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

way responsible for the irregularities. He was never mess
president after the mess committee eves formed, and if the
mess president and committee had discharged their duty
there would have been ample funds for the requirements
of the mesa. An inquiry was made into the circumstances
by a committee of inquiry, the tendency of whose report
was to screen the mess presidents and the committee and to
inculpate the plaintiff; and a lengthened correspondence
ensue d 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 explain 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 impossible 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
p-rheps 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 him, could have come to the conclusion that
he had, unless he had yielded to influences which he cer-
tainly ought n)t to have done. On the 18th March, 1858,
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 chat 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." Leut.-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, air. 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.-
uolonel 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
bead. 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 pert 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 eonduct
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 him,
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 bad investigated
them and had found them to be just. The learned counsel
ei as 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 ground 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 he was con-
e: rned, he should offer no objection to the adjournment.
The further hearing of the case was then adjourned till
this (Friday) morning.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(Sittings in Error.)
COX 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 ethers, who have been stied in the court,
and against whom judgment had been obtained, 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 £BO 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

CAS}.

Dr. Deane, Q C., and Mr. Field were for the petitioner,

In this case the petitioner, Sarah Caroline Massey, preyed
for a divorce from her husband, a captain in the 30th Regi
meat 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 photograph 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 alio 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 she gave
her husband. On her husband's return fro.n 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 Newhaven 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, he 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
in the face, and during the whole time used the most abusive