The Sun.
London, England, 1852-10-05 00:00:00

him into a fish pond. He also alleged tint his own
child had been grossly neglected and nearly starved,
and that he took it away from Lullingstono, where
it WAS under the care of a dry nurse, and brought it
to London, and that his wife hid refused to contribute
any part of her earnings towards its support.
In consequence of this defence Mr. YARDLEY said,
although there could be no doubt whatever that the
letter was a most improper one, and ought not to
have beeen written under any circumstances, the way
in which he should dispose of the case would depend
very much on the truth or falsehood of the prisoner's
defence. He, therefore, desired that the prisoner's
wife and her child should' attend.

Yesterday Mr. John Hayward, solicitor of Dart-
ford, who conducted the prosecution on the part of
Sir Peroyval llart Dyke, again attended, and said
the prisoner's wife, Mrs. Chapman, head nurse to
Lady Dyke, Mrs. Martin, the housekeeper, and the
butler, were all in attendance.
Police-constable No. 131 H said that he had seen
the prisoner's child, which was in care of a woman in
Kent-street, Southwark. The child appeared to be
very well and in good condition, but the person who
had the charge of it said it was much better now
than it was when first brought from the village of
Lullingstone. The nurse had promised to bring the
child to the court at one o'clock, but bad not done so.
Mr. YARDLEY said it was highly desirable he
should see the child, to which Mr. Hayward assented.
The Magistrate adjourned the case for its produc-
tion till three o'clock.

Mrs. Berry, the prisoner's wife, then stated that she
has been wet nurse to Lady Dyke, who had treated
her and her child with great kindness for four months.
No constraint was ever put on her intercourse with
her husband. Lady Dyke did net prevent her seeing
him. Her husband took her child away from Lul-
- a month ago. It was then thriving very
well.

Mr. YARDLEY—Your husband said it was in a very
bad state when it was taken from Lullingstone.
Mrs. Berry said there was only a little eruption of
the skin, a kind of rash. The doctor at Lullingstone
said it was a very healthy child. It fell off a little on
being weaned. She had as much affection for it as
the one she was nursing. Her husband had written
to her repeatedly to send him money, and because she
had refused to do so he took the child away, and she
was kept in ignorance of where it was placed until
that day.
Mr. YARDLEY—I can't help thinking that Lulling-
stone was the best place for the child.
Mrs. Berry then put in a packet of letters she had
received from her husband, asking for money. They
were all received after the child was removed from
Lullingstone. Those she had received previously also
demanded money, and she had lately destroyed them.
When her husband demanded her child she said he
might take it, but he must not expect any money
from her for its support. She was then quite satisfied
with the treatment of the child, but he was not.
Mr. YARDLEY thought it was quite natural for the
prisoner to write to his wife for money for the main-
tenance of the child after it was taken from Lulling-
stone, for it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose the
prisoner, who was only a private soldier, could main-
tain it out of his7pay.
A sergeant of the Coldstream Guards said there
were men in the regiment supporting their children.
One soldier, a widower, was supporting three children.
The prisoner obtained 43. 33. per week, and had op-
portunities of making more money. While the regi-
ment was at Windsor all the soldiers were allowed to
go and work in the fields, and get the harvest in, and
earned from 10s. to 12s. per week.
The prisoner said he only wanted 203. from his
wife to pay a debt to a person with whom they had
formerly lodged.
Mr. Hayward put some questions to the prisoner's
wife, who said that she paid ss. weekly out of the
wages she received from Lady Dyke for the mainte-
nance of the child at Lullingstone, and that her Lady-
ship provided food and clothing for it when it was
first brought down to Lullingstone, and she had since
displayed as much anxiety about it as she did for her
own infant. Her husband might have seen his child
as often as he pleased at Lullingstone. Her husband
only wanted her wages• He had illused her, and
brought home loose women when she lived with him.
Tne prisoner said his wile had been bribed to say
all this.

Mr. YARDLEY could not understand how any one,
and particularly a person in the situation of Lady
Dyke, could have any wish to bribe her. Prisoner
was acting very absurdly, for the necessary conse-
quence of his conduct would most probably be the
loss of the young woman's situation. His impression
was, if Lady Dyke had consulted her own conve-
nience, she would have discharged the wife on the
receipt of the offensive letter ; but she did not wish to
visit the sins of the husband upon her.
Mr. Hayward said the prisoner was a most violent
man, and had been tried by court-martial four times,
and convicted for military offences, and once tried by
the civil power for sending a threatening letter to his
sister, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
Mr. YARDLEY was of opinion that there was no
direct threat made use of, and that the case did not
come withi❑ the statute. It was, however, a breach
of the peace to send such a letter ; but he thought it
was written under an excusable warmth of feeling,
and, upon the whole, if he received an assurance from
the prisoner that he was sorry for what he had done,
and would not write any more letters, he would take
his own recognizances, but in a very large sum, to
keep the peace.
Mrs. Chapman, head nurse, expressed her fears of
the prisoner, who had applied the most opprobrious
epithets in the letter sent to Lady Dyke. She was
afraid of the prisoner's violence.
Mr. YARDLEY said the prisoner should also be
bound over to keep the peace to Mrs. Chapman for a
very long term.
The prisoner entered into a long defence, and said
he bad been badly used by the domestics of Lady
Dyke, who had turned him cut of Lullingstone
Castle.

After some further discussion, in the course of which
the Magistrate gave credit to the prisoner for the feel-
ings he had exhibited towards his child, he ordered him
to enter into his own recognizances in the sum ofloo/.
to keep the peace to all her Majesty's subjects for the
space of two years, and warned him seriously that if
he committed any further breach of the peace or wrote
another letter of a similar description to the one be-
fore him he would have to pay in person if he could
not in purse.
The prisoner—Can I write a civil letter to my wife ?
Mr. YARDLEY—Certainly you can, but not such a
letter as this, full of bad language. I cannot let this
case, which has lasted a very long time indeed, ter-
minate without saying that Lady Dyke has done
everything that could be done, and has acted in the
kindest manner towards the prisoner's child. If Lady
Dyke had consulted her own convenience she would
have changed her wet-nurse at once, but she had not
done so, but retained the young woman and sent her
domestics and her own child to that court at very
great expense. I cannot conceive any thing more kind
than the manner in which Lady Dyke has acted, and
the prisoner could not do better than leave his infant,
for which he expressed so much regard, under the
kind protection of so excellent a lady.

SEABORNE MAILS.
r 1 signidas that the mails are sent from the General
by the ilght—and M by the morning-4ispateh.l

Post-oft o