The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-05 00:00:00

IRE SUN, LONDON, THURSOAY IWENING, FEBRUARY 5, 1863.

complaining, and my patriotism will prevent me from
seeking revenge." The best proof that Christina
was disappointed in her choice is to be found in her
readiness to seek another crown. She was proposed
as a candidate for the throne of Poland, rendered
vacant by the abdication of her kinsman and con-
temporary, John Casimir. Strangely enough the
same generation witnessed the surrender of the
regal dignity by the last heirs of two branches of the
great Vasa family. Alas ! for the inconsistency of
human nature. Christina resigned a crown which
was hers by right, and gave up a position where
adulation was her daily fare, to seek vainly another
sceptre, and to struggle for the respect and autho-
rity which had once been her due. The conduct of
the Swedish nobles is of a darker dye, and their
conduct towards their former benefactress is an in-
delible disgrace to their memories. It is remarked
in Christina's favour that her enemies were gene-
rally among the most worthless, while her friends
of virtue and learning she retained to the last. No
doubt her career was chequered by many foibles and
eccentricities, but there was much that was noble;
and there is little doubt that, from all points of
view, she has been represented in extravagant
colours. The public has, therefore, to thank Mr.
Woodhead for affording them this candid and im-
partial view of one who, whether from her charac-
ter, her circumstances, or her conduct, must justly
be ranked among the most remarkable women of
modern times.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Feb. 4.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr. Baron
Bramwell and a Common Jury.)

PAYNE V, BARNES.—EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF ASSAULT.
This was an action for assault under very peculiar cir-
cumstances. The defendant pleaded that he committed the
assault in self-defence.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Henry James were coun-
sel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. F. J.
Smith appeared for the defendant.
The plaintiff, Mr. Richard Payne, is a contractor at Chat-
ham. The defendant, Mr. G. Barnes, a manure merchant in
the same place.
The nature of the case is fully explained by the following
evidence :
Richard Payne, the plaintiff, said—l am a contractor for
discharging ships which arrive in her Majesty's dockyards
from different parts of the world, and reside at Chatham.
In the course of my business I have to leave home for days
at a time. I married my wife 15 years ago. In spring last
rumours came to my ears about my wife's conduct with the
defendant. I called his attention and my wife's to what I
had heard. The defendant strongly denied it. On the 2d
Dec., 1862, I left my house to go to London on business. I
intended to go by the one o'clock train on the North Kent
line. When I arrived at the station I found I had missed
the train. There was not another train until three o'clock,
and I resolved not to go to London that day. I, however,
remained at the station to meet a captain, whom I
expected to come from London, but he did not
arrive. I returned home at half-past three o'clock.
I have no servant. We only keep a little niece, but
she was at school at that time. We have no children. Be-
fore I left home I went up into my bedroom and took £2 out
of a drawer for my expenses. The bed was then made, and
the window blind up. When I got home I did not see my
wife. I called her three times, but she made no reply. I then
went into the parlour and sat down. In 5 minutes I heard
her coming downstairs. When she saw me she rushed back
again. She came down again with some needlework. I then
went upstairs to replace the in the drawer. When I
opened the bedroom door I found the room very dark and
dull. All the bed clothes were chucked in the middle of the
floor, and the bed laid open to the tick. The blinds and cur-
tains were all closed. As I was leaving the drawers I thought
I saw the bed clothes shake. It surprised and "stagnated"
me. (Laughter.) I looked to see the cause, and on lifting up
the curtats I saw George Barnes. The bed was in the cor-
ner of the room, and he was at the furthest corner of the
bed. I called out "George Barnes ;" but he made no an-
swer. I repeated his name a second and a third time, and he
said at last, " Yes, Dick, it is." I went to the top of the
stairs and called " Mary Ann." She came up crying. I said
to her, " What is that fellow doing under the bed ?" He
exclaimed, "For God's sake, Payne, listen I" I knocked
him down. He got up, and I knocked him down again.
I did this with my fist. I then turned round and struck
my wife. Afterwards I received a blow on the back of
my head. I turned round and received a cut on my
nose and another on my forehead with a pair of tongs
which Barnes had taken from the fireplace. He struck
with the handle part. A great quantity of blood flowed
from the wounds. I received four blows altogether.
At the fourth my wife put her arms round my neck and
said, "For God's sake, George Barnes, you'll kill my hus-
band !" I fell down by the window and felt faint and
stunned. I shoved my leg through two windows and shouted
for help, I rushed downstairs to get a policeman, and I
went to a doctor, who lived opposite. Barnes followed me
downstairs with the tongs. He then dropped them and ran
out. I was under the doctor's care 10 or 12 days. I suffered
great pain from the blows, and do now. The skin was cut
in three places. Barnes is the deputy landlord of my house.

Cross-examined—l have known the defendant since wo
were boys. I never heard from my wife that water came
into my bedroom, nor that the roof required any repairs. I
only struck my wife with my open hand. I and Barnes did
not fight for some time before I was knocked down a second
time. I did not say to him, " You —, I'll kill you." My
wife did not pull me off him, and say, "For God's sake,
you'll choke Barnes." I did not put my hand into my
pocket, and say, "I'll kill you both." Tho witness added
that he had not lived with his wife since.
A Clerk in Pickford's office at Chatham said he had seen
Barnes at Payne's house scores of times.
The surgeon who attended the plaintiff was then exa-
mined ; after which,

Sergeant Parry addressed the jury for the defence, and
;ailed

Mr. Barnes, the defendant, who declared that he went up
to the room at the request of Mrs. Payne to look at the leak
in the roof. He swore that ho had never had any criminal
intercourse with her.

By Mr. Hawkins—l did not ask Mrs. Payne to show me
the leak. In fact, I did not know there was one (Laughter,)
Re-examined—After I had been to the solicitor's office I
received the letter produced, dated 7th April, from Penny,
who had circulated the rumour about me and Mrs. Payne.
In it he states that the words were uttered in passion, and
that he apologised for them, and would not repeat them
again. This apology was sent to Payne's house, and came
while both were there.

Evidence was then given to prove the repeated visits of
the defendant to the plaintiff's house while the husband
was away.

George Penny said that in April his wife called him up-
stairs in the evening, and on looking out of the window he
saw the defendant kissing Mrs. Payne at the back door.
Mrs. Penny opened the window and called out, " That is
beautiful, lam sure." (Laughter.) Mr. Barnes then tripped
lightly up High-street, and Mrs. Payne scampered away
like a frightenedcat. (Laughter.) In February I overheard
the following conversation between them at the back door.
Barnes said, " I watched him down the street. I would
not tell you a lie ; you know I would not." After that I
heard a kiss and some caressing sounds. All the words I
heard Mrs. Payne say were, " You always do that."
(Laughter.) Barnes said, " You will break my heart—that
you will." Then he said he could not sleep all night for
thinking of her, but having seen her he felt much better. I
also heard him say that if it were not for his family he
would run away with her. I told Mr. Barnes what I had
seen, and he gave notice to quit.
Mrs. Penny corroborated the evidence of her husband,
and said she thought the kissing on the evening when she
opened the window and called out was a very disgusting
sight. (Laughter.) She said so because the defendant was
a married man.

Other evidence of familiarities between the defendant
and Mrs. Payne was given, and it was also proved that at
the time of the assault there was no leak in the bedroom, or
any sign of water having come in.
The learned counsel having addressed the jury for their
respective clients,

Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up, said the only two
questions were whether the defendant was justified in com-
mitting the assault, and if so, whether he had used any
excess of violence. The plaintiff was entitled to their ver-
dict if the beating was not in self-defence, or was more
than was necessary for that purpose. They had not to
consider whether the defendant was in the house for the
purpose of committing adultery with Mrs. Payne, or for any
other unlawful object, because in either case the plaintiff
had no right to beat him, and if he did beat him the defen-
dant was justified in defending himself. Though that was
the law, still if they thought their verdict should be for the
plaintiff, and believed that he found the defendant in a
situation which left no doubt that he had committed adul-
tery with his wife, and did no more than fell him to the
ground, they ought to give him damages with no niggard
hand.

The jury retired, and after a brief deliberation found a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £2OO.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
THE COUNTESS OF LIMERICK V. THE EARL OF LIMERICK.
Dr. Wambey conducted the case for the petitioner.
This was a suit promoted by the petitioner for judicial
separation on the ground of her husband's adultery, and
there was no defence.
Dr. Wambey, in opening the case, said that the marriage
was solemnised at Nor:olk Island. The ceremony was per-
formed by a clergyman of the Church of England, and he
cited the case of Cotterell v. Cotterell to show that mar-
riages such as the present were to be considered valid when
they were followed by reputed cohabitation.
Sir C. Cresswell said the question was whether he could
take cognisance of the colonial law relating to marriage.
Dr, Wambey, having referred to an act passed by the

... ~ _