The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,---July 9,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
ANSCOMBE V. BONISSON.-LIFE IN THE KITCHEN.
This was an action for assault. The defendant
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Henry James and Mr. Matthews were coun-
sel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Murphy for the de-
fendant.
The plaintiff, Matilda Anscomh, was a young
woman who formerly held the position of head kit-
chen maid at the Great Western Hotel, Paddington,
and the defendant, Alnaud Bonisson, the chief
cook at the same establishment.

Mr. Henry James, in his opening statement, said
that the defendant, who engaged all the servants
employed in the kitchen of the hotel, had succeeded
in seducing the plaintiff under a promise of mar-
riage, and after the connexion had gone on for some
time, she urged him to fulfil his promise, when, to
her astonishment, she found that he had married
another person. Having been thus betrayed she
insisted upon breaking off the intimacy, but this
greatly exasperated him, and from that time he
practised towards her a system of cruelty which ul-
timately compelled her to leave the hotel. The
plaintiff brought an action for breach of promise of
marriage and assault, but the learned judge before
whom it came held that it must be divided into two
actions, which should be tried separately, On the
trial of the action for the breach of promise the
plaintiff could not be called as a witness, and the
only other evidence she was able to give being that
of a foreigner the learned judge held that there was
no case, and directed a nonsuit. The learned counsel
added that the action for the assault now came on
for trial, and he had no doubt that after they had
heard the evidence they would be of opinion that
the plaintiff was entitled to substantial damages.
Matilda Anscombe, the plaintiff, said that in
March, 1861, she was employed by the defendant
as head kitchen maid at the Great Western Hotel.
Afterwards they became engaged to be married,
and the defendant then seduced her, In August
last she first discovered that ho was married, and
she then broke off all intimacy with him, On
the 20th of August she was speaking to Hardy,
the second cook, when the defendant passed
by on his way to the larder. On his return he
abused her in the most violent manner and spat in
her face. He then thres% a kitchen knife at her, but
it only just touched her shoulder. On another
occasion he said he would kill her, if he were hung
at Newgate for it. He was constantly using bad
language to her. At another time, when she was
in conversation with Hardy, he told her he would
smash her face if he had to pa 3 £2OO for it. On
the 29th August he struck her a violent blow in the
face, and threatened he would kill her. On other
occasions a bottle and a silver entree dish were
aimed at her. He threatened to kill her if she
spoke to Hardy again, end once or twice
she was frigtened for her life, and ran into the
street or upstairs. The effect of one of his blows
remained on her forehead for a fortnight. In con-
sequence of this treatment she gave notice on the
2d of November to leave in a month, but at his re-
quest she remained a month longer. During that
time his violent conduct continued, threatening to
stab her and break her head, and throwing dishes
and various other missiles at her. She left the
hotel in January last.
Cross-examined—l remained after the expiration
of the month's notice, because he prevailed upon
me to do so. I never made any complaint to Mr.
Higgs, the manager of the hotel, because I was
afraid of my life. The defendant is still head cook
at the hotel. I did not consult a dotter about the
blow I received on the forehead, but I was con-
fined to bed three or four days. I was engaged to
be married to Hardy, 'out through the defendant's
behaviour lof course lost it. (Laughter.) He told
Hardy what happened between him and me, and
said to him, "If you marry her you must take the
consequence of her having a child."
Thomas Johnson, who had been employed at the
hotel, deposed to hearing defendant use filthy lan-
guage to the plaintiff, and seeing him throw things
at her.
Edwardy Hardy, the second cook, was called,
but did not appear. He was then called in the
customary form on his subpoena.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Murphy then addressed the jury on the part
of the defendant. He commented on the improba-
bility of the defendant's story uncorroborated as it
was by any other testimony than of one witness,
although the alleged cruelty and assaults trust have
been seen by all the persons employed in the kitchen,
and characterised the action as one simply of extor-
tion. The defendant, who was a foreigner, having
last year got married and settled, and wishing to
throw a veil over his bachelor life, the plaintiff or
her advisers no doubt thought that if she brought
this action against him he would rather settle the
matter than brave an exposure in court, and run the
risk probably of losing his situation.
Alnaud Bonisson, the defendant, was then exa-
mined. He desired to be examined through an in-
terpreter, but there not being one present. he gave
his evidence in very intelligible English. He denied
in toto that he ever struck or beat the plaintiff, or
threw anything at her, or threatened to take her
life. He said he was married on April 28, 1862,
and that before he went to the Great Western
Hotel he had been in the service of the Duke of
Sutherland end the Marquis of Londonderry.
Cross-examined—lt is true that I was intimate
with the plaintiff, but I cannot say when was the
laet time. I never promised her marriage. I was
married at St. George's, Hanover-square. No (me
from the hotel went with us to the church, nor did
I tell any one when I returned that I was now a
happy man. That was my business ; but the mar-
riage was soon known to every one. (Laughter.)
I did not put my marriage in the newspapers, nor
send round any cards. (Laughter.) We had no
marriage breakfast at the hotel, but we breakfasted
at my lodgings in Portchester-place. I did not ill-
use the plaintif after she refused to renew the
intimacy.
Eliza Day, the fish maid at the hotel, was called
to prove that the defendant used no violence to the
plaintiff. She admitted that once, when the defen-
dant was in a passion with everybody in the
kitchen, he threw a silver entree dish at the charcoal
stove, but denied that he aimed it at the plaintiff.
John Parkes, who
was employed at the roast,
gave similar testimony.
Mr. Henry James said the witness Hardy had
arrived, and he applied to have him examined.
The Lord Chief Baron said as the plaintiff's case
was closed he could not allow his evidnnce to be
taken.
The learned counsel having addressed the jury on
behalf of their respective clients,
The learned judge summed up, and the jury found
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 40s.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary, Mr. Justice Wightman,
and Mr. Baron Channell.)
STONE V. STONE AND APPLETON.
Mr. liarslake, Q.C. (with him Mr. Spilka and
Mr. Searle) addressed the court on behalf of the
rule nisi for a new trial which had been obtained
for Mrs. Stone. The learned counsel dwelt with
great emphasis on the injustice which had been
done his client by the involuntary mixing up of her
case with that of Mr. Appleton, who had been
treated as if he had confessed to adultery, although
there was no reason to think that he was not even
aware of the suit. He also showed that no particle
of evidence which was in the least degree credible
was inconsistent with the hypothesis of perfect in-
nocence ; and he trusted, therefore, that the court,
considering the very peculiar circumstances and the
magnitude of the interests involved, would think it
right to submit the question to another jury.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. Searle followed on the same
side.

The court took time to consider, and intimated
that they would not be able to give their judgment
till after the circuit.