The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-21 00:00:00

The Charge of Imprisoning a Wife.

Mr Edward Hammond, with Elizabeth Allen, his servant,
having again surrendered to their bail, and Emily Wake-
man, a young wcauan who had formerly lived in the service
of Mr Hammond, but who it was alleged, had been for the
last two years that gentleman's mistress, having also
attended in obedience to a summons, the further examina-
tion of the parties on the joint charge of assaulting Mrs
Hammond and conspiring together to imprison that lady
for two years to the great injury of her health, and highly
detrimental to her necessary comforts, was gone into before
the llon. G, Norton, at the Lambeth Police-court yesterday.
Mr Besley, instructed by Mr Bonner, as on the former
occasion, appeared for the prosecution ; and Mr Oppenheiw,
instructed by Mr Neale, appeared for the defence.
After a short legal discussion Mrs Hammond was sworn
and further examined by Mr Besley. She said that when she
married her husband ho was a widower, and had four chil-
dren, the eldest of whom was a boy of about 19, the next
14, a girl, and there were two other girls about 6 and 7. They
lived in the same premises during the whole time. One or
two of them generally came in with Allen when she came
to her room, and mast have seen her situation. Emily Wake-
man was kind to her during her confinement, but it was the
summer before she had assaulted her by knocking her on
,the head.

Cross-examined by Mr Oppenheim—My maiden name
was Rosalind Buckley. In 1848 my mother sent me to a
water establishment kept by a medical man.
Mr Besley here interposed, and inquired the object with
which this question was put; whether it was to test the
lady's credit or blacken her character.

Mr Oppenheim said the view with which the question was
put was to show that Mr Hammond was justified in certain
things which he did. I shall now ask Mrs Hammond a few
more questions. Now, Mrs Hammond, when you were at
this homoeopathic establishment had you not had a child
by the proprietor ? _ _

Mrs Hammond—l was seduced by Dr. —, and I had a
child.

Mr Oppenheim—Did you take that child to your hus-
band's house ?

Mrs Hammond—l did ; and niy husband know all about

it before ray marriage.
A mass of evidence was then gone into, and three letters
written by complainant were produced and read in court.
The first was to the father of Emily Wakeman, apprising
him that his daughter had been seduced by Mr Hammond.
This letter was dated March 4, 1362. The next was dated
March 5, 1862. It was addressed to the defendant : it com-
menced, "My dear husband," and was very affectionate in
tone. The writer said that others wished for a separation,
but that she only wished to be re-united to him, and to come
home. A meeting between Mr and Mrs Hammond took
place, and they returned home together. She then wrote
the third letter, which was addressed to the mother of Emily
Wakeman, and which declared that the statements pre-
viously made respecting the seduction of the girl by the
defendant were " entirely false,"

On re-examination by Mr Besley, Mrs Hammond said—
When I wrote the second letter, asking my husband to meet
me, my friends were under the impression that I was not
going back to him. My sisters were perfectly deceived by
my writing it, I upset all they had done by writing this
letter. The third letter I was made to write by intimida-
tion. Mrs Marsh, his servant, stood over me and compelled
me to do it.
Mr Norton—What was the intimidation?

Witness—Mrs Marsh, my husband's housemaid, stood
over me and made me write it, as Mrs Marsh put hor name
to it as a witness. My husband treated me more kindly

after I did it.

Thomas Abrahams said that he had been a gardener in
the employ of Mr Hammond, and had frequently seen Miss
Emily Wakeman and Mr Hammond go out in a carriage
together.
James Hubble deposed to having, since February last,
noticed a carriage driven from Laurel-house, in which
he had seen Mr Hammond and Miss Emily Wakeman (as
he called her). He further said he had seen the same parties
walking arm in arm on Peckham-rye.
The case having closed here,
Mr Norton—From what has been said, and the evidence

placed before me, I have made up my mind that this is a case
for further inquiry. I should have preferred, myself, that
some other course would have been taken, but when I heard
from inquiries I personally directed to be made that this
unfortunate lady was confined in this way, I determined
not to lose an hour in bringing the case to light. The case
has been investigated, and the result is such as to leave me
no other course than to send the case to the sessions. In the

case of assault there will be separate indictments, so that
the one prisoner may be able to give evidence for the other.
The prisoners were then committed for conspiracy and
assault, but liberated on heavy bail.

The Charge of Conspiring to Obtain a False
Affidavit.

At the Mansion-house Police-court yesterday Charles
Bradlaugh, solicitor's clerk, and Chas. Ed. Bailey, stock-
broker, appeared before Alderman Waterlow, having been
at large on their own recognisances. to answer the charge of
having conspired to suborn and induce one Gustave Stowen
to make a false affidavit.

Mr Besley prosecuted and Mr Sleigh appeared for Mr
Bailey; Mr Bradlaugh conducted his own defence.
The circumstances of the caso have already been twice
before the public, and it will be remembered that the affi-
davit in question was made by Gustave Stowen before Mr
Commissioner Heath, and which Stowen himself admitted
was false. The principal evidence adduced on the last occa-
sion was that of Stowell,

Yesterday Mr M‘Furson, one of the sergeants•at-mace, was
canal, who produced a copy of the capias which was issued
upon the affidavit in question, and also the warrant for the
arrest of Mr Frankenheim. The said Mr Baileyaccompanied
him to the Sto k Exchange to point out Mr Frankenheim,
but they did not see him, and after that he did not try to
find him, and so the warrant was never executed.

A witness, named Sowdens, who described himself as a
translater of languages, deposed to having overheard a con-
versation between the witnesses Stowen and the man Cun-
chey, whose name has been so frequently mentioned, in
which Cunchey informed Stowen that
,there was a warrant
out against him, and advised him to leave London, and on
his replying that he had no money Cunchey said ho would
see Bradlaugh and try and get him £2O.
Mr Franhenheim was again placed in the box, and in
answer to Mr. Sleigh, said the amount for which ho origi-
nally stopped payment was about £125,000, but that had
been reduced by about £90,000 by securities realised, and
bills that had been paid.
In answer to Mr Bradlaugh, the witness said he gave
cheques to a large amount to parties whose names were men-
tioned, to raise money upon, within a week before his bank-
ruptcy, and he also said he gave Oscar Ruhmann a cheque
for £B5O, which he said was for money he owed him. He
also gave him other cheques, but none of them were entered
in his books, nor could he tell by the counterfoils how many
cheques he had given, as he did not enter his Stock Ex-
change transactions. The allegation in Mr Bradlaugh's
affidavit, that he believed he (witness) had removed a quan-
tity of property, was not true. Some property, consisting
of furniture and pictures, was removed from his house in
Bloomsbury three days before he stopped payment, Mr
Berenburg having paid him £lO for it, and made an advance
of £5O.

Ernest Templeton proved the attempt and failure to
serve Taffinan, whose name was mentioned as having first
induced Stowen to go to Mr Bradlaugh's office, with a
summons to attend as a witness.

This was the only material evidence which was adduced.
Mr Sleigh addressed the Alderman on behalf of Mr
Bailey, and contended that there was nothing to show that
his client, who bore a character second to none in the City
for honour and integrity, was at all cognisant of the mode
in which the affidavit had been procured.
Mr Besley having made a few remarks upon the evidence
as it bore upon the charge sought to be sustained against
Mr Bailey,

Mr Alderman Waterlow said when first the charge came
before him in the shape of a charge of perjury against Gus-
tave Sto tven, ho felt it was one of great importance to the
commercial community, and one which ought to be investi-
gated. He still felt that it was of importance, and he was
sure the investigation would prove beneficial to the public.
Ho was now asked to decide in a charge against Mr Bailey
and Mr Bradlaugh for suborning Gustave Stowen to com-
mit perjury. Before the evidence had been heard he was
certainly of cpinion that those for whom the affidavit was
made might have been cognisant of it, but now that all the
facts had been gone into ho was bound to say there was
nothing to support that charge. He felt it right to say that
he did not believe Mr Bailey was in any way conscious that
Stowen had been hired for the purpose of making the affi-
davit, although it did appear that ho had accompanied the
officer to point out Mr Frankenheim. Still it was a case
which required sifting, as no one in the City would be safe
if the judges were to be deceived by such an affidavit as
the one in question. Ho discharged Mr Bailey, and said
in his mind he loft the court without any stain upon his
character.
Mr Bradlaugh then, in a very able manner, proceeded to
address the bench upon the evidence which had been ad
duced against him. He said the only evidence against him
was that of Stowen, who, he said, had admitted he had com-
mitted perjury for £3, and who was quite as likely to do so
again. He denied that he put no other questions to Stowen
than those as to his name, and whether ho had seen Frank-
enheim, and said he distinctly asked him if he had had the
conversation with him, and whether he told him he was go-
ing al-ay, and he said yes. He drew the alderman's attention
to the fact tl it he had, on the last examination, offered him-
self as a witness in the case against Stowen, but had been
refused ; and had ho been called he would have stated pre-
cisely the same on oath as he had just stated. With regard
to his own affidavit, ho did at this present time be-
lieve that Frankenheim had made away with some valuable
property, and as to his going away, it was a common report
upon the Stock Exchange for days previous to the capias
being issued. Frankenheim himself had admitted giving
cheques which he had not entered in his books, and of which

he had no counterfoils, and ho said, in fact, that he was sure
the whole charge was got up by some parties to stop his
mouth with regard to proceedings which were being taken
against them, he being cognisant of some facts damaging to
their cause.
Mr, Alderman Waterlow said he bad given a very careful

consideration to the whole case, and ho thought it was to
the defendant's interest that the case had been fully gone
into, and it was only just for him to say that the evidence
was not sufficient to justify the defendant's detention, al.
though, at the same time, he must say that from the facts,
as they appeared before this investigation, the prosecutor
was quite justified in the course which had been pursued.
The defendant was then discharged.