The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

QUEEN'S BENCH—Nov. 27.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
ARTIS V. STEVENS AND TWO OTHERS.
Mr. James and Mr. Udall were for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Huddleston for the
defendants.
This was an action of assault and battery. The three
defendants were father, mother, and son. The son
Pleaded that the plaintiff had first assaulted him, and the
father and mother pleaded that they had committed the
assault in deferice of their son.
It appeared in evidence that on the Bth of July last,
he plaintiff, who was a tailor, then residing in Belgrave-
mews East, had taken a bet from the elder defendant of
three half-crowns to one on the result of the Westminster
election. The defendant gave the odds that General
Evans would not have a majority of 400 over Lord
Maidstone, and the plaintiff took the odds. When the
election was over, the younger defendant said that he
had got a list of the numbers, but the plaintiff snatched
the paper out of his hands, and would not give it to him
again. Hence arose a quarrel, in the course of which
the younger defendant struck the plaintiff with his own
sleeve-board, and the ulna bone of the plaintiff's arm was
broken. The plaintiff's witnesses swore that all the
violence proceeded from the defendants, who burst into the
plaintiff's room, and commenced a furious attack upon
hith. The defendants' witnesses stated that the plaintiff
provoked the younger defendant by the most annoying
and insulting language ; and that the younger defendant
ran up to the plaintiff's room, on which the plaintiff took
up a poker and struck at him, and that whatever the
younger defendant had done had been in his own defence.
Mrs. Stevens was described as having only interfered to
try and put an end to the contest.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
one farthing, as against the younger defendant, and a
verdict for the other two defendants.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
IN RE WISTANLEY AND WISTANLEY.

This was a sitting appointed for the last examination
in the matter of Edward Winstanley and Henry G.
Winstanley, of No. 7, Poultry, chymists and druggists.
The balance-sheet, from the Ist of January, 1850, to
the Bth of October, 1852, shows the following items :
Sundry creditors, 5,611/. ; creditors holding security,
364/. ; profits, 4,518/. ; capital on the Ist of January,
1850, 3,8761. ; by debtors, good, 2,1541. ; ditto, doubtful,
7971. ; reali7ed by assignees, 2,0001. ; foreign debts,
good, 4131. ; ditto, doubtful, 1931. ; retail debts, good,
2131.; ditto, doubtful, 361.; property surrendered, 1,730/. ;
ditto held by creditors, 1,000/. ; partners drawing—E.
Winstanley, 729/. ; E. N. Winstanley, 865/. ; H. G.
Winstanley, 498/. ; trade expenses, 3,998/. ; E. N. Win-
stanley, being deficiency of cash of which there is no
account in the book, 1,510/. ; losses on bad debts, 1,1341.
There was no opposition whatever either by any cre-
ditor or the assignees.
Passed accordingly.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
MACS AGAINST MACK, BY HER GUARDIAN.

This was a testamentary suit, arising out of the last
will of Mr. William Mack, of Burnham, in the county
of Norfolk, who died on the 9th day of May, 1851, pos-
sessed of personal estate amounting to about 13,000/.
The instrument was dated the 18th of May, 1850, and
t appeared that two days after its execution, the testator
became a confirmed lunatic. Under the will the whole
of his estate was given to his wife absolutely, and con-
stituted her sole executrix. A child was born subse-
quently to the period at which the deceased became
insane, and the uncle now appeared as its guardian, and
contested the validity of the instrument on the ground of
insanity. The will was propounded in an allegation
setting forth that it was duly executed, the deceased
having given the first instructions for its preparation so
far back as the preceding January, when his solicitor
suggested that it was desirable that there should be
another executor ; upon which the deceased took time
to consider the subject, but in the month of March wrote
a letter desiring a short will to be drawn up, giving the
property to his wife, and stating that he meant to ap-
point her sole executrix. An allegation in answer was
then brought in by the uncle, setting forth a variety of
circumstances, from which, it was contended, insanity
was to be inferred. It stated that Mr. Mack used to
speak of a pony he possessed as being very valuable and
fit for the Queen, and of fruit in his garden as being
worth a very considerable sum in the market, when it
was, in fact, only just formed on the tree ; and that on
the 19th May, 1850, he behaved himself with great im-
propriety in church. A counter allegation had since
been given in, denying these circumstances.
Dr. Addams and Dr. Twiss were heard on behalf of
Mrs. Mack, and submitted that the testimony of the
witnesses, to whose evidence no exception could be taken,
was sufficient to substantiate the validity of the will, and
therefore that it must be pronounced for.
Dr. Robinson, on belief of the guardian of the child,
contended that there were on record many facts previous
to the execution which proved the deceased's mental in-
capacity, and that he was not in a condition to under-
stand the full meaning of the instrument before the
Court.

Dr. Jenner appeared on the same side.
Dr. Twiss replied.
The learned Judge postponed his decision.

YORK ECCLESIASTICAL COURT.
ROWLEY V. ROWLEY.

This was a suit for restitution of conjugal rights,
which was brought by Mr. John Jephson Rowley, of
Rowthorne, near Chesterfield, gentleman, against Mrs.
Mary Ann Rowley, his wife, who resides at Sheffield,
and is possessed of 700/. per annum. Mrs. Rowley ad-
mitted the marriage, but gave into Court a defensive
allegation, charging her husband with cruelty and adul-
tery. Additional articles were also given in on her
behalf, upon which pleadings eleven witnesses had been
examined. Mr. Rowley pleaded that he did not commit
the acts of cruelty and adultery charged upon him, and
also pleaded condonation.
Dr. Addams, with whom was Mr. Blanshard, and Mr.
Bower, had been specially retained for Mrs. Rowley,
whose husband was represented by Mr. Travis and Mr.
Harper._ - - . .

The Court having ruled that Dr. Addams should
begin, he opened the case of Mrs. Rowley at great
length. He stated that the proof of cruelty principally
rested upon two witnesses—Mrs. Woodhead, who keeps
the King's Head Inn, Sheffield, and Mrs. Shillito, who
was formerly in the service of the parties in this cause.
The former deposed to what took place in October,
1848. This was the important period for the Court
to fix its attention upon, because it was in
that month that Mrs. Rowley and her husband separated.
On the 4th of that month Mrs. Rowley, whilst staying
at the King's Head Inn, informed Mrs. Woodhead that
on the morning of the 2d, whilst they were in bed, she
told her husband she was going to Sheffield. He said
she had no occasion to do so, and she should not go. She
replied that she had business there, and should go. They
then both got out of bed, when the husband turned
angrily upon her, grasped her by the front of the neck,
and pressed the back of her neck over the footboard of
the bed. She showed Mrs. Woodhead the marks on
each side of her neck, which Mrs. Rowley said were
occasioned by her husband. The marks were red, her
throat was swollen, and she seemed to have a difficulty
in swallowing. any of the altercations they had were
respecting money matters, and so on ; and Mrs. Shil-
lito spoke to having seen the parties scuffling together
twice ; that she had frequently seen Mrs. Rowley
weeping for half a day together ; and that her health
had suffered. In consequence of her indisposition,
she had been attended by Mr. Hussey, surgeon, of
London, and Mr. Wilson Overend, surgeon, of Shef-
field. The former gentleman had stated that on
hearing she was separated from her husband, he
at once felt himself enlightended as to the cause
of her illness, which, he had no doubt, had been
brought on by domestic discomforts and anxiety.
Mr. Overend's evidence was precisely to the same effect.
Then as to the adultery, which was alleged to Have
taken place after the separation, there was a general
charge as against the husband, and a specific charge of
an improper intimacy with Ann Green, his housekeeper.
Dr. Addams, therefore, submitted that the case was
complete, and that Mrs. Rowley was entitled to a sen-
tence of divorce.
Mr. Travis referred to one of the aracles, in which it
was alleged that, whilst at the office of Mr. Drabble,
solicitor, Chesterfield, an altercation took place between
the wife and the husband, who put himself into a vio-
lent rage, and repeatedly said if he was not to receive
the income of his wife's property, and have the manage-
ment of the estate, she should not make his house her
home. He Galled her a fiend, a devil; and, taking up a
ruler, he flourished it in her face, and swore she wanted
her head knocked off. Mr. Drabble was a highly-re-
spectable witness, and why had he not been called ? The
learned counsel submitted it was for the other side to
make out a case of cruelty and adultery, and he said he
defied them to do so. Mrs. Rowley was an irritable
woman. and her husband might have held her by the
ar Ts, to prevent her inflicting violence upon him.
Ro"r; Addams briefly replied, contending that Mrs.
They had completely made out her case.
-ue Chancellor said he certainly should not grant the
prayer for restitution of conjugal rights, but he should
takeßefore timet consider the other question.
fo rising of the Court, the Chancellor gave
only.y 11, qivorce, but on the ground of cruelty
!swill! should make no order as to costs.