The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-18 00:00:00

AMERICAN AID 70 THE LANCASHIRE

OPERA TIMES.

(From the New York Gotnmereial Advertiser, .Dee. 5.)
The meeting held in the Chamber of Commerce-
rooms yesterday began the good work of aiding the Lanca-
shire sufferers with subscriptions amounting in the aggre-

gate to 40,000 dols. This munificent offering, made4by only
about a score of our more prominent citizens, shows that
the city of New York alone will probably raise a quarter of
a million of dollars, and it may be half a million. What is
still better, we hear of similar movements in other parts of
the country. The spirit manifested at the meeting yester-
day, in fact, shows that the loyal states stand ready to con-
tribute
1,000,000 dols. in money or provisions.

It was not in money or food alone that the generosity of
our men of wealth displayed itself. One firm placed at the
service of the eoramittee the use of a new ship of 1,800
tons, without any charge. Another was ready to take
charge of the stores sent to England and distribute them
gratuitously. While this princely libei'ality is being
exercised by individuals, we might remind our great railway
corporations, which have reaped abundant profits the past
year from the conveyance of provisions to the seaboard
cities, that they can render most valuable aid by forwarding
freely, or at reduced rates, the donations in breadstuffs
which the people of the West will doubtless contribute out
of their very great abundance. And it occurs to us that
those lines especially, whose stocks or bonds are largely
held abroad, or may be hereafter, would hardly be losers by
liberally assisting in some such manner as we have indi-
cated. The western people have not large sums of
money to bestow in charity; but they have abundant sup-
plies of the staff of life, which they will readily part with
to feed the hungry, who are made such not by their own
fault or neglect, but by a state of things in this country for
which they are not responsible.
Anyhow, let the good work, so favourably inaugurated

yesterday, go on from North to South, and from the At.
lantic to the Pacific, city vieing with city, and state with
state. It is enough that hundreds of thousands of those
who have a common nature, origin, language, religion, ci-
vilisation, and common sympathies with ourselves, are
hungry, cold, naked, and sick. We have the means of re-

lief, let them not be withheld or delayed. " He gives twice
who gives quickly."

(From the Aew York limes.)

The proceedings of the meeting, and particularly towards
its close, were grand and thrilling. We cannot, perhaps,
describe the thing better than by saying that it was cha-
racteristically American ; or, closer still, that it was pecu-
iiarly New York-like ; and especially after the style thot
characterises all the action of the enterprising and wealthy
mercantile ,classes of the commercial metropolis of the
ceuntry. After the speeches and resolutions, which were
all both humane and businesslike, a brief letter was read
from the eminent shipping-house of Messrs. N. L. and
George Griswold, which contained the following sublime
sentence :—" As an earnest of our desire to further this
cause, in behalf of ourselves and others, owners of a new
ship now in Boston, we tender her entire capacity, 1,800
tons, for the conveyance of the supplies, and our services,
if needed, to forward them free of charge in. 1.-.;oht." The
meeting at once tendered thanks for the generous offer, and
mr, Dodge stated that it was virtually a contribution of
20,000 dole. to the fund. Another letter was read from a
gentleman who did not wish his name mentioned, which
closed no less eloquently than the first one :—" Thank
God I" said the writer, " we have bread add to spare
and they will not say, I was an hungered,
and ye gave me no meat.' Will you add to
your list, 1,000 barrels of flour, from one whose
loaf will taste the sweeter for sharing it with a fa-
mished brother, and brand it—Union." After the reading
of this letter, the same munificent anonymous donor who
had sent it handed in, as an additional contribution, seven
1,000 dol. United States Treasury notes, but he still desired
his name should not be mentioned. Mr. Dodge desired that
the firm of which he is a member might be put down for
6,000 dole. ; Mr. Johnson, the secretary of the meeting,
offered 2,500; Captain Marshall, 2,000; Babcock Brothers,
2,000; six other individuals or firms gave 1,000 dole. each ;
and several sums as large were offered from other donors.
(From the Aew York tribune, Dec. 6.)

Lancashire. cashiro. John
Plans to aid the suffering operatives of an
C oYesterday
r o ot mh es
cho eml dm iat t eea
privateppo i atnsteesdsih o ttoe
perfect Chamber
th
their
i r
Jsataytehs:tsandwsrintbtemnitatend aitddinretshsistonninthmeitpteeoepfloer orfevthiseinUn. H
United
appeals to the benevolent of all classes to come forwad Promptly and contribute generously for the relief of the un-
fortunate and starving poor in the cotton manufacturing
districts of England.
Moro than 40,000 dols. in cash has been subscribed al-
ready, and the amount will no doubt be largely increased at
once, so that the pressing wants of the poor sufferers may
be immediately
10 relieved,
large sum
the One of our merchants has given
" the blessing of those 000 dols., and many others can claim
who were ready to perish" for their
prompt and liberal donations.
The good ship that sails with
bread for the hungry at this crisis in our history is the best
guarantee that can be given of the Christian. charity of our
tadel of
people-
It can storm the ci
achieve a victory more glorious than a grateful
fleet o hearts and
f iron-clads

Can Win

LAW IN7ELLIGENCE, Dec. 17.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
RCENIG V. RITCHIE.-LIBEL AND SLANDER.

The further hearing of this case was resumed .

Mr. W. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Watkin
and Mr. Edward Besley were counsel for the plain-
tiff; Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr.
Reid were counsel for the defendants.
Mr. M. Chambers continued his address to the
jury on behalf of the plaintiff. He immediately
revieved and criticised the evidence on both sides,
and also the statements and counter-statements
contained in the pamphlets, observing in the course
of his remarks that probably he was hasty in what
he said against the directors about the days of grace.
He also added that if he was hasty and warm in his
remarks a few days since to Mr. Macaulay, he
apologised for it. The learned counsel, in con-
clusion, called upon the jury to give the plaintiff
heavy damages for the libel which the defendants
admitted they had published by sending copies to
each of their 260 agents.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said he
congratulated the jury on having arrived at the
close of a case which was the most wearisome he had
ever known, with the special exception of the ad-
mirable forensic argument and disputation of Sir
F. Kelly the previous day, which caused the
hours to pass quickly instead of heavily. He
thought it lamentable that the time of twelve
commercial men should have been occupied four
weary days with this case, and in the meantime the
arrears of the Queen's Bench stayed, whilst trying
over again matters finally settled long ago. The
questiona raised upon this policy were proper sub-
jects for discussion in a court of law, and after they
had been discussed in the Court of Exchequer and
in Chancery he could not help thinking that all
parties might have been very well contented. But
it pleased Mr. Fowler, with the co-operation and
assistance of Mr. Koenig, to go into print and ap-
peal to the policyholders. That provoked a reply
from the directors, and he could not help owning
that he had not much sympathy for a man who,
having appealed to the public, on being answered,
changed the tribunal he had chosen and had re-
course to a court of law. It was very like the case
of one man knocking down another, and as soon as
he rose to renew the combat call for the police. As
he had said, he had not much sympathy with a man
coming into a court of law, but, as the case was
there, they must deal with it as they found it. The
action resolved itself into two heads—the libel al-
leged to be contained in the pamphlet, and the slan-
der spoken by Mr. Ritchie. The facts with regard
to the libel were not in dispute, and it was for them
to say, when they were stripped of the highly-
coloured and exaggerated complexion given to them
by counsel, whether they did or did not make out
the truth of the passages in the pamphlet complained
of. They could not but lament the series of mis-
takes and misunderstandings that existed, but for
which the civil rights of the parties would have been
determined without the imputation of suspicion and
distrust that seemed to have presented themselves,
and were prominently put forward in the course of '
the proceedings. It was clear that the directors were
not liable on the policy, and Mr. Fowler's pamphlet
made serious imputations on them,which were calcu-
lated, if unnoticed and unanswered, to do them great
and serious injury, On the slander there was a
conflict of evidence. Without referring to what
had been said about Mr. Jones, there could be no
doubt it was owing to him, as mischief-maker, they
had been engaged four mortal days in inquiring
again into these squables and disputes. It was for
them to say, in the face of positive contradiction by
two respectable witnesses, if they could put faith in
the evidence of the mischief-maker. A man who
puts himself forward to stir up strife between par-
ties might not be the most reliable witness. He
left it to the jury to say whether, under the circum-
stances, there was express malice on the part of the
directors in putting forth their pamphlet, and in
Mr. Ritchie in the statement made by him to Mr.
Jones, or whether both were done bona fide.
Whilst the jury were out considering the ques-
tions left to them by his lordship, Mr. M. Chambers
tendered a bill of exceptions, and his lordship had
them back and explained the excepted points.
The Jury said they had made up their minds.
The Lord Chief Justice asked them if they be-
lieved Mr. Ritchie spoke the words attributed to
him by Mr. Jones.
The Foreman—No, we do not.
The Lord Chief Justice—Are you of opinion that
the directors have made out a justification of the
libel complained of
The Foreman—Yes, we are.
The Lord Chief Justice—Then that is a verdict
for the defendant.

The Foreman said they were of opinion no impu-
tations rested on Mr. Koenig.

FOWIEES AND ANOTHER V. THE MANCHESTER AND
LONDON LIFE, &C., ASSOCIATION.
This was an action brought by the executrix
and executor of the deceased, Henry Fowkes,
commercial traveller and agent at Birmingham,
to recover the sum of £l,OOO on a policy of in-
surance. The defendants pleaded fraud, relative
to the withholding of certain information required
by the proposal paper.
Mr. ituddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were
counsel for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr.
Mellish, Q.C., and Mr. T. Jones were counsel for
the defendant.

The proof rested with the defendants, and their
case was heard first. The fraud relied on was, that
the deceased withheld from the company the fact
he had suffered from gout, and further that he had
stated he had been accepted in another office at the
ordinary rates, whereas he had been declined.

The Jury ultimately retired, and upon returning
into court, answered certain questions put to them
by the learned judge, which amounted to a verdict
for the plaintiffs.

A verdict was then entered for the plaintiffs—
Damages, £1,062.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
SECOND COURT.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—(Befoie Mr.
Justice Willes and a Special Jury.)

KNIGHT AND ANOTHER T. THE OCEAN MARINE IN-

SIIRANCE COMPANY.

The plaintiffs in this case, Messrs. Knight and
Coleman, had been engaged as brokers in disposing
of the shares in the defendants' company whilst it
was being established, and their case was that their
commission upon the 40,000 shares would amount to
£5,000, but that instead of their being paid in this
way it was arranged that they should receive £750
and 50() shares in the company, and that in addition
they should be appointed permanent brokers to the
company. They now claimed damages upon the
ground that they had been dismissed from their po-
sition. There was a plea upon the record alleging
that the plaintiffs had not performed their duty
efficiently, but early in the day that plea was with-
drawn, and it was admitted that there was no impu-
tation upon the plaintiffs.

Mr. riovill and Mr. M. Williams appeared for the
plaintiffs ; and Mr. M. Smith, Mr. Mellish, and Mr.
Garth were for the defendants.

It was stated that the formation of the company
was commenced in 1858, and that the plaintiffs
were employed for many months in getting fit per-
sons to join the company and in disposing of shares.
They were appointed brokers to the company by the
provisional directors, and continued to act in that
capacity until September, 1861, when they learned
that some other brokers had been employed to
make an investment; thereupon the plaintiffs wrote
saying that they still held the nnrevoked appoint-
ment as brokers to the company, and asking for an
explanation ; and the directors in reply repudiated
'n7 appointment such as would restrain them from
employing any other broker if they thought fit ;
and in this way the connection came to an
end. In the course of the plaintiffs' case it IN as
stated that they had been offered the valuable ap-
pointment of brokers to the Thames and Mersey In-
surance Company, but they declined it because it
was thought that they could not hold it consistently
with their duty as brokers to the defendants.
Some evidence was given, and in the course of
the day his lordship suggested an arrangement, and
he more fully communicated with the leading coun-
sel in his private room.

Mr. Sniitb, upon their return, said that the plain-
tiffs' counsel felt that he could not succeed in
establishing that the plaintiffs were appointed per-
petual brokers to the company, and he (Mr. Smith)
had to say that the directors had not the slightest
wish to compiain of the conduct of Messrs. Knight
and Coleman in reference to investments made by
them. It had appeared in the course of the cause
that the plaintiffs hsd been asked in a friendly way
to withdraw their letter claiming to be perpetual
brokers, but declined, and the directors felt that
they could not admit any such claim. Under the
circumstances it had been arranged that the litiga-
tion should terminate by a juror being withdrawn.

Mr. Justice Willes said that there would have
been a great deal of difficulty in the way of the
plaintiffs establishing that they were _permanent
brokers to the company, but the principal object of
the plaintiffs being to show as publicly as they
could that the defendants ceased to employ them
Rithout any fault upon their side, and this having
been established, he was glad to say that the litiga-
tion was now at an end.
Juror withdrawn.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before the Lord
Chief Baro❑ and a Common Jury.)
SIMMONS V. BRETON—CASE OF ALLEGED INSANITY.
This Was an action upon a cheque for £2,000.

THE SUN, LONDON, WHIRS I)AY EVENING. DECEMBER 18, i 862.

The defendant pleaded that when he signed the
cheque he was in an unsound state of mind.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. M'Namara were
counsel for the piaintifft and Mr. M. Chambers,
Q,C., and Mr. Gray for the defendant.
The issue being on the defendant, Mr. Gray (in
the absence of Mr. M. Chambers) opened the case.
He said that plaintiff was station-master at Crawley,
in Sussex, and the defendant was a young gentle-
man aged 26, who hall. been brought up to the pro-
fession of an engineer, and who entered into prac-
tice on his own account, 1861. The defendant, on
17th April last, signed an agreement to buy a house
called High field Lodge, where he had been residing,
from the plaintiff for £2,000, but the bargain was
to be void if the money was not paid within two
months. On the 12th May, before the expiration
of that time, the defendant gave him a cheque for
£2,000 on his bankers ; but the defence was that he
signed it while of unsound mind, and if that were
proved it would be a good defence to the action.
The learned counsel said he had at that time no
means of meeting the cheque, as he had only a
balance of £2OO at his banker's, and his other pro-
perty consisted in a reversionary interest worth
£3,000 an estate in the Isle of Thanet, which had
been mortgaged for £2,000 to pay his debts. He
contended that giving a cheque under these cir-
cumstances was not the act of a rational man. In
1860 he became so violent:that it was necessary to
place him under restraint, and in April, 1862, he
had a renewal of the attack, and after committing
various acts of eccentricity was sent to a lunatic
asylum upon the certificate of two medical gentle-
men. After the lapse of two or three months he
got better, and now it was not alleged that he was
insane.

The following evidence was then adduced—
Mr. Henry Breton, the defendant's brother, a
farmer at Hawley, in Satrey, said—ln Autumn,
1860, my brother was residing in London. One
Sunday he came to see me. His manner was very
strange. He walked about, and plucked out the
hairs of his beard. He was not quite right in his
head. He said he was Albert Edward, Prince of
Wales, and also a greater man than Rothschild.
His lace became all sore from pulling out hie beard.
He danced, sang, and performed all sorts of antics.
In the beginning of this year I again noticed some-
thing strange in his manner. I saw him in a pub-
lic-house at East Grirnstead, with a hat on made of
hedge-hog skins. When he was at his brother-in-
law's house (the Rev. Mr. Norton, curate of Horne,
Surrey) he conducted himself in a very extraordi-
nary manner. His hands and feet had to be tied.
He knocked a hole through the wall and was quite
raving. He talked incoherently. When given
anything to eat he would rub it over his lace. He
would drink beer, but sometimes he would pour
it over his head. In May he was in the same state
as to his mind. He did not know what he was
doing. I never knew of his drinking at that time.
I saw him at the Camberwell-house Luna tic Asylum.
That was when we took him out. He then seemed
quite right, and he has continued to improve ever
since.

Cross-examined—My brother was on some works
in Portugal for which Sir M. Peto had contracted.
I considered that up to 1860 he was a very tempe-
rate young man. I know that since then he has
drunk. Drink had the effect of exciting him. I
do not know that his illness in 1860 was caused by
delirium tremens. At the time the attack was on
him he said we had ill-treated him. After he got
well I never paid him anything in the shape of
compensation. In 1862 he used to drink occasionally.
I believe that in April last he went to a volunteer
review at Brighton, but I do not know whether
he then had a drinking bout. He was angry
at our not allowing him to drink, but we
allowed him to smoke. He was kept tied four days
but let loose at intervals. A medical man saw him,
and said he was tied down in a proper manner.
When he was released he knew what he was about.
Mr. Smith, a medical man, did not refuse to sign a
certificate of his insanity. I heard that he was thrown
out of a gig in May last. I signed the order to re-
ceive him at the asylum. There was a telegram
from Mr. Spencer, of the Bridge-house Hotel, in
London, stating that he was conducting himself in
a very strange manner. It was after receiving that
that I signed the certificate. I applied to Mr. Hay-
man, a surgeon of Town Melling, to sign the certi-
ficate, and be did so. My brother.in-law got some-
body else to sign it, but I don't know his name.
He is a London man. lam not aware that a Mr.
Chapman refused to certify.
Re-examined—He did not know his mother when
he was_ in the state I have described. He spoke to
her disrespectfully, bat at other times he showed
great affection for her.

- Mrs. Mary Norton, the elder sister of the defen-
dant, said—l saw my brother when he was ill in
1860. Between his recovery and March in the
present year he was well enough, but he seemed
always strange. In April last he swore dreadfully ;
that was contrary to his usual habit. He talked
and laughed at night when he was by himself, and
woke us all. He boasted of his great wealth, and
said he would keep servants and carriages at Craw-
ley. He also said he would make a railway through
the sky. I knew he was not in his right mind.
Cross-examined—He became more sensible after
ho had a little drink.

Re-examined—He was under restraint at my
house, at Horne, in Surrey. He nearly knocked
down the partition in the room, and every one who
came near him.

Charles Turner, the keeper of wine shades in the
Strand, said the defendant's conduct was very eccen-
tric. He had once offered witness a cheque for any
amount, simply as an act of kindness ; and once he
stood on his head, in imitation of the boys who
followed the omnibuses. His impression was that
the defendant was suffering from an attack of
delirium tremens, and was not in his right mind.
Cross-examined—l had several business transac-
tions with the defendant.
What ! with a madman ?

Witness—Yes ; we have transactions with mad-
men every day of our lives. (Laughter.) The last
time I saw him was on May 29, 1862. He came
with no neck-tie on, and covered with mud. I
thought he was mad, but he appeared sober. There
was a wildness in his eyes. He paid me my cheques.
They were for the right amounts, and were cashed
by his bankers. I don't think he offered me the
cheque for as much as I liked by way of chaff. He
was not drunk at the time. I thought it was a
piece of vain boasting, or the saying of a man who
did not know what he was about,

Ed ward Silvester, landlord of the Fox at Three
Bridges, said that on April last the defendant came
to his house and ordered three bottles of cham-
pagne, bread and cheese, hay and corn for his horse,
and two gallons of water, saying he was going out
on night duty. The articles were eventually& sup-
plied to him, and he drove off in his cart. He used
to lie down under his horse, and also get under the
table and say he was a volunteer, and was in search
for the enemy. He was well known by the name of
Blondin, as he said his friends were trying to take
his property from him. He owed witness £lB
odd, and on sending in his bill he gave him a
cheque for .£4O, and said he was to give the few
shillings over to the servants. He sent the cheque
to his bankers and got the money, but he gave the
sum be had been overpaid to his family. He did
not think he was of sound mind.

Cross-examined —He drank—moderately. Never
saw him do so excessively. He had seen him the
worse for liquor. When he had the champagne he
said he was going on night duty, as he expected
some one would rob his fish-pond.
Mr. G. Chapman, a medical man, said he attended
the defendant in September, 1860. He appeared in
an excited state; at first he thought from drink.
He spoke irrationally, but he would not have signed
a certificate of his insanity at that time. He was
suffering from great excitement. He struck the
wall with his hands and feet, and spat upon the
ground and rubbed his head in it. Witness then
thought it necessaty that he should be placed under
some restraint. In May his brain was not in a
sound condition, but he was rational on some sub-
jects. _ _ _

Cross-examined—l was not asked to sign a cer-
tificate. It was talked about. To my recollection, I
did not say that I thought he was not insane. I
considered he was in a state of temporary insanity.
Re-examined—On May 25 I did not consider he
was in a proper state of mind. He was of unsound
mind.

Mr. John Lacy, a surgeon, of Wellington-street,
London-bridge, said he was called upon to see the
defendant iu May last, and after examining him he
signed a certificate. There was great excitement in
his manner; he laboured under various hallucina-
tions, and fancied he was Albert, Prince of the
World. He emitted great quantities of saliva, and
showed extreme restlessness.' He was also informed
that he had a similar attack before, that he had
written cheques for absurd amounts, that there was
great irregularity in his mode of living, and that he
had indulged in spirituous liquors. He then signed
the certificate produced, up(); which he was confined
in the asylum. He was still of opinion that at that
time he was insane. The insanity might have been
brought on by drink and other causes. He must
have been working up to that condition for months.
The trial had not concluded when the court rose.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, Dec. 17.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)

ground of his wife's adultery with Mr. Klindworth, i
a teacher of music n the neighbourhood of Man-
chester square. The case, which had already occu-
pied two days, was fully reported on Saturday and
Monday last.
This morning additional evidence was given on
behalf of the respondents, who denied the charge
and pleaded a recrimination.
Mrs. de Clermont, of Champion-hill, a friend of
Mrs. Witt, deposed to the very dentate state of the
respondent's health. At her instance a nurse, named
Wakeman, was engaged to take care of her.
Maria Wakeman said she was in attendance on
the respondent from the 3d December, 1860, till the
20th January. Mr. Klindworth was frequently at
the house, but it was with the perfect cognisance
of the petitioner. Recollected him copying music
in the dining-room. Witness went in several times
while he was so engaged. Mr. Klindworth had
been sleeping at the house the night before ; and
Mr. Wit! left him there when he went away to busi-
ness. After Miss Karop, the respondent's sister,
came, Mr. Klindworth went away and did not re-
turn till he came back with Mr. Witt. Mrs. Witt
Was very ill ail the time witness stayed with her.
Cross-examined—She did not go out of the house
at all during the whole time witness was there. Saw
the co-respondent in Mrs. Witt's bedroom three
times, but once a lady was also there. It did not
surprise witness that he went there after so many
gentlemen had been taken in.
Esther Pearson, apparently a German, said she
frequented the Haymarket. Was a foreigner, but
declined to say where she came from, for she did
not think her fader and moder and country had any-
thing to do with these things. Had known the pe-
titioner before he was married (viz., in Jan., 1858).
Had met him on several occasions in the course of
the following year. One was after midnight in
March or April. He was dressed as if he had come
from a party. He went home with witness. Did
not remember if they walked or rode, for witness
had had too much wine. Was too drunk to recol-
lect what passed, but could guess. Went on the
19th of March last to the City with Mr. Witt and
a friend. Met him again not long ago in the Hay-
market. That was not above a fortnight since.
Had also met hinfon the Bth of October, and had
been with him to his place of business in Regemt-
street. Could not explain what passed.
Cross-examined—Came over to England in 1857
from Paris. Had been " keeped" there by a gentle-
man. Had been brought to England by that gen-
tleman. Who was still living in L ,ndon. Was not
with him now. Had since done as well as she could.
Declined to say within 150 how many gentlemen
had been home with her. Went to night-houses
when she felt inclined. Had a little to drink some-
times, but declined to say whether she drank too
much. If she drank she spent her own money.
Drank when she felt inclined. Never felt inclined
to go to the police-station for being disorderly.
Declined to say whether she went without being
inclined. Might have been before a magistrate
once, but it was not for being " screwy." (A laugh)
Knew Klindworth. He had been home with her
once to her knowledge, but that was four years
ago. Eight or nine months ago witness went with
Klindworth and other friends to some night-houses.
They had supper. That gentleman (pointing out
one near the jury-box) was a friend of Mr. Witt
and Mr. Klindworth. He was present. Had lunch
with him on Saturday last. The parish officers had
once threatened to prosecute her for keeping a bad
house.

Mr. Wm. Kumpel, of Berners-street (the person
identified by the last witness), was a friend of
Mr. Witt,. The letter produced was in his hand-
writing. [The document seemed to have been
written after the respondent had left him. It was
written in affectionate terms, and implored forgive-
ness for some offences of which the writer appeared
to think that he had been guilty, but of which
the precise nature did not appear.] Had been ac-
quainted with Mrs. Witt ever since her marriage,
and had frequently visited the house. Used some-
times to go about with Mr. Witt of evenings. Went
with him to the Haymarket, to the cafes, and night-
houses there. The people who frequent those houses
were gentlemen and prostitutes. Began to go there
not long after the petitioner's marriage. Used to
look around and take a glass of beer. Mr. Witt
used occasionally to converse with the women there,
and sometimes sup with them. On one of these
occasions Witt left the room and a girl also went
out. ney returned afterwards almost together.
Cross-examined—Was an artist—an historical
and landscape painter. Klindworth was also an in-
timate friend of witness. Knew Esther Pearson.
Happened to be at the same table with her at lunch
on Saturday. Had been once to her lodgings, and
had been about with her at night three or four times.
Had left off that kind of life since July, 1861. Had
long been tired of it ; but had latterly been with
friends now and then. Had never talked of these
Haymarket adventures before Mrs. Witt. Had
lately met Esther Pearson and taken her to a house
in the Haymarket.
Sir C. Cresswell—lf you ere so tired of this sort
of life, you had better avoid the Haymarket alto-
gether..,, (A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins—Yes. They'll ruin your morals,
Kumpel (Laughter.)
Sir C. Cresswell—Are you a married man ?
Witness—No.

Mr. Karslake then summed up the case for the
respondent. He maintained that both her pleas had
been proved. It was shown that she had been in
such a state of health all the time at which the adul-
tery was charged, that nothing could be more im-
probable than the idea of her accepting the impro-
per attentions of anyone. As for Mr. Witt, not-
withstanding the attempt which had been made to
depict him as a model husband, it was clear from
the evidence just given what his real character had
been. He pretended, forsooth, that the cares of his
business made him require, to quote an expression
from the letter which had been put in, "a nightly
boisterous excitement now and then." That letter,
and the evidence of Mr. Kumpel, so far corroborated
the story of Esther Pearson, that the jury would
readily understand how pained a wife would be by
his conduct. It was only when he found that his
wife would live with him no longer that he had re-
sorted to this suit as a means of getting rid of her.
Mr. Hawkins, in reply, ridiculed the evidence
given for the defence, and asked the jury what they
thought of such an excuse as that Mr. Klindworth
was sitting up from 11 to 7, reading the "Arabian
Nights Entertainments P" (A laugh.) As to the
counter-charge he must say that he had never met
with a case of more cruel exaggeration. There had
really been no evidence against him but the word
of a drunken prostitute, whom he (the learned
counsel) had almost felt ashamed to cross-examine.
He protested against allowing a man's prospects in
life to be blasted by the bare statement of a witness
so infamous, and called on the jury to give their
verdict for the petitioner with substantial damages
against the man who had deeply injured him.
Sir C. Cresswell having addressed the jury on
the whole case, they found a verdict for the petitioner
on all the issues. They assessed the damages at 40s.
The Court then made a decree nisi, with costs,
against the co-respondent.

Wm. Mealing was charged with the wilful mur-
der of Sarah Moss, at Rendcome, on Oct. 23.
Mr. Cripps prosecuted ; the prisoner was defended
by Mr. Cooke.
The prisoner had formed an acquaintance with
the deceased Sarah Moss, a woman about six years
his senior, who was living with her father, and who
had an illegitimate child aged three years. An im-
proper intimacy had sprung up between the prisoner
and the deceased, and the latter was pregnant by
him. They had agreed to be married, and the pri-
soner professed great love for the woman, who had
saved up some money for the wedding, which was
to come off in a few days, the banns having been
asked in the parish church. The prisoner lived at
Moss's house, and was in the habit of sleeping with
the deceased. On Thursday night, the 23d of
October, he went to Moss's house, and had tea
about 8 o'clock in the evening, afterwards going
to bed with the deceased, whose little child slept
in a small bed in the same room. The murder
is supposed to have been committed about mid-
night, for between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morn-
ing the prisoner went to the house of the parish
constable, and having knocked him up, said, " I am
come for you to take me up and hang me, for I
have been and murdered the woman at the place
where I was lodging." He was without hat or coat, I
and his clothes and hands were covered with blood.
The constable went back with him to Moss's house,
and on going upstairs found the deceased's child
crying in its little bed, and the deceased lying in a
pool of blood in her own bed, her head having been
nearly severed from her body with a razor, which
was lying en the bedclothes. The bedclothes were
thrown off the deceased, who was nearly naked to
the shoulders. Marks of bloody hands were found
on the bannisters and stairs. He said he had done
it with the razor which WAS on the bed, and that
COURT O F DIVORCE. the reason why he ha done it was that "they had
IL had a few words a few days ago, and he was obliged
(Before the Judge Ordinary.) to do it." According to the evidence of the prisoner's
WITT V. WITT AND KLINDWORTII. mother, the prisoner had for some time complained
Mrof pains in his head, and had expressed fears that
tine;
;HNaiwr.kKinti.sr,sQls.kC Keane,
e., and Mr. for the peti-
t Q.C., and Dr. Tristram for he should do some mischief to himself or other per-
theo respondent; the Queen's Advocate and Mr. S. sons. He had, when a lad, received an injury on
Hill, for the co-respondent. the head, from which he had suffered at intervals
The petitioner, a music-seller, carrying on busi- ever since, and he had lately asked his mother to
ness in Regent-street, under the name of I. I. Ewer put the knives and other dangerous weapons out of
and Co., sought a dissolution of his marriage on the his Way, that he might not do any injury to himself.

Evidence as to the prisoner's state of mind having
been given,
The prisoner was found not guilty on the ground
of insanity.
James Summers, alias John Alex, Conroy, was
charged on three indictments with forgery and
bigamy; bigamy,in having married two young ladies,
Miss Emily Dawson Graham at Windsor, and
Miss Jane Cowley Date at Cirencester, his wife
Margaret being living. The other charge was that
of forging a cheque for £lOO on Messrs, Hopkinson
and Co.
Mr. Cripps, having opened the case and read a
number of letters which had been concocted by the
prisoner as purporting to have been written by Sir
John Lawrence, by the Lady of Major-Gen. Dames,
whom he represented as his sister, and others,
vouching for his position as Captain Conroy, of the
Bengal army, called
Mr. Date, landlord of the King's Head Hotel,
Cirencester, who deposed that the prisoner came to
his house on the 16th April last, and remained
there till July. He paidthis addresses to Miss Date,
representing himself as Capt. Conroy, of the Indian
army. Witness looked into the " Army List," and
not finding his name there he called the prisoner's
attention to the fact, when he expressed his sur-
prise, and said he should write to his friend Sir J.
Lawrence. He accordingly wrote to Sir John, and
in a day or two Mr. Date and the prisoner received
letters purporting to be from Sir J. Lawrence (but
which were proved to be forgeries) vouching for
the fact that the prisoner was a captain in the Ben-
gal Infantry, This he (witness) considered satis-
factory, and the prisoner became the accepted
suitor of Miss Date, and they were married on the
9th July. On that day, just as the newly married
pair were leaving for their wedding trip, the pri-
soner lost his purse, and witness was asked to ad-
vance some money. A few days before thie the pri-
soner had given the prosecutor a cheque on Messrs.
Hopkinson and Co. for £lOO to keep for him, and it
was suggested that this should be cashed. Accord-
ingly Conroy indorsed it, and the Cirencester
bankers castled it.

Evidence was given that this cheque was a for-
gery.
Mr. Graham, official assignee of the London
Bankruptcy Court, proved that the other cheque,
which the prisoner had placed in the hands of Mr.
Date to keep for him, was also a forgery.
The case for the prosecution being closed,
Mr. Sawyer addressed the jury for the prisoner
resting his defence on some slight discrepancies in
the evidence of the several witnesses, and sub-
mitted that there was no evidence that the prisoner
had a knowledge that the cheque was a forgery.
His lordship summed up with great care, and the
prisoner was found guilty.
He was then charged with bigamy, and pleaded
guilty to both cases of bigamy.
Sentence, lb years' penal servitude.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LIVERPOOL, Dec. 17.
Neal O'Donnell and James Coyne were indicted
before Mr. Justice Blackburn to-day for the wilful
murder of a sheriff's officer, named James Morris,
on the 15th of September last.
Mr. Deighton, who opened the prosecution, said
that the prisoner O'Donnell was the brother-in-law
of a person named Byrne, and Coyne was the uncle
of O'Donnell, and also the uncle of Byrne's wife.
Byrne was a furniture broker, occupying two shops,
Nos. 3 and 4, Derby-street, Whitechapel. Up to
the 19th of August last, and for some time pre-
viously, the prisoner O'Donnell had boarded and
lodged with James Byrne. He paid nothing for his
maintenance, his services in superintending Byrne's
shops being taken as an equivalent. On the 19th
of August some misunderstanding occurred between
Byrne and O'Donnell, which resulted in O'Donnell
leaving Byrne's house, and the shop No. 3 being
closed, and the key left with Coyne. The shop No.
3 was the one which had been chiefly attended to
by the prisoner O'Donnell, having been taken by
Byrne in O'Donnell's name, though Byrne paid the
rent, and was the actual tenant. The shop was
closed until the 23d of August, when Byrne sent
in some men to remove some of the furniture,
and a dispute took place with O'Donnell on this
occasion, but nothing of importance took place.
The shop remained again closed, Coyne retaining
the key. On the 15th of September Byrne gave
instructions to the bailiffs (Brooks and Warden)
to go into the shop and remove the goods to
the warerooms of a person named Heys. The
bailiffs took with them about 16 men, including the
deceased James 'Morris. They entered the premises
about two or three o'clock in the afternoon, and
found the prisoner O'Donnell there and his brother
Charles. The prisoner left the shop for a short
time, and then returned with Coyne. Some scuffling
took place, but the result was that the bailiffs pre-
vailed, and the prisoners and Charles O'Donnell
were ejected. O'Donnell then went to a provision
shop in Whitechapel, took from the counter a large
bacon knife, and with this returned to the shop,
which he entered in company with Coyne, who was
outside. O'Donnell flourished his knife about, and
while James Morris was running back to escape his
violence, O'Donnell stabbed him several times, one
stab penetrating deeply between the eighth and
ninth ribs. The police were called, the knife was
wrested from O'Donnell, and Morris was taken to
the hospital, where he died in a few minutes after-
wards.
Witnesses were then called.

For the defence Mr. Pope contended that all the
facts showed that O'Donnell had sustained great
provocation at the hands of his brother-in-law,
Byrne, and that the prisoner's anger at Byrne's
conduct had been lashed into ungovernable fury
by the last act of injustice which he was about to
sustain at his brother-in-law's hands, viz., the for-
cible removal of the goods from the premises. Byrne
was not justified in sending the bailiffs at all, as
there was a negotiation pending for a partnership
between the prisoner and Byrne. O'Donnell, Mr.
Pope urged, had killed Morris in the heat and vio-
lence of passion, with no malice prepence, and with-
out any predetermination to kill. The learned
counsel, therefore, claimed a verdict of manslaugh-
ter in O'Donnell's ease. With regard to Coyne,
Mr. Pope scouted the evidence of his knowing that
O'Donnell had a knife as slight and inconclusive.
After a careful summing up from his lordship
the jury retired, and after an absence of forty
minutes, returned with a verdict of " Man-
slaughter" in the case of O'Donnell, and of " Ac-
quittal" in the case of Coyne.
His lordship remarked, that though he did not
find fault with the verdict of the jury, this was a
case so near one of murder that he felt bound to
sentence the prisoner to penal servitude for life.
Coyne was discharged.

CHESTER CIRCUIT.—CHESTER, Dec. 17.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
TRIAL OF THE BIRKENHEAD RIOTERS.
At the sitting of the Court this morning the trial
of the Birkenhead rioters was resumed, when the
several learned counsel engaged for the prisoners
addressed the jury.
Mr. Welsby, in opening the defence for the eight
prisoners on whose behalf he was retained, said
there could be no doubt that a formidable and dan-
gerous riot took place at Birkenhead on the night
of the 15th of October, but contended that the
police and the magisterial authorities were much to
blame for allowing the borough to remain in the
hands of the mob for so many hours, when the
military were so close at hand, and that, therefore,
they were responsible to a great extent for what
took place.
Mr. Bevan and Mr. Macintyre next addressed
the jury on behalf of their respective clients.
Mr. Pope Hennessy, M.P., followed on behalf of
the prisoners Tracy and Shoolin. The learned coun-
sel warmly denounced the conduct of the members
of the Birkenhead Debating Society, who had pro-
voked the disturbances by the ostentatious display
of their Orange placards. He also complained of
the conduct of the police, who, by their indiscri-
minate attacks upon the people, had aggravated
them and goaded them on to violence. He de-
fended Father Goulding from the imputations
which had been cast upon him, remarking that he
was there from the most humane and praiseworthy
motive—that of pacifying the mob—and that the fact
of his having addressed the mob, and called for
three cheers for the Queen, abundantly proved he
was endeavouring to restrain them from continuing
the i lot.
A great number of witnesses were called to esta-
blish an alibi on the part of several of the prisoners.
Mr. Grove, Q.C., then replied for the prosecution.
His Lordship summed up with great care ; and
After an absence of an hour and a quarter, the
jury returned a verdict of guilty against all the
prisoners, with the exception of Fynan.
Some slight disturbance arose among the crowd,
and
The Court intimated that if order was not strictly
maintained the hall would be cleared. The learned
Baron then, in feeling terms, ordered Patk. Fahey
the elder to be discharged on his own rebognizances,
Catherine Larkin to be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for 12 months, and the other female pri-
soners for six months each. Shovelin, Patrick
Fahey the younger, and Michael Fahey and others
he sentenced to one year's imprisonment, Buckley
and Hogan to two years' imprisonment, and Lennon
to 15 years' penal servitude.

A GENTLEMAN FOUND DROWNED IN THE RIVER
LEA.—Yesterday morning, as some bargemen were going
along the towing path, they observed a black bundle Boat-
ing in the River Lea, and having procured a boat brought
a body ashore. It was then removed to the workhouse to
be viewed and the inquest held. Deceased is described as
about 30 years of age, fair complexion, five feet four inches
in height, and on his person Was found a earl-handle knife
-linen marked " A., 9."p