the truth of the doctor's statement.
Dr. Walker told him he had received information from
the police. He had no ill-feeling or malice towards the
plaintiff and his wife.
Dr. Dew—l reside at No. 30, Sussex-street, oppo-
site the house in question. 1 saw female lodgers leave the
house between ten and eleven o'clock at night gaily
dressed, and from their fleunting manner I could judge
what they were. They returned between four and five
o'clock in the morning, very frequently with gentlemen,
and they let themselves in with latch-keys ; they were dif-
ferent gentlemen. The gentlemen left the house shortly
after breakfast ; this occurred three nights a week. My
attention was attracted to it by the wrangling with the
cabmen shout the fares. I used to get up and look out of the
window. It was more frequent during the Cremorne season.
There was on the first floor a female who made herself very
often too public by sitting at the window in her night-dress;
this was in the spring of 1865. I saw her once with • male
friend, she bad her arms round his neck. I communicated
to Mr. Comerford what I had seem and my opinion that
it was a disorderly house. I believe it to be so.
Police-sergeant Hodson, 19, deposed that he was on duty
in Sussex-street during June and July, 1804, and during
that time three fashionably dressed used to
live in the house. They came home at all hours in cabs,
and with different gentlemen. They sometimes knocked,
and at others they admitted themselves with a latch-key.
Mr. Chambers objected to this evidence, as this was
not the information on which the defendants acted, nor
the date deposed to at the sessions.
The Lord Chief Judie,' said he would receive evidence
antecedent to the proceedings taken by the defendants.
Mr. Serjesnt Ballantine said it was within the period in
the indictment.
Witness continued—He did not see the gentlemen leave.
He had occasionally seen men and women come to the
house in a state of intoxication, and disputes had taken
place with cabmen relative to the fares. These proceed-
ings from June or July until Christmas, 1864.
-examined—He gave similar evidence against Mrs.
Bolton, but she was acquitted. Two complaints in fifteen
years had been made against him ; one for assaulting •
man, but on investigation it was shown that he did not
assault him. The second case was one of mistaken identity,
and in that case Be was suspended four days, and told to
be more cautious for the future • be was also reported
once by a man who represented himself as Colonel White,
of the Grenadier Guards, who complained that he turned
his light rudely in his face. It was not followed up, and
he did not believe it was Colonel White.
The Bev. Mr. Belcher acted as treasurer of the fund, but
on the express understanding that he was not to be ex-
pected to take any part in the proceedings, or know any-
thing about the house before the proceedings were taken.
Cross-examined—He had no recollection when Mrs.
Chatfield called on him that he saidahe was a hard-working
woman.

111714;ase had not concluded when the court rose.
SECOND COURT.
Jolts 14.

After Term Niai Prim fitanicsat Westminster.—(Before
Mr. Justice Lush and a Special Jury.)

HOPKINS r. THE LONDON AND NOBTH•WRSTIRN RAILWAY
COMPANY.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for alleged permanent injuries received through the neg-
ligence of the defendants' servants. The defendants ad-
mitted their negligence, anti consequently the jury were
only called upon to assess the damages.
The further hearing was resumed this morning, when
evidence was called for the defence.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 1,0001.

COIIRT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JUNE 14.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
WILSON r. WILSON AND TAR QUEEN'S PROCTOR
(INTERVENING).
In this part-heard case the petitioner (who is known on
the Birmingham stage as " Miss Lily Lonsdale ") had
procured a decree nisi for the dissolution of her marriage
on account of her husband's cruelty and adultery. The
Queen's Proctor then intervened, and charged her with
having herself committed adultery with one John Smith,
an attorney at Birmingham. In support of this allege.
tion, it was shown that Smith was in the habit of treating
the petitioner with great familiarity, and a chambermaid
from the Eagle, Stafford, swore positively that on the 19th
of July last they had passed the night together at that
hotel. For the defence, it wsa explained that Smith was
• very old friend of Mrs. Wilson's father, and that
the relations in which he stood to her were
of a quasi-parental character. Smith also swore
that although he was at the Eagle on the night in ques-
tion, and although he committed adultery there (for he
was a married man) the person who was with him was not
Mrs. Wilson. It was further shown that in July the peti-
tioner was staying at Cefn, in North Wales ; and that on
the 18th and 19th she had ridden over on a pony to •
neighbouring station to inquire after • parcel of fish
which she was expecting from Onrcatry.