The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-21 00:00:00

STOCK T. STOCK AND COX.

case would have been inquired into. The lady, he
believed, had in point of tact instituted proceedings
in that court against her husband, with a view
to obtain climony from him, and pending these pro-
ceedings they were called upon to decide the ques-
tion in this court. He thought the defendant had
a great right to complain of the insinuation that
had been thrown out by his learned friend that the
defendant had conspired with Major Ross to destroy
the character of his wife, and he asserted that there

was not a particle of truth in the suggestion, nor
in the statement as to what had taken place

qt Paris. The defence he was instructed to make
was, that the wife of the defendant had been

guilty of adultery with Major Ross, and he
believed he should be able to establish that fact be-

yond the possibility of a doubt. He called the at-
tention of the jury to the demeanour of the lady
while in the witness-box, and to the levity with
which she answered the questions that would have
been almost heartrending to a modest woman, and
said it appeared to him that, even as the case stood
at present, the jury would have no doubt that a
criminal intimacy had existed between the wife of
the defendant and Major Ross. They would both
deny it, of course, and, in eases like these, no other
course could be expected; but the jury would form
their own conclusions upon the facts before them,
and he should contend that upon these facts no
doubt could exist in the mind of any reasonable
man that an adulterous intercourpe had taken place
between them. The learned sergeant then pro-
ceeded to call the attention of the jury to the evi-
dence that had been given and to the admissions
made by Mrs. Porter as to the manner in which
she had received Major Ross, and to the nature
of the communications that took place between
them, and argued that they were convincing proofs
of the guilt of the parties. Major 11083 might have
acted from a feeling of sympathy for the lady, but
husbands did not want young men to sympathise
with their wives, and the nature of the connexion
that existed between the wife of the defendant and

Major Ross was quite sufficient to justify Mr. Porter
in believing that his wife had dishonoured him, and
in refusing to live with her any longer. The learned
sergeant then proceeded to state the facts he pro
posed to lay before the jury in support of the de-
fendant's case, and referred to the letter that had

been mentioned, and said that immediately he ob-
tained possession of it he felt that he had been dis-
honoured, and when the jury had heard that letter
read they would form their own opinion whether he
was not justified in coming to that conclusion. He
then read the following letter from Major Ross to
the defendant's wife :

" My own beautiful angel,—l am almost mad
since seeing you yesterday. How different the meet-
ing was to what I had been anticipating our first
meeting would be ! Instead of holding you in my
arms, and fbrgetting our long separation in loving
embraces, we met only as strangers, scarce daring
to exchange a look. Oh, my darling, darling love,
my heart is so full. I feel as though it would
burst. I would sell my soul to possess you. For
God's sake, my darling, meet me soon. I feel des-
perate. You cannot imagine how I worship you.
I love you to distraction; pity me, my pet. I am
sure you would if you only knew how I am suffer-
ing. If it is possible for the heart to bleed, mine
does. Of course it was very great happiness to see
you and hear your dear musical voice; but then to
be scarce able to whisper one word of love to you—
to be afraid of looking into your beautiful eyes for
fear of betraying my feelings—l would have given
worlds to be allowed even to kiss your tiny feet ;
but no, that brute stood there and prevented all.
I could have killed him. I went home by the
next train, and, to be left to my own
thoughts without interruption, feigned sleepi-
ness, and got to bed before ten, where I lay
thinking of you, my beautiful pet, for hours. I
heard it strike three before I slept, and awoke at
five this morning with the most wretched feelings
imaginable. When—when am I to meet you, dar-
ling ? Oh, what bliss to anticipate. Cannot you
manage to see me this week ? if only for a few
minutes. It will make me so supremely happy. I
want to make you tell me with your own dear
tongue you love me still. I might be in the neigh-
bourhood with a cab, and you could come to me.
Come, my own darling, it will save me from being
ill. I am in a high fever now. You cannot imagine
the dreadful feeling that is in me. Pray write,
dearest, by return, telling me how you are, and if
you accept the proposal contained in yesterday's
letter. I am very anxious to see the roses back in
your beautiful darling face. Now, dearest, I hope
and trust you will not think of sparing my pocket.
I assure you I can spare the money, and if you
don't accept it one way you shall another,
as I shall make you a present with the
cash if you don't use it. Believe me, pet, I am not
a bankrupt, and see no probability of becoming
one. The worst of letter-writing, dearest, is that
one cannot convey ono half they feel. I know that
my letters do not explain anything like the deep
and burning love I feel for yon. I often wish that
you could read my heart, and then, indeed, you
would understand it, and know what I am suffering
in being parted from you. Dear, darling, beauti-
ful angel, I send you millions of kisses, and remain
your most devoted lover, dying to see you,
" WILLY."
The learned sergeant then proceeded to comment
upon the contents of the letter, arguing that it was
conclusive'of the guilt of the parties, and the fol-
lowing witnesses were then examined for the de-
fendant :
Mr. Porter said—l am the defendant in this
action. I was married to Miss Mace in April, 1855.
I took her to Paris, but I swear I never suggested
what she has stated while we were staying there.
In April last my wife left my house, and I did
not find her until I saw her at the Princess's
Theatre on the 10th of May, and followed her to
her step-father's house, when I said that I was her
husband, and took her away with me. My wife said
that she was hungry, and I took her to Simpson's,
in the Strand, where we had supper, and I then
took her home to my own house, where she remained
all night. The next morning she refused to stay
any longer, and said she would go to her friends the
Cliftons. We had three children, all girls, and aged
respectively six, five, and two years. I took my
wife to Mrs. Cliftcn's, and she stayed there nearly
a month, and I did not ascertain for several days
where she had gone to, when I found her at the
Crown Hotel, at Bayswater, and I left a notice that
\
I would not be responsible for any debts she might
incur there. I met my wife several times after this
through appointments made with Mrs. Clifton, but
she persistently pin2rsisteNor Rossrefusednltlal was a major
to tell mewhien threset same cwas
regiment of volunteers as I was. I was
captain in the regiment, and I knew he was a
married man, and thought that he was my friend.
While my wife was away, and I did not know
where she was, Major Ross sax me every day,
and witnessed my anxiety and misery, and said
that if ho knew where my wife was he should be
happy to serve me. At one meeting I had with my
wife she told me where she was living at Kensing-
ton, and I went there and took up my residence
with her. The house was kept by persons of the
name of Tonks. I saw Major Ross repeatedly while
I was living with my wife at Kensington, but he
never came to the house with my knowledge. We
used to meet at the training ground. In 1857 I
had had disputes with my wife, but I never
charged her with adultery. I did charge her
with gross impropriety of manner with a certain
gentleman, but I had no idea that my wife was
' carrying on a correspondence with Major Ross.
On the 27th of August my wife was anxious to
take a drive, and I hired a phaeton and drove
her to Willesden, where the practice butts
of the regiment were. I had heard that Major
Ross was going to Willesden on this day, and I
met him at the station, ;and" drove him on the
ground. When I got there we all went into a
tent. I urged the major to attend to his military
duties, but he did not do so, and preferred remain-
ing in the tent, and he asked my wife to take her
bonnet cif, which I considered a liberty, and a cer-
tain look of intelligence passed between them,
which made me feel very uncomfortable. After
this I drove my wife and child to Hampstead,
where we had tea, and as we were going home my
wife asked me not to invite the major to our resi-
dence. Sl:to was also lavish of caresses to me,
and called me " her own dear Tom," several times.
About this time I had advertised for a country
house, but received very few answers, and in con-
sequence of something I heard my suspicions were
created. My child said, " Mamma has letters every
day, papa," and this; was what excited my suspi- 1
cion, and I spoke to Miss Tonks upon the subject, 1
and in consequence of what I learned from her I I
returned home sooner than I had intended or was
expected by my wife. She was up stairs, and I
was leitel on the sofa down stairs, and my wife
came in and appeared .surpri.ed at seeing me, and
said, " DO not blame me if you do nut get the
house." I had been going to look at a house at
Enfield on that day. My wife seemed uneasy,
and did not eat any dinner, but she drank two
lec'hekel'elft°lll
replied, "No,
glasses of brandy and water. As the hour for
the pO?t arrived .;he went to the window, and
and w' hen the postman's knock came
down. ino room, saying she would go and lie
madam, I will have that
letter."
Ig withnat
passing to the door, and Miss Tonks was
snatched
letter that has Gbiene
it fr letter, and I followed her and
her. I found it was the.
wils addressed touNritad. The "1-843 n envelope
imsid, was addre,,bv:i 'Punks, and the letter
.itt.t.-J7!y! -,\ it!: ;IL. t to' my wife. She
ertv PCII ly : Ita!!!!Itd0 ill''tl • the 11 lit and
!TPA the letter, 1 rn2de an exel4aomuX "having;
not apeat, and my wife said, n 1 am" which I will"
rimed." I road'i

Mr. Daly appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Robert
Stoek, an engraver, in London. He married the
respondent in September, 1856, and the charge of
adultery against her was proved by a policeman,
who early one morning saw her gathering flowers
to give to the co-respondent. She said to Co',
" You may as well come in, Bill, for he's not come
home." Soon afterwards the witness heard her say,
Why don't you take off your boots and come to
bed ?" It was summer, and the window was partly
open. There was no evidence of confessions by the
paramours.

- The respondents did not appear. It was stated
that Cox had enlisted as a common soldier.
The jury (who had only been sworn to assess
damages) awarded the petitioner a shilling.
The Judge said they had set a very fair value on
the woman. Ho then made a decree nisi, with
costs.

ASSIZE _INTEL LIG BIV CE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, March 20.

(Before Lord (;hiefJustice Erie and a Common Jury.)

BOOTH: V. PORTER.

The proceedings in this extraordinary cause were
resumed this morning at eight o'clock.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Honeyrnan again
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Bal-
lantine and Mr. Philbrick for the defendant.

The following additional evidence was adduced:—
Mrs. Clifton said—l reside at Notting-hill, and
was afriend of the plaintiff and defendant. I re-
me
1112)_ r s
e r Mrs. Porter coming to our house last year.
na7_
esatw Major Ross until he was pointed out
three',Lo:srday, Mrs, Porter stayed at our house
or a month, and Mr. Porter visited her
there, and'
her, and ht requested him to provide lodgings for
Mr.
house sh:aid he would do so. When sh 2eft
Mr. Thernas‘7llt to live at Kensington.
Lord Chief Jusotis.s was then called.
weereeF.rle interposed, and said that
if this witness
_examined now it would be
giving evidence in
ans
conwiear to the charge of adultery,
Aug the gentleman
not be called afterwards.
Mr. Hawkins said that after this intimation front
his lordship he should
Major Miss until we had. postpone the examination of
case for the de-
fendant. lie then said that thteh'
given closed the case for.thelo„; jtvvidenee already
Sergeant liallantine then addrnests—eu.
said that the course that had tt".lc.i.r hie
hurtled friend somewhat embarrassed talon by his
appeared to Min that Major Ross, if he and it
bps:u I: the truth, and was to be exaraineranite
all
:right as well be examined at first as at the close
of the case. There could be no doubt that he „i,
a most important witness, and he thought that he
ought to have been called and have told his own
story. -11,-) did not rare, hoe:ever, for the course that
had been token, as he believed that the result
would he the same whether Aljor Ross was
examined now, or at a later stage of the in-
quiry. The defendant bad no alternative but to
defend the present action. It was one of a great
narnber of a sizailEr kind that were brought against
him, solely, astete believed, for the purposes of ex-
tj.rtion, and the father-in-law was made the plain-
when the proper course to have taken was for
the lady herself. to laVti' gone into a court specially
created to;
th
nable
e
pnrrose, and where all the
thatabomt-
had been brought forward in this

portions of the letter to my wife, and the whole of •
it afterwards to the Tonkses My wife left the
house about an hour and a half afterwards, and re-
turned the next morning about 2 o'clock, and she
told me she had slept under a hedge all night. From
November, 1860, to December last I have paid £275
for wearing apparel and other things for my wife.
Cross-examined—My wife did miscarry in May in
1855, but I swear I did not expect that event to
take place, and I was not aware she had taken any
medicine. I first became acquainted with my wife
about a year before I married her. I met her at an
evening party, and I became her suitor a very few
days afterwards. She visited frequently at my
mother's house, and an improper intimacy took
place between us before the marriage, but I swear
she was not pregnant by me. The intercourse took
place first at an hotel in the neighbourhood of the
Strand. I took her there. I swear I did not know
that she was pregnant at the time I married her,
and when I discovered it I told her I loved her, that
we were married,and if anything happend it would
only be a nine days' wonder. I married her from
pure affection. I first charged her with levity of
conduct in 1857, when I discovered that she was

because the beast of a husband prevented it. Was

;hat so P

Major Ross—Yes.
Sergeant Ballantine—And you also say that you
could not sleep all night for thinking of her. Was

that the ease

Major Ross—Yes.
Sergeant Ballantine—So that while lying by the
side of your own wife, you could not sleep for
thinking of the wife of another man.
Major Ross—Yes.
Sergeant Ballantine—ls it true that you took off
her bonnet while you were in the tent at Wil-

lesden ?
Major Ross—Mrs. Porter said that she felt faint,
and 1 advised her to take off her bonnet, and

assisted her to do so.
Sergeant Ballantine—You did not kiss her at
the same time, did you ?
Major Ross-4 had no opportunity to do so, be-
cause her husband was present.
Sergeant Ballantine—l suppose you have no
doubt now that you did write this letter to Mrs.

carrying on a clandestine correspondence with a
gentleman. I introduced this gentleman to my wife.
I thought he was a friend, and he turned out such
a friend as Major Ross did, I only charged her
with levity of conduct with ono gentleman, and I
cautioned her against walking with another gentle-
man whose reputation with regard to married women
was not what it ought to be. I did once give my
wife a box on the ear when she had irritated me

Porter ?
Major Ross—No ; and lam only astonished that
I ever could have written such a foolish letter.
(Laughter.)
Sergeant Ballantine—When was it you first
heard that the husband had discovered this letter ?

Major Ross—On the same night.
Sergeant Ballaritine—From what source did you
discover the fact P
Major Ross—Well, it:is of no use denying the
fact that I learnt it from Mrs. Porter. She sent
some one to my place of business to tell me that she
wanted to speak to me. I was at my place of busi-

very much. She has repeatedly struck me, and hurt
me very much. Beyond what I have stated I uni-
formly treated my wife with kindness and affection
The reason my wife left my house on the 17th Apri
was that she had appointed to meet me at 5 o'clock in
the evening, and she did not come home till nearly
twelve, and she told me she had been to the Bota-
nical Gardens with her brother, and afterwards
went to the Kensington Museum with him. I did
not like the story, and made inquiries, and found
that her brother had not been with her on the pre-
vious day, and he knew nothing about it. I after-
wards ascertained that my wife was not alone, and
I taxed my wife with acting improperly, and high
words passed between us, and she left the house.
In the beginning of April I had received a warning
from a friend to beware of Ross. I taxed him with
it, and he denied it, and I still continued to visit
him, and supped with him and his wife on several
occasions. My wife said once to me that she thought
her case was equal to the Yelverton case, that I was
as ugly little devil, and I ought to be proud at
having such a handsome woman for a wife. (A
laugh.) She also said that such a handsome woman
as she was could do anything, and she had been
studying for five months to go upon the stage. I
tried to prevent her from leaving the house, but she
succeeded in obtaining her jewellery and got away.
When I discovered her at the Princess's theatre, I
took her to my house in Park Village, Regent's
Park, but she insisted upon leaving on the follow-
ing morning, and said that she was going to Mrs.
Clifton's. I wished after this to take her to a new
house, as I had given up the house in the Regent's
Park. I saw Major Ross almost every day between
July and August, up to the discovery of the letter.
My wife has filed a petition against me in the Di-
vorce Court, not for the purpose of obtaining a
divorce, but to get money from me.
Lord Chief Justice Erle said he hoped they were
not going to rehearse the grand drama that would
eventually be performed in the Divorce Court.
Mr. Hawkins said his only object was to show
that in these proceedings the witness had not charged
his wife with adultery.
Serjeant'Ballantine said that this was not the
fact, and the witness was not examined any further
upon the point.
Mary Tonics said—ln the year 1861 a lady, whom
I have since ascertained is Mrs. Porter, taok lodg-
ings at my mother's house at Kensington, and
shortly afterwards a gentleman came to visit her.
I believe that gentleman to be Mr. Ross. Mrs.
Porter said his name was Jordan, and that he was
her solicitor. Sometimes ho came twice a week,
and generally about 2 o'clock in the day, and some-
times he stayed two hours, and sometimes longer,
but I do not recollect that he ever stayed after 8
o'clock in the evening. I do not remember that
they ever went out together. Mrs. Porter went
out sometimes in the afternoon, and she did not
return two or three times until 11 o'clock at night.
Mr. Ross was always alone with her, and I have
gone into the room where they were, but I never
saw anything improper between them. I remem-
ber Mrs. Porter requesting me to receive letters for
her. This was after her husband had come to live
with her. I agreed to do so, and I remember the
letter coming that Mr. Potter has alluded to.
Sometimes letters used to come every other day,
and some of the letters were in a lady's handwriting.
The others were in the same handwriting as the
one that has been produced.
Cross-examined--I frequently saw papers on the
table when Mr. Ross and Mrs. Porter were to-
gether.
Mr. Robert W. Jones, the adjutant of the regi-
ment to which the defendant and Major Ross be-
longed, proved that the letter which had been pro-
duced was in the handwriting of the latter.
Mr. Blake, a chemist, residing in Bedford-place,
Kensington, proved that he had upon several occa-
sions seen Major Ross go to the house where Mrs.
Porter resided, and go out together in a cab.
Mr. Hawkins then adduced the following addi-
tional evidence for the plaintiff:—
Mr. ROES said—l am the person whose name has
been mentioned, and I am a married man, and live
in the Hampstead-road. I was acquainted with the
defendant, and visited him occasionally. I used to
visit Mrs. Porter when she lived at Bedford-place,
Kensington, and I have written to her and she has
written to me. I suppose I wrote the letter that
has been produced, but I should like to look at it.
(The letter was handed to the witness.) It is my
handwriting. I swear that I never had any crimi-
nal intercourse with Mrs. Porter.
Cross-examined—l was friendly with Mr. Porter,
and I obtained his commission for him. We were
upon terms of friendship. I was not attempting to
debauch his wife at the commencement of our inti-
macy, but afterwards I did attempt to debauch her.
I regret to say I took all the means in my power
to obtain possession of her person. lam a married
man, and have one child. I set to deliberately to
debauch my friend's wife. It always takes some
time to accomplished a thing of that sort.
Sergeant Ballantine—You seem to know all about
it. Did the lady give you any encouragement ?
Major Ros-1 swear that she did not.
Sergeant Ballantine—And never allowed you to
take any liberties with her?
Major Ross—Upon one cccasion she was angry
about her children, and I put my arm round her
waist and kissed her. I did the same thing to her
on several occasions afterwards. That was the
nearest approach to criminal conversation that ever
took place between us. Letters have passed be-
tween us, and she has written several letters to me.
Sergeant Ballantine—What has become of those
letters ? -
Major Ross—They are all destroyed; but I have
had notice to prodece them.
Sergeant Ballantine—Then we are to understand
that you deliberately attempted to debauch the wife
of your friend ?
Major Ross—l did not consider he was my friend
at this time. Before the discovery took place, Mr.
Porter frequently spoke to me about his wife, and
was very anxious to know where she was, and I
said nothing to satisfy him until she had come away
from Kensington, and then I told him that I knew
wlerc she had been.
Cross-examination continued-1 should not have
been here to give evidence if I had not been sub-
poenaed by the defendant, and I did not know until
yesterday that I was to be called as a witness for
the plaintiff. I have not had any communication
with Mrs. Porter since I have been at Maidstone.
Sergeant Ballantine (holding up the letter that
had been produced)—l suppose it is true that you
accompanied Mr. Porter and his wife to Willesden?
Major Ross—Yes.
Sergeant Ballantine—And that you found it diffi-
cult to" look into her beautiful eyes." (A laugh.)isarjgr a
n Itto s
Bsail
—larncsti her husband was there.
ne—But notwithstanding the
Sergeant
difficulty that existed, you still continued your
efforts to debauch her ?
Major Ross—l did.
Sergeant Ballantine—The husband kept too close,
then ?

ness at the time.
Sergeant Ballantine—Was your wife there ?
Major Ross—She was not. She never came there.
. Sergeant Ballantine—Did Mrs. Porter know that?
Major Ross—She did.
Sergeant Ballantine—Had Mrs. Porter been to
your place of business before ?
Major Ross—Yes, her husband brought her to my
place of business once, and said he thought she
would like to see the operations that were going on

there. (A. laugh.)
Sergeant Ballantine—What took place between
you and Mrs. Porter after you went out to her ?
Major Ross—We walked about for some time, and
I advised her to return to Bedford-place.
Sergeant Ballantine then proceeded to sum up the
defendant's case in a most eloquent speech, and he
urged that upon the facts before the jury it was im-
possible they could entertain any reasonable doubt
that Mrs. Porter had been guilty of adultery with
Major Ross, and he commented in most severe terms
upon the conduct of that gentleman, and the man-
ner in which he said he had unblushingly admitted
his villanous conduct towards the defendant, and he
added that he had no hesitation in designating him
as an unmitigated scoundrel.
Mr. Hawkins, in the course of a very able reply
upon the whole case, reminded the jury that what-
ever opinion they might entertain of Major Ross or
of his conduct in the transaction, the only question
they had to decide was, whether it was made out by
satisfactory evidence, that Mrs. Porter had been
guilty of adultery with him, and he submitted that
there was no such evidence in the case, and that
they would not be justified in casting Mrs. Porter
thefeovretrhuvuopnontheeid
v wo'onreled
that
td
had
dstbroeeyn destroying her
before
her for
ever
them on behalf of the defendant. He then com-
mented upon the conduct of Mr. Porter, and said
that if his wife had acted with levity, and in a
manner inconsistent with her position, which was
all that he at first appeared to have alleged against
her, in all probability this had been brought about
by his own conduct towards her before their mar-
riage, and that if he had treated her as every
honourable and right-minded man would treat a
young and virtuous girl to whom he was a suitor,
and whom he intended to make his wife, instead of
corrupting her mind,- and seducing her under the
disgusting circumstances that had been deposed to,
her conduct would no doubt have been very different,
and the present painful and disgusting inquiry
might have been spared.
Chief Justice Erie, in summing up, said that the
real question the jury had to decide was, whether
it had been reasonably made out to their satisfaction
that Major Ross:had been guilty of adultery with
the defendant's wife, and if they were satisfied of
this fact, the defendant would not be liable by the
law of England, to pay for necessaries supplied to
her, to recover which was the object of the present
action. He then said that in cases of this kind the
result of experience led him to make that observa-
tion that very little reliance could be placed upon
the oaths of the parties inculpated, because they had
so fearful a stake at issue, that he was afraid they
did not scruple to swear to that which was false in
order that they might escape from the conse-
quences of their own guilt. In the present case,
so far as Major Ross was concerned, he certainly
thought that the jury would not be inclined
to place much reliance upon the evidence of a
witness, himself a married man with:a family, who
admitted that he deliberately devoted himself to de-
bauch the wife of a man with whom he was on
friendly terms, and while received by him upon
these terms sought with steady and deliberate pur-
pose to destroy his happiness for ever. The learned
judge then called the attention of the jury to all the
material points in the case, and particularly to the
letter that had been written by Major Ross to the
wife of the defendant, and he asked them whether,
as reasonable men, and persons acquainted with the
ways of the world, and with human motives and
actions, they could come to any other conclusion
than that the man who wrote such a letter must
have been on terms of guilty intimacy with the per-
son to whom it was addressed.
The jury retired at 2 o'clock to deliberate upon
their verdict. After being in their room until 6
o'clock, they came into court and said that 11 of
them were agreed upon a verdict, but the 12th juror
was a dissentient, and they wished to know whether
the verdict of the 11 could be taken.
The learned judge consulted the counsel on both
sides, and Mr. Hawkins, on the part of the plaintiff,
consented to take this verdict of the 11 jurors. The
other side, however, would not agree, and the jury,
consequently, again retired, refreshments having
been supplied to them.
The jury returned into court at 9 o'clock, and
gave a verdict for the plaintiff.

Major Ross—Ho was away from the tent for 4
short time, but I cannot say how long. I did not
" time" him.
Sergeant Ballantine—l suppose you exchanged
glances while"the husband was away ?
Major Ross—We did.
Sergeant Ballantine—Pray what are you, Mr.
Ross, besides being a major ?
Major Ross—A printer and publisher.
Sergeant Ballantine—Did you always call Mrs.
Porter "your own beautiful angel ?" (Laughter.)
Major Ross—l had called her so before, but it
was not my habit to do FO.
Sergeant Ballantine—Do you think she believed
what you said ?
Major Ross—Well, I think she rather doubted it.
Sergeant Ballantine—Yon mean that the doubted
her-being an angel. (Laughter.)
Major Ross—Yes.
Sergeant Ballantine—l see that you say in this
letter, " r anticipate the pleasure of seeing you
alone, and holding you in my arms in a loving
embrace." ])id you do so ?
Major Ross—l did.
Sergeant Ballantine—l see
,that you also say
that you could not exchange a look with the lady

NORFOLK CIRCUIT—BURY ST. EDMUNDS,
March 19.
Nisi PRIUS COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
lIARLOCK V. OTTAWAY.

Mr. O' Talley, Q.C., and Mr. Keane were for the
plaintiff; Mr. Mills, Q.C., for the defendant.
This was an action to recover £259 2s. 4d., the
expenses of training a racehorse called Gibraltar,
and for payments to jockeys and tradesmen in re-
spect of the horse.
The plaintiff received the horse when it was two
years old, and the defendant was to pay £2 2s. per
week. The accounts between the parties are some-
what complicated, for during the racing season some
partnership arrangement was entered into between
the plaintiff, the defendant, and a Mr. Pybus; and
the accounts involve training, running expenses,
entries, forfeits, &c. The agreement was not pro-
duced by the plaintiff, and the evidence was con-
tradictory as to the time over which it extended.
Attempts have frequently been made to settle this
action by arbitration, and during the Vial this
morning these attempts were repeated; but as the
plaintiff has possession of the horse, and the defen-
dant has commenced an action of trover to recover
the horse, the plaintiff refused to allow this action
to bo referred, unless the action of trover is referred
also, The plaintiff Harlock is a well-known trainer,
and Ottaway is a person who was formerly an inn-
keeper at Maidstone.
The defence to this action was that the plaintiff
was a partner from 1860, therefore any claim for
money due after that period was not to be allowed.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—YORK, March 15.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)
TRADE OUTRAGE AT THORPE DESLEY.
Joseph Tomlinson, 32, James Watson, 28, and
Emanuel Isaac Watson, 30, were charged with
feloniously throwing gunpowder into a building
occupied by John Hattersley, with intent to destroy
the same, at Rotherham, on the 21st Dec., 1861.
Mr. Manic and Mr. V. Blackburn prosecuted ;
Mr. Price, Q.C., and Mr. C. Foster defended the
prisoners.
It appeared that Mr. Hattersley was the foreman,
of the nail makers in the employ of Mr. Favell, of
Thorpe Hesley. The nail makers at that place,
amongst whom were the three prisoners, were in
October last on strike. In the third week of Oc-
tober there was a meeting at Thorp Hesley of
union men. Favell's men were then working.
Tomlinson and one of the Watsons were present at
the meeting referred to, and the former made use
of a threat that he would blow Favell's men up.
Subsequently the prisoners went to work at Ches-
terfield and helper. On Saturday, the 21st Dee.,
a policeman in the evening met the two Watsons
about three-quarters of a mile from Thorpe Hesley,
and spoke to them for five minutes. That same
night an
to Charles Butcher, just before which the three
explosion took place in a shop belonging
prisoners were seen to pass at about 40 yards from.on
Ilatterslev's shop. Directly after the iirst explosion
men were again met running away from that
direction, and almost simultaneously an explosion
was heard in Hattersley's shop. On each of these
occasions the prisoners were distinctly recognised,
and were subsequently apprehended at Chesterfield

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENIN,G, IVIA.ROfI 21, 186?

and Belper. It was then found that the prisoners
were all away from their homes at the time of the
explosion, and there were also found pieces of tin
and explosive instruments which exactly corres-
ponded with tins and similar instruments found in
the shops at Thorpe Hesley, and which were those
by which the blowing up had been effected.
The defence was au overwhelming alibi, no less
II than 17 witnesses being called, and three of these
policemen, to swear that the prisoners were two at
Chesterfield and one at Belper at the very time the
offence was said to have been committed. In sum-
ming up his lordship said it was one of the most
extraordinary alibis which had ever come under
his observation. The jury, however, brought in a
verdict of guilty.
Fourteen years' penal servitude each.
This was the last case in the calendar of pri-
soners, and the court, therefore, proceeded with the
I trial of causes.