The Express.
London, England, 1866-10-29 00:00:00

4,
Entelligtrac.

METROPOLITAN COUNTY COURTS.
(ehM* days appointed for the present week)
BLOOM/RORY, 70TUADollK—W•dnaidAT, Oct. 31 ; Thuradan
Nov. 1 ; Friday, IL
MARYLIBONE, Marylebone-road.—Tuesday, Oct. 80; Wednes-
day, 81.
BRETITYORD.—YTWAY, Nev. 2.
Ctrstr.swicm., Duncan-terrace.—Mondsy. Oct. %; Tuesday,
SO Wedneoisy, 151 Thurrdav, Nov. 1 ; Fridsy, S.
Stioaanirat 011-streetroad—Tuesday, Oct. 80; Thursday,
Nov. 1.
Bow, Bow-rood.—Monday, Oct. 29: Friday. Nov. 2.
WHITROHATKL,_ OTS7A Prescoadreet. Tuesday, Oct. NO;
Wedneeda, 81; Thursday, Nov. 1; Friday, 2.
SOUTHWARK, liwan-street.—Wednosday, Oct. SI Thursday,
Nov. 1: Friday, 2._
Lainant Otmusrwell New-road.—Tuesday, Oct. S 0; Wed-
nesday, 31: Thursday, Nov. 1.
CITY 07 LORDOR, GOlldhill4ROldlnee.-11011dA7, Oct t 8; Wed-
nesday, 31.

THE POLICE COURT&

MANSION-sows.

Joke Mad, a person who holds an appointment as
supernumerary constable at the New Cattle Market, and
who has also a pension from the City police, attended be-
fore Alderman Wilson, who presided in the absence of the
Lord Mayor, to answer a complaint preferred against him
at the instance of the authorities of the City of London
Union, for Living wilfully neglected to support his wife,
Sarah Mack, whereby she became chargeable to the union.
Mr. Wontner appeared in support of the complaint ; and
Mr. G. Lewis attended for the defendant.
The circumstances of the ease were somewhat unusual,
and involved a rather nice point of law as to the right of
• husband to Insist, under all circumstances, that his wife
should live with him, and in the event of her refusing
to do so to decline contributing to her support. The
inquiry was first entered into about a fortnight
ago, and the proceedings were adjourned, in order to see if
the parties could not come to some amicable arrangement,
but it appeared that they were unable to do so, and the
case therefore was brought before the magistrate to be
disposed of. The facts of the case appeared to be that
the parties had been separated about twelve months, and
the defendant refused to contribute anything towards the
support of his wife, and she at length applied to Mr.
Graham, the relieving officer, who gave her some relief,
and the present proceeding was then tustituted against the
defendant.
Mr. Lewis now stated, as on the former occasion, that
the defendant refused to make his wife any allowance,
but he had a home to take her to, and he was willing
to receive and support her, and: he said he should pro-
duce evidence to that effect, and when he had done so he
submitted that the alderman had no power to interfere.
Abraham Levy was then called, who stated that he lived
in the same house with the defendant, in Fleur de Lis-
court, Bishopagate. Hewn present last 'Wednesday when
the defendant offered his wife to take her home, and she
refused to do so. She said that she would not live with the
defendant again if he gave her 5001. a year.
In answer to questions put by Mr. M'ontner, this witness
stated that the defendant occupied one room only, and the
house was n respectable house, anti not an Irish lodging-
house, because he lived there, and he was a Jew. (A
laugh.) lie said that he did not remember bearing the
wife say that she could not live with the defendant on
account of his ill-usage, but he bad heard that he had
been charged before a magistrate with having ill-used her.
He had not heard that the defendant upon one occasion
broke his wife's ribs.
Mr. Wontner said that according to his instructions the
defendant was in the habit of getting drunk, and when in
that condition he behaved more like a tiger than a man.
He had deserted his wife four times, and on every occa-
sion when ho returned home he behaved in a most brutal
manner towards his unfortunate wife, and he had been
taken before a magistrate on two or three occasions in
consequence of his brutality to her. He submitted that
under these circumstances it would be the utmost cruelty
to compel her to go and live with the defendant at such •
plane-as that occupied by him in Fleur de Lis-court, and
that the law was never intended to apply to such a case.
Sarah Mack, the wife, a respectable mild-looking woman,
WA then called to prove the treatment she had received
from her husband, but the clerk ruled that her evidence
was not legally admissible.
Mr. Wontner said he could have proved that on several
occasions the unfortunate woman had had her eyes black-
ened •, upon one occasion he broke her ribs, and his con-
duct to her had altogether been of the most brutal de-
scription.
Alderman Wilson said it would be useless for him to go
into those particulars, as he had no power to separate man
and wife ; and the only way in which the wife could ob-
tain a remedy was by. applying to the Divorce Court. He
inquired of Mr. Lewis whether it was not possible to in-
duce the defendant to make his wife same allowance.
Mr. Lewis said that the defendant instructed him that
lie would do nothing except take his wife home. He bad
endeavoured to induce him to adopt another course, but
without any effect. lie was determined to insist upon his
wife returning home and living with him.
Alderman Wilson said as this was the case lie had no
alternative but to dismiss the complaint, and the wife
muat gu Lome and live with bee husband. At the same
time it must be understood that if be was guilty of any
violence towards his wife she must apply to this court,
and the magistrates would do all in their power to pro-
tect her.