The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-20 00:00:00

transparent without stopingtaip_thn pores, or plas-
tering it over. The cost of the process greatly
depends on the result to be arrived at. Mrs. Car-
rogie was delighted with her appearance after I
had attended her three or four times. She said she
would like to be made beautiful for ever. (Laughter.)
Mr. Baron Wilde—And so far as you know the
benefit you have conferred is permanent ?
Witness—l am certain of it. (Continued
laughter)
Mr. Baron Wide—llo I understand you to say
that you have made her beautiful for ever ?

Witness—Yes. (Great laughter.)
Mr. Baron Wilde--Ar© four applications neces,
saryy

Witness—Allow me to explain. If a lady is not
disfigured or scarred one will be quite sufficient; but
I appeal to any medical man whether, if she is, the
process must not be repeated. An offer was made
to me to pay £5O for a settlement of the claim, but
I refused it.

Mr. Karslake submitted that the plaintiff ought
to be nonsuited, on the ground that there was no
evidence to show that the wife had an express or
implied authority from her husband to enter into a
contract with Madame Rachel in respect of the ena-
melling process.
Mr. Baron Wilde said it would be better to take
the opinion of the jury on the point, and, if neces-
sary, ho would give the learned counsel leave to
move.

Mr. Karslake then addressed the jury for the
defence. He said there could be no doubt that Mts.
Carnegie had had the folly to undergo the process
of enamelling, bat the question was whather she had
the authority of her husband to pledge his credit
far such an extravagant purpose. Capt. Carnegie
knew nothing whatever of the matter until, to his
astonishment, he saw Madame Rachel's bill for the
enormous sum of £938 53. The learned counsel
then contended that Madame Rachel rendered the
services she did to Mrs. Carnegie entirely at the
risk of being paid by the lady herself out of her own
private fortune, and that she was perfectly well
aware that she came to her without the knowledge
of Capt. Carnegie. Nothing would please Madame
Rachel more than to have Mrs. Carnegie placed in
the box and cross,exarnined, but she should not
have that satisfaction, as her evidence was totally
•immaterial to the issue, and he was determined not
to produce her as a witness. He would, however,
call Capt. Carnegie, who would tell them that he
was totally ignorant of what his wife had been
doing until, to his horror, he was made acquainted
with the fact by the bill of Madame Rachel, in
which nearly £l,OOO was charged for four attend-
ances.

The Hon. Capt. Carnegie, the defendant, exa-
mined—My wife has a private income of between
£7OO and £BOO a year. She has a scar on the breast,
the result of an operation. I first knew that she
had consulted Madame Rachel on the 23d of
March last. She informed me, and produced
Madame Rachel's account [The account, which
was put in, was a sum of £938 55., for enamelling,
attendance, and preparations ] I never authorised
her to employ Madame Rachel. I always supplied
my wife with sufficient necessaries and medical at-
tendance. I did not go to the ball at Monmouth
which she attended. Speaking from my own per-
sonal observation, I think the scar is rathe'r worse
than it was at the commencement of the year.
Cross-examined—My wife is in the neighbour-
hood of the court. I am a sailor, and am now in
the command of a vessel. I was not in the command
of one in January, February, or March last year. I
was then living in the neighbourhood of Belgrave-
square. I did not authorise my solicitor, Mr. Mac-
kenzie, to make an offer to Madame Rachel. I
allow my wife to consult what medical men she
likes, and I pay the bills without examining the
items. She has a carriage.
Mr. Davison—l do not wish to be inquisitive, but
I believe your income is considerable P
Captain Carnegie—lt is sufficient. (Laughter.)
Mr. Karslake and Mr. Davison having addressed
the jury on behalf of their respective clients,
Mr. Baron Wilde, in summing up, said—The
question for the jury was, whether the plaintiff had
made out to their satisfaction that Capt. Carnegie
had authorised his wife to employ Madame Rachel
in the way described. In deciding that point they
ought to look at all the circumstances of the case,
the position of the parties, the peculiar nature of
the services rendered, and the fact that the wife had
a separate income of her own.

Tile jury, without more than a minute's delibera-
tion in the box, returned a verdict for the defendant,

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before Sig C. Cresswell and a Special Jury.)

DYKE V. WILLIAMS-THE STEPNEY MURDER.

In this case the defendant applied for letters of
administration to the effects of Mary Elmsley, the
woman who was murdered at Stepney in 1860, o❑
the ground that he was her nephew and next of
kin. The Queen's Proctor intervened, and pleaded
that the deceased was illegitimate, and having died
intestate and childless the Crown became the legal
heir to her estate. •

Mr. 3.,lt.,caulay, Q.C., Mr. Boden, Q C , and Dr.
Spinks were counsel for the Queen's Proctor ; and
Mr. Q.C., Dr. Wambey, and Mr. Bevir
for tha defendant.

Mr. O'Malley stated the case for the defendant,
which was opened first. His client contended that
his father, who died in 1850, and the deceased
woman were brother and sister and born in lawful
wedlock. Their alleged father was a shoemaker,
named Samuel Williams, and married a reputed
foreigner named Mary Poupare, at St. Dunstan's
Church, Stepney, on Sept. 5, 1780; and were both
described in the marriage register as of the hamlet
of Rateliff. After the marriage they lived at
Stepney, and had several children, including the
deceased and the father of the defendant, who had
always been considered in the neighbourhood as
their legitimate children. Mary Elmsley was mar-
ried first to a man named Jones, and afterwards to
Elmsley, both of whom she survived. It appeared
that the family from whom the defendant claimed
to be descended had been located for years in the
neighbourhood to Ratcliff, where they carried on
what seemed to be their hereditary trade, that of
shoemaker; and one of the grounds on which the
defendant rested his claim was that his father car-
ried on the same business, and that he was brought
up to it also. When the Queen's Proctor was
induced to intervene, from information which
he ' had received, he proceeded on the
plea that the defendant was illegitimate; but
tne latter having'succeeded in establishing the
marriage of his father and mother at St.
Mary's, Lambeth, that plea was abandoned,• and
that of the illegitimacy of Mary Elmsley substi-
tuted. The marriage certificate of Samuel Wil-
Hams and Mary Poupare was also discovered after
some difficulty. The defendant's father and Mary
Elmsley treated each other always as brother and
sister, and were in the habit of calling each other
by their Christian names. The learned counsel
also adverted to the fact of these two parties hav-
ing borne the Christian names of their parents, as
tending to prove that they were their children.
Samuel Williams, of Stone-stairs, Grove-street,
Ratcliff, the defendant, was examined, and stated
that his father and Mary Elmsley were on affec-
tionate terms, and he always understood they were
brother and sister. His father was buried in Step-
ney churchyard.

Elizabeth Golf, sister of the previous witness,
corroborated the preceding evidence as to the terms
on which her father and Mrs. Elmsley were until
his death.

Other evidence of a similar character was called,
and the case was not concluded at the rising•of the
Court.

THE VOYAGE OF THE CUNARD STEAMSHIP
SCOTIA..—As much interest was attached to the respective
voyages of the steamships Great Eastern and the new
Cunard paddle steamship Scotia, and as the log of the
former has already appeared in our columns, the log of the
Scotia will no doubt prove of interest to our readers. Both
vessels encountered most severe easterly weather, and
neither voyage can be taken as a criterion of the speed of
the respective vessels. The Scotia reports :—June 4, 2 5
p.m., discharged pilot ; 2 10 p.m., passed screw steamship
City of New York, of the Inman line, going into- New
York ; wind E. June 5, wind variable, moderate breeze,
with cloudy weather; 6 50 p.m., passed the British ship
Constitution, bound east, lat 40 28 N, long 68 18 W; dis-
tance run 260 miles from Sandy Hook. June 6, wind
east, strong gale, with high head sea ; lat 41 N,
62 38 ; distance 258 miles. June 7, wind
SSE, hard ga'e, with heavy sea and rain, lat 41 22 N,
long 56 46 W ; distance 271 miles. June 8, wind N,
strong breeze, with high cross sea, lot 43 28 N, long
50 32 W ; distance 297 miles, June 9,_ wind NE, mo-
derate breeze, with head sea, let 45 36 N, long 44 25 NV;
distance, 295 miles. June 10, wind ESE, with head sea;
at 320 p m., passed a British ship of war, name un-
known, steering to the westward ; lat 47 48 N, long
38 02 W; distance, 312 miles. June 11th, wind NE by
E, moderate breeze, with cloudy weather; lat 49 42
N, long 30 12 W; distance 320 miles. June 12, wind
NNW, fresh breeze and cloudy ; 5 30 a.m. passed the
s.s. Edward Hawkins, bound E, lat 51 13 N, long
22 29 W ; distance 338 miles. June 13, wind NW, fresh
breeze and cloudy; lat. 51 38 N, long. 13 33 W; distance
340 miles. , Juno 14, fine clear weather; 12 45 a.m. arrived
at Queenstown and discharged the mails; 1.50 a.m. left
Queenstown for Liverpool ; 2.37 p.m. passed the royal mail
steamer Arabia, of the same line, bound west, distance 306
miles ; 4.28 p.m. arrived at Bell Buoy ; 9.40 p.m. arrived
in Liverpool, after a detention at the bar of 4k hours.
The Public Schools Commissioners visited the-
Charterhouse on Monday last, and held a general meeting
yesterday at their office in Victoria-street, Present—the
Earl of Clarendon, the Earl of Devon, Lord Lyttelton,
Rev. W. H. Thompson, Mr. 11, lialfordVaughan, and the
secretary, Professor Bernard,