The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-09 00:00:00

THE StIN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 9, 1864,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Common Jury.)
ELLYETT V. ELLYETT, HALSE, AND TAYLOR.

This suit was instituted by the husband for a dissolution
of his marriage with the respondent, in consequence of her
having committed adultery with the co-respondents. The
case commenced on Saturday, and witnesses were examined
to prove that the co-respondent Halse, who was a wealthy
stockbroker, had on frequent occasions visited the respon-
dent after she had left her husband, and remained with her
for hours together.

The examination of witnesses for the co-respondents was
proceeding when we went to press.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A BLIND MAN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT ASSAULT.
—William Michael Corner, a blind man, was charged
before Mr. Tyrwhitt with violently assaulting Augustus
Walter, barman to Mr. Mostyn, of the Roebuck, Totten-
ham-court-road.

The complainant said that about ten o'clock the previous
night the prisoner came in and began bogging of the custo-
mers, having at the time a placard hung round his neck,

with the words "Poor blind—l am a saddle-tree smith"
upon it. As the customers were much annoyed by the pri-
soner and a boy he had with him he went round the counter
to put him out, when the prisoner, who he believed could
see, struck him a blow across the eye with a stick, the blow
being given with such force that the stick, a little thick
one, was broken in two, and he was felled to the ground.
The prisoner was afterwards given into custody.

The complainant's evidence having been corroborated,
Mr. Mostyn said the prisoner was a source of great
annoyance to him, coming into his house two or three
times nearly every night, and although he stated that
he was blind he could manage to see well enough to
take up persons' glasses and drink out of them.

Prisoner said he was struck, and his guide (the boy)
also, but this was denied.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he believed the prisoner was an art-
ful fellow, who used the placard as a means of annoying
persons. It was not the first time he had seen great art-
-001
, fulness and wilfulness on the part of blind persons.
Fined 405., or a month.

THE TRADE MAuxs Act —Mr. Bradlaugh (from the
office of Mr. Leverson, St. Helen's-place), solicitor for Mr.
Thomas Rolfe, pianoforte manufacturer, and Mr. Cruch, of
Gray's-inn, solicitor for Mr. Kelly, auctioneer, of Charles-
street, Oxford-street, attended before Mr. Tyrwhitt in re-
ference to the case of Rolfe v. Kelly—a summons under the
Merchandise Marks Act for an infringement of it, the mat-
ter having stood over that Mr. Kelly might determine
whether he would have a special case or not.
Mr. Bradlaugh, after some conversation with Mr. Cruch,
said that Mr. Kelly had abandoned all idea of having a
special case, and had acted in the most tradesmanlike man-
ner by affording every information in his power so as to en-
able Mr. Rolfe to reach the persons from whom the piano-
fortes bearing his forged trade mark were obtained. He
now felt convinced that, in his vocation of an auctioneer,
Mr. Kelly had only acted to the best of his ability for his
clients, and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was perfectly satisfied that
there was no ground for any imputation against him.
The case against Mr. Scotchen, auctioneer, will come on
on Tuesday next.

WESTMINSTER.

IMPROPER CONDUCT OF THE POLlCE.—Archibald
Stewart and James Langley, two respectable-looking young
men, were charged with stealing a shawl, the property of

Susan Whittaker.

Prosecutrix said she was coming home from school on
Tuesday afternoon, when Langley came up to her in the
King's-road, Chelsea, and snatched her shawl, tearing it.
She followed him, and the other man and Langley ran
away, and were lost sight of. The prisoner Stewart con-
tinued on his way, and she and two school fellows followed
him to a public-house, where Langley was. While there
a policeman came up and asked her if she wanted
.to give
them in charge, and Langley was locked up.
Walter Smith, 260 A, said that he saw a great crowd
oollected in front of a public-house, and the three girls
crying. He asked what was the matter, and they wished
to give Langley into custody for stealing a shawl. He was
accordingly locked up. He offered to make any compensa-
tion, and volunteered his address.
A respectable person having spoken to Stewart's
character,

Mr. Arnold asked what the prisoners had to say ?
Stewart said his friend was locked up for a mere lark,
and he followed to see the end, and was himself detained all
night. His character would be ruined. Langley said it
was nothing but a lark. He never had any intention of a
felony.

Mr. Arnold said the conduct of Langley was very impro-
per, but Stewart was, in his opinon, very wrongfully before
him. There was not the slightest foundation for a charge
of folony against respectßble young men like the ac-
cused. He should advise Langley to make some compensa-
tion, and discharged the prisoners without any stain on
their characters. The conduct of the police-sergeant, 38 V,
in entertaining the charge had been disgraceful, and he
should leave the young men to get their remedy against
the police fcr their conduct.