The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-02-05 00:00:00

CRIM. CON.

Xesnrcz v. Hounna.—ln the Court of Queen's Bench,'
on Tuesday, a declaration was filed, which alleged that
the defendant had debauched tho plaintiff's wife, that he
had detained certain goods, the property of the plaintiff,
and;that he had assaulted the plaintiff, and caused him to
be imprisoned without reasonable cause. The defendant
pleaded not guilty. Mr. E. James and Mr. We'shy'
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers and Mr.
Petersdorff for the defendant. It appeared from the
statement of counsel that the plaintiff, who was connected
with a respectable family in Wales, was married in 1844.
He afterwards went to Augtralia'with his wife and family.
In itl;3 Mrs. Kenrick returned to England, and took a house
in Barringiz.'n Road, Brixton. The defendant, who carried
on business as a Phemist in the Minories, lived within a
few doors of her. in 1855 the plaintiff returned to
England, and he found his rife then occupyihg apart-
'flouts in the defendant's house in the Minories and
received such information as left no übt in his mind of
her guilt. He found that she had removes d some of his
furniture to the defendant's house, and when went to
demand it the defendant gave him into custody. e.Qll.al!
Whittaker, who had been Mrs. Kenrick's servant when au,
Brixton, deposed that Mrs. Kenrick was in the habit of
going to the defendant's house and remaining there till a
late hour. In 1855 the defendant became bankrupt, and
then went to live in Mr. Kenrick's house. He occupied a
front room. Mrs. Kenrick was Constantly in his room,
and took her meals there with him. She used to remain
in his room after the others had gone to bed. On one
occasion witness went into the room, and found Mrs.
Kenrick in his bed. On other occasions she found her
sitting on the defendant's knee, with his arm round her
waist. She told her children to call him papa. Cross-
examined : The defendant had been ill for some time while
at Mrs. Kenrick's house, and was not able to leave his
room. Mary Whittaker, sister of the last witness, who
had been in defendant's service in Brixton Road, stated
that Mrs Kenrick was in the habit of coming to the house
constantly. The defendant was ill at the time. Mr. Geo.
Davis, who had la2en assistant to the defendant, stated
that Mrs. Kenrick came with her children to reside at the
house in the Minories in 1854. Ho had frequently seen
her come out of defendant's room, but he never observed
any instances of improper familiarity i;etween them. Mr.
Joseph A. Ileirby stated that he had pure used some fur.
niture from the defendant. Ho gave a bill for !t- It was
afterwards arranged that the bill should be returnt;Zl, and
he gave up the furniture to Mrs. Kenrick, when she
turned to England. Mr. E. James proposed to call the'
plaintiff. Mr. Petersdtirff objected. An action for crim.
con. was one of those in which the plaintiff could not be
examined. Lord Campbell would allow the witness to be
called, but he would.conane his evidence to the question
about the furniture and the assault. Mr. Richard K.
Kenrick, the plaintiff, then stated that when he returned
to England in 1855, he found his wife at the defendant's
house. Some of his furniture was also there, and when he
went to demand it the defendant ordered him out. He re-
fused to go. Defendant then sent for a policeman. They
all went to the police-office ; defendant charged him with
creating a disturbance. He told the inspector that his
wife and family were in the house, and that he had paid
for the lodgings. Re was at once discharged. Cross-
examined: It was about eleven o'clock at night when he
went to the house. Defendant said he wanted to shut up.
Mr. E. J Ames summed up the evidence for the plaintiff:
Mr. Petersdorif addressed the jury for the defendant. He
contended that there was no evidence whatever of any act
of adultery There was no proof of the plaintiff's
marriage, nor any evidence of the terms on which he had
lived with his wife. Mr. E. James contended that the plea
of not guilty did not 'put in issue the fact of the marriage.
Lord Campbell would hold that it did, and direct a verdict
for the defendant, on the count for the criminal conver-
sation ; but he would a3k the jury whether they believed
that adultery had been committed, and if so, he would ask
them to assess the damages, and he would then give the
plaintiff leave to move to enter a verdict for that amount.
The jury found that adultery had been committed, and
assessed the damages at £2O. L rd Campbell said he
would also direct a verdict for the defendant on the count
for.trover of the goods. As to the assault he would leave
the queStion to to jury. The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages, e 5, on that issue.

A deputation is to wait upon the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to day (Wednesday) to urge the right hon.
gentleman to repeal the paper duty, amounting to
L 1,000,000.
GAS EXPLOSION IN SALFORD.—On Saturday , morning,
a house adjoining the agricultural implement works of
Messrs. Richmond and Chandler, Miller street Salford, and
occupied by one of their workmen, was the scene of the
greatest confukion, owing to a serious escape of gas which
hat been going on during
.the night. On the occupier
going with a lighted candle into the cellar, an explosion
immediately took place. which at once knOcked down both
the man and his wife, The cause is attributed to the de..
fact of the pipes. Tho main pipe, it appears, had burst,
end in connecting it with the service pipe in the cellar, an.
opening bad been made through the wall of the house, and
which had never been made good after the laying of the
pipes, coosequAntly the gas from the main had access to the
shioduearea,bleevedraymraogoem
iosf
dwonheichtobathde bebeunildpieunge,t r
fia tey
ed :0 f
theC o -
windows being blown ont, and the gable end Bo completely
shattered that it is being taken down.