The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-July 1.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sitting at Nisi Prius, before the Lord Chief Justice
Erie and a Special Jury.)
DAVEY T. FEMBERTON.—SINGULAR CASE OF DIS-
PUTED HANDWRITING.
This case was partly beard on Monday. It was
an action by a medical man to recover damages for
a libel contained in certain anonymous letters sent
to his wife and some of his friends and patients,
imputing to him misconduct in reference to a lady
whom he was attending.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., and Mr.
Honeyman appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Garth for the defendant.
The plaintiff's counsel commenced by laying before
the jury evidence in reference to the handwriting.
Mr. Merritt, cashier to the London and County
Bank at Rotnford, said he had known the hand.
writing of the defendant for many years, both as a
customer of the bank and as a director of a build-
ing thesociewith which witness was connected He
believed t addresses on the envelopes were in the
defendant's handwriting.
Mr. Lush—Now, look at the libels ' • whose hand-
writing do you believe them to be in?
Witness—I not know the handwriting. I do
not recognise it. I do not come here as a witness
willingly.
Mr. G. Addison, who had been for six years
clerk in the bank at Romford, was well acquainted
with his (defendant's) signature, more so than with
his handwriting generally. As far as he could judge,
the addresses on the envelopes were in the defen-
dant's handwriting.
Mr. Karslake—Can you form any opinion as to
whose handwriting the libels themselves are in ?
Witness—I cannot.
Mr. Cornelius Green expressed his opinion that
the addresses on the envelopes were written by the
defendant.
Mr. John Davis gave a contrary opinion.
Mr. Boyes, the defendant solicitor (who was
called for another purpose), said that the writing on
the envelopes was not at all of the same character
as the defendant's writing.
Mr. Netherclift and Mr. Adlard, the experts in
handvvriting, gave evidence to the effect that they
believed that the addresses upon the enveloped were
in the defendant's writing.
that there
Mr. Davey, thesplaintiff, plaintiff, proved the receipt of the
anonymous letter by his wife, and said
was not one word of truth in it.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Bovill, in addressing the jury for the defen-
dant, said that there was no ground whatever for
the imputation which had been made u
e endant had
d fpon the de-
fendant; and he added that the
already on two occasions most positivelyh sworn that 11
er of the libel,
he was neither the author nor Publisher
which he would repeat before the jury in
evidence
the witness-box. The learned
denial proceedings should be
counsel
also that after thiscomplained
carried on which not only
that he had published a
most
imputed to the defendant
that he had actually infamous libel, but
committed
screen himself from tted perjury to
the c
the statement .13Y the defe onsequences. As to
believed that the ndant that he had
were in the
was made inc handwriting of his eldest son, that
being told that consequence of the defendant
there
between them and was a great similarity
known had an
address which it was
the son upon I,,been Written by the son, and
great 8 examination said that there was
knowledge of similarity to his writing, but he denied all
that the son had
had written it. It had been said
ad abandoned the living which had
been procured for him, and had left hurriedly for
Australia,had been *hen the truth was that his departure
arranged for months, because he had a
abroad; disinclination for the Church, and a liking for going
and, in addition, he had some relations in
Australia,,,r. to whom he had gone.
Imi.-1-1, Wallet, an auctioneer and land agent, and
busiwarnbert, an architect,
h both of whom had had
vso. 'SS transactions wit the defendant, and Mr.
-tt nerts, clerk to thedefendant, said in their belief
,
the envelopes had not been addressed by him.
Mr. Lush, in answer tohis lordship, said that be

did not contend that the defendant had written the
libels themselves.
Mr. Thabot and Mr. Netberclift, the son of the
witness examined on the other side, two experts,
thought that none of the writing was by defendant; ;
and the latter vvitneels believed that the libels and
the addresses on the :envelopes were written by the
same person.
Mr. Pemberton, the defendant, said he resided
at Hare Hall, near Roinford. He had never had
any animosity towards the plaintiff. The addresses
on the envelopes were not written by him. He did
not kno:Y who wrote them, and he never authorised
their being written. His son had been talking of
going to Austr.:llia some time before he went. No
living had been purchased for him, but Mr. Barnes,
the father of witness's brother, had bought the next
presentation in 1840; and if witness's son had liked
the Church he would probably have been presented.
Cross-examined--To the best of his belief he
never saw one of the bills posted about Romford in
reference to the anonymous letters, and offering a
reward of £5O. His son never told him that he
had seen it. (The witness was asked a number of
questions in reference to ollatere.1 matters, but his
memory was very defective.)
This closed the defendant's case.
The learned counsel having addressed ale jury on
behalf of their respective clients,
The learned judge summed up, and
The jury retired at a quarter to six o'clock, and
had not agreed at a late hour, having sent down
several intimations that they were ten to two, and
there was no chance of their coming to a verdict.

COURT OF PROBATE AA TD DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordina:v.)
GRANT V. GRANT, BOWLES, AND PA1:180N•
On the 31st of January last the Court pro,:
ounced
a decree nisi in this case, and the petitioner had
since died, having left a 'will, of which probate wa'
taken out on Feb. 28, 1862, and by which a Mr.
Young was appointed executor and guardian of his
children. ,

Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., now moved that the children
of the petitioner might be allowed to intervene by
their guardian, and have the decree nisi obtained
by their father pronounced absolute. The learned
counsel contended that on the decree nisi the child-
ren came into the suit, and that they were entitled
to have the inchoate sentence completed.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., on the other side, contended
that on the death of the petitioner the suit had
abated. If the wife had moved for a new trial she
could not have obtained it, and if the suit was gone
for one purpose it was for all.
Sir C. Cresswell could not say that he had any
doubt upon the point ; but as it was one of great
importance, he would reserve his decision.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF AT-
-IE.M.PING TO COMMIT A RATE.

This case, which was of a most extraordinary character,
involved no fewer than four summonses. In the first plact
Mr. John Chapman, the owner of a number of houses in
Dunkeld-street, West Derby-road, summoned Mrs. Maria
Harding, a young and rather good-looking widow, for com-
mitting upon him- a most desperate assault with a poker.
On the other hand, Mrs. Harding charged Mr. Chapman
with attempting to commit a rape upon her, alleging that
she used the poker to protect herself from his violence.
Then there were two other summonses against Mr. Chap- j
man for assaulting Mrs. Harding's little boy and her ser-
vant girl. Mr. Inman, solicitor, from the West Riding of
Yorkshire, appeared for Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Cobb re-
presented Mrs. Harding. It was agreed to hear Mr. Chap-
man's complaint first.
After the case had been opened by Mr. Inman,
John Chapman said he resided in Dunkeld-street,where he
owned 10 houses. The defendant (Mrs. Harding) had been
a tenant of his nine months, He had served her on the 16th
May with notice to quit. He gave her notice because
she called his wife and family a number of bad names
The last quarter's rent became due on the lst of June. He
called upon her for the rent a few days after the let, when
she told him to call on the 20th. He accordingly called
about half-past two o'clock in the afternoon of the 20th
inst., and Mrs. Harding asked him to take a seat. Having
sat down in the back parlour, he told her he had called for
the rent. She said she would only pay from the time she
entered the house. He replied that she must pay accord-
ing to the agreement with Mr. Davies, her guardian, which
was from the Ist of the month. She rose from his side,
said she did not care a fig for Mr. Davies or any person else)
and made use of an improper expression. He told her she
was an ill-spoken woman, and threatened if she did not pay
the rent that he would put the bailiffs into the house. She
then seized a poker and struck him on the head, inflicting
a rather severe wound. He got hold of her arms, wrest:A
the poker from her, and held her until her passion subsided.
Her little boy and the servant then came into the room.
When her passion had subsided, Mrs. Harding went
on her knees, begged him to forgive her, saying, "You
know what a creature I am when I am in a passion."
She also offered to wash the wound. Seeing a knife on
the table, he was afraid to let her an. Afterwards she
ordered the servant to fetch a sponge to wash the blood off
the wound. He the (defendant) she should suffer for the
assault. She then produced the half of a £5 note, which
she gave him, and said that if he called on the following
day she would give him the other half.—ln cross-exami-
nation the complainant positively denied that he had ever
attempted to take improper liberties with the defendant, or
that he wanted her to elope with him to Birmingham.
Mr. Inman proposed next to call Mr. 'Walters, plumber,
of Birkenhead, who was formerly Mrs. Harding's landlord,
to show that she was a violent woman, but Mr. Cobb
objected.
Mr. Inman urged that he was entitled to call witnesses
to show that previous collectors of rent and taxes dare not
enter her house to collect;' but the magistrates decided
that such evidence had nothing to do with the present case.
Mr. Cobb, for the defence, said the magistrates would
have a painful duty to perform. They would have to say
that the lady (his client) was guilty of wilful and corrupt
perjury, or that the complainant had committed such an
assault upon Mrs. Harding as to leave them no alternative
but to send him to gaol for at least twelve months. He

admitted that Mrs. Harding had struck the complainant
with a poker ; but, before the magistrates decided upon the
case, he (Mr. Cobb) asked them to hear her tale. He had
frequently importuned her to become his mistress, to elope
with him to Birmingham, to leave her guardian and her
child, and to place herself entirely under his protection.
On the day in question he called under the pretext of get-
ting the rent, when he pulled her and attempted to commit
a rape, and he would have accomplished his object were it
not that she kicked him in a tender part of the body, and
at last she struck him with the poker. If, under the cir-
cumstances, she had broken his skull and killed him on the
spot, Mr. Cobb argued, she would have been perfectly jus-
tified. The complainant—a designing, cunning, wicked
man—then took out a summons, thinking that her mouth
would be closed.
Before deciding upon the complaint made by Mr. Chap-
man, the bench agreed to hear the case of Mrs. Harding.
Maria Harding said she was a widow, residing in Dun-
keld-street. On the 20th inst., at a quarter past one o'clock,
the defendant called at her house and said he wished to
see her. She told the servant to tell him that she was in
her dishabille, and could not then see him. He, however,
bounced into the back parlour and sat down in the rock-
ing chair, and when she tried to pass him he threw her
down and attempted to commit a rape upon her. She
called out, " murder" and " help," and resisted him with
all her might. She struck and kicked him. It was, she
said, her feet that saved her. She then managed to get
hold of the poker, and she struck him a blow on the side of
the head. Her screams brought in the servant. When down,
Hhe e
alsea thumpedcalled
dh
herer, tore
shockingh r
n clothes,ana ea 2
andand
saidm ad
he
eh
woulder s side
In
e sore.n
der her. Mrs. Harding added that the defendant had often at-
tempted to take improper liberties with her before. On
one occasion he offered her £l5O if she would elope with
him, and on another occasion he wanted her to take £lO
to go to Birmingham, and he would follow her. After
committing the assault upon her, he snatched the half of
the a note from her. On the same afternoon she called in
a surgeon, telegraphed to Mr. Davies, her guardian, in
Manchester, made a complaint to Inspector Home, and on
the following day applied for a warrant against the defen-
dant to Mr. Reifies. In cross-examination by Mr. Inman,
the complainant said it was a quarter-past one o'clock when
the defendant entered the house, and it was five minutes to
two when ho left. In going ont he said, "If you say
nothing about it,dloewri.ll sayon
H naothprinevg.iaebnoa yudtait.'.'he
He
kissed hersneaked
out by the back
while She was washing.
was in the hwanbilt,
aonfeoemheinugeeind
o back door ad cli g
mbien
b the
hten him out of the h use with a poker or anything
to :
else she could get hold of. He always watched his chance
to come when the servant was out. She and another lady
once went with him to the Royal Theatre, and he after-
wards charged them Bs. 6d, each as their share. She never
raised a crowd and threatened to stab Mr. Walters,
mherr
former landlord. At the time of the'flood she went to
waintfdur
front
door.
Walters, buts he never abused him, "
nnlY
in
shave a few,
Persons having business might sometimes
Jane Jenkins, a goir
words ; she had to prlotlesetyheaerrsseolff.age,
said she was servant
hearing her mistress scream she ran
to Mrs. Harding.
lying
gtudoen overthe
him with a poker. fie then
into the
and
b back parlour.defe ndann t
rw:arscsk.
n Harding
an improper wa s
her. The complainant sbilst
trying
to take it from him the
seized the poker,
s head against the wall. He also
s little boy down. The defendant
defendanthn eehedthsetreuecmkp
la
in a
she said Mrs. , left by thewo,
milliner, stated that Mrs. Harding
to1)-riene with her on the day in question. On
house about two o'clock, she complained to
going to
committed upon her by Mr. Chapman.
of the outrage
her
invited l‘b.l:rryd
The
on.her arras and back.
T complainant's wrapper was torn, and there were
bruises-
Stone said he was called to visit Mrs. Harding be-
tweeU four and five o'clock on the afternoon in question.
r
Ile found he,. labouring under mental and bodily excite-
meet. She told hire or the attempt that had been made
upon her, She said she had been spitting WO, and the