The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 1,186 k).

as her mother had told her Rowlett *anted fnieb '
her, she baiting soihething for her. Rowlett asked
her how she was, and how the children were, and
told her to take care of the baby, as he would be
her (witness's) main claw; by which she under-
stood that if she lost him her husband would get
the money. Rowlett told her that she had left
something for her on the chimney-piece, and she
was to give her husband and Mrs. Halls a little of
it in anything. She could not find it on the
chimney-piece at first, but afterwards found a little
paper, and asked her mother if that was it, who
replied in the affirmative. She understood it was

a mere charm, to keep her husband from having
the money. She kept the powder, which was a
whitish one, for some days, and then put it in her
husband's tea, and directly after heard him complain
of pains in the limbs and sickness. Noticed he
looked better when he came back from London,
after being there two months. After he returned from
London her mother asked her how her husband was,
and when she told her he was a great deal better,
she said " Oh," and seemed surprised. Soon after,
in consequence of seeing him (her husband) very
ill, she told him what she now gave in
evidence. There was a little powder left ;
she had it in her pocket, but did not
always keep it there. Threw what was left into
a pail in the barn. Administered some of the
poison to Mrs. Halls. Cross-examined—She never
wished to injure her husband, as he. was always
very kind to her. Put the " stuff " into her hus-
band's tea in his cup. No one saw her. When her
husband took her into Peterborough police-station
he told her where he was going to take her to.—
C. B. Edwardes, deputy chief constable for the
liberty of Peterborough, deposed going to Deepin-
gate on the 20th ult. Mrs. Armstrong then said
in his presence that about three or four months ago
she first conceived the idea of giving her husband
drugs. He had hal some powders handed over to
him by police-constable Scotney. One was found
in a drawer in the kitchen, and another under a
cushion of an armchair in Mrs. Armstrong's bed-
room. He caused the powders to be analysed, and
the result was that alum only was found in one,
and in the other carbonate of soda. Mrs. Armstrong
at first denied, but afterwards admitted, putting
those powders where they were found. He had the
contents of the pail in which Mrs. Armstrong said
she had thrown the remains of the powder she had
from Rowlett analysed, and found it contained green
vitriol.
On the usual caution being read to the prisoners,
Mrs. Leaton said, "I wish to leave the case in the
hands of Mr. Taylor." Rowlett said, "I never gave
Mrs. Armstrong a powder in my life. I never told
Mrs. Leaton's fortune in my life. I have never
been in Mr. Armstrong's house since they were
married, and am as innocent of the crime as a babe
unborn." The latter prisoner was committed for
trial, and Mrs. Leaton was discharged.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Gashes,
and Mr. Taylor defended the prisoners.
Popular feeling at Deeping is much against Mr.
Armstrong, and on Monday a mob of between 200
and 300 people proceeded to his house at Deepiu-
gate, and attempted to set it on fire by placing a
quantity of straw at the front door and setting
fire to it, pulled the piping down, and broke
several panes of glass in the windows; and on
the following evening, before Mr. Armstrong got
home from the petty sessions at Peterborough, a
mob again collected and entirely demolished
the windows, including the frames and sashes,
and broke several chairs which were just inside,
doing damage to the amount of £3O or £4O. In
fact there has been no such ebullition of public
feeling displayed in the neighbourhood for many
years. A strong body of police is now patrolling
the neighbourhood of Deepiugate to prevent any
future riot of this sort, and we believe that proceed-
ings will shortly be taken against the chief parties
concerned in this wholesale malicious destruction of
property.

to go to hig,hettSe.that eirening after left work at
7 o'clock. He said he would meet me at the office
door. He did not come. About a fortnight or three
weeks:afterwards Reichberg again called with a fresh
form of type, and asked me to pull a few proofs, pro-
ducing, as on former occasions, his own paper for
that purpose. He never left any proof with Me. On
printing the third proof he held it up to the gas-
light, and examining it critically with an eyeglass
said it was very good. After printing about 20 im-
pressions, he asked me to pack up the form again in
the same paper he had brought, which I did. Before
he left he remarked upon the toughness of the paper
on which these impressions were taken, by twisting
a piece of it and giving it to me to pull asunder, if I
could, I was unable to do so. He paid me ls. 6d.
for pulling the proofs, stating he would call again
and have 1,000 copies struckioff. About the beginning
of December Reichberg called again alone, and
brought a block with a piece of copper-faced metal
on the top, having some foreign characters upon
it, saying he wanted 50 cards printed, and asked
what I would do them for. I told him the price.
He said it was too much. My employer agreeing
to do them for less, I printed the cards, and while
doing so I asked him what the language was on the
plate. He said, " Deutsch." I asked what they
were for. He replied, "50 cards for a gentleman."
After doing them, I took off what we term the
" make ready" sheet, and gave it to a boy to file.
Reichberg objected to that, and it was given to him
at his request. He took the 50 cards, the block,
and the " make ready" sheet, and that was the last
time he called on me. I have since seen a Russian
rouble note. (Shown a forged border of one.) That
is very much like what I printed for him. The im-
pressions I made were similar to part of a Russian
rouble note.
Cross.examined by Mr. M'Donnell—A boy about
14 years of age was present when I had those con-
versations with Reichberg. He could be found if
wanted.
James Skinner, a lithographer, at 47, Lower
Whitecross-street, said he remembered Harwitz and
Reichberg calling on him early in November and
asking him to take a lithographic impression of a
copper plate which they produced, and upon which
some characters were engraven. He told them he
could not do it to perfection unless he made an
electrotype impression of the copper-plate. They
said they could not leave it, as they had borrowed
it of a friend.
The plate was that found in the piece of gutta
percha, so spoken to by the officer Scott at a pre-
vious examination.
At this stage the prisoners were again remanded.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, lan. 31.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
MARIUS V. MARIUS AND BURKE_EXTRAORDINARY CASE.
This was a suit instituted by the husband for a
divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with
the co-respondent, to which there was no appearance,
but the Queen's Proctor intervened, pleading collu-
sion, connivance, and asssistance in the alleged
adultery on the part of the petitioner.
Mr. Cooper appeared for the petitioner, and the
Attorney-General, Sir F. Slade, Q.C., and Dr.
Spinks for the Queen's Proctor.
Mr. Cooper stated the case. The parties were
married on the 2d of March, 1850, and both were
They
about 25 years of age at the time. lived at
Sheffield for some time subsequently, and their co-
habitation continued until the commencement of
1861, during which period there were two children
issue of the marriage, one of whom was living.
While residing at Sheffield, the mother and sister
of the co-respondent lived within two or three doors
1 of the petitioner, and there was a close intimacy be-
tween the two families, which continued until Sep-
tember, 1858, when the petitioner and his wife
removed to Nottingham, where he set up in business
as a linendraper. Some time after that the co-
respondent also went to Nottingham, and obtained
a situation in a shop in the town. He boarded at
the petitioner's, but lodged elsewhere, and in July,
1859, he went away. He returned to Nottingham,
and applied to the petitioner to take him into his
employment, which he did, at a salary of £6O a-year.
Subsequently the petitioner opened another estab-
lishment at Leicester, the management of which he
entrusted to the co-respondent, and his wife used to
go there once or twice a-week to receive money. On
such occasions her habit was to sleep at a hotel in
the town. In the following year the petitioner was
compelled to become a bankrupt, and was obliged to
come to London for sonic time, and he heard from
his brother-in-law that he had seen his wife in
Burke's bedroom during his absence. He returned
home immediately, and mentioned the circumstance
to his wife, who denied that there was any truth in
the statement, and said she supposed she must have
been mistaken for her sister who was then at Notting-
ham. He believed her, and they lived as happily as
before, until July, 1860. One evening his wife was
asleep on the sofa, and he discovered some letters
in her pocket from Burke. He charged her with
impropriety, but she declared that beyond corre-
spondence with Burke there waa nothing improper
on her part. At his request she signed a memoran-
dum to the effect that she would have no further
communication with Burke or his family. They
resumed their friendly terms, but on the Bth July
following the respondent said she wished to go to
Doncaster to see her mother, who, she said, was ill,
and stated at the same time that she wanted to see
Burke, but that she would not have an interview
with him alone ; but he ascertained that she did not
carry out her promise. An altercation ensued, and
she confessed afterwards that she had nad con-
nexion with Burke. Ultimately she left him, and
had since been cohabiting with the co-respondent.
Evidence was given which fully established the
charge of adultery, and letters were produced in
which the wife admitted her guilt, and entreated
her husband to receive her home, which closed the
case for the petitioner.
The Attorney-General said that information had
been furnished to the Queen's Proctor which justi-
fied his intervening, in order that justice might be
done. That information was to the effect that Mr.
Marris had not only connived at his wife's adultery,
but actually desired her to go and live with Mr.
Burke. He produced a letter which had been iden-
tified as being in the handwriting of Mr. Marris
and his wife before they separated. The envelope
was in Mr. Marris's handwriting, and bore the date
of July 10,1860, and was addressed to Mr. Burke,
at the Talbot Hotel, Bradford, Yorkshire. On one
sheet the wife wrote as follows :—" I was grieved
to find that there was no letter from you, and I
don't know your whereabouts. The important ques-
tion is finally settled, and the articles are only
waiting for you to claim. I have not felt so happy
for years. Tell me what you wish to do by letter,
or better, by telegram." On the fly-sheet Mr. Mar-
ris wrote the following :—" It will be better to at-
tend to this matter the first thing." The learned
Attorney-General applied to have the petitioner,
who was in attendance, examined, in order to ex-
plain the circumstances connected with the case,
and the Court granted the application.
Mr. Wm. Marris was then examined by the
Attorney-General, and deposed as follows :—The
joint letter produced is in my handwriting and my
wife's. My wife was then living with me at Not-
tingham, and shortly after she left me to go to Don-
caster. On that occasion I accompanied her to the
station, got her ticket, and paid her fare: She re-
turned the following day, and she did, to my know-
ledge, go to Doncaster purposely to meet Mr.
Burke, but not alone. She said she had to meet her 1
mother there. I did not know that indecent fend•
liarities had taken place between her and Mr.
Burke. I remember the memorandum signed by
my wife on the 7th of June, 1860, in which she
promised to discontinue all connection with Mr.
Burke and his family. Previous to this I had heard
that Mr. Burke had been writing to my wife, and
that he had been at my house during :my absence.
At that time I had not seen any letter to my wife
from him. I had heard of their having been seen
together while I was from home, at Welford-grove,
which is about two miles from Nottingham. I
heard of their having been seen together at the Stag
and Pheasant, at Leicester. That was somewhere 1
about December, 1859. It was during one of the
visits of my wife to Leicester, to receive money
from Mr. Burke, that I heard she had been seen at
the Stag and Pheasant with him. I knew about my
wife meeting Mr. Burke at Doncaster by what she
stated herself, and she remained at Doncaster one
night. After the day on which my wife signed the
memorandum and her leaving me we had hostile
discussions relative to Mr. Burke. After my wife
left I received a letter from her, in which she stated
that I desired her to leave my place and go and live
with Mr, Burke. [The letter was produced, and it
stated that, if witness did not discontinue the suit
on the ground of her infidelity, she would prove
that he had desired her to go and live with Mr.
Burke, and said that he promised her to seek
for a divorce on the plea of incompatibility of
temper, or of mutual consent to separate.] I
never expressed a desire that she should leave
me, or that we should live apart. I said to her,
" You must give up Burke or me. If after
ten years' living together, the thread of affection is
worn so thin, and can be broken so easily, you had
better give up me." I said she must do one or the
other. She said she could not give me up, and
would resign him. This was two or three days be-
fore she left me. I never spoke about a divorce to
her, or said that I would act towards her as a sister.
I do not remember addressing her as a sister after
she left me ; but I said I would give her advice as
a brother. ['Jere a letter was put in from the re-
spondent to the petitioner after their separation, 113
which she said that except for his desiring her to
leave his house she would not have acted as she had

done, and also another letter, in which she entreated
him to receive her back, reminding him of the
many years she had been faithful to him, and
speaking in very pathetic terms of her having
passed the churchyard where their first child was
interred, and the bitter memories it conjured up.l
I never told her I would advise her as a brother
until she had left me. I did all I could to dissaude
her from going to live with Mr. Burke. With re-
spect to the joint letter, I do not remember to what
the words, " You had better attend to this the first
thing," refer, except to my statement to my wife
that she must give up me or Burke, and 1 presume
the term " articles" refers to herself. Whilo I was
absent from home my wife sent a domestic to Mr.
Burke, requesting him to come to my place, and
they were seen walking in my private garden
together. I did not see her on that day, and she
left me the next day at Eight o'clock in the morn-
ing. I saw her and Burke in a cab the following
day, but I did not speak to them.
The petitioner was cross-examined by Mr. Cooper,
and confirmed several portions of the learned coun-
sel's statement in his opening address. He added
that his wife signed the memorandum in compliance
with his wishes, and in consequence of his stating
that he could not rely on her word, as she had pre-
viously promised not to see Burke or his family,
which promise she had broken. On her return
from Doncaster, she told him that she and Mr.
Burke had slept at the same hotel, but that they
occupied different rooms. She left on the Sunday,
and on the Thursday previous he took a portrait of
Burke from her pocket. She said it was her's and
that he had no right to it. He threw it into the fire.
She then showed him a plain gold ring, which she
said Mr. Burke had given her on the first night
when he took liberties, and that she had thrown his
(petitioner's) ring into the Trent. She went to bed,
and he remained on the sofa that night. The next
morning he went to her relations and stated what
had occurred, and they told him that he ought
never to live with her again. Her mother told him
that she was aware that her daughter lied commit-
ted acts of adultery previously.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Cooper having
addressed the Court,
Sir C. Cresswell, who went through the evidence
most carefully, said that at first the joint letter of
the petitioner and his wife induced him to believe
that there was collusion on their part, but after
hearing the case fully, he arrived at a different con
elusion. He must therefore pronounce a decree
nisi, with costs against the co-respondent.
FURNIVAL V. FURNIVAL.
This was a petition by the wife for judicial sepa-
ration, on the ground of her husband's desertion,
to which an appearance had been entered by the
respondent, denying the allegation, and stating that
he was ready to receive his wife back, and provide
her with a home.
Mr. M'lntyre appeared for the petitioner, and the
respondent was unrepresented by counsel.
It appeared that the parties were married in
February, 1856, and after the marriage they went
to Brighton for a few days. On their return to
London, the respondent, on their arrival at the
Bricklayers' Arms Station, asked his wife to give
him whatever money she had, as he was anxious to
place it in the bank with his own money. She
did so, giving him £2O, and then he left her. She
proceeded to a house in Paragon-place, New
Kent-road, which he had taken, but he never
came to her afterwards. He communicated with
her through her family, and stated that he was too
poor to live with her. He said that if she would
supply him with money he would make a fortune,
and that he hated " poor people." (Laughter.) He
added that " love in a cottage was all gammon," as
far as London was concerned, and expressed a hope
that she would find the money to put him into busi-
ness.
The respondent in person cross-examined the
petitioner.
The Court pronounced the decree of judicial
separation.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 31.

THAMES.—Ann Pavitt, a very fat and vulgar
woman, the landlady of an oyster, refreshment, and
wine-rooms, 20, Grace's-alley, Wellclose-square,
appeared before Mr. Selfe to answer a summons
which charged her with assaulting Ann Allen, a
servant girl, under circumstances of a very peculiar
nature.
Mr. Charles Young, solicitor, conducted the pro-
secution, and said it was quite unnecessary to state
who and what the defendant was, or the sort of
answer she would give to the charge.
The complainant, an orphan, about 17 years of
age, said she entered the service of Mrs. Pavitt
on
Monday week. On Friday night last she was at
the door of the house in Grace's-alley, when three
or four sailors entered the shop and called for re-
freshments. Mrs. Pavitt showed them into a back
room where there were no windows. The other
female servant, who was four or five years older
than complainant, followed them into the room,
The gas was on• only with a little glimmer, and
Mrs. Pavitt called her into the room. She thought
she would have to wait upon the sailors, but she
' was called in for the most infamous purpose. The
sailors began pulling her about, acted with great
indecency towards her, and raised her clothes. She
screamed aloud for help, and tried to get out, but
was unable to do so in consequence of the door
being held fast by her mistress, who called her a
little fool, and told her to submit to the wishes of
the ruffians in the room. She exclaimed, " No, I
will not," and kicked at the door. Tho sailors all
this time were taking indecent liberties with her.
She screamed aloud over and over again, and in two
or three minutes her mistress opened the door and
said, " I'll have no screamers here," ordered her to
leave the house, and refused to pay her any wages.
It was 11 o'clock at night, and when she asked for
some money to get a lodging, her mistress threat-
ened her, and said, " If you don't go, I will kick
you out."
In answer to a question from Mr. Selfe, the wit-
ness said the servant woman laughed when the
sailors pulled her about, and did not resist them.
Mr. Selfe—llow did you find means to employ a
solicitor ?
Roche, the gaoler of the court—l will explain
that, sir. The poor girl has neither father nor
mother, and Mr. Young, on my suggestion, kindly
took up the case gratuitously.
Mary Palmer, a married woman, wife of a la-
bourer, said the complainant came to her at eleven
o'clock, and stated how she had been treated by the
sailors and her mistress. She protected the friend-
less girl from motives of charity.
The defendant made a long address to the magi-
strate, vilifying the complainant in a scandalous
manner, giving the biography of herself, husband,
and ten children, invoking the Divine vengeance
on her head, and the most frightful punishments
on herself and all that belonged to her, if she was
guilty of the conduct imputed to her. After pro
ceeding in this strain for some time, and making
frequent appeals to Heaven to witness her inno-
cence and sufferings, she said the complainant ab-
sconded from her service on Thursday night; that
the scene as described with the sailors never hap-
pended ; that the girl stole £1 45., and some dresses
of her fellow-servant, and that she had been on the
look-out for her ever since to give her into custody.

Two women were called, Who swore positively
that Ann Allen absconded from Mrs. Pavitt's house
on Thursday night, and confirmed everything their
mistress had said; but, on a searching cross-ques-
tioning by Mr. Selfe, involved themselves in a mass
of contradictions.
Mr. -Young said that Mr. Yardley, who presided
in that court 13 years, had declared Mrs. Pavia
to be the worst character in the district, and that
was saying a good deal ; and he had also declared
upon Another occasion that Mrs. Pavitt and her
witnesses ought to be indicted for wilful and cor-
rupt perjury.
Atter three hours' investigation,
Mr. Selfe said he wished to divest himself of all
that happened before on one side or the other ;
but when perjury and subornation of perjury, and
the most outrageous blasphemy was practised
and spoken time after time, he found it difficult
indeed to restrain his prejudices. Mrs. Pavia was,
without exception, the most wicked woman he ever
saw in the whole course of his life. Every appear-
ance of Mrs. Pavia in that court had been marked
with the most conflicting testimony—that extraor-
dinary conflict of testimony which rendered it quite
impossible for him to divest his mind of what hap-
pened before. The prisoner had the audac.ity
to accuse an honest and respectable girl, was Amity
of pcVjury, made the most solemn asseverations to
Heaven, continually invoked the Divine vengeance
while she was uttering her vile slanders and false-
hoods, and then called witness after witness, whom
she had suborned, to commit foul and deliberate
perjury. He could hardly conceive wickedness more
diabolical, more appalling. The prisoner had, by
false and specious pretences, enticed the girl away
from a respectable place to ruin her, both body and
soul, and to make her as degraded as herself and
her servant woman, Caroline Crook. Taking into
consideration the circumstances under which the
assault was committed, the audacious profanity of
Mrs. Pavitt, and her attempt to effect the ruin of a
friendless and virtuous girl, by putting her into a
room with half-drunken sailors at 11 o'clock at
night, he should ill discharge his duty if he did not
inflict a severe sentence. He should not fine Mrs.
Pavitt again. She would have to undergo impri-
sonment and hard labour, and it was fortunate the
new law met str_th a case as this. The assault com-
mitted by the defendant was trifling—only just an
assault in law—but it was the circumstances by
which it was surrounded that rendered it peculiarly
atrocious. He sentenced the prisoner to be inipri-