The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-11 00:00:00

EASTWOOD V. EAST WOOD AND SMITH•

This was the petition of the husband, a medical man, and
manager of a lunatic asylum in Gloucester, praying for a
divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-
respondent, a medical student. There was no defence.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married in 1866, and
cohabited at Sheffield and elsewhere. The respondent had
been a medical pupil at the petitioner's house, and availed
himself of that position to seduce the respondent, with
whom he afterwards lived openly at Jersey.
Decree nisi, with costs.
LADMORE V. LADMORE.

This was the petition of the wife, praying for a restitu-
tion of conjugal rights, to which the respondent replied,
denying that he had separated from conjugal cohabition
with his wife, and praying for judicial separation. He was
not, however, represented by counsel.
Mr. Searle was counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner was the daughter of a retired Custom-
house officer, and the respondent was in the employment of
his father, a shipwright and boat-builder in Liverpool. The
evidence of the petitioner was to the effect that the respon-
dent threatened her life with a poker, and turned her out of
his place, She had endeavoured to induce him to resume
cohabitation, but without success.

The learned Judge made a decree of monition to the re•
spondent to take his wife back.

STONE V. STONE AND APPLETON.

Sir C. CresswEil, in the course of the day, said that Mr.
Justice Wightman r n Mr. Baron Channal were of opinion
there should be a rule 111.8 i in this case, and had fixed the
Sth of July to have it argued,

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF A. C. D. HANCKSLEY.

The bankrupt, Archibald Douglas Campbell Hawksley,
had been in the Life Guards, had been a farmer, a breeder
of race• horses, an extensive better on the turf, and now ap-
plied fur his order of discharge, owing about £14,000, and
with assets about £7,000 in the gross, which, after expenses,
will be adequate to a dividend of 7s. in the pound.
It appeared from the evidence that for tome years he re-
sided at a place called the Dell, near Staines, the residence
of one Mrs. Horace Pitt—he had there built greenhouses,
hothouses, &c., and had borrowed from the lady £22,000 ;
that in December, 1862, falling in for £20,000 Consols,
which his father left, he paid off the balance of debt due to
Mrs Pitt, which balance was then £17,000; and that soon
after he came to this court, but, as has been stated, with a
very considerable estate. His balance-sheet shows the
bankrupt's dealing in horses and betting at races to have
been of a very extensive character, but on his betting, as
well as on horse breeding, farming, and training, he was a
very considerable loser. By betting, in little more than a
year, he lost £1,400, but had on a previous year made
£1,500; he was, however, unable to keep his chin above
water, and voluntarily came to this court, having, with the
exception stated, given up all his property, and making the
fullest and frankest disclosures in his power. He gave his
evidence with the most naive simplicity, and seemed as
ignorant of financial matters as one of his own jockeys.
Mr. Sargood, on behalf of the assignees, urged that an
immediate order of discharge ought not to be granted. The
bankrupt's prospects had been blasted, and all his hopes
now were in a very barren and miserable speculation, " the
turf." A few years ago he was entitled to £20,000 Consols,
and had the enjoyment of the interest, £5OO or £6OO a-year.
That f5OO or £6OO a-year he spent in a few years,the whole
of the principal, nearly £20,000, and had run into debt
£12,000 or £14,000 as well. The creditors were indeed
sufferers, but the great sufferer was the bankrupt himself.
The duty of the Court would be to regard the interests of
public justice in dealing with a case like this. The assets
would amount to about £7,000, for the affairs of the bank
rupt were brought to a crisis in December last. In that
month £20,000 Consols fell within the grasp of the bank..
rupt. He had been for some years occupying a charming
retreat at a place called the Dell with a lady of means, but
into the origin of whose means they were not permitted to
inquire. The ornameetal walks and grounds, &c,, were
made or improved by Mr. Hawksley, by money obtained
from the lady whilst he was residing with her. Those ad-
vances by the lady to the bankrupt were used for their joint
enjoyment, but were from time to time secured in various
ways. Ultimately the sums thus advanced by Mrs. Horace
Pitt to the bankrupt were £5,000 and £17,000, all of which
£22,000 had been paid over to the trustees of the lady. The
whole of the £22,000 had, so far as the bankrupt was con-
cerned, vanished, He did not see that the bankrupt lies
open to the charge of contracting debts without reasonable
expectation of being able to pay them, but the two points
relied on were unjustifiable extravagance in his personal
living and rash and hazardous speculation by betting on the
turf, If betting was not rash and hazardous then he knew
not what was. Mr. Hawksley had not only lived upon his
interest but at the same time had anticipated his capital and
ran into debt £l4,ooo,the whole dividend upon which would
ntiotto thbe more than 7s, in the pound. They could not dive
secrets of domestic life, but it was plain that on a
property which he was jointly enjoying with Mrs. Horace
Pitt, he had spent in a few years £1,400 on hot-houses,
green. houses, and forcing-houses alone. Unjustifiable ex-
travagance was mainly the cause of a pOsitiou discreditable

to himself, and which had entailed great sacrifices on the
creditors.

Mr. Ernest Reed called the attention of the Commissioner
to the bankrupt's conduct towards Messrs. Godfrey, nursery.
men. He had incurred a debt to them of £1,400, and being
unable to pay a balance of £5OO, they gave him ample time
and further credit for two years, believing him to be a man
of honour as well as of means. Instead of paying Messrs.
Godfrey and others, he handed over the bulk of his pro-
perty to Mrs. Pitt, whohadalready got the whole advantage
of the outlay on the property. He had broken his word to
Messrs. Godfrey and Co. ; he said he had promised to pay
Mrs. Pitt, but he had promised to pay Messrs. Godfrey too,
and they ought to have shared equally and fairly.
Mr. Lewis drew attention to the unusually large amount
of assets, which would, but for the expenses, pay a dividend
of nearly 10s. in the pound. Messrs. Godfrey and Co. had
already been paid the bulk of their debt, and the other, and
the principal debtor, was a bill discounter (a creditor for
£5,000), who knew very well with whom he was dealing.
There was no stain on the bankrupt's honour, and nothing
to disentitle him to his order of discharge.
The Commissioner was of opinion that Messrs. Godfrey
had made out no case, Lut c-insidering the bankrupt had
been guilty of rash and hazardous speculation, and of un-
justifiable extravagance, the order of discharge must be sus-
pended for 12 months from this date.
Protection was granted.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, June 10.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
TRIAL OP THE REV, MR. WYCHERLEY.

The trial of the Rev. Thos. Wycherley was to-day pro-
ceeded with, the same counsel appearing as on Tuesday.
Mary Newton was recalled, and again cross-examined,
when she stated that she had not known the prisoner more
than three days when he asked her for a loan of £ls. She
did not know she was to be a witness in this case until she
was informed by the gaoler who had her in charge. After
the first examination at the police-court, she had' told her
lawyer that she had taken a false oath ; but she had further
said that when she was next examined, she would speak
the truth, as she was very sorry for what she had done.
Mary Ann Smith, a former servant of the prosecutrix ;
Mr. Frost, of New Bridge-street, with whom the prisoner
lodged ; and the police-constables by whom he was appre-
hended, were examined, but the facts they deposed to have
already appeared.
This being the whole of the case for the prosecution,
Mr. Oppenheim rose to reply on behalf of the prisoner.
Happily, he said, charges of this kind against persons hold-
ing the prisoner's position were very rare, but when such
charges did occur, people were apt to be led away by their
feelings, and to look upon the prisoners with some degree
of acrimony. He would therefore ask the jury to dismiss
any feeling which might have entered their minds through
reading the public press, and to be wholly guided by their
own judgment and the evidence which had been laid before
them. The learned counsel then proceeded to analyse the
evidence adduced against the prisoner, and contended that
the evidence was insufficient to show that he incited the
girl Newton to steal the notes and then received them
knowing them to have been stolen, The principal witness,
he said, was a convicted felon and an unblushing perjurer,
whose evidence was totally unworthy of credit. He also
urged that, by the law of England, an accomplice's evidence
could not be taken unless very strongly corroborated by
independent witnesses, and on no one point was Newton's
story borne out. After pointing out the contradictory
statements made by her, the learned counsel, in conclu-
sion, said the prisoner was a ruined man, whether they
convicted hint or not, and he would leave the case in the
hands of the jury, after calling a witness or two, feeling
sure that they would do their duty, however powerful
might be their feelings.
On behalf of the defence the following witnesses were

James Cook deposed that he was gaoler at the Lambeth
Police-court. He remembered the day on which both
Newton and the prisoner had been locked up in the cells,
and he was quite sure that no conversation had taken place
between them, as Wycherley was locked in a cell in a diffe-
rent passage.
On being cross-examined, this witness admitted that it

might be possible for two persons to hear each other if
they called out very loud; but unless the passage door was
shut he must have heard.

Mr. Palmer Neil, solicitor, who appeared to defend the
prisoner at Lambeth Police-court, when he was first exa-
mined, denied thca, he had ever told Newton she had better
not say anything against Mr. Wycherley.

Mary Anne Newton was recalled, but persisted in her
former statement with regard to the conversation which she
alleged had taken place between her and the prisoner and
her and the last witness,

Mr. Orridge then replied upon the whole case, comparing
the prisoner to Stiggins in " Pickwick," and said that, like
him, he went sneaking about the house of the prosecutria
when no one was near to see him. He would ask the jury
to judge this man by his conduct and the character of his
acquaintances.
His Lordship then proceeded to sum up, commenting
upon the various points as he went along, and telling the
jury that there was quite sufficient evidence, without the
story of the principal witness, to have put the prisoner upon

his trial, leaving out the question of the felony. Altogether

his lordship stigmatised the conduct of the prisoner as most
disgraceful for any man who pretended to have one spark of
religious feeling whatever.
The jury then retired, and after a quarter of an hour's
absence from court, returned with a verdict of guilty against
the prisoner.
The prisoner heard this verdict with an almost imper-
ceptible quiver of the lip.
Mr. Orridge then stated that he had received a number
of letters from different parts of the country, from which
he learned that the prisoner had been turned out of
several chapels in which he had at times officiated, for bad
conduct.
The prisoner was then asked if he had anything to say
why sentence should not be passed upon him ?
Prisoner : I beg to protest against the statement which
has just been made use of by Mr. Orridge, as to my being
turned out of any chapel or place of worship whatever, and
I sclemnly swear before God that I am innocent of this
charge. I deny that I ever had more than one £5 note, or
that I had anything at all to do with the robbery, and as
I aat innocent so I hope the sentence passed upon me will
be the heavier.
His lordship then addressed the prisoner, and told him
that he fully concurred with the verdict. He had had a
fair, lengthy, and impartial hearing, and the jury had
unanimously decided that he was guilty. The crime he
had committed was so much the worse from the fact
that he was a man who under the garb of sanctity had
wormed himself into Mrs, Levy's household and then
basely robbed her, with the help of the servant. His defence
had been a very able one, so that he had nothing to com-
plain of, but he (the learned judge) should not sentence
him any more heavily for the wish he had expressed. The
sentence of the court was that he be kept in penal servi-
tude for six years.
After the sentence was passed there was considerable
applause in court, bat it was speedily suppressed.