The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-10 00:00:00

THE GREAT FIGHT FOR 12,000.

tlmirbit

AMERICA.

(THIS DAY.)

(REUTER'S TELEGRAM.)

(FROM OUR SPECIAL REPORTER.)

This contest, which has excited immense interest,
was brought to an issue to-day, near Wadhurst,
Kent.

The rival combatants entered the ring—Heenan
esquired by Sayers and M'Donald, and King by
Jem Mace and Jerry Noon.

The fight lasted only 35 minutes, during
which time 25 rounds were fought. The
same disposition to " hug" which characterised
Heenan's fight with Sayers was again dis-
played by him in this contest, but King escaped
his uninviting embraces wonderfully well.
The first blood was awarded to King. Towards
the commencement of the fight Heenan seemed to be
confident of winning, but as the contest proceeded
fortune seemed certain to award the golden prize
to King. The last thiee or four rounds told
immensely upon Heenan, and King, amidst the
greatest excitement, was, after the 25th round, de-
clared the victor.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)
EIGHTEENTH DAY.

Heenan escaped personal disfigurement, with the
exception of a cut over one of his eyes. The fight
seemed to havo been lost through sheer exhaus-
tion on his part.

Very little money was laid out in betting after
the men entered the ring.

Heenan, of course, was greatly depressed at
the result of the contest.

The fight was gone through without interruption,
and as orderly as could be expected.
(Fuller details in our next edition.)

THE CRAWLEY COURT-MARTIAL.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)
NINETEENTH DAY.
ALDERSHOT, Thursday.
The proceedings were adjourned this morning till the
17th, to allow time for the prisoner to make his defence.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day).

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Special Jury.)
RING} V. KING AND DENT.

The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Swabey for the petitioner,
Dr. Spinks for the respondent, and Mr. Coleridge, Q.C.,
for the co• respondent.
The petitioner was Mr. Charles John King, the respon •
dent Fanny Rosina King, and the co-respondent William
Dent. The petitioner was the son of the Rev.W. M. King,
of Long Critchill, near Salisbury. and a merchant at pre-
sent in business at Shanghai, China. He was married 0
the respondent, then Miss Sullivan, in China in 1856, and be-
fore the ceremony Mr. Dent was acquainted with the family
of the Sullivans,
.and had inspired an affection in the mind
of the respondent, which afterwards led to her alleged mis-
conduct. Mr. King became acquainted with Mr. Dent when
he and his,wife were passing through Macao in 1857. A child
was born in China which did not survive, and Mr. and
Mrs. King returned to England in 1858 and resided at his
father's for some time. It appeared that Mrs. King re-
newed her intimacy with Mr. Dent, with whom she had
interviews, which very much offended Mr. King. In
March, 1860, Mr. King returned to China, where
he embarked in a fresh business with another
merchant, at Shanghai, where he had since resided, and it
was arranged that Mrs. King should join him in the fol-
lowing October. Mrs. King declined to go to China on
the ground of ill-health, and the inconvenience of carry-
ing a young child on a long voyage. Some letters
were then read from Mrs. King, one of which was
addressed to her mother-in• law, in 1859, in which she
strongly deprecated any interference in her private affairs,
and said in reference to Mr. Dent that she would not dis-
continue the acquaintance of early friends at the
wish of her husband's family, who, she admitted,
with the exception of the interference com-
plained of, had treated her with kindness and affec-
tion. Two other letters were addressed to her husband, in
which she said she could not say that she loved him with
ail the affection of her heart. Matters went on till the
family objected to the frequent visits of Mr. Dent until
1862, when the respondent left her residence in London and
went to Cornwall, since which time the family of King
had never seen her.

The mother of the petitioner was examined at great
length. She proved the marriaze, and also mentioned the
beginning of the visits of Mr. Dent. The respondent told
her that, although she had married her son, her strong
attachment was for Mr. Dent, whom she had
known ever since she was thirteen years of age.
Witness remonstrated with her very kindly, and advised
her to join her husband in China ; but she invariably ob •
jected, either on the ground of ill-health or the unsettled
weather that would be encountered during the voyage.
Mr. Dent continued his visits, notwithstanding the ob-
jection of the family, and eventually Mrs. King left her
home in 1861, and went to live in Cornwall, since which
time she had never seen her.
Mrs. Elizabeth Malcolm was the next witness called.
On entering the box, the witness refused to take the oath.
The Judge asked on what ground she objected.

Mrs. Malcolm said she was one of the Scotch Covenanters,
and from conscientious motives she refused to take an oath.
The Judge said the act provided for such an occurrence
as the present. Witnesses objecting to the oath were to
make a declaration, therefore the witness could avail her-
self of that provision.
The witness then, holding up her hand, made a declara-
tion according to the religion of her country to speak the
truth. She then, in answer to questions put to her by
the learned counsel, said she lived with Mrs. King
during the absence of her husband in China at several
places in the metropolis, at all of which Mr. Dent was a
frequent visitor, and at last Mrs. King gave orders that no
person was to be admitted into the house when Mr. Dent
was there.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

•►--

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

EMBEZZLEMENT—COMMITTAL —Dennis Macarthy, a
a young man, was charged before Mr, linos with embez-
zling money received on account of his employers, Messrs.
Grindlay and Co., furniture dealers, Howland-street,
Fit zroy-square.

Mr. Bent, of the Abbey Tavern, St. John's-wood, proved
paying the prisoner L 6 on account of Messrs. Grindley and
Co. about the end of October, and taking the prisoner's re-
ceipt for the same.
Mr. Win. Grindley said the prisoner had never accounted
for the sum in question, which it was his duty to do.

Prisoner said that he was only.casually employed by the
firm. He would acknowledge he received the money from
Mr. Bent, but was robbed of it.
Mr. Grindley said the prisoner never came near the place
again.
Prisoner said he was made drunk and robbed, and he did
not think he should be believed if he went and said he was
robbed of the money._

Rogers, 87 E, said on going to the prisoner's lodgings
that morning he found him concealed under the bed.
Inspector Garforth said ho believed the prisoner had
been convicted.
Mr. Knox committed the prisoner for trial.

rHE SUN, LONDON, THWISDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 10, 1863,

Reported Capture of Burnside's Army,

TEE CRAWLEY COURT-MARTIAL.

LIVERPOOL, WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON.

It is rumoured that General Longstreet had cap-
tured Burnside's army at Knoxville, but nothing
authentic to this effect has been received. The
report is probably suggested by the advance in the
price of gold on the 28th ult.

[The following appeared in the Third Edition of " The
Sun" of last evening] :
ALDERSHOT, Wednesday Morning.
The Court re-assembled shortly after 10 o'clock.
Colonel Crawley proceeded with the letter of Sir High
Rose, alluded to at the close of the proceedings yesterday,
and which went into detail at great length with respect to
the former character of Sergeant Major Lilloy, combating
the assertions of Mr. Fortescue and Mr. Coningham, made
in the House of Commons, and complaining that almost
every statement which had been made in the public new-
papers with regard to the treatment of Sergeant Major
Lilley was incorrect in part, and tended most unjustly
to prejudice the public mind both againt t Sir Wm. Mans-
field and the commander of the regiment. The letter also
contradicted the statements made in the House of Commons
with respect to the nature of the place of confinement, but
inasmuch as fall evidence has been produced before the
Court, the public have a better means of judging of the
place of confinement of the three sergeant majors than
Mr. Fortescue at the time he made his statements. The
document also went at considerable length into
details which affect the general administration of the army
in India, and quoted the opinion of medical men of high
authority with reference to the nature of the climate and its
general effect upon our troops. The reading of the docu-
ment occupied the time of the Court a long time. On its
conclusion,

The Prosecutor remarked that this was a letter wiltten
by Sir H. Rose for the information of the Commander-in-
Chief, and embracing a great variety of subjects, among
them the character of Sergeant Major Lilley. Now, the
opinion of SirH. Rose on that matter, to be admitted, could
only be founded on evidence, and apart from that evidence
the opinion was mere hearsay, and as such could not be re-
ceived as evidence in the present case. As, however, it
would now be futile to treat the letter as not having been
produced, it was suggested by the prosecution that it should
be appended to the proceedings, and used by either party as
they might think necessary. He further suggested that to
avoid similar difficulties in future all documents intended to
be produced should be first submitted to the Court, and that
the prosecutor might have the opportunity of stating his
reasons against their admissibility as evidence, and taking
the decision of the Court upon the point before they were
read.

Col. Crawley—Mr. President, I have no objection to the
prosecution treating the despatch of his Excellency the
Commander-in-Chief in India according to what the prose-
cution is pleased to term its seeming worth. As to the
course proposed by the prosecution, it is entirely at variance
with the example they themselves have set, and it is in
direct opposition to the first principles of the administra-
tion of justice. In the case of their own evidence, as for
instance in that of the letter of Sir Win. Mansfield, which
was put in as against me, no private investigation took
place. I sought no cover of secresy, but the prosecution
has regarded no seal of confidence. They without hesi •
tation put in confidential documents without any objec-
tion being raised on my part. Not only that, but they
put in proportions of the blue book which were read in
open court, and passages from which were afterwards
pronounced to be inadmissible. Why then is it that as
soon as the defence is begun they seek to change the
course which has hitherto been pursued ? Why is it that
they seek to turn an open court of justice into a court of
secret inquiry ? I ask the Court, then, to permit me to
pursue the course which the prosecution has pursued,
with this exception, that I ask to put no confidential docu-
ment in evidence. As to the particular letter which has been
just read, I am advised that there can be no question about it.
If the letter is relevant on any point it is admissible. I could
mention twenty reasons why the letter is relevant, but I
will mention only one. The surgeons of the 6th Dragoons
have stated that it was not their duty to interfere with dis-
cipline by reporting any anticipated injury to the late Ser-
geant Major Lilley; but the letter of the Commander in-
Chief, who is the proper person to state what, according
to his instructions, was their duty, bears tupon that point.
I beg also to remind the Court that a list of these docu-
ments was furnished to me by Sir William Mansfield, for
the express purpose of being used on the trial ; and I have
been permitted only last week to copy them, in order to pro-
duce them in court. I have only to add most respectfully
that, under no circumstances, can I consent to the private
investigation which the prosecution proposes.
The Prosecutor—lf the Court will permit me, I think I
can make this matter clear, though itrdoing so it will look
as if we were going back to the very elements of jurispru-
dence. A tribunal consists of a judge or judges, and judge
and jury. Courts martial are composed of judges alone,
and are more like the courts pf equity. In such courts the
practice is, that if a document is tendered in evidence the
judges first see it, and determine whether it is admissible in
evidence. If they think it is not it is rejected; but if it is,
it is attached to the proceedings, and forms an element in
the judgment. The same course prevails in courts martial ;
therefore the prosecution feels no doubt in the course they
have adopted. The letter of Sir William Mansfield con-
tained the order for the arrest of Sergeant Major Lilley, and
therefore they were bound to produce it,
Colonel Crawley—l wieh to remind the Court that when
the prosecutor put in from the bluebook Sir Hugh Rose's
remarks, they made him in fact their witness, and the ob-
jection they now take to his letter would apply equally to
his remarks. I did not object to them taking the course
they did, but I must remind the Court that if the observa-
tions of Sir Hugh Rose are good for one purpose they are
good for another.
The Court retired to consider the point.

On the return of the court,
Colonel Pipon said—As the court was closing the follow-
ing was put in by the prosecutor :—The blue book was read
out at the express instance of the prisoner, and against the
urgent request of the prosecutor. The court adheres to the
decision to decline receiving any communication which is
not to be read and appended to the proceedings. With re-
ference to the letter last read, the court has to observe, that
the prosecutor stated that the document to which he now
objects was one of those given to the prisoner for the ex-
press purpose of using them in his defence ; and he alto
stated that he had no objection to the copies being read to
the court as evidence. It therefore rests with the prosecu-
tor to show what part can be legally objected to.
Colonel Crawley suggested for the consideration of the
prosecution whether, with respect to the documents he was
about to read, the same course should not be taken as was
taken in the blue book, namely, that he should read the
documents, and that the prosecutor should state his objec-
tions collectively; otherwise the proceedings might be in-
definitely prolonged.
Sir A. Hanford said the matter was in the hands of the
Court.
Colonel Crawley then proceeded to read the letter from
Colonel Hatch to the Commander in Chief in India, stating
his opinion that Sergeant Major Lilley might have been
convicted by court martial not only for disobedience to the
orders of the commanding officer, in making public the pro-
ceeding of the court martial then sitting, but for uttering
violent and beastly language against hie commanding
officer; and that, although the confessions of the sergeant
majors could not be used as evidence against themselves,
they not having been previously cautioned, yet there was,
in his (Colonel Hatch's) opinion, evidence against Sergeant
Major Lilley of the encouragement of disobedience to
orders. The letter was signed "G. A. Hatch, Deputy
Judge Advocate General."
A second letter was then read from Col. Hatch, dated
July 10, 1863, in which he states that the melt of the three
sergeant majors was perfectly regular on the part of Col.
Crawley, he having stated that they had been arrested on a
charge of conspiracy, and that the major general had sane•
tioned their close arrest, and that any responsibility arising
from the continuance of that arrest was shifted from Col.
Crawley to the superior officer.
The next letter read by Colonel Crawley was one dated
'
16th of April last, from the headquarters at Simla and ad-
dressed by Sir Hugh Rose to the Adjutant General at the
Horse Guard, in which the Commander in Chief stated that
the evidence submitted to him fully established the
sfear
that a cabal existed against Colonel Crawley, and that
geant Major Lilley was a party to it.
The next letter was from Sir Hugh Rose to the Adjutant
kno ledging the
1861, acknowledging
svitating, with
General, dated Lucknow, Jan. 20,
memorandum of the Duke of Cambridge,
regard to that part of it which had refearansetnecrestmoalheiss,
that(Sir
H. Rose's) remarks on the trial of paymaster
him an
Surgeon Turnbull had forwarded to
fully bore out the
addendum—
the one referred to in evidence--Which
habits being the
evidence of the sergeant major's drinking
:I:eopoerntcloofseiNduf
iroershGeinnfeorra-1
cause of his death. The letter
mation—namely, the half-yearly
Farrell on the state of the 6th loniakilling Dragoons, and
he (Sit H. Rose) ventured to entertain the hope that when
Cotthe opinion he had expressed
emander in Chief had perused
his Royal Highness the
that evidencetabehiNavo(uslidr rotio.dßifoyaes)
conduct.
.nArenfoetrhence
er letter from Sir H. Rose to the Adjutant Gene-
ral, dated 6th of /day, 1863, was read, which stated that et
the time he wrote his remarks ho could not be aware, nor
were the regimental doctors aware, that Mrs. Lilley had
consumed a large portion of the spirits sent to their bun.
gale,. The real interpretation of his remarks was that the
sergeant major was in the habit daily of drinking spirits,
which in connection with the heat of the climate increased
his predisposition to disease. He also stated that he had
never gone to the extent of actually attributing his death to
drunkenness.

The next letter was from Dr. Beatson to the Adjuteut
General at Simla, datsd July 20, 18Q3, It stat 94 tit the