The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMIM 27, 1863.

25th Brigade—Assist-Surg J. M. Taylor, from the al to
the 9th Brigade. The following removals have been or-
deormed,Levfith F
z., Loiretutt-oColonel
r,atnodcoßninirevanetfthole
2dP.Maclean)
from
Brigade—
Lieut-Col and Brevet-Col Collingwood Dixon, C. 8., V.C.,
from Shorncliffe to Leith Fort, to command the Royal Ar-
tillery in North Britain —Lieut-Col Johnson, from Wool-
wich to India—Lieut-Col Lennox, from Malta to Gosport
—major Strovor, from New Zealand to Malta—Capt
Nicholson, from Devonport to Woolwich—Capt Smith,
from Woolwich to New Zealand—Lieut Hamilton, from
Devonport to Woolwich—Lieut Loch, from Warley to
Canterbury, to join the depot, Royal Horse Artillery, vice
Vibart—Assist-Surg Taylor, from Dover to Shorncliffe—
Assist-Surg Cashman, from Woolwich to Dover.

Jacobs for 165 guineas. Orpheus was claimed by Mr H.
Crawshaw.

The Winding-up Handicap of 6 sovs each, 2 ft, with 30
added. One mile.

Duke of Beaufort's Farfalla (h b), 4 yrs, Bst 71b
(Custance) 1
Mr Cherry's Disappointment, 4 yrs, Set 41b
(H Grimshaw) 2
Mr Samuel's Twilight, aged, 9st 71b (H. Taylor) 3
Mr Coventry's Rockley, 6 yrs, 7st 101 b (r. French) 4
Mr J. Wood's Fearnought, 2 yrs, 6st .. (C. Carroll) 5
Betting-7 to 4on Farfalla, 3to 1 agst Disappointment,
6to 1 eget Fearnoughtoo to 1 aget Rockley, 100 to S agst
Twilight.
Disappointment made play to the distance, where Far-
fella went to the front and won by two lengths ; a length
between second and third. Fearnought, who got badly off,
bolted at the turn into the straight and cantered in some
time after the other four.

A Plate of 50 sous, for 3-yr-olds aad upwards; winner to
be sold for £lOO selling and other allowances, and penal-
ties for winning. Three-quarters of a mile.

Mr Lincoln's Disdain, 4 yrs (£3O), 7st 131 b (H. Taylor) 1
Mr Astley's Quicksand, 3 yrs (£3O), 7st 21b
(J. Grimshaw) 2
Mr F. C. Morgan's Fastrunner, 5 yrs (L3O), Bst 41b
(J. Sopp) 3
Mr Barnett's Zingari, 6 yrs (£3O), Bst 41b.... (Custanoe) 4
Mr Griffin's Champagne, 3 yrs (£3O), 6st 111 b .. (Jones) 5
Betting--6 to 4 agst Disdain, 2to 1 agst Quicksand, 100
to 30 apt Zingati.
Disdain made all the running, and won cleverly by a
head; two lengths between second and third.
The winner was bought in for 100 guineas.
A Hurdle Race Handicap of 5 soya each, 2 ft, with 25
added 'the winner to be sold for £2O, One mile, over
three hurdles.
Mr Barber's Co:onet, 6 yrs, list 31b (G. Palmer) 1
Mr Barnett's Bitterfly, aged, list 12lb (G. Holman) '2
Capt. Watson's Peru, 4 yrs, 10st ..(W. Ducker) 3
Betting—Eve' on Coronet, 6 to 4 agst Butter y.
The favourite made the whole of the running, and won
hands down, by two lengths Peru a bad third.
The Military Cup Steeplechase of 10 sous each, with a cup
added, for horses the property of officers, &c. 12st
each ; winners extra. Four miles over the Steeple-
chase Course. 4 subs.
Capt. Coventry's (Grenadier Guards) Agnes, 6 yrs, 12st
(Owner) 1
Captain Knox's (Scots Fusilier Guards) Cheviot, 12st
(Owner) 2
Capt. C. C. Higgins'S (13th Hussars) The Nabob, 13st
(including 14:la ex) (Owner) 3
Betting-13 to 8 on Agnes, 5 to 2 agst Cheviot, 100 to
15 agst The Nabob.
Agnes with Cheviot alternately led to half a mile from
home, when Agnes came away from her opponent, and won
easily by ten lengths ; The Nabob last throughout.
Match, £lOO each. Three miles over the Steeplechase
Course.
Mr W. E. Williams's Sinking Fund, aged, 13st 7lb
(Mr Edwards) 1
Mr Duffield's Bounce, aged, 13st ............ (B. Land) 2
Betting-5 and 6tol on Sinking Fund, who took up the
running after the first mile, and won easily by four lengths.
The Light-Weight Military Steeplechase of 5 soya each,
with 40 added, for horses the property of officers, &c. ;
winners extra; to be ridden by officers, &c. About three
miles over the Steeplechase Course. 5 subs.
Captain Tempest's (11th Hussars) Redwing, aged, 12st
(including 141 b ex) ........................ (Owner) 1
Lieut. liariord's (Scots Fusiliers) Medusa, 5- yrs, list
(Owner) 2
Lieut. E. Foster Piggott's (Scots Greys) Hawthorn, 6
yrs, list .................... (Captain Brown) 3
Major the Hon. J. Fiennes's (7th Hussars) Annie, aged
list Mr Coventry) 4
Betting—Even on Redwing, 5 to 2 agst Hawthorn, 4 to
1 agst Medusa, 10 to 1 agst Annie.
The favourite got off in front, and making the whole of
the running, won easily by a length and a half; four
lengths separating the second and third ; Annie beaten off.
Match, £26.
Two miles.
Mr Parker's Topthoru, list 71b, and Mr Jacques's Little
Lady, list 71b, off by consent.
THE FARMERS' STEEPLECHASE ON WEDNESDAY.—It
will be remembered that Harkaway, the horse that came in
first for this race, was objected to on the ground that the
rider was not a farmer; the stewards, after hearing evi-
dence, awarded the stakes to Sutton, who came in second,
and Ilarkaway was disqualified.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Yesterday,
o -

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Westminster, before the
Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
BYM3I V. PRASER AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiff is a lady residing at 5, Oakley-
square, Camden-town, and she complained that the
defendants and their servants broke and entered
her house, and locked her tip, and imprisoned her,
under the false pretence that she Was of unsound
mind, and incapable of managing her own affairs,
and that they compelled her to swallow a number
of noxious and distasteful drugs. The defendants
pleaded that they were not guilty, and that what
they did was by the leave and license of the plaintiff.
Mr, Montague Chambers, QC., Mr. Huddlestone,
Q.C., and Mr. Prentice appeared in behalf of the
plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Sergeant Parry,
Mr. S. G. Griffiths, and Mr. Smythies for the defen-

dant.
Mr. Chambers opened the following most extra-
ordinary case. He said that the plaintiff is a widow,
residing at No. 6, Oakley-street, Camden-town, and
has been a widow since 1858. She resided formerly
in Sunderland, and came to London in 1859, when
she took a house from Dr. Fraser, one of the defen-
dants, both of whom are medical men, and resided
near Oakley-square, and were formerly in partner-
ship. A Mrs. Hill then came to live with the
plaintiff, who received her in her house out of
charity; but this kindness had been requited with
the basest ingratitude on the part of Mrs. Hill. In
the month of October, 1861, the plaintiff suffered
much from rheumatism, and, as a not unfrequent
consequent consequence of that affliction, displayed
a great unwillingness to occupying certain
postures, and was especially loth to remain long
in bed. In December she called in Dr.
Andrews, and he called in Dr. Fraser also.
They dealt with her in the most inhuman manner ;
and when she wanted a nurse, sent her" a little active
lively woman," who bustled about and took the entire
management of the house out of the plaintiff's hands,
and against her consent. She complained to Dr.
Andrews, and he then sent another nurse—a woman
with " a strong mind and a strong body," who had
been for three years in a lunatic asylum, attending
on lunatic ladies. She made her take a quantity of
physic, and the plaintiff then went to sleep, When
she awoke she was surprised to find " a good big
man gazing at her." Sne remonstrated with him on
account of his being there, but to no purpose. It,
the morning both of the defendants came, and she
appealed to them. A friend of hers, a Dr. Barnes,
came to see her, " Out," said the learned counsel, " a
certain esprit de corps exists among all medical men,
and he may be called on the other side." She was
subjected to various acts of cruelty and indecency,
and was kept without food. Feeling weak and
exhausted in the night, she asked the man who was
in her room for some wine, but he refused to give
her any. She then asked for a corkscrew, which
was also refused, upon which she went down-
stairs and brought up a bottle of sherry, the neck
of which she knocked off. This, the defendant
alleged, arose from the plaintiff suffering from
delirium hemens ; indeed, they accused her of
drinking three bottles of sherry. Being unable to
obtain access to any of her friends, she procured the
assistance of a policeman, who wrote a letter for her
to some friends, a Mr. Bennett and his wife, who
eventually took her away from the house, and sent
her to Bath for the benefit of her health. An im-
becile brother had been living with her, and daring
her illness she had made a will in favour of Mrs.
Hill, adjuring her to take care of her brother. This
will was witnessed by the male and female keepers
who were sent by the defendants, and 1)r. Andrews
knew of this fact. During the time that they were
in charge of her she opened the window and
screamed out, but the neighbours, thinking her mad,
paid no attention to her. In December a Mr. Young,
a solicitor at Sunderland, had occasion to write to
the plaintiff, enclosing a bill of exchange for her in-
dorsement. This letter came into the hands of Dr.
Andrews, who got her to indorse the bill, and wrote
to Mr. Young, stating that Mrs. Symm was unwell
and confined to her room, but that she had requested
him to write and enclose to him an order for £1,298.
The plaintiff went to Bath, but so anxious was she
to get away from the house that she left the window
open, and her gold watch on the table, which was
taken possession of by the policeman. This, the de-
fendant alleged, was the act of an insane person. She
remained in Bath fur some time, and when she re-
turned was sued in the county court by Dr. Andrews,
to which she paid a small sum rather than endure
the annoyance of appearing in court. She assed
the defendants to give her the address of the keepers,
but they refused to do so, and treated her in a very
sneerin,, and defiant manner. Her solicitor then
wrote demanding an exp'anation, &c., to whom Dr.
Andrews wrote that he had acted in conformity
with well-known medical principles, while Dr.
Fraser said that he had had nothing to do with the
matter.
The plaintiff was called, and she detailed the
above facts.
Tt.e examination in chief was concluded only
when the court rose.
Sergeant Parry, in reference to his client, Dr.
Fraser, applied to the court to allow him to sever
his defence from that of Dr. Andrews. Their de-
fence was joint on the face of the pleadings, but in
reality it was distinct.
The Lord Chief Justice—l do not see, at the pre-
sent moment, what substantial difference there can
be between the two defences.
Sergeant Parry—Dr. Andrews was sent for first,
and my client was called in afterwards.
The Lord Chief Justice—l will consider it. If
you and Mr. Hawkins assure me that you will raise
a substantially different defense, I will assist you
.n any way I can.