The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LOINDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 3, 1864,

they been able to observe in him any of the peculiarities
which they are in the habit of remarking among the insane.
(Signed) W. CHARLES HOOD, M.D., Visitor of
Chancery Lunatics.
JOHN" CHARLES BUCENILL, M.D.,
Visitor of Chancery Lunatica.
JOHN MEYER, M.D., Medical Super-
intendent of the Criminal Lunatic
Asylum.
W. HELPS, M.D., Medical Superin-
tendent of the Royal Bethlem Hos-
pital.

LAW INTELLIGENCE,—(Feb. 2.)

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

O'KANE V. O'F.A.NE AND PAL3IERSTON (VTS€O7.7NT).

Although this case did not appear in the list for the day,

it was understood the matter would come on before his lord-
ship rose ; and the court was therefore inconveniently
crowded during the whole of the morning, both by members
of the bar and by the general public. The following affi-
davits, which had been filed at the last moment, and which
were referred to, may be interesting.
" HER MAJEBTV'B COURT FOR DIVORCE (BIC) ANE MATRI-

MONIAL CAUSES.
" Between Timothy Joseph O'Kane, petitioner, and Mar-
garet Matilda Augusta O'Kane, respondent, Henry John
Temple Viscount Palmerston, co-respondent.
" I, Thos. Wells, of 47, bloorgate-street, in the City of
London, Solicitor, make oath and say :
" 1. That lam the solicitor to the petitioner on the record ;
that the particulars required by the order of the co-respon-
dent on Nos. 17, 1863, were immediately prepared and ready
for delivery, but were delayed being filed solely because ne-
gotiations for a settlement of the cause were soon after
commenced, and which were only completed on Saturday,
Jan. 16, 1864, and when my costs were paid.
"2. That I am in formed and verily believe the petitioner
and the respondent were married at a house in St. George's-
in-the-East, in the county of Middlesex, on the 2d day of
October, 1851, by a Catholic priest regularly ordained, and
acting with full jurisdiction for celebrating the marriage
with all the rites and essential formalities of the Catholic
Church ; and that they lived and cohabited together as man
and wife up to about the 19th of October, 1863, and were
known and respected as such by good society.
" 3. That it is wholly untrue that the petition was pre-

sented and filed and served for the purpose of ex-
tortion, and that, according to my instructions, and to
the best of my knowledge and belief, the petitioner had

a good case upon the merits, and there are to the best
of my knowledge and belief no facts in existence from
which the said Charles Horsley could believe as he has
sworn in the last paragraph of his affidavit filed in this
motion.

" 4. That I have been instructed to stay all proceedings
in this suit by a letter received from my client, the petitioner,
of which the following is a true copy :
" 47, Moorgate-street, City, Jan. 16, 1864.

" MYSELF Y. PALMERSTON AND O'KANE.

" Dear Sir,—Yielding to the advice of my friends, I have

decided to drop the above suit ; and I hereby instruct you
to stay all further proceedings. I adopt this course solely
for the sake of my young children, and not from any inabi-

lity to establish the allegations contained in my petition, or
to prosecute the suit to a successful conclusion, as the letters

I submitted to you, and the other evidence laid before you,
offered prima facie every probability of success. On these
letters and correspondence, fortified by the opinion of coun-

sel, you undertook the suit by my instructions, and I feel
perfectly satisfied with your professional conduct as well as
that of your managing clerk, Mr, Weston, who were not

deterred from undertaking the just cause by the frantic howl
of a venial and corrupt press—the cause of right against
might. I beg to give the most emphatic contradiction to the
assertion made by some of the London and other papers that
I was in the employment of either of you—my o wn resources
and those of my friends having enabled me to live indepen-
dent of such aid. I was lawfully married to my wife, the
respondent in this suit, by a Catholic priest regularly or-
dained, and acting with full jurisdiction, and celebrating
the marriage with all the rites and essential formalities of
the Catholic church, This could have been satisfactorily
proved had the case gone into court. As to the alleged acts
of adultery the correspondence and other evidence would
leave no doubt had the case gone before a jury.—l am,
yours truly, (Signed) "T. J. O'KAyn.

" Mr. Thomas Wells, solicitor, 47, Moorgate-st„ City.
" Sworn at No. 19, Coleman-street, in the City of London,
this Ist day of February, 1864, before me,

" PHILIP SMITH COX."

On the same day Mr. Horsley made the following affidavit :
" I, Charles Horsley, of N0,.2, Staples-inn, solicitor for
the respondent, make oath and say—
" 1. That I was on the morning of the 27th day of Ja-
nuary last (the day after the rule nisi for the dismissal of
this petition was obtained) served with a notice from Mr.
Thomas "Wells, the petitioner's solicitor, stating that this
suit had been compromised.
"2. I thereupon, on the saidl27th day of Jan., wrote and
sent to Mr. Wells a letter, of which the following is a true
copy

" 2, Staples Inn, Jan. 27, 18G1,
" ' O.RANE DIVORCE PETITION.

" ' Sir,—ln consequence of the receipt this moment of a
notice from you, 'that this suit having been compromised
(and of which you must be fully aware) I am instructed by
the petitioner to withdraw from it, as his solicitor, and
therefore refuse and decline to receive any more notices or
letters from you in it.' I beg at once to inform you, that
neither directly nor indirectly Lave I heard a syllable of
the suit (by which I presume you meant the petition for a
divorce) having been compromised. And I further beg to
inquire from you when, where, or by whom it was, as you
allege, so compromised. Unless you prove to me that the
petition has beau compromised by the respondent, I shall
on Tuesday next proceed exactly as if your notice had not
been received. And I beg further to give you notice that
I shall use this letter in evidence before the court.—Yours,
&c„ CHARLES HORSLEY, solicitor for the respondent.'

" 'To Mr. Thos. Wells, solicitor to the petitioner, 47,
Moorgate-street, City.'
"3. No answer of any kind has been returned by,the said
Mr. Thomas Wells to my said letter.

" 4. Up to this time no further step has been taken by,
or on behalf of, the petitioner in the prosecution of the said
petition, as I have ascertained by inquiry at the proper
office of this honourable court on making this my affidavit.
"5. Upon inquiry of the solicitors of the co-respon-
dent on the 30th of January last, whether they had heard
or knew of any compromise of the said petition by or on be-
half of their client, I was assured that no such compromise
was known to or had been heard of by them on the part of
the co-respondent.

" 6, No compromise of this petition, direct or indirect, has
emanated from, been sanctioned by, or known to me, as so-
licitor to the respondent ; and I am informed by the respon-
dent, and verily believe, that no such compromise has been
suggested, sanctioned, or heard of by her, and that no per-
son has seen her upon the subject of a compromise thereof.
—CHARLES HORSLEY."

Mr. D. Seymour, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Joyce), on
behalf of the respondent, moved to make the rule to dismiss
the petition absolute.
Sir J. Wilde—The ease is not in the list.

Mr. G. Browse—l appear on behalf of the petitioner.
Sir J. Wilde—But is the co-respondent represented ?
The Queen's Adyocate—Yes, my lord, by myself. We
have not received any formal notice of this proceeding; but
if the motion goes on I will appear for Lord Palmerston ;
and will offer no technical objection on the ground or want
of notice.

Mr. Browne—ln this case my friend Mr. Seymour has
kindly shown me the affidavit which has been made by his
client. The facts therein stated as to the filing of the peti-
tion, and the order for particulars are perfectly correct. On
Saturday last the rule was served upon Mr. Wells ; and
yesterday Mr. Wells filed an affidavit, to which is appended
a letter. To that letter I shall allude but very briefly. In
the first paragraph of his affidavit, Mr. Wells says. [The
learned gentleman here read the paragraph.] There is here
no statement that the settlement has been made either with
the respondent or the co-respondent. There is indeed no
law that I know of which would prevent a petitioner from
settling with the parties whom he alleges to have done him
wrong. The law itself prescribes a pecuniary remedy for
this evil. There is, therefore, no reason why a petitioner
should not make a settlement with those who have wronged
him. It is true the law is against a collusion to carry on a
suit; hut there is no reason why a settlement should not
be come to. In this case, however, it is not so. There is
no imputation on the noble co-respondent or on the lady,
that either of them knew of the settlement. The second
paragraph of the affidavit is as follows :—[This the learned
counsel also read.] It is well known that the Roman
Catholic church has always looked with peculiar disfavour—
The Queen's Advocate—l have not seen any of these
affidavits. I was anxious on the part of the co-respondent
that the ease should have been disposed of, but really the
learned counsel seems to be going into some statement re-
specting Roman Catholic marriages which has nothing to
do with the matter before the court.
Sir J. Wilde—The case not having been brought before
the court at the proper time, I should certainly not have
entertained the application, the less so as, having read the
affidavits, I saw in them things which it might be important
for the co-respondent to have an opportunity of answering.
As therefore the Queen's Advocate says he has not received
them, I shall at once put an end to this motion. Until the

learned counsel has read them he will not be in a position to
exercise a reasonable discretion as to whether he should let
the matter proceed or not.
The Queen's Advocate—l understood that the question
was merely one of whether certains directions of the court
had been complied with.

Sir J. Wilde—That is the only question which is properly
before the court.

The Queen's Advocate—Understanding that to be the
limited issue before the court, I was ready, and I still am
ready, on the part of the co-respondent, though not formally
cited here, to allow the matter to go on, in order that there
might be no further procrastination is disposing of th 4 suit.
If other matters are to be gone into, of course I should re-
quire time to consider them.
Mr. Browne—l have stated that there is no imputation
upon the co-respondent that he is cognisant of the arrange-
ment.

SW. \V ilde—Thi matter may be dealt withindepemidntly

of any affidavits. If the learned counsel is prepared to go
on without them, there is no reason why he should not do
so. But if these affidavits are to be brought in, and irrele-
vant matters dragged before the court, the Queen's Advo-
cate ought to have an opportunity of reading them and
seeing whether his client should make any answer ?

The Queen's Advocate—l hope, after that intimation
from the court, the learned counsel will at once throw away
these irrelevant matters, and will allow the case to proceed.

Mr. Seymour—l am not aware that the affidavit of Mr.
Horsley contains any irrelevant matter; and I hope the
court will allow me to refer to it.

The Judge—l won't allow the motion to proceed in this
half-and-half sort of way. The learned counsel must take
ono line or the other, If ho likes he may abandon the affi-
davits; or, if not, he must allow the Queen's Advocate
time to read them.

Mr. Browne—Then, my lord, I will adopt the latter
alternative.

The case then stood over till Thurslay next,

The Poor-Law Board and Bethnal-green.
The Charges against Dr. Moore.

OFFICIAL INQUIRY.
Yester3.cy morning Mr. Lambert, Inspector of the Poor-
law Board, opened an inquiry at the Workhouse, Victoria
Park, Bethnal-green, into certain charges preferred by the
Board of Guardians against Dr. Edward Moore, medical
officer of the first division of Bethnal-green.
Mr. Hardinge Giffard, instructed by Mr. Howard, ap-
peared for the Board of Guardians; and Mr. Sleigh, in-
structed by Mr. W. Venn, conducted the defence.
The charges in question, it will be remembered, were pre-
ferred against Dr. Moore immediately following certain in-

quests which were held consequent on great and unaccount-
able mortality in Hollybush-place and the neighbourhood,
and which was subsequently proved by scientific evidence
to have arisen from malaria, from bad drainage, and general

neglect. The local administration at the time denounced
Dr. Moore for having caused the inquests to be held, and the
board of guardians preferred the following formal charges
against him, which are made the subject of inquiry
Neglecting his patients. 2, Making extraordinary claims
for vaccination fees, and extra fees as medical officer. 3.
Determined opposition to, and the public slander of the
board in the newspapers. 4. Getting up unnecessary in-
quests, for the purpose of degrading the parish and bring-
ing contempt on the poor law system by public appeals to
the benevolent. 5. Neglecting and refusing to keep his
books as ordered by the Poor Law Board.
The guardians directed the relieving officers to give their
assistance in getting up evidence to sustain these charges.
The first charge investigated was that of neglect of
patients.
Elisabeth Mandrel], of Hollybush-place, examined by
Mr. Giffard, deposed that she was a married woman. About
12 months ago she was taken ill, and she procured a medi-
cal order, which in due course was delivered to Dr. Mo'kirre.
He attended, and said that she was suffering from slow
fever, and required nourishment. He did not attend again
for ten days. When he called then, he said, " You are very
bed." She replied, "You have neglected me in not coming
for ten days." He replied, "The money I am paid does not
pay me to see paupers every day." He told her she should
keep herself warm, and have nourishment. She did not see
him again for three days. He then told her that if she re-
quired medicine she should send to his house for it. She
sent her hu,band for some, and she was n ever attended
by Dr. Moore after. She was ill for some weeks after that.
In August last, her son, James Mandrel], aged six years,
fell ill. She got a medical order at ten o'clock, and gave it
to Dr. Moore, who called at three o'clock. He told her to
come for medicine at five o'clock. She did so, and got it.
He did not come to see him the next day. She thought
her son was dying, and she went to Dr. Moore's house,
half a mile off, between three and four o'clock. She asked
him to see her son, as he was dying. He said, "No ; not
to-day." Witness said, "Sir, my little boy is that deli-
rious I cannot keep him in bed." He said, " I cannot
keep him in bed for you." She asked for an order to admit
the boy into the house, as he (Dr. Moore) said (he was not
in danger. He gave her the order to have the boy taken
into the workhouse. She did not bring the child, because
she believed the child would have died on the road. She
went to Dr. Brotherton, who said he could not go unless he
was paid. She paid him, and the child died the same even-
ing at eight o'clock. Soon after that her son Joseph be-
came ili, and on the 15th August she got an order for Dr.
Moore to attend. He came at three o'clock, and he said that
her son was very bad, and he directed her to give him
nourishment and to keep him out in the pure air. Dr.
Moore came three or four days after. An interval of three

days again elapsed, and Dr. Moore refused to give any me-
dicine for the child. He called next day, and said the child
was very bad, and said she should not have taken him
downstairs, but across the Park in the pure air. He told
her the child was in no danger. He left no medicine, but he
told her to come for it. The child died next day.
Cross-examined. She had lived there 15 years. She had

lost two children there ten years ago. Dr. Moore had not
told her to abstain from drink. She did not drink. He did
not complain of the filthy state of the children, but ho did
of the walls of the house. She followed his advice, and went
out into the pure air. He did not tell witness to call over to
him for her medicine, as the walk round would do her good.
She did not send for Dr. Moore during the ten days she
was was his business to come to her. The blame was
on his shoulders. Witness never said to him, " You aro
well paid, and I shall have you whenever I want you." It

was on a subsequent occasion that the doctor said he was
not paid to visit patients who were able to come to him
themselves. Witness made a complaint to Mr. Christey,
_ _ _

the relieving officer, of. Dr. Moore's conduct. My hus;
band was present at the time. Dr. Moore did not say
" the state of the atmosphere in this place (Hollybush-
place) is so bad that it is impossible for your son to have a
fair chance of recovery if he stays here. You had better
send him into the house, where be will have good air and
nourishment." It was witness who first asked for the order
for the house, and Dr. Moore at first refused to give it.
When she went for Dr. Moors on behalf of her second son
she did not tell him the first was dead, though he was only
buried a few days. Witness did not take the second child
out is the air; she could not carry him. He was 31 years
old. Her daughter could not, for she was a cripple. Dr.
Moore did caution her to keep the child away from the drains
and filthy gutters in the yard. He told her to take him into
the Park, She could get a perambulator, but he did not say
that to bring the child for the medicine near the Park would
do him good. The day before the child (Joseph) died, Dr.
Moore complained that she had let the child stand over a
drain, She was in the act of running upstairs with the child
when the doctor called out, " Stop ; there is no use in your
running ; I see you." He said then that she need not be
surprised if the child got a fit. She did not recollect that ho
had cautioned her about the child being in the yard previ-
ously. It was about a month, or a few weeks before Christ-
mas that she made the present statement. She made her
statement as to what she could prove against Dr. Moore in
the workhouse. She had had a letter sent her. She had not
seen Mr. Christey long before she got the letter. She would
not swear that she bad not seen him after the death of her
children, and just before the letter was sent her. She would
not swear that no one had called on her about the matter
before she got the letter.
Christey, who said something to her,
faint to Mr.
By Mr. Giffard—Witness had made a comp
and in consequence of
that she came before the Board of Guardians and made a
statement.
Mr. Giffard put in the medical relief book, and pointed out
that Dr. Mocro was entered as having called on Joseph
Mandrell on the 23d August and then on the 25th. There
was no visit in the interval.
Mr. Brotherton, M.R.C.S., 287, B9thnal-green-road, said
that he was called to a child of the Mandrells' in August
last that was dying of scarlatina maligns. The child was
not in a fit state for removal. He did not remember whether
Mrs. Mandrell complained of Dr. Moore; but if she had he
would not have minded it much, as persons of that class
made complaints against medical officers so frequently and
without grounds.. ,;Witness had been called in to the child
three days before. The mother was excited and crying the
night she last called him in.
By Mr. Sleigh—lt would be proper and scientific treat.
meat in such a case to order pure air and nourishment. He
did not consider the ventilation of Hollybush-place was
worse than that of other small houses.
By Mr. Giffard --There was nothing peculiar about Holly-
bush-place excepting the cow-shed. He had fever patients
there himself, and they recovered. The Mandrells were ex-
cessively dirty in their habits.
Mr. C. A. Christey said that he was relieving officer in
Bethnal-green, and he remembered Mrs. Mandrell apply-
ing for medical orders for her son James on the 23d July,
1863, and for Joseph on the 15th August following. She
made a complaint at the time of the death of James against

Dr. Moore.
By Mr. Sleigh—She never made more than one complaint.
In the inquiry into witness's own conduct, held at the close
of last year, Dr. Moore was examined as a witness in the
matter. Witness did not know that the inquiry was caused by
a complaint made by Dr. Mooro. Witness knew that Mrs.
Mandrell was coming to►prefer a charge against Dr, Moore.
By Mr. Giffard—He kaew that she had complained, and
he know she was coming, as he was asked by the guardians
for her address. Witness did not make a statement to the
guardians before he was asked for her address.
Ellen Ward, 4, Lark .row,Cambridge-heath, was examined
by Mr. Sleigh. She said that last year she had lived at
No. 10, Hollybush-place. The Mandrells' house and wit-
ness's were originially one. A slight partition and a fastened
up door separated Mrs. Mandrell's room from hers, and she
could hear everything that passed in the next room. On
the day before the death of Joseph she observvd the child
standing over a sink in the yard. Mrs. Mandrell had
been in and out several times. Suddenly she caught up the
child, when Dr. Moore appeared, and said, "Step, atop;
don't give me the trouble to go upstairs. I told you not to
let the child down in the yard. This is how doctors get
blamed." He spoke to her for a minute or two. After the
doctor left, witness saw the child at the water-butt in the
yard. That was the 29th of August.
By Mr. Giffard—One child of witness's died in Sept„ and
she was examined before the board the next week. Dr. Moore
had got money for her, perhaps £7 or £3. There was an in-
quest on her child. Dr. Moore never said " You and your
husband aro greatly persecuted by the board of guardians."
She had not applied for relief from the relieving °Moors, ller

husband had gone errands for Dr, Moore, perhaps every day.
Mr. Giffard—Did you think you were persecuted by the
board of guardians?
Witness—l did not think I was well used by them, or
properly dealt with, and therefore-that was persecution.
(Laughter.) She did not like an inquest to be held on her
child. No one asked her to prove anything for Dr. Moore-
The next case was that of Mrs. North, and involved the
alleged withholding of midwifery fees, but an incidental dis-
cussion arose as to the handwriting of a letter containing an
offer to Mrs. North to make her midwife in a local lying-in
hobpital provided she could get Dr. Moore to be her surety.
The letter was dated Nov. 11, 1863, and signed Mary Chai-
loner. Mr. F. Netherclift was examined on the point, and
ultimately the inquiry was adjourned.

SINGULAR AFFAIR AT STONE.

(From the Birmingham Post.)

A good deal of excitement has been produced in Stone by
a somewhat mysterious discovery which was made a few
days ago., In a street leading out of the tjwn resides a
member of the medical profession, with his wife and family
and in the same house has lived for many years a maiden
sister of the wife's. It was known that this lady had lived
here and had not been known to leave, and the neighbours
sometimes wondered why she was never about, as she had
not been seen out of the house for 11 years. It does not,
however, seem to have occurred to any one that she might
be improperly confined until the recent discovery of a man
confined for years by his brother in Cornwall became
known, when the concealment of this lady began to be
talked about, and several persons appear to have formed the
impression that she might be in a similar position. This
conjecture ultimately led to an application to the magis-
trates for a warrant to investigate the circumstances, and a
few days ago two magistrates of the neighbourhood and
some police officers entered the house for that purpose.
They found the lady in a fron4upper room, sitting on a
straw mattress, her limbs drawn close together, and her
body leaning forward on them, with but little covering on
her, and looking as if she bad been indifferently fed. The
room had all the appearance of a room which had not been
entered for a dozen years, It was covered with dust, dirt,
and cobwebs. Under the bedstead and even on the bed (or
rather mattress) were piles of dirty plates, altogether about
40, on which the occupant of the room had had her meals
served, and on which were bones, some of them yellow with
age. She held a bone, which had been polished by licking,
tightly gripped in her hand, and was with difficulty in-
duced to let it go. The mattress was dirty, and also were
the scanty bedclothes. A. sheet, which had not been in the
washtub for a long time, partially covered her, and in the
corner of the bed was a dingy blanket, moth-eaten, and
appearing to have lain there unused for many months. The
person of the occupant of the bed was very neglected, and
showed that her ablutions had been rare and not recent.
Her hair was matted, and a compact mass of it partially
covered her face. Her toe nails had remained uncut so long
as to be quite a curiosity in their way. They had grown
to a length of about three inches, and were curled some-
thing in the form of a corkscrew, with sharp points. It is
said that the only way of reducing them to their proper
proportions will be by sawing them. The finger nails were
not so bad, the lady, no doubt, having kept them short by
biting them.
It is stated that the unfortunate woman has been
confined to this room for 10 or 11 years; but there are per-
sons who have seen her within a much more recent period,
and in the opinion of those who are likely to be acqaainted
with all the circumstances she has not been confined for
more than about two years. The strangest part Of this
strange story is that the lady herself is said to have chosen
her retreat, and those who know her peculiarities are dis-
posed to place some amount of credence in her story. She
appears to be about 48 years of age, and to have been all her
life known by her relations as a person of queer disposition,
and exceedingly unsociable and reserved, and is said to have
been crossed in love in her younger days. She had a strong
objection, it is stated, to the marriage of her sister with the
gentleman in whose house she had been living, and has
always shown a great aversion to him. While the many
eccentricities of character she seems to have passed may in
some measure account for her seclusion, and go to indicate
that it was self-chosen, there appears to be no doubt that
she was much neglected, and allowed to remain in a state
which was scarcely that of a civilised human being, Al •
though those whose duty it was to look after her cannot be
made amenable to law for their neglect, it is satisfactory to
learn that the exposure which has taken place will have the
effect of rendering her condition much more comfortable
than it has been. She has been removed from her prison,
cleaned and comfortably clothed, and is we learn now being
carefully attended to. It has been suggested that she is
insane, but that does not appear to be the case. An inquiry
into that matter, however, will probably be made. It is re-
ported that she possesses some little property in conjunction
with her brother-in-law.