The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Common Jury.
COWING V. COWING AND WALDEN.

The learned Judge, in summing up the evidence, referred
to the letters, and said they proved one fact., viz., that for a
young man of 17 to address such letters to a married
woman, his parent had not quite a correct notion as to the
morals of her son. Many of the passages in the corres-
pondence showed that he had asked some peculiar favour
whicla at first had been denied, as that circumstance was
corroborated by a letter from the co-respondent to Mrs.
Cowing, in which he said "he was like a man who
had once tasted human blood, &c." and in another
he said, " having once tasted the pleasures of the fair sex he
was always longing after it." (Laughter.) He thought
the jury would be of opinion that the young man was nct
so great a novice as hie mother believed, and the impression
made upon his mind by the reading of the correspondence
was, that they were not very fair specimens of delicacy for
a youth of 17.

The jury found a verdict for the petitioner. Damages,
£76.

Decree nisi with costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE TAYLOR.

This was an application for release from custody.
Mr. Sargood appeared on behalf of the trustee appointed
by the Court of Chancery under "Barton's Estate." It
appeared that a great number of the tenants on the estate
held adverse possession, and refused to pay rent, and it had
become necessary, in a great number of cases, to bring
actions of ejectment against them, but a kind of conspiracy
existed amongst them, so that, immediately a judgment
was obtained against them, they proceeded to remove or de-
molish the fixtures and otherwise destroy the property, and
there were several cases now penoing in this Court,
where the parties had petitioned so as to get
released trom the payment of costs. The trustees were en-
deavouring to obtain evidence to support criminal proceed-
ings. In one case Mr. Commissioner Goulburn had refused
to order a release, except in due course under an order of
discharge. He (Mr. Sargood) submitted that Taylor's case
was precisely similar, and there was a similar application
coming before Mr. Commissioner Fane this day.
His Honour said he would not order the bankrupt's re-
lease unless he gave satisfactory bail—two sureties in ZO
each.

THE LONDON AND PROVINCIAL DISCOUNT COMPANY.
To •day was appointed for an audit and dividend meeting,
but nothing transpired.

IN RE ROBERTS.
A petition in bankruptcy was presented this day by Mr.
Drew, Basinghall- strett, against this bankrupt, a shawl
and mantle manufacturer, at Knightsbridge and White-
chapel. The case was balloted to his Honour, before whom
the matter has been on several occasions, creditors havin
endeavoured to set aside a deed of composition, although
agreed to by the majority in number and value. A few days
since an action was tried in the Court of Queen's Bench,
when the effect of the verdict was to invalidate the deed,
although the whole of the property is in the hands of the
trustees for the benefit of the creditors.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Gibbons.)
THE LAW OF MASTER AND SERVANT-COOPER V. HUDSON.
This was an action to recover 3s. 6d. for a day's work,
defendant being an extensive contractor, of 48, Milton-
street, Cripplegate.
Plaintiff said he had been engaged by defendant to go to
a lady's house and assist in removing some furniture.
Plaintiff did the work, and defendant refused to pay for it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Beard—l was not drunk, but
had had something to drink.
Mr. Beard—My client defends this action solely in con-
sequence of the important circumstances embraced in it.
Plaintiff alarmed the lady to whose house he had been sent
in endeavouring to put up the bedstead, and let the cornice
fall and break. Defendant would not have come into court
upon such a small question in so far as the amount was
concerned, but upon previous occasions he had been obliged
to pay large sums of money for property destroyed and in-
jured by men who misconducted themselves as plaintiff had
done.

Mr. Hudson was called, and deposed to having refused
to pay plaintiff solely in consequence of his misconduct.
The brother of the lady at whose house plaintiff had
worked stated that his sister was very much frightened at
plaintiff's manner.

Plaintiff—l have done the work and ought to be paid for
it. lam sure I was not drunk, and if anything was broken
it was by accident.
His Honour was inclined V) believe that plaintiff had
behaved very badly. He had greatly misconducted himself,
and had clearly forfeited all right to recover wages.
Verdict for defendant.

A SCENE ON BOARD A WAR SHIP.—A correspon-
dent of the Liverpool Mercury is responsible for the
following :—" On 111,,nday, the crew of her Majesty's ship
Majestic (lying in the Mersey) were summoned to muster
on the starboard side of the main deck to witness one of
their fellow-men fastened to a grating for the purpose of
receiving forty eight lashes, to which he had been sen-
tenced by a court-martial for attempting to rescue a pri-
soner from the hands of the master-at-arms, and also for
striking a petty officer. Silence having been obtained, the
captain proceeded to read aloud his warrant, at the close of
which he in a stern voice called the boatswain, who imme-
diately stepped forward. ' Give that man one dozen
lashes,' commands the captain, and the boatswain
seized the eat-o'nine-tails and commenced inflicting the
dreadful punishment. Lash atter lash fell heavy upon the
unfortunate man, which caused him to give utterance to the
following ejaculations Oh, my mother, my mother;
what would you think of your poor son now ?' and, 0
God, what have I done to deserve this ?' and turning him-
self to the captain as much as he could, he said, 0 captain,
have you no pity ? think of your own sons ; I did not merit
this from you;' at which the captain was distinctly seen to
smile. All this took place during the time the first dozen
were being inflicted. The captain then ordered one of the
boatswain's mates to ' Give that man one dozen lashes,'
which order was instantly obeyed. The severity of
the lash having rendered him insensible
sufferer seemed totally void of feeling , the poor
, for,
after lash fell upon him, not a word
was he as lash
ard. He
had fainted ! At the expiration of the second dozen, the
captain instantly commanded another boatswain's mate to
come forward and Give that man one dozen lashes.' Dur
lug the time this man was flogging, the poor fellow revived
a little, and turning to his flogger, he requested him to
'flog
eased from t fair.' Thehe fourth dozen having been inflicted, he was
re grating, with a back litterally mutilated,
and his ribs quite blackened. After having a little oil ap-
plied to his scars, he was taken down to the fore cockpit,
and put under the charge of the sentinel. The poor fellow
has
the gayet tw
Crilne o years of imprisonment, With ;hard labour, for
me ."_.

L—This Day.

This was a petition on the part of the husband praying
for dissolution of his marriage on the ground of adultery
with the co-respondent.
The parties were married in 1855, at St. Peter's, Wal-
worth, and the separation took place last year.
Dr. Spinks, in stating the case, read a number of letters
from the co-respondent to the respondent, which left no
doubt as to the terms of intimacy upon which the parties
were.

Elizabeth Fanny Gotham said she was acquainted with the
respondent whilst she was living in the house of Mrs. Taylor,
the mother of the co-respondent. On one occasion when she
visited her Mrs. Cowing told her in 1861 about some note or
foolish papers she had received from Wallen. She knew
Mrs. Taylor, and in July of that year she had a conver-
sation with her in Penton-place, during which Mrs. Cow-
ing came in, and after Mrs. Taylor had left, Mrs. Cowing
wanted to know what Mrs. Taylor had told her. Witness
told her that she had said that Mr. Wallen would he the
father of ber (Mrs. Cowing's) child which was then ex-
pected. Mrs. Cowing said it was quite true, and asked her
to keep this circumstance a profound secret. After that
she was present at a conversation at which both Mr. Wallen
and Mrs. Cowing were present. Wallen wanted witness
to purchase a robe for the baby, and to present it to Mrs.
Cowing as if she (witness) had made it a present. Wallen
said Mr. Cowing was a fine old "gull.' Some time after
this Mrs. Cowing told her if the circumstance was not found
out before two years, Wallen would get some money, and
then he intended to emigrate, and that she would go with
him, as she could not face her husband after the discovery.
Dr. Spinks then called N rs. Taylor. Upon the lady
stepping into the witness-box she asked the learned judge
whether she was compelled to give evidence against her
own son.
The Judge Ordinary told her it was imperative on her to
give her testimony.

Mrs. Taylor then, in answer to the learned counsel, said
she was residing in Pentt.n..place in 1860. Mr. and Mrs.
Cowing afterwards came to live in her house. Mr. Cowing
used to go out to bu*iness atter eight o'clock in the morn-
ing, and used to remain out all night. His business, as a
compositor, compelled him to do so. Her son was a chemist.
She discovered a letter by accident m his bedroom, which
acquainted her with the state of affairs. She fainted on the
discovery, as she thought Mrs. Cowing had ruined her poor
boy. He was only 17, and she was ten years his senior. He
was the best son mother ever had. A number of letters
were here placed in the witness's hand, and, in answer to
a question whether they were in her son's handwriting, she
said she did not know. The learned judge told her she
would be compelled to answer the question; and after a
great deal of hesitation, she said she believed they were in
his handwriting, as she found them in his bedroom. Her
son would be 21 years of age in September next, when he
would become entitled to £425.
Mrs. Clark said Mr. and Mrs. Cowing came to live at her
house, Canterbury-terrace, Kensington-park, in October,
1861. William Wallen used to come there very
frequently. He generally came about seven in the evening.
Mr. Cowing was sometimes at home. She had some sus.
picions of the occasion of Mr. Wallen's visit. She had heard
Mr. Wallen call Mrs. Cowing a " dear." She had known
him to have been in Mrs. Cowing's bedroom for hours.
She (witness) told her the thought such a proceeding im-
proper, upon which she burst into tears, but did not deny
the fact.