The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-14 00:00:00

Mr Karslake, Q.C., Dr Wambey, and Mr Day were
counsel for the plaintiff, and the respondent defended his
own case in person.

The hearing of this case, which commenced yesterday,
was resumed this morning. It was a suit instituted by the
wife for judicial separation on the ground of her husband's
cruelty, and the respondent, who had been formerly a
schoolmaster at Eastbourne, Sussex, and was sentenced to
four years' penal servitude for having caused the death of
one of his pupils by chastising him too severely, entered an
appearance, and pleaded denial and condonation.
Mr Karslake, in stating the case, said that the parties
wore married in 1855, the petitioner being about 20, and
the respondent 36 years old. The respondent had been
educated for en usher, and was a person of considerable
mental culture, zeal, and energy. Notwithstanding the
disparity of years he had succeeded in obtaining the
affections of the respondent, and the consent of her
parents to their union, which turned out most umortunate.
After the marriage they resided at 22, Grand Parade, East-
b-,urne, and there were three children issue of the marriage,
who were living when the respondent opened a school and
had several pupils. The parties went to Paris and other
parts of the continent immediately after the marriage, and
on the day when the ceremony was solemnised, the respon-
dent informed his wife that he did not intend to cohabit
with her until she had received such training az his hands
as would qualify her to discharge her duties as the mother
of her children. He said he wished to make her a model
wife. While she was pregnant with her first child he com-
menced a series of acts of the greatest violence, which con-
tinued until the period of his imprisonment for causing the
death of the youth Reginald Channell Cancella. During
the term of his confinement in gaol at Lewes, his wife acted
with great kindness to him, and at th© time of his libera-

Lion, as he had no home to go to, she allowed him
to take up his residence with her at a cottage
at Wakefield, in the neighbourhood of Eastbourne,
which had been protided for her by her friends, which cir-
cumstance formed the foundation of the alleged condonation.
The learned counsel read a letter from the petitioner to her
mother, in which she spoke in high terms of her husband
during the period of their cohabitation, and said he was in-
structed to state that that letter was dictated by the respon-
dent;
,he read also a letter which the respondent delivered
to his wife, in which he accused her of not obeying his in-
junctions. He said, that in addition to acts of violence the
respondent was in the habit of using the most opprobrious
epithets, such as calling her "a dunce," saying that she
was beneath the lowest of his servants, and he accused her
of hav;ng caused the idiotcy of one of their children by her
mismanagement.

Mrs Fanny Hopley, the petitioner, was examined by Dr
Romley. She said that her maiden name was Cobb, and
that her father was a gentleman of independent means Rho
resided at Eastbourne. The respondent visited at the house
before the marriage. They went to Folkstone after the
marriage, and his conduct there was harsh. They did not
live together as man and wife until three or four
days after the marriage. While on the continent he
made the statement to her relative to her becoming " a
model wife" before they cohabited. They returned to
Eastbourne in about three weeks, and then by his direction.
She commenced to study rules for her guidance in house-
keeping which he had laid down for her. (These rules were
put in.) These were given at different times. In January,
1856, she was pregnant, and being angry at some mistake
she made in the lessons he had sot her, he struck her a
violent blow, but she could not say whether he knocked her
down. The next act of violence was in the February fol-
lowing, and she suffered so severely from his ill-treatment
that she was obliged to go to bed and send for a medical
man. On the occasion of the birth of her first child ho
would not allow her to have a medical man, and she deli-
vered herself. Five days after the birth of the eldest child,
he compelled her to go out with him in a fly. He took the
child with them, and it was deposited in a hamper. (Laugh-
ter.) Ho assigned as a reason for making her go out that it
wculd be a change. She had seen him beat the first
child before it could walk, and frequently saw bruises
and marks on its person in consequence. In the year
1857 he had thrown lesson books and copy books at her
and frequently spat in her face. On one occasion when she
swallowed a fish bone he said it was a great blessing for
him she was about to be choked. He said he loathed
the sight of her, and he had forbidden her to fondle her
children. He said he could scarcely keep his hands from
her, and threatened to beat out her brains, and he also
frequently kicked her in the back. Her eldest child had
exhibited idiotcy early, and had been placed in Earlswood
Asylum, but she could not say whether the idiotcy took
place before or after it had been beaten by her husband.
They brought him to London for advice. He said the only
mode of getting knowledge from her was by beating it out
of her. She might have said that she married him merely
for a home, but it was in consequence of his behaviour. He
several times called her a "fiend" and a " demon." On
ono occasion she left him and went to her mother's, but he
had sufficient itfluence over her to induce her to return.

[The case wao proceeding when we went to press.]

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before J. E. Davis, Esq., and a jury.)

THOMPSON'S CRINOLINES AND THE PRINCESS OP VALES,

-SINGULAR ACTION.-lIILMER V. RIDDLE.

This was an action to recover a sum of money for engrav-
ing a copperplate, Mr Mathews appearing for the defendant.
It appeared from the statement of plaintiff that a short
time ago he was employed by the defendant to make an en-
graving of a pretty woman wearing a dress set out by
Thompson's Prize Skirt Crinoline. Subsequently, how-
ever, the defendant changed his mind, and said he would
have the face a portrait of the Princess of \Vales, for which
purpose a carte de visite was prepared. Plaintiff made a
very good portrait, but he could not get his money.
Mr Mathews, for defendant, called his client, who said
that he went to an electrotyper to give him an esti-
mate for electrotyping a plate. The electrotyper (Skinner)
did so, and defendant considered drat it included the en-
graving. He did not give the order to Hilmer, but to
Skinner, who delayed the work, and at last sent it home
valueless. In the:engraving the portrait of the Princess was
very well done, but in the proof of the electrotyped block
Skinner had shown the Royal lady with a slight moustache
and a black eye. (Great laughter.) It being impossible
that Thompson's crinolines would derive any degree of
patronage under the circumstance defendant declined to
pay for the work, but ho did not object to the plate engraved.
Skinner (the electrotyper) said his estimate did not in-
clude the engraver's charges. The job was a very difficult
one. Witness did it as well as he was able, and there was
no delay.

The jury, after a very brief consultation, found for the

SKINNER V. RIDDLE.

This was an action without a jury, in which plaintiff, an
electrotyper, sought to recover for a block.
Mr Mathews said it was utterly useless, and could not be
said to be well done.

An independent witness from the body of the court said
it required touching with a graver, and the plaintiff in the
last action said it required time to get it set.
His Honour could not say that the proof from the block
was at all complimentary as a portrait, and, indeed, when
compared with the other engravings, was most inferior.
Plaintiff must be non-suited, but perhaps Milner would
give him something.
(The reporter was informed that a poem upon crino-
line is in course of publication, and the block was re-
quired for purposes of illustration.)

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Pay,