The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENEN(;T, NOVEMBER 21, 1862.

school for the prisoner while she went to nurse the
deceased. In the course of conversation she told
Witness to tell her brother (the last witness) about
not taking anything after the deceased. There was
something said as to a consultation, and prisoner
did not object to it. Mr. Shettle did not give any
one to understand that deceased was suffering from
ulcerous cancer.

John Kiddie recalled—The prisoner gave him
some medicine several times during his wife's illness.
Dr. Shettle recalled—Magnesia was an antidote
for poison.

Mr. Chitty for the prisoner then proposed to call
Dr. Roberts, to show that the deceased did not die
from the effects of the administration of poison.
The magistrates retired for some time, and on their
return into the justice-room,
The Chairman said that they had decided that it
would not be advisable to call Dr. Roberts, as in the
event of the bench ultimately deciding on commit-
ting the prisoner for trial on the charge alleged, it
would be casting a slur on Dr. Roberts' professional
judgment, which the bench might unwittingly do.
Inspector Dunn then said that he had no further
evidence to offer on the part of the prosecution.
The magistrates further consulted, and

The Chairman said—We think that the evidence
is not sufficient to justify us in detaining the pri-
soner in custody, and therefore we propose to re-
mand her until the two bottles found in her house
have been examined. We shall only therefore re-
quire her to enter into her own recognisances to
appear on a future day.
After some further observations from Mr. Chitty,
the prisoner was formally bound over to appear
again at the next petty sessions.

SUPPOSED SUICIDE OF A TRADESMAN.

Yesterday morning an inquest was held at the
Rodney Tavern, Old-street, St. Luke's, respecting
the death of Mr. Wm. York Green, aged 47, a
bookseller.
Mrs. Elizabeth Green said that deceased was her
husband, and he was a bookseller for several years,
but fell into ill-health about a year ago, and the
business declined. They owed £2O for a half-year's
rent, and all their property, furniture, &c., worth at
least £2OO, was seized and condemned for
£l9 19s. 6d. Their ruin and his bad health, which
rendered him incapable of obtaining employment,
preyed acutely upon his mind. On Tuesday even-
ing witness noticed that he appeared peculiarly
heavy, and next morning she found him dead, lying
in the back room. His life was insured.
A broken bottle was produced. It was labelled
" Yates, chemist—poison." It smelled, apparently,
of essential oil of almonds.

Dr. J. Rogers said that he found in the stomach
of the deceased a quantity of red fluid, apparently
poison. The membranes of the brain were inflamed,
probably from poison, but he could not say posi-
tively without a chemical analysis of the contents of
the stomach.

The Coroner adjourned the inquiry for further
evidence.

THE LATE EXPLOSION AND LOSS OF
LIFE ON THE GREAT WES lE.RN ICAIL-
WAY.

ADJOURNED INQUEST ON THE SUFFERERS.

Yesterday, Dr. Lankester, the Central Middle-
sex coroner, resumed the inquiry at the Royal
Saxon Hotel, Alfred-road, Paddington, on the
bodies of Charles Thompson, James Eldridge, and
James Wilson, the three unfortunate men killed by
explosion of the locomotive engine Perseus on the
Great Western Railway on the morning of Satur-
day, the Bth inst.

Captain Tyler, of the Railway Department of the
Board of Trade, attended to watch the proceedings
on the part of the Government, and Mr. Armstrong,
as solicitor for the relatives of some of the deceased
persons. Mr. Daniel Gooch, locomotive superinten-
dent, and other officials of the railway company,
were also present.
John Thompson was first examined, and said he
was the driver of the Perseus engine, which had
exploded. He had driven her on the previous day
with the mail train from Swindon, with a pressure
of 115Ibs. to the square inch of steam upon her
boiler. He always believed her capable of bearing
a pressure of 1151bs. to the square inch. The
boiler was washed out in the course of the day, after
she was brought in from Swindon, and she was to
have taken the 10.15 train down to Swindon on the
morning of the explosion.
Mr. Lancelot Young said he resided at Swindon,
and was a boiler-maker. He knew the Perseus,
and had had her under repair. She was first put
on the road in June, 1851. He first had the Per-
seus under repair about seven years L go, and twice
since—the last time in June, 1861. He then put
some rivets into the boiler. At that time he did
not suppose that her plates were bad, because
the interior of the boiler was examined, and,
with the exception of some slight corrosion
about the akin there was nothing remarkable.
They also repaired the tubes. A boiler was in no
danger of bursting from bad tubes. The Perseus
had run about 175,000 miles. That was not at all an
extraordinary course for an engine to ran. There
were many engines that had run double that num-
ber of miles which had sound boilers. There was
no system and no fixed time adopted for examining
locomotive boilers. When anything went wrong,
and they were taken into shed for repairs, then it
was usual to examine them. Had examined this
engine since the accident, and was convinced that
the explosion took place through one of the under-
plates having worn thin by corrosion, and that it
was therefore unable to bear the pressure of steam
upon it.

By the Coroner—That explosion might have taken
place at any time.
Mr. W. Gooch said he was the chief engineer of
the locomotive department of the Great Western
Railway. It was the duty of the driver of every
engine to make any complaint, in books provided
for that purpose, if he found his engine in any way
out of order. There was no complaint of any im-
portance made about the Perseus prior to this ex-
plosion. They had some engines on the railway 25
years old, so that could not be called an old engine.
At that part of the plate where the explosion had
taken place the metal was from a tenth to an eighth
of an inch thick, the average thickness being three-
eighths. In his opinion the way in which the thin-
ness had been effected was in the first place by
chemical action starting the mechanical action on
the metal. Much depended upon the metal of which
these boilers were constructed. If the metal was
of inferior quality it would be subject to chemical
action and consequent corrosion earlier than good
sound metal. It was not usual to examine boilers
unless they were in shed for other repairs, and un
less there was any suspicion of them. They had
engines that had run many more miles than the
Perseus without any examination—one that had
run 281,716
miles without any internal examina-
tion. He attributed the accident to weakness of
one of the plates caused by corrosion.
By Captain Tyler—Considered the practice of
subjecting those engines to a periodical test of
hydraulic pressure of 1801bs. to the square inch
would be more dangerous than not testing them at
all. His opinion was, that although the Perseus
might have been subjected to such a test and have
passed it, in two days after she might have exploded
with a pressure of 1151bs.

Captain Tyler was then sworn, and read a report
he had made upon the subject, which described the
state in which he found the engine on the morning
of Monday, the 10th inst., and gave it as his opinion
that the accident had arisen from the under-plate
being too weak from internal corrosion to bear the
pressure of steam upon it. It had frequently been
urged upon railway companies that they should
test their boilers by an hydraulic pressure of 1801bs.
to the square inch ; but the engineers had rejected
that test as a most dangerous one. His own opinion
was that there should be that or some other test
every three years, and that to run any engine
175,000 miles without it was exceedingly dangerous.
After some further discussion the coroner summed
up and the room was cleared, and after about half
an hour the jury returned a verdict—" That the de-
ceased persons were killed by the explosion of a
certain engine on the Great Western Railway acci-
dentally, and that the
jury were of opinion that

•
railway authorities should require that there should
be a periodical examination of all boilers of loco-
motive engines within a period of three years at
the outside.'

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Nov. 20.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
THE QUEEN V. WHITEHURST.

Mr. G. Lewis, jun., of Lewis and Lewis, Ely-
place, solicitor, appeared before Mr. justice Blac.i=
burn, to apply for a writ of certorari to remove any
indictments that might be preferred against Mr.
Whitehurst, and on which true bills might be found,
at the next sessions of the Central Criminal Court,
to the Court of Queen's Bench for trial there. He
moved, on the affidavit of Mr. Whitehurst, which
set forth that Mr. Whitehurst had been a solicitor
in the Court of Queen's Bench for 13 years, practis-
ing in London ; that he was anxious to have the
case tried before a special jury, which he could not
have at the Central Criminal Court. That grave
questions of law would arise for the direction of
the Court on the charge made against him, inas-
much as the magistrate discharged him from the
alleged offence of writing letters with intent to com-
mit en unnatural offence. The affidavit went on to
say that various questions of law were urged on the
attention of the magistrate upon the part of the
prosecution, and it was contended that the writing
of such letters constituted a misdemeanour, though
there was no intention of committing the crime
suggested, and it was further argued that the let-
ters were capable of supporting another charge,
viz., that of an obscene libel. The affidavit pro.
ceeded to state that, after much discussion, the ma•
gistrate said he had looked through all the autho-
rities and could not find any case in which the law
was laid down or decided, but under the circum-
stances, and in order that the matter might be fully
argued and decided, he should commit him (Mr.
Whitehurst) to take his trial. The affidavit con-
tains a strong assertion of his innocence of any
criminal intention.

Mr. Justice Blackburn, having read the affidavit,
said he considered that, under all the circumstances,
it would be far better that a case in which such
questions of law would have to be decided should be
removed for trial to the Queen's Bench. The writ
of certiorari was therefore granted.
Mr. Lewis requested his lordship to fix the
amount of bail, and his lordship ordered the defen-
dant to enter into his own recognisances for £2OO,
and give two sureties in £lOO each.
Mr. Lewis said he was prepared with sureties,
and the recognisances were duly entered into, and
the writ granted.
The result will be that, if the grand jury grant
true bills, the case cannot be tried until about the
month of March, and then only before a special
jury and the Lora Chief Justice of England.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE QUEEN V. RUSTON.

This is the case of the person who stands charged
with the crime of setting fire to a ship on the high
seas, of which he was owner, with intent to defraud
the insurers.

Mr. Sleigh, just at the rising of the Court, begged
them to allow a motion which he said was of very
great importance and would be very short. It was
an application under the Act (passed to meet Pal-
mer's case) allowing the removal of prisoners to take
their trial in London in cases where there would be
danger of their not having a fair trial in the county
where they were committed. Under that Act he
moved that the indictment which had been preferred
against the prisoner might be removed to the Cen-
tral Criminal Court, in order that he might be tried
there, He moved on affidavits of the prisoner Rux-
ton and his attorneys ; and which showed, he said,
that the prisoner could not be tried at Liverpool at
the ensuing assizes there without imminent risk of
prejudice, by reason of the publication of inflamma-
toryarticles in certain of the local papers ; one, in
particular, the Porcupine (a laugh)—a paper of a
satirical character—a sort of weak imitation of
Punch. Moreover, there had been placards posted
about the town of Liverpool, offering a reward of
£2OO for information which might lead to the con-
viction of persons suspected of such offences :
Extract from the Liverpool Daily Post of the
13th August, 1862 :
" £2OO Reward.—Free Pardon.—Wilful Destruc-
tion of Ships.—Whereas it has become known that
divers ships have of late been unlawfully and mali-
ciously cast away and destroyed by fire and other-
wise, with intent to defraud underwriters and
others, at theinstence of fraudulent shipowners and
their accomplices : now, a reward of £2OO will
be paid to any person or persons who shall give
such information and evidence as shall lead to the
detection and conviction of the offenders, and her
Majesty will graciously grant a free pardon and
the said reward of £2OO to any master of a ship, or
mate, or other person or persons, whether princi-
pals in such felonies, and having actually committed
such offences, or accessories thereto, who shall give
such information and evidence as shall lead to the
detection and conviction of any other person or
persons either as principals or accessories to the
commission of the said offences, or any of them,
Apply to M,ijor Greig, head-constable; or to Supe-
rintendent Kehoe, police-court, Liverpool."
Mr. Justice Mellor asked it the prisoner had been
admitted to bail.

Mr. Sleigh said he had not. Bail in the first in-
stance had been accepted, but on a subsequent occa-
sion the magistrate stated that in consequence of
something which had come to his ears he should
decline to accept the bail which had been offered, and
the affidavits stated that this was on account of the
publication alluded to. In the Porcupine of the
16th of September was an article headed " The
Lteinvdeerpclon l Society
Ship on Fire, from
the pencil of Mr. Ruxton, a local artist, who has
suddenly sprung into remarkable distinction of late.
noticeof
a o
picture,
Fineetn re Arts,",t he i n which was a pre-
tended
amazing Observe the striking figure of the captain engaged
in
setting
no
fire to
stand and
have heard that the Hanging Committee deeply re-
gret that they cannot deal as they would desire
with this most promising artist,' (A laugh.)
doubt
btbran an brandy;
likeness. We
; a portrait, we under-
The Lord Chief Justice—Do you really think that
this would have the effect of preventing the prisoner
from having a fair trial ?
Mr. Sleigh—Not that alone, perhaps; but there
are others of the same kind, and it is impossible to
say what effect they may not have had.
Mr. Justice Wightman—They must be very weak-
minded persons indeed who could be influenced by
such publications.
Mr. Justice Mellor observed that he had sat twice
as Judge of Assize at Liverpool, and had never heard
of the l'orcupine. (A laugh.)
Mr. Sleigh said there were similar articles in other
papers.
The Lord Chief Justice, after consulting with his
colleagues, said, although no doubt it would have
been better to abstain from such publications, the
court did not think that they would be likely to
have the effect of preventing the prisoner from hav-
ing a fair trial by producing prejudice against him
among the jurors. But, at the same time, since the
affidavits stated that the matter had been made for
some time the subject of general discussion, and the
legal advisers of the prisoner deposed to their belief
that a fair trial would not be had, it would, per-
haps, be better to have the matter discussed. It
might be that these allegations would be disproved,
in which case the rule would be discharged, and
the mere opinion of the prisoner's legal advisers
would have little weight unless sustained by mat-
ters of fact. There might, therefore, be a rule
ntsi, to be argued next Tuesday, the last day of
term.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMO-
NIAL CAUSES.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
MACCAN V. MACCAN.

The hearing of this part-heard cause was re-
sumed.

Dr. Spicks said 1 hat his client, the respondent
in this case, was absent, and he did not feel him-
self justified in offering further opposition,although
he considered that he could show some discrepancy
in the evidence. _

Sir C. Cresswell intimated a wish that some evi-
dence in addition to that produced yesterday (Wed-
nesday), should be called in support of the petition.
The Queens Advocate, with whom was Dr.
Swaby, for the petitioner, then called the follow-
ing witnesses :
William Brown stated that he now lived at Hull,
but had previously resided at Spalding, which was
his native place. He was there in 1861, and at-
tended a sale which took place at the respondent's
place o business. Mrs. Maccan was sitting with
her niece in the room when her husband came in,
and on seeing her he said she must leave the room.
He then went up to her end dragged her out of the,
room. The sale had not then commenced. He thought
the respondent was treating his wife very roughly,
and he said to him
" Don't hurt her." The respon-
dent raised his arm as if he was about to strike the
witness, and asked him why he interfered. In
cross examination he said he did not hear the re-
spondent accuse his wife of having ieterrupted him
in his business the day previous, and she offered no
opposition when she was being ejected from the
room.
A woman named Barnet, who resided at
Spald-
ing, said she had been acquainted with the parties
to intemperance, and very
in this suit for 24 years. The respondent was ad-
dictedtemper. He was in the habit of turning his wife
out of doors, and she, with her nurse, used to come
her house for shelter; and some time before the
topassionate in his

separation she heard him tell his'wife that he would
not live with het any inure; She asked him if he
really meant what he said, and he replied in the
affirmative.

The Queen's Advocate submitted that the peti-
tioner had proved her case, but if necessary he
would be able to call further evidence to establish
the cruelty alleged against the respondent,
Sir C. Cresswell considered it was unnecessary to
produce any other evidence.
Dr. Spinks said that his client had attended
when he expected the case to be heard, and he was
Willing to make a proper provision for his wife.
Sir C. Cresswell said he would attend to that
matter when there was an app:ication on the sub-
ject of alimony, .9•nd he would make the decree for
judicial separation.
TIORSFALL V. HORSFALL.
This was a stiit by the wife for dissolution of
marriage on the ground of her husband's cruelty
and adultery, and there was no defence.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. Cooper were counsel fat the
petitioner.
From the evidence it appeared that the parties
were married at Leeds in 1830, and cohabited until
1848. In that year petitioner was obliged to go to
her father's, with whom she had since resided. She
took her three children with her, and had supported
them since the separation. lie compelled her, by his
annoyance, to allow him 4s. a week; but becoming
more extortiotatef he demanded £1 a week, and the
petitioner was advised to institute the present pro-
ceedings.
The petitioner in her evidence deposed to various
acts of violence on the part of the respondent, and
to his having several times struck her w:th his fist
and a whip. lle also turned her out of the house,
and otherwise ill-treated her. This conduct cora-
-1 menced after the birth of the first child, and con-
tinued till their separation.
The charges were fully proved, and the Court
pronounced the decree nisi, with costs against the
respondent, and directed the children to remain in
custody of the mother until further order.
GILL V. GILL ANti 110GGgi

. _
In this suit Captain Dundas Reinhart Chit, late an
officer i❑ the 10th Hussars, prayed the Court for a
dissolution of marriage with his wife on the ground
of her adultery with the corespondent, Col. Came-
ron Neville Hogge, of the 2d battalion of Grenadier
Guards. The respondent and co-respondent denied
the charge, but placed no other plea on the record.
The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinks appeared
for the petitioner, and Dr. Wambey for the respon-
dents.

The parties were married at St. Nicholas Church,
Brighton, on the 18th of March, 1858, and after
the marriage resided at Brighton, Reading, and
at Paris, in the Pyrenees, Bagnerres de Bigorre,
and Tarbes, in the south of France. The first act
of adultery alleged in the petition took place at
the Hotel de France, Paris, where the petitioner and
his wife were staying, and where the co-respondent
and his brother Captain Hogge, who were intimate
with the family, subsequently took apartments.
There was one child issue of the marriage, a
daughter, who was born on the 16th of February,
1859; and the cohabitatio❑ continued until the
middle of June, 1861, when the petitioner suspected
the of his wife. In the opening statement
of counsel there was nothing to show how the re-
spondent's affections became estranged from her
husband.

Sir William Maiwell was examined, and said
that he was the stepfather of the petitioner, and
was present at the marriage. After the marriage
the parties resided with him at his seat in Leicester-
shire for some time, after which they went to
Reading. He visited them at Nice during the
winter of 1859 and 1860. He met the co-respon-
dent there. The two photographs produced were
likenesses of Colonel Hogge and the respondent, but
he could not say when they were taken, or when he
saw them first. He did not think he ever saw them
in the custody of Colonel Hogge or the respondent.
Cross-examined by Dr. Wambey—The first year
after the marriage the petitioner and his wife visited
him at his residence, Kilburn Lodge. He con-
sidered the petitioner's habits perfectly regular in
every respect. He (witness) and his wife remained
at Nice for about five months in the same chateau
with petitioner and his wife, and Colonel Hogge
also resided in that chateau. That was in 1859,
and the petitioner's habits at the time were unex-
ceptionable. Colonel Hogge visited them frequently,
and was in the habit of dining with him, Lady Max-
well, and the petitioner and his wife. Captain Gill
was not in the habit of absenting himself from the
chateau. _ _ _

Mr. Thomas Plumstead Marshall said he was a
farmer, and proprietor of Branston, in Lincoln-
shire. He was at Paris in January, 1861. He
rented an apartment, but dined every day at the
table d'hote of the Hotel de France. He formed
the acquaintance of the petitioner and his wife, who
were residing at the Hotel de France. He became
acquainted also with Colonel Hogge, who was
staying at the same hotel. The parties re-
mainen at the hotel during the time he was there ;
that was to the 21st of March, and were absent only
one day, when they went to the mountains. Colonel
Hogge paid very great satisfaction to Mrs. Gill,
and they were in the habit of driving and walking
out together frequently. He also identified the
photograph which he saw. He believed the colonel's
photograph was taken at Paris, because he was re-
presented in the same clothes he was in the habit
of wearing there. He never saw the photograph
in the possession of either of the respondents.
Cross-examined by Mr Wambey—He never heard
Captain Gill say that he and Colonel Hogge oc-
cupied the same sitting-room, nor was be aware
that they had done so. The attentions of Colonel
Hogge at dinner to Mrs. Gill were of the ordinary
nature paid to a lady. What he meant by the at-
tentions to which he alluded in his examination in
chief was Colonel Hogge's driving and walking out
with Mrs. Gill.

Mark William Lindon, a clerk to Messrs. Cox,
bankers, Charing-cross, said that firm were the
army agents of the 2d battalion of Grenadier Guards
and he identified the hhndwriting of Col. Hogge.
The remaining evidence consisted of depositions
which had been taken abroad by commission. From
the statements of these witnesses it appeared that
Colonel Hogge did occupy a sitting-room at the
hotel at Paris which communicated with the bed-
room of Captain Gill and his wife. It was also
proved that Colonel Hogge and Mrs. Gill had been
absent together occasionally from Paris, and that
they occupied the same apartment at the Hotel du
Grand Solidi at Tarbes. Other evidence establish-
ing the nature of the intimacy was also given before
the commission, which concluded the petitioner's
case.

The Queen's Advocate then summed up.
Dr. Wambey replied, and contended that the
petitioner had not shown the necessary care of his
wife's honour, inasmuch as he permitted her to be
much in the company of the co-respondent, and in
allowing him to occupy a sitting-room adjoining
her bedroom.

Sir C. Cresswell—He may have thought his friend
too honourable to debauch his wife.

Dr. Wambey eontemded that although the adul-
tery could not be disproved, the petitioner's conduct
did not entitle him to ask for costs.
Sir C. Cresswell said he would read the deposi-
tions before delivering judgment.
WRIGHT V. WRIGHT AND NORMAN.
In this case the patties, who are in humble life,
resided at Halstead, in Bedfordshire, and were
married in 1851. They cohabited until :854, when
the wife left her home, and formed an illicit connec-
tion with the co-respondent, who is a labourer.
The facts were proved, and the court pronounced
a decree nisi with costs.

ROBINSON V. ROBINSON.

This was a suit by the wife for a divorce on the
ground of adultery and desertion. The parties are
in a respectable rank of life, the respondent, Capt.
Robinson, being a gentleman of property, and the
petitioner, whose maiden name was Raines, being
the daughter of a clergyman. The marriage was
solemnised at Kirklington, in Yorkshire, and the
parties lived together until the 24th September,
1859, when the desertion was alleged to have taken
place. The respondent had previously formed a
connexion with a female the daughter of a cobbler,
and he admitted this f,,ct to his servant some time
afterwards. _ .

The evidence proved the case, and the Court
made the decree nisi with costs.

----Vhe Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinks were
counsel for the petitioner.
SHIMELL v. SHIMELL AND BROWN.

The petitioner was mate of a vessel, and married
the respondent
at Hull in 1841. They lived together
till 1852, when the respondent left her husband and
became a t rostitute. She subsequently lived with
the co-respondent, by whom she had a family.
There was no defence, and the Court pronounced
a decree nisi.

A REPRIEVE.--An interesting incident, says
Galignani of yesterday, took place during a review held by
the Emperor at Compiegne on the 16th. A sergeant of the
7:id Regiment of the line, who had just arrived by the rail-
way, approached his Majesty, and, presenting a letter from
his colonel, besought the immediate attention of his Majesty
to a matter of life and death. On receiving permission to
explain himself, the sergeant related that another sergeant
who had like himself made the campaigns of the Crimea
and Italy had just been condemned to death for having, in
a moment of excitement, committed an act of insubordina-
tion, and that he would be shot in three hours if the impe-
rial clemency were not extended to him. Tho Emperor,
after examining the testimonials sent, turned to the
Em-
press, who was standing near, and said that on theft eea Y
of Sainte-Eugenie he was happy to be able to grant the
nip_ to
favour Tequested, and ordered one of his aides-decia
immediately telegraph his Majesty's decision an
the execution. eprevent