The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde and a Special Jury.)
lIOPLEY V. 110PLPY.

The hearing of this case was resumed this morning.
By the direction of the learned Judge the petitioner was
recalled, and, in reply to his lordship, said that the rent of
the cot age at Uckfield was paid out of the proceeds of the
sale of the furniture of her husband. He came to live with
her in July, 1860, about a month before the trial. A pro-
position had been made to her by her family that she should
cease to live with her husband, which she refused to accede
to.
Mr Kerslake then addressed the jury for the petitioner,
and contended that he had fully made out the allegations in
the petition. It was, ho felt, too much for them to rely
upon the case as presented to them by the respondent, as
he could not believe they would come to the opinion that
gymnastics were merely going on when the fall spoken to
in the evidence was heard upstairs. The fact was that Mr
Hopley, instead of pursuing a course of such exercise, was
punishing his wife for her not having her lessons. It mig,htbe
proper according to Mr Hopley's notion that neither
medical man or nurse were necessary at a confinement. It
might be right that Mr Hopley should take charge of the
child, and dress it in his peculiar style with six pairs of
flannel socks on, but he felt certain the jury will not be
of that opinion. He had no doubt that Mr Hopley had some
peculiar and absurd theory, and he in the course of incul-
cating it had recourse to flogging children at a very tender
age, and, that being the case, he past it to the jury whether
it was safe that such a person should be trusted with a
young wife and children. When the respondent was in
prison for causing the death of young Canceller, it was clear
the letters written by the petitioner were penned under fear
of the anger of her husband. They were written under the
fascination that Mr Hopley had acquired over his wife, and
therefore it would be well to give them their most serious
consideration, because the petitioner knew that before they
reached the hands of Mr. Hopley they would have to un-
dergo the•supervision of his mother, to whom, previous to
his trial he had made over the greater part of his property.
The sum and substance of the long speech they had heard
from the respondent was, " believe me and disbelieve all
that has been placed before you by petitioner." He said,
in effect that the whole of these proceedings had been
instituted by the brother and friends of his wife out of malice
and dislike to him personally, but the jury would give their
opinion of the matter. In his , speech Mr Hopley had
availed himself, to the fullest, of the licence accorded to
persons pleading their own cause, because no advocate will
be allowed to make such damaging and sweeping accusa-
tions as he had done. The respondent said this case had
been brought about by his wife's relatives by base
flattery, crjelery, and deep subtlety, and that to accuse
him of unkindness was the falsest and foulest untruth ever
uttered in a court of justice. He did not even stop there,
because he said the whole of this case was a lie of the most
fearful character, hatched and developed by the brother of
the petitioner, a clergyman of the Church of England. The
sum and substance of the defence was that the respondent
wished the jury to believe him and disbelieve all the
evidence, as the witnesses had been suborned
by Mr. Cobb, and that the trial was a piece of
the most wicked machination ever brought against
any individual. The respondent, not content with
the cruelty he had inflicted on his wile previous to his in-
carceraties, when he returned to her from gaol commenced
a series of illtreatment of the most flagrant description.
He reviled her for accepting the assistance of her friends,
and told her she ought to have laboured with her own
hands to preserve a home for him rather than that he
should be beholden to her friends for anything. He
did not scruple to tell her that she might live in the
house, but that never again should she be his wife, and
it was then in her deep distress the petitioner began to
think whether she was acting right to herself and children
by submitting to treatment of the most cruel description.
The plea of condonation was a most miserable one, and he
felt sure the jury could not condemn a young and helpless
woman to pass the rest of her days with one who had shown
himself wanting in every feeling becoming a husband. He
(Mr Kerslake) had no objection to the respondent being
the high priest, as he likes to be styled, of his family, but
he fervently hoped that his client would not be compelled,
by the verdict of the jury, to again cohabit with one who
had shown himself so unmanly and unfeeling.
The case had not concluded when we went to press.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)

THE WET FAINT AND THE LARGE CRINOLINE.-LEVY V.

BARTLETT.

This was an action to recover £2, the value of a dress
alleged to have been damaged by some paint in defendant's
shop.

Mr Buchanan, for plaintiff, said—My client had occasion
to go into the defendant's shop in Bishopsgate-street a short
time ago, and as sho went in some wet paint seriously al-
tered the condition of her dress behind (laughter) ; defen-
dant's shopman called out "Mind the paint I" and she
made a move, in doing which she plastered her dress in
front, thus being painted both before and behind (renewed
laughter). For this she seeks to recover £2, her dress,
which was a new one, being entirely spoilt.

Mrs Levy said that defendant kept a cheesemonger's
shop. She went in to make a purchase. Saw no notice of
the wet paint.

Cross. examined by Mr Vining for defendant—The crinoline
was not very large—that is, it was not unusually large.
There were no boards up to guard against the paint where
I stood.

Mr Vining submitted that defendant was not liable.
His Honour (Mr Kerr) thought that a customer was en-
titled to expect a c!ean shop in the city of London.

Mr Vining would urge that it was the duty of the plain-
tiff to exercise proper care. She went into the shop to make
a purchase to suit her own purpose,
His Honour—She went in for a lawful purpose, and it
was the duty of defendant to have given sufficient warning.
Mr Vining—There were boards up to guard against the
paint•

Mr Buchanan—There could not have been boards at the
place where she rubbed. Directly a tradesman opens his
shop he invites the public to come in and purchase, and he
is bound to conduct his business in such a manner that no
damage shall ensue to the customer under ordinary cir-
cumstances.

His Honour—There is a case for the Court, for de-
fendant must remember that in the City of London it is
what is called open market.

Mr Vining then called defendant's ahopman, who said
that he called out to Mrs Levy " Beware of paint, for it is
wet." She had a very large crinoline, and admitted that it
was of more extensive proportions than those usually worn.
Cross•examined—No other accident happened, and there
was no written notice up.
His Honour thought there was no defence.
Mr Vining—Plaintiff had on a large crinoline.
His Honnur—l cannot punish a woman for wearing
crinoline. Plaintiff can reply that ehe is entitled to follow
the prevailing fashion. If a tradesman wishes to protect
himself particularly, he ought to put uo a notice, "No
11dies with large crinolines served in this shop." (Laugh•
ter.) I must find for plaintiff.
Verdict for plaintiff with costs.

INQUEST AT HORSENION GER-LANE GAOL.—On
Thursday an inquest was hell in Horsemonger-line Goal,
relative to the death of Alice Hughes, aged 45, a prisoner,
who expired suddenly on Tuesday morning. For three
months before her incarceration on Sunday evening last
she had been constantly in a state of intoxication,having
pledged or sold all the clothes of her children, and then com-
mitted theft to procure the means of further gratifying her
passion. She died from delirium tremens. Verdict—Died
from exhaustion, the result of intemperance.

AN INVITATION TO DINNEa.—Lord Brougham
has invited the House of Lords to dinner—at the
Cooking Depot in the New-cut. He has been there him-
self, and vouches for the quality of beef, peas, and pota-
toes, for fourpence, and " a basin of soup, better than which
their lordships never had at their own tables," for a penny.
Add a penny for beer, and we have an excellent dinner for
sixpence. Here is the result of the good example set us by
Glasgow. In this one depot, .1,500 working men, some
with their wives and daughters, dine daily, and, in a man-
ner, sumptuously. One may ask, why what cookery can
do for the working man it should not do for other men ?
Beef, after all, is only beef, and peas, potatoes, and soup,
fit for a nobleman, if Lord Brougham is right, cannot be
very bad for men who are neither noblemen nor working
men. Why should a merchant's clerk have to pay eight-
pence or tenpence for a basin of soup when it can be sold so
good for a penny ? Why should he have to pay threepence
for a ration of peas, when peas, potatoes, and beef, over
which Lord Brougham can luxuriate, may be had for four-
pence ? Really this is a matter of consequence to thousands.
It is a poor dinner which a merchant's clerk can got for a
shilling—cow-beef, probably, and certainly no peas. To
be sure, it is not necessary for him to eat peas. But why
should he be perennially cut off from so innocent a luxury
because his eating-house-keeper will not give him three
table-spoonfuls for less than threepence? We want a
radical change in this matter of feeding. To give a work-
ing man, with his eighteen shillings per week, a good dinner
for sixpence, and charge a clerk, with his thirty shillings
per week, a shilling or eighteen-pence for an indifferent
one, one, is monstroua. The Cooking Depot in the Nevi-
returns a profit of 20 per cent. What fortunes must the
keepers of eating-houses make out of the half millionolfes
men
and youths who dine and lunch daily at their tables
London lkvitto.
Loss OF LIFE IN THE RIVER
EA—Yesterda
L.y,
Henry Austin, aged 18, who resided at Tottenham, pro-
ceeded to bathe in the River Lea, when
he got out of his
depth, and being seized with the
cramp was drowned..
MADAME MALIBRAN (aocoruingt
o Henryri
in his " Musical Recollections")—was we. aa
Her mind, her
undoubledly
the greatest singer that lived in
energy, her knowledge of
.languages,had the lower range of were surprising, and
her register of voice amazing. Sue
the contralto, with the Ivghest compass of the soprano, and
a conception of her subject truly wonderful, In fine, she
was a pro.
„,io..aus genius, possessed of marvellous power,
and of an intellect that rarely falls to the lot of any human
being.