The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-15 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr.
Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.)
VAUGHAN V. COOK.
This was an action for false imprisonment. The
defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Prentice was counsel for the plaintiff; the
defendant appeared i❑ person.
Tne plaintiff is a widow, residing in Wells-street,
Oxford-street, and the defendant is a tailor in
13erners, street, Oxford-street. The plaintiff was in
trouble about some house property, and she con-
sulted the defendant about it. He settled the
(natter for her, and sent in a claim for .E 3 17s. 6d.
for his trouble. A quarrel then took place
_a_ betweener
them. The plaintiff after this borrowed a_lrd_cic.
of a person who occupied a house, the rent of hirt.?
the defehdant collected. The defendant, it appea
gave the plaintiff into custody for stealing the

ladder, and she was taken to a police-station in the I
neighbourhood of Tottenham-court-road. The in-
spector, after hearing the particulars of the charge,
refused to take it.
The defendant urged that the plaintiff had treated
him with ingratitude for the services he had ren-
dered her. Fie demanded the ladder of the plaintiff,
but she refused to give it, and thinking to frighten
her, he called in a policeman. She still persisted
in keeping it, and he gave her into custody.
The jury wished to know what amount would
carry costs but the learned judge declined to gratify
their curiosity. Ultimately they returned a verdict
for the plaintiff. Damages, £5.
On the application of the learned counsel his
lordship after hesitation certified for the costs.
BETTISON V. EYRE.—A STRANGE CASE.

This was an action to recover the sum of £4O.
Mr. Prentice was counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.
Barnard for the defendant.
The defendant was a lodging-house keeper, and
the plaintiff had been in her service as a domestic.
In 1857, when the plaintiff was only 17 years of age
and was in the defendant's service, she was either
criminally a-saulted or seduced by a young man
who was on a visit at the time in the defendant's
house. The plaintiff was in such a state that she
was unable to give evidence before the m igistrate,
and the case was remanded ; but the case could not
be proceeded with, as the girl, instead of getting
better, got worse, and became insane. Upon that,
the young man or his friends, by way of amends for
his conduct, paid the defendant £4O for the girl's
benefit. It was arranged by the girl's friends that
the money should be paid into the barlk for her
benefit. The father-in-law some time after made
some inquiries about the money, and then the de-
fendant produced an account purporting that there
was only a balance of £lO left, the rest having been
laid out for her benefit in necessaries, &c.
The defendant offered to give an I 0 U for the £lO.
The defence was certainly a very curious one—
viz., that the defendant did not receive any money
for the girl's benefit, but produced the sum of £4O
to pacify her; and Mr. Barnard, the defendant's
counsel, intimated to him that he must consent to
a verdict for £2O, or he should throw up the case.
The defendant would not consent, and the conse-
quence was that the jury immediately gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for £3O.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Creswell)
BULLOCK WEBSTER V. BULLOCK WEBSTER AND
YONGE.
This was an undefended suit, instituted by the
husband for a dissolution of marriage, on the ground
of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, who
holds the rank of captain in the 61st Regiment of
Foot.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married in 1852,
and cohabited until 1860, during which period the
respondent gave birth to two sons and two daughters.
They resided first at Hendon, after which they re-
moved to Brecon, where the petitioner took a farm,
in the management of which he was unsuccessful,
and the father of the respondent, who became em-
barrassed, withdrew an allowance of £l2O a year,
which he had granted them for some time. The re-
spondent became very much dissatisfied with their
situation, but up to this time there was no rupture
between her and her husband. The petitioner after-
wards accepted the situation of guard on the railway
station at Swindon, where they resided for some
time, when the petitioner gave up his situation and
removed with his wife to Ten by, in Pembrokeshire.
He took a house at No. 1, Brighton-place in that
town, but not obtaining auy employment in the
neighbourhood he returned to London, where he got
the situation of secretary to the Dental Hospital,
Soho-square. This took place at the end of Decem-
ber, 1861, and after he left Tenby the respondent
addressed him letters written in affectionate terms,
although it was alleged that at the time she was
carrying on an illicit intercourse with co-respondent.
Caroline Price said she was a friend of Mr. and.
Mrs. Webster, and she visited them atter their mar-
riage. They appeared to live happy together, and
the respondent corresponded with her from time to
time. She identified the letters alluded to as being
in the handwriting of respondent.
Louisa Evans, wife of William Evans, formerly a
superintendent in the metropolitan police, said she
lived opposite Mr. Webster and his wife at Tenby,
and knew them perfectly by sight. The Marca
after Mr. Webster left for London she noticed that a
gentleman, whom she subsequently ascertained was
Captain Yonge, came to Mrs. Webster's frequently.
He was in the habit of remaining till five in the
afternoon, and sometimes later.
Mary Price, a servant at Mr. Webster's.
stated that after her master left, Captain Yonge
visited her mistress frequently. He was in the
habit of calling every Sunday, and sometimes
on week days. He came on Sundays while
she was absent at evening service, and remained
till late in the evening. He generally came about 2
in the afternoon on week days, and then she was
sent out with the children. Mrs Webster left Tenby
in December, and told witness she was going to
Haverfordwest, but gave no directions about the
forwarding of her letters. She returned in about five
weeks, and told her she had had a baby during her
absence,
Evidence was then given of the co-respondent
having instructed a medical gentlemen to take
lodgings for Webster at Haverfordwest, and to his
having offered subsequently to provide for the child
after its birth. Mrs. -Webster first registered the
child at the parish church under the name of Henry
William Winter; father, Henry Winter, mother,
Rose Lavine, which was ber maiden name. She
afterwards altered the entry, giving the child the
name of Webster, and her proper name as that of the
mother and father. The handwriting of both entries
was recognised to be the respondent's.
The Court pronounced the decree nisi, with costs
against the co-respondent.
BAYLIS V. BAYLIS.

In this case the wife prayed for a divorce on the
ground of her husband's adultery, coupled with
cruelty and desertion, and there was no defence.
Dr. Spinks was counse: for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married at
Bristol in 1846, the respondent having a situation
as porter on a railway, and the petitioner being
a dressmaker. They removed to London, and
lived together until 1857, during which time the
conduct of the respondent was of the most vio-
lent and brutal description, and on one occasion he
struck her with a saucepan in which his dinner was
boiling, from the effects of which she became in-
sensible, and blood gushed from her ears. He was
in the habit of seizing her by the hair and holding
her head under his arm while he struck her in the
face,and from this treatment she received a perma-
nent injury in the face. Ultimately he left her and
cohabited with a woman to whom be represented
himself as a widower, and who was obliged to leave
him, from his ill-treatment.
The Court pronounced a decree nisi, with costs.

---
7HE 17 ATAL FALL OF ARCHES ON 7j
CITY AND HAMMERSMITH RAIL WAY.

Yesterday Dr. Lankester, coroner for Central
Middlesex, resumed the inquest at the Bank of
England Tavern, Pi aed-street, Paddington, on the
bodies of James Hall, aged 22 ; Richard Cookson,
aged 30 ; Wm. Ogden, aged 20 ; Henry Macey,
aged 21; Alfred Beeby, aged 19 ; and Thomas
Nicholls, aged 27, the six unfortunate men killed by
the falling of several arches of the viaduct on the:
Hammersmith Railway on the morning of the 6th.

inst.
Mr. C. E. Lewis appeared on the part of Mr.
Rummens, the contractor fOr the works ; and Mr.
Cotton appeared on behalf of 1: he railway company.
Mr. Bird, the coroner of the western division of
Middlesex, who was present, said several complaints
had reached him from friends and relatives of the
deceased parties as to the removal of the bodies after
they were proved by medical men on the oround to
have life extinct, and he had attended there to call
on his colleague, Dr. Lankester, to inquire by whose
authority such removal had taken place.
Dr. Lankester said, with all deference to the su-
perior legal knowledge of Mr. Bird, he thought
that the jury had no other ditty to perform but to
inquire into the deaths of these poor people. The
removal might be a question between him and his
colleague in another place.
Thos. Chatterly was then sworn--lie said he was
a foreman of carpenters to Mr. Rumwer, 8, contrac-
tor for the railway. On the morning of the acci-
dent his attention was called by Baten to the pier
of one of the arches near the ditch having sunk con-
siderably, and in consequence witness and his men
set to work shoring up the different arches, and
they bad put in about 20 shores when the accident
happened. That was about half-past Bin The even-
ing. The men were working overtime by the lig.ht
of fires. When the arches fell witness helped to get,
the deceased men out, and he directed them to be
removed to St. Mary's Hospital because he thought
they breathed. Be was sure such was the fact in
the case of Macey and another.
By Mr. Lewis—He hr:d shored six arches before
—thyee on each side of the
the accident happened
pier which had sunk. The &nit arch shored was the
one on the east side of that in%2T. The men were
found under the third arch west of the defective

pier.
One of the house surgeons to St. Mary's Hospital
deposed that the bodies of the deceaced enen were
brought there dead with various injuries.
Mr. John Fowler said he was enginoer to the
Hammersmith and City Railway Companyond that
he had made a minute investigation as to the cause
of the accident, and was prepared to state that it
had resulted solely from the sinking of the pier of
the first arch referred to, consequent on the unsolid.
character of the ground, which had become al-
tered, causing the sicking and sliding of the pier.
It had sunk or settled ten inches and a half,
and had made a slide westward five inches. The
concrete was 18 inches thick. The sinking and
lateral movement caused the fall.
Mr. Wm. Wilson, civil engineer, of Queen-
square, Westminster, said he was resident engineer
of this railway, and superintended the construction
of the works generally, He had examined the soil
of the foundations of the first six arches, and gave
instructions that if the soil was the same the build-
ing of the arches was to be continued in the same
way. Had heard Mr. Fowler's evidence, and
agreed with him as to the cause of the accident.
The brickwork was of the best description, and
the concrete used was in accordance with the con-
tract. Believed that was crushed in consequence
of the lateral action of the pier.
Mr. Joseph Cubitt, engineer, said he had exa-
mined the place since the accident. and agreed that
the softening of the undersoil or ch_y was the cause
of the accident. A similar occurrence had taken
place at works of his own, and the proper course
was taken to save the arches. The quality of the
materials was perfectly satisfactory.
Thomas Wright Holden, superintendent of works
under the contractor, deposed to having superin-
tended the digging of the foundations for these
piers. Saw no difference in the foundation of the
soil. Was aware of the ditch, but it was dry when
the foundations were dug. The ditch was drained
under the arches about three weeks before the pier
began to sink. The first indication of the sinking
was a crack in the brickwork, at the top of the
viaduct.
Mr. Robert Ker said he resided at 3, Parlia-
ment-street, and was architect and surveyor of
St. James's. Had visited the fallen viaduct, and
quite agreed that the cause as stated by the
engineers previously examined was the correct
one. The ditch referred to by the side of the pier
which gave way had no doubt been accumulating a
deposit for many years, and had caused the clay'
of the lower surface to become moistened and soft-
ened. Did not think, however, the clay suffi-
ciently altered in appearance from the surround-
ing soil to attract attention. Was of opinion
that the concrete produced and taken out of the
foundation had never been set, but it had nothing
to do with the accident.
The Coroner here said if the jury felt that they
had not had sufficient evidence as to the character
of the soil he would adjourn the inquest.
A volunteer witness, however, deposed to know-
ing the ditch referred to for five years, and said it
was over the boots in summer even.
The room was cleared, and the jury, after some
discussion, desired to have the pier removed that
they might satisfy themselves as to the character
of the soil.
The inquest was adjourned till Wednesday next: