The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-19 00:00:00

ELECTION PETITIONS BILL.

The following were named the select committee on the
Election Petitions Bill :—Mr. Ayrton, Sir G. Grey, Mr.
Massey, Mr. P. Bouverie, Lord Henley, Mr. Monsell, Mr.
Herbert, Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, Sir W. Heathcoto, Sir
W. Miles, Mr. Knightley, Mr Adderley, Mr Walpole, Mr.
Hunt, and Mr. Sergeant Pigott.
The house adjourned at 20 minutes to 2 o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—June 18.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
DICKSON V. LORD COMBERMERE AND OTHERS.

This was an action for conspiracy against Lord Comber-
mere, Lord Lieutenant of the Tower; Gen. Peel, M.P.,
(late Secretary of State fox War), and the Earl of Wilton,
Colonel of the 2l Tower Hamlets Militia, in depriving Lieut-
Col. Dickson, by false and malicious representations, of the
position of lieut.-colonel of the 2d Tower Hamlets Militia.
The defendants pleaded not guilty. Great interest was
manifested in the proceedings; and as each party is deter-
mined to fight the matter and investigate the circumstances
to the utmost, the case is likely to occupy the Court four or
five days. The Earl of Wilton, Lord Combermere, Count
Nesselrode, Major-Gen. Hodgson, and Rear-Admiral Cut-
ton, occupied seats on the ben*.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Mr. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. Gordon
Allen were counsel for the plaintiff; the Attorney-General,
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. Dowdeswell, Mr.
Field, and Mr. Milward were counsel for the defendants.
Mr. Coleridge, in stating the plaintiff's case to the jury,
said it was one of no ordinary character; bat, on the con-
trary, it involved matters of considerable importance to the
plaintiff's professional and honourable life and career, and
equally so to the honour and character of each of the three
distinguished defendants. The plaintiff, in early life, had
been in the 2d Queen's Royals, and served in India under
Sir Lionel Smith. He returned from India and joined the
51st, and afterwards exchanged into the 25th. In 1836 he
raised a regiment under the sanction of the Government for
the service of the Queen of Spain, and he served with great
distinction under Gen. Sir De Lacy Evans. On his return
he was shortly after appointed to the 77th, from which he
soon after retired. In 1842 he was sent out by the then
Colonial Secretary, as civil commissioner in one of the
Cape of Good Hope districts, and received from Sir
George Napier, Lord Maitland, and the Earl of Derby,
testimonials for the efficient manner in which he die
charged those duties. On his return he applied to the late
Duke cf Wellington, who was then Lord Lieutenant of
the Tower, who presented him to the majority of the
2d Tower Hamlets Militia, Earl Wilton, who was a civilian,
being the colonel—a piece of honorary distinction. During
times of peace militia regiments were only kept up in skele-
ton, and at the time Lieut.-Col. Dickson joined the regiment
Col. North, M.P., was the major, a gentleman named Cowell
was the adjutant, and Mr. 0' Shaunessey was the captain
and paymaster. The officers of the 2d Tower Hamlets were
appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets
and the Constable of the Tower, but could only be dis-
placed by the Queen, acting under the advice of the Secre-
tary of State for War, In May, 1854, during the Crimean
war, the regiment was called out for 21 days' trairing ; the
headquarters were at Bethnel-green, and, having gone
through its training was disembodied from that time till
March, 1855, when it was again called out and permanently
embodied, owing to the great drain upon the regular army
from the Crimean war. The militia, when embodied, was
subjected to the Mutiny Act, the Articles of War, and cer-
tain regulations for the army, and one of the regulations
was teat the commanding officer should conduct the affairs
of the regiment and look after in a general way the affairs
of the mess, and see that the mess bills were regularly paid,
and that the regiment did not get into disrespect in reference
to it. The mess fund of a militia regiment consisted of a
compulsory contribution of 30 days' pay and a voluntary
contribution of 8 days' pay, and there was what was called
the regent's allowance of £l5O per annum for each com-
pany. In March, 1855, when the regiment was called out,
no regular mess committee was formed, but however the
plaintiff and the Earl of Wilton went on amicably up to
March, 1855. Articles were, however, obtained necessary
for the requirements of the mess, and it appeared that dur-
ing Col. North's time there was an inspection luncheon
which came to between £3O and £4O, and afterwards the
question of payment was raised, and it was arranged,
with the consent of the Earl of Wilton and the other
officers, that it should be paid for out of between £3OO
and £4OO belonging to the regiment in the hands of the
paymaster, and a cheque was accordingly drawn for
it. Afterwards there was a presentation of co-
lours by Lady Wilton, when another luncheon was
given, and as there was a large assemblage, which included
a number of ladies, the expense was between £6O and £7O,
and as in the former case payment was ordered out of the
funds in hand. In August, 1855, Colonel North left the
regiment, and the plaintiff was appointed the liew enant-
colonel. It was accordingly determined, as Col. North was
very popular in the regiment, that he should be presented
with a piece cf plate, and the money was raised by subscrip-
tion. The presentation of a piece of plate without some kind
of entertainment, the learned counsel said, was a very dry
affair; and it was arranged that the presentation should take
place at a luncheon, which was done at a cost of between
£3O or £4O, which had to be provided for in a similar man-
ner as the two former. In Oct., 1855, the mess was regu-
larly formed. It appeared that during the embodiment of
the regiment there was a fete at Cremorne for the benefit of
the Wellington College. Some portion of the Guards was
there, and also the 2d Tower Hamlets Militia, and they took
part in what was to have been a representation of the taking
of Sebastopol, but, unfortunately, the stage up which the
soldiers were to charge gave way, many of the men falling
with their bayonets fixed, and others falling on them.
Several were seriously injured, and most of them had their
clothes torn. A dispute took place afterwards about the
payment of the injured or destroyed articles, which was
afterwards inquired into and explained satisfactorily by
Lieut.-Col. Dickson, but notwithstanding, after that Earl
Wilton charged him with malversation of the funds of the
regiment. The learned counsel then proceeded very
minutely to enter into the circumstances of the disputes
wtich arose subsequently between the parties relative to
the supplying of the mess articles and their payment.
There was a sergeants' mess fund established, and also a
maternity fund for the benefit of the wives of the privates,
and there was a complaint that Lieut.-Colonel Dickson
had retained for a long time improperly a sum of £45.
There were other matters conneetrd with the affairs of the
regiment which tended to increase the misunderstanding
between the parties. The mess accounts were in disorder,
there having been no regular audit of the accounts,
and the tradesmen who had supplied the plate, glass, wine,
&c. likewise pressing for payment. There was great di ill
culty in getting money with which to liquidate the demands
on the regiment, and the Earl of Wilton gave £lOO, and
Col, North and others subscribed; but as the regiment had
been disbanded suddenly the resources for the mess fund
were cut short, and the result was that the mess was several
hundred pounds in debt. It was therefore in reference to
matters in connection with the state of the finances of the
regiment that the alleged false representations were made
which led to the plaintiff's dismissal from the command of
the regiment. The plaintiff declared that all the circum-
stances of the regiment, the purchase of the articles, the
non-formation of a mess committee, were well known at the
time to the Earl of Wilton, and that the plaintiff was in no

way responsible for the irregularities. He was never mess
president after the mess committee was fcrmed, and if the
mess president and committee had discharged their duty
there would have been ample funds for the requirements
of the mess. An inquiry was made into the circumstances
by a committee of inquiry, the tendency of whose report
was to screen the mean presidents and the committee and to
inculpate the plaintiff; and a lengthened eorrespondence
ensued between the plaintiff and the Earl of Wilton, in
which he pointed out where the errors had been committed
that had given rise to the difficulties, the part he had taken
in dealing with the regimental funds, and how he had ap-
plied them. He also stated that he was willing to go into
the matter and explein everything in the presence of Col.
North. A complaint was then laid by the Earl of Wilton
before Lord Combermere. He approached that part of the
case with great regret, for it was impassible for anyone to
address a jury to endeavour to convince them that Lord
Combermere had been guilty of a great dereliction of duty
without knowing that he had undertaken a very difficult
task. The first impression, when they heard such
a charge mentioned, was to think that it was ab-
surd to suppose that a man like Lord Combermere,
who had passed a long life in the service of his
country with honour and distinction, was likely to
have been guilty of such a dereliction of duty. That his
lordship was actuated by direct personal dislike or malice
towards Lieut.-Col. Dickson, whom he had never seen, and
perhaps never before heard of, he did not suggest, and it
would be idle and ridiculous to do so; but when he laid be-
fore
them facts that could not be disputed they would say
that a greater act of injustice had never been committed by
one man towards another than had been done by Lord Com-
bermere towards Lieut.-Col. Dickson. And it was difficult
to understand how Lord Combermere—a man of station,
and of great ability and experience—with all the circum-
stances before bim, could have come to the conclusion that
he had, unless he had yielded to influences which he cer-
tainly ought not to have done. On the 18th March, 1855,
Lieut.-Col. Dickson received a letter from Lord Comber-
mere, desiring him to call on him the following day, He did
so, but he regretted to say that his lordship did not treat
him as became a person who had had 30 years' experience
as a military officer, and as was becoming a person of his
lordship's eminent position. On his entering the room Lord
Combermere said to him that he had been told there was
great confusion in his regiment on account of the mess, that
the officers had told Lord Wilton they would none of them
go out with him, and that he had better resign. Lieut.-
Col. Dickson asked why he should resign, and Lord Com-
bermere replied, "Sir, you have had a quantity of confused
accounts. Lord Wilton has sent them to me, with your ex-
planation. I can make neither head nor tail of them, but
you ought to resign." Lieut.-Col. Dickson said he could
not understand why he had been called upon in that sharp
and short manner to resign. Lord Combermere said, "You
have misconducted yourself, sir. Your regiment is in a bad
state, and all your men and officers have lost confidence in
you. In short, you had better resign, sir." Lieut.- Col.
Dickson, who was not accustomed to receive such conduct
from a field marshal or any one else, declined to resign.
On the 7th of April Earl Wilton was sued by Messrs.
Sharpus for the glass, crockery, and other things sup-
plied by them to the mess, amounting to between £5OO
and £6OO, and so also was the plaintiff, who disliked the
proceeding quite as much as Earl Wilton. On the 30th of
April it appeared Earl Wilton must have again seen Lord
Combermere, because Lieut.-Colonel Dickson received an
intimation from Lord Combermere that his lordship wished
particularly to have some conversation with him. He called,
and though the atmosphere was not serene on the former
interview he found it exceedingly clouded on the second
occasion. His lordship told him he had committed a gross
offence against military law, and must resign. He said he
was sorry for it, and Lord Combermere added, his colonel
had been there, and insisted on his resigning. Lieut.-
Colonel Dickson, who commenced his military career in
India under his lordship, still refused to resign. When
Lord Combermere eaid " You must resign, sir, and Lord
Wilton says you shall ;" to which Lieut.-Colonel Dickson
replied, that rather than resign he would put a pistol to his
head. The interview then terminated, and the learned counsel
could not refrain from remarking that he thought Lord
Combermere's conduct towards Lieut.-Colonel Dickson was
such that his lordship would have resented it if it had
occurred to him in the earlier part of his career. To have
acted in such a manner from feeling of friendship towards
Earl 'Wilton was discreditable on the part of Lord Com-
bermere ; and, if true, were they to be told that, because
Lord Combermere was a justly-eminent man, and a halo of
glory might surround his name that was not possessed by
Lieut.-Colonel Dickson, he was not entitled to have justice
at the hands of a jury if he brought before them conduct
that could not be disputed by those gallant and eminent
men ; and that because Lord Combermere might have
entitled himself in former years to the gratitude of the
country that he was to be justified when he thus conducted
himself and o utraged the character and honour of a dis-
tinguished officer like the plaintiff. On the 7th May they
would find a judge's order was signed for the debt and
costs in Sharpus's case, which, no doubt, was a very dis-
agreeable thing to Lord Wilton. On the 4th May, how-
Ever, finding that Lieut.-Colonel Dickson would not
resign, and having also discovered that he had no
power to remove him from the regiment, an application
was made by Lord Combermere, by letter, to General Peel,
the then Secretary of State for War. In that letter his
lordship, who had before told Lieutenant Colonel Dickson
that he could make neither head nor tail of the matter, said
he had ascertained that the complaints of the Earl of Wil-
ton were just (never having asked for any explanation from
Lieut.-Colonel Dickson), and asked that he might be re-
moved from the regiment. On the 10th of the same month
Lord Combermere, General Peel, and Lord Wilton, having
had an interview at the War Office, and General Peel hav-
ing, perhaps, the fear of the House of Commons before hiss,
wrote what to Lord Combermere appeared to be an answer
of the letter of the 4th, requesting from his lordship a full
statement of the particular grounds on whioh his recom-
mendation was based, together with any counter-statement
Lieut.-Colonel Dickson might have to offer, and for such ob-
servations as the facts of the case required. On that Lord
Combermere wrote to Lord Wilton a statement of the
charges to be sent to General Peel, he having in his letter
of the 4th to General Peel stated that he had investigated
them and had found them to be just. The learned counsel
was about to enter into the charges, when

The Attorney-General, who appeared for General Peel,
suggested, as it was then four o'clock, and as the learned
counsel's statement must occupy a considerable time longer,
it would be convenient to adjourn. He also asked for
the adjournment on the around that he had other public
duties to discharge.

The Lord Chief Justice said he would not accept that as
a reason for interrupting Mr. Coleridge in his statement to
the jury, and if the learned counsel wished it he would
then adjourn.

Mr. Coleridge, who had been speaking upwards of two
hours and a half, said that he must of necessity occupy a
considerable time longer, and that, as far as ho was con-
cerned, he should offer no objection to the adjournment.
The further hearing of the case was then adjourned ti 11
this (Friday) morning.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(Sittings in Error.)
COY v. THE LORD MAYOR, &C., OF LONDON.

This was a question affecting the power and jurisdiction
of the Lord Mayor's Court in attaching the property of
those persons who are indebted to debtors, or property held
by bankers and others, who have been sued in the court,
and against whom judgment had been obtair al, neither
party residing or being within the city. The city had exer-
cised this extraordinary power for upwards of 1,000 years,
and the question was now raised in consequence of a person
who had obtained judgment against a Mr. Farquharson,
claiming a right to attach 186 3s. belonging to him in the
hands of Messrs. Cox and Co., the army agents.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr. Charles Pollock appeared on
behalf of the city; and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr.
Griffits for Messrs. Cox and Co.

Sir F. Kelly's arguments occupied the greater portion of
two days, and at its conclusion
The Court said they would consider whether they would
hear Mr. Chambers, and let him know on the 4th of July.
Should they wish to hear him the case must stand over till
next term ; and if not, they would give judgment on the
4th of July.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)

MASSEY V. MASSEY-EXTRAORDINARY AND REVOLTING

CASE.

Dr. Deane, Q C., and Mr. Field were for the petitioner.
In this case the petitioner, Sarah Caroline Massey, prayed
for a divorce from her husband, a captain in the 30th Regi
ment of Foot, on the ground of adultery and cruelty.
The respondent denied the allegations, but was not re-
presented by counsel.
The marriage was solemnised in June, 1860, and there
was one child, issue of the marriage.

Jane Sowden was examined by Mr. Field, and proved the
marriage. She also identified a photopaph portrait of the
respondent.

Mrs. Massey, the petitioner, an interesting and ladylike
young woman, who was very much affected during her
evidence, was examined by Dr. Deane. She said that she
had concealed her marriage from her family for some time,
and that she cohabited with the respondent in different
places in England to June, 1861. He then went to Canada
with his regiment, and on his return they resumed cohabi-
tation, At the time of her marriage she was possessed of
£l,lOO in cash, which she gave him, £1,700 in Canada Five
per Cent. Bonds, £l,OOO in East India Bonds, £3,600 in
Canada Six per Cent. Bonds, all of which sho gave
her husband. On her husband's return from Canada on
the 16th of July, 1862, she lived with him for some
months. They went together from London to Newhaven,
and her husband paid for a carriage to themselves ae he told
her. She said she thought it would be pleasanter to have
somebody in the same carriage with them, and he replied
" I dare say you do," and was most abusive in his language,
He also beat her with the backs of his hands while they
were in the train, On reaching Newbaven the same night
they crossed over to Dieppe, and put up at the Royal Hotel
there, On the morning following their arrival, and before
she had taken off her clothes, ho desired her to undress
herself, and then he beat her with a strap which he took
from off one of their boxes. He beat her also with a pillow
iu the face, and during the whole time used the milt abusive

._.„►

language. She called out for mercy, and he desisted for
some time. He went down stairs to get breakfast, having
previously desired her to be dressed by the time he returned.
She was unable to do so, and when he came back he asked
her why she had not obeyed him. She told him she was
stiff f rum the effects of his beating, and asked him to let her
rest. He replied, " Rest, you ; you rest, you lunatic.
He then took up the strap, and looking at hex skin, said,
" How I have marked you—l merely touched you." On the
19th July they went to Paris, and took up their residence
at the Hotel de la l'aix, Soon after their arrival he com-
menced his ill-treatment, and his conduct was most savage.
He took her up and threw her to the other end of the
room. Ho then placed her on the sofa and endeavoured
to stifle her screams by placing his hand on her mouth.
She 'went into hysterics, which she could not prevent. He
went behind her, opened one of her eyes, and poured half a
bottle of eau de Cologne over her. He then left the room,
and was absent some hours. On the 21st of July they left
Paris for Havre, and put up at Wheeler's Hotel at the
latter. The witness then proceeded to detail a series of acts
of ill-treatment, both in language and personal violence,
until the period of their final separation.
The evidence of the petitioner was corroborated, and a
diary kept by the respondent was read, which left no doubt
as to his misconduct. The adultery charged took place
with a female with whom the respondent had formed an
acquantance on his voyage to Canada, and with whom he
cohabited on his return to this country.

Sir C. Cresswell pronounced the decree lasi, and coin•
merited in most appropriate terms, on the misconduct of the
respondent, who, in the diary produced, had recorded his
own infamy. The learned judge, in compliance with the
prayer of the petitioner, directed that she should retain the
custody of the child, and that the Canadian Bonds which
were not disposed of should be settled on her during her
lifetime, and should then go to the child.