The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1862.

world on the question of the deaty and the subject
of free trade in general, and there never had been
an opportunity of doing justice to his eminent ser-
vices in that case. He had taken a more enlightened
view of the interests of France than most of his
countrymen had hitherto done. M. Rouher had
spoken of the Emperor as having originated the
treaty, and he (Mr. Cobden) could bear witness to
the fact that the Emperor initiated the treaty, and
he believed that the Emperor had the sincerest
desire to unite not merely the governments, but the
people of the two countries. (Cheers.) He (Mr.
Cobden) had had better opportunities perhaps of
observing than most Englishmen, and he was con-
vinced that the Emperor in all his acts had been
actuated by a desire to unite these two great
nations. That, indeed, had been the corner stone
of his policy. (Cheers.) He (Mr. Cobden)
would go further, and express his belief, founded
also upon some opportunity of judging, that
there was nothing that he could imagine
that would induce that potentate to be a party to a
rupture with this country short of an attempt by
any Government or any minister of this country to
inflict a humiliation on his country. (Cheers.) Their
would live in history, and he had done it under a
guest of that eveningeighand
than
a
ne
Leguriesatxwvoirk,
.Iwfhtihche
more powerful sever
aristocracy of France had eighty years ago allowed
Turgot, as he desired, to do the same thing, there
would probably have been no revolution, and the
dynasty of that day would have remained to this.
Unfortunately, the inauguration of free trade in
France had been attended by deplorable convulsions,
with regard to the manufacturing interests, arising
from causes entirely unconnected with free trade;
and the opponents of free trade would no doubt at-
tempt to fasten those effects upon the commercial
treaty. The great reforms of Mr. Huskisson in 1825
were followed by a commercial crisis, and the Spital-
fields weavers of those days, if they couldhave had
their
will, would probably have hung Mr. Huskis-
son as an example. His memory was now honoured
throughout the land, and the manufacturers of
France would yet do justice to the guest of that even-
ing. They were that evening celebrating the cause
of free trade. The refrain of one of Beranger's
songs advocating the alliance of nations was " Lon-
nez-vous les mains." Free trade said " Shake bands;
give each other the hand and something in the hand."
(Cheers.) That something meant the superfluity of
the giver and the necessity of the receiver. (Cheers.)
Such a meeting as the present had never been held
before, and he had never sat down with so many
Members of Parliament at such a meeting, and he
had never yet sat down with Members of Parliament
of a different party from his own. He saw in that
reunion a proof of the universality of the senti-
ments to which they had been listening on that
occasion. They were doing honour to a man whose
merits were not sufficiently known ; but under their
auspices their guest had had an opportunity of de-
livering a speech which would be circulated through
Europe and the world.
Sir G. C. LEWIS proposed " The Health of M.
Chevalier and M. Dufour," and in doing so said
there never was a time when the prospects of peace
were so solid as now. He believed that the Emperor
of the French entertained the most cordial and ear-
nest desire to maintain pacific relations with this
country. (Cheers.)
Several other toasts and speeches followed, and
the company did not separate until a late hour.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-Aly 16.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
REDDIN V. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-
Chancellor Wood.

The plaintiff was a contractor for the removal of
dust and rubbish, which he afterwards prepared for
brickmaking, and also for agricultural purposes.
His business was carried on at the Grove, South-
wark, in certain premises, including a dwelling-
house, engine-house, " tot shop," or sorting room,
slop shoot, and an extensive yard, occupied by dust
and manure heaps, which were subjected to various
successive processes before being rendered available.
The defendants had given the plaintiff notice of
their requiring a small portion of the premises, viz.,
the " tot shop," for the purposes of the Covent-
garden Approach and Southwark and Westminster
Communication Act, 1857, by which a new street
from Blackfriars-road to High-street, Borough,was
one of the works required to be made. The plaintiff
refused to sell the portion required by defendants,
on the ground that the whole of the premises in his
occupation, and used by him for his business, consti-
tuted " a manufactory" within section 92 of the
Lands Clauses Act, and claimed the right, under
that section, of compelling the defendants to take
the whole property if they required any part of it.
It was contended by the plaintiff that the " tot
shop," or sorting shop, was essential to the carrying
on of the plaintiff's business, the most important
process of sifting and sorting being carried on there.
The question was whether this part of the premises
came within the meaning of the word " manufac-
tory." The Vice Chancellor held that it did, and
made an order for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendants from taking any steps for acquiring the
premises except on the terms of taking the whole.
Hence the appeal.
Mr. Rolt, Mr.Willcock, and Mr. C. Hall appeared
for the appellants ; Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. Giffard,
and Mr. E. Bury were for the plaintiff.
The Lord Chancellor, without hearing the reply,
said he did not concur in the opinion of the Vice
Chancellor, that the business carried on by the
plaintiff constituted him a manufacturer within the
meaning of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.
Such being the case, the " tot shop" was not part of
a " manufactory," the taking of which by defendants
would render them liable to take the whole of the
plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff was a dustman,
contractor, and scavenger, and the use of the " tot
shop" was incident to that business, and did not in
any way form portion of a " manufactory." The
order of the Court below would therefore be reversed
and the injunction dissolved.
Appeal allowed.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)

ZYCHLINSKI V. ZYCHLINSKI-EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

This was a suit for judicial separation brought by
the wife against her husband on the grounds of
cruelty and adultery.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks were coun-
sel for the petitioner ; Sir F. Slade and Dr. Swabey
appeared on behalf of the respondent.
The learned counsel, in opening the case, said that
this suit was surrounded with peculiar features,
which are detailed in the following evidence :
Adeline Kate Zychlinski stated that she was the
daughter of a clergyman of the Church of England,
residing with her mother, who was separated
from her husband, as was intimated, because of the
lady having some years since become a convert to
Roman Catholicism. In the year 1860 the mother
of the petitioner, with her two daughters, were re-
siding at Rome, where the respondent was also
living in style, moving in the best society. He de-
scribed himself as a baron of the Russian empire
and the relative of a Russian ambassador. The peti-
tioner made his acquaintance, and after a short
courtship they were married. They proceeded to
Hyeres, in the south of France, where they resided
at first very happily ; but rumours got abroad that
he was not a baron, that he was not even a Rus-
sian, but that he was a Prussian, a private in a Prus-
sian regiment, and a deserter, being, in point of
fact, an impostor. Petitioner's mother was about to
give a party, to which some Russian friends were
invited. The respondent objected, he flew into a
passion. He went to Marseilles upon the pretence
of getting credentials to respectability, but he did
not bring them. When the petitioner told him of
the rumours that he was not a baron, but a deserter
from the Prussian army, he threw a brush at her
and threatened to shoot her ; and on one occasion,
during a ride on horseback upon the ledge of a
frightful precipice, he said he would hurl himself
and her down it, because he said " he knew she be•
lieved the rumours circulated about him." She was
reduced to a very low and nervous state in conse-
quence of his repeated threats. The petitioner bad
£3OO for her trousseau ; but the respondent charged
her father with being dishonourable. They were
married according to the rites of the Roman
Catholic church, to which the mother, as already
stated, and her two daughters had become converts.
Some days after the ride on horseback, when he
threatened to hurl her down the precipice, he was
asked ver ngr Y. He drew up a kind of separation and
wltuess to sign it. He laid it on the table,
end took h
Ile thee
threw itetr by the wrists and made her sign it.
it iighed at her, tore the paper, and
mother, and her face. He laid hold of her
wards draggedetTY strangled her. He after-
room. , lie ad:
lenges in French
the respondent tore them
man or Polish. Count D,
the challenges was sent, wrote challenges, but
,rod wrote others in Ger-
, tor
and commissioned a servant to
informritioneerttin:ctouthwmethehnodetmrraiesnwonptienwognoo-..f,
shwife write several chal-

dent that be would not accept any challenge from
" him." Respondent beat the servant's head
against the ground. He was moaning and walking
about the room all night. Petitioner could get no
sleep from that time till she left. He dragged her
bed into the middle of the room, and threatened to
shoot her. There were no servants as they went
home at night. Petitioner left her husband on the
22d February. Captain Arthur Lowe, a cousin of
her mother's, had been sent by her father to take
her away. Petitioner was very ill at the time.
She wee in a weak and nervous state. A child was
born on the sth August,
Cross examined by Sir F. Slade—Petitioner did
not believe the rumours. Capt. Lowe came because
her father was ill.

Sir F. Slade—This was a love match; was it not?
Witness—l believe I married as most other
people do.

Sir F. Slade—Did you not live upon him ?
Witness—No ;my mamma received some money
from Cardinal Antonelli. My mamma never re-
ceived any money from respondent. The respondent
was moving in good society, possessing means, hav-
ing money, and in every way as a baron and noble-
man.

Sir C. Cresswell—Supposed to be so.
Witness—Mamma received a thousand scudi
(£220) from Cardinal Antonelli. M. Zychlinski
was very kind to mamma, who was in Rome with-
out money. Zychlinski pretended to lend the
money, but it was really given by Cardinal Anto-
nelli. Mamma was a convert to Roman Catholicism.
Zychlinski was employed. in procuring the money,
because papa would not repay Cardinal Antonelli.
It was made to appear that Zychlinski lent the
money. It was agreed that Zychlinski should go to
England, to papa, and represent that he had paid
£4OO for her. Did not recollect that the respondent
ever said he did not marry the mother and sister,
and that he would not keep them. The respon-
dent represented himself, when I became ac-
quainted with him, as a Russian baron. He said he
was acquainted with several distinguished people,
and that the Princess d Galitzin, wife of the Rus-
sian ambassador at Mairid, was his cousin. After
the separation the petitioner applied to Baron Mar-
tin for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted,
and he was very anxious to get his wife back again.
Mary F. 'Maltby, sister of the petitioner, corro-
borated the above statement. She further stated
that several Russian friends had stated that the re-
spondent was not a Russian baron, and the papers
which he was sent to Marseilles to procure were
vouchers from his amtassador as to his respectabi-
lity, but he returned without them. Lord Henry
Kerr told Mrs. Maltby that the respondent was not
what he represented timself. M. Pallatin, a Rus-
sian gentleman, also reported that he was not a
baron of the Russian Empire, but a deserter from the
Prussian army. She also remembered his having
written 11 challenges.
Sir F, Slade—Ther, he had plenty of people to
shoot.

Sir 0. Cresswell—No, Sir Frederick ; they would
not be shot. (Laughter.)
Sir F. Slade—Was it when he ceased to be a baron
that you ceased to call him mon cher Louis
Witness—Not for that particularly. Had he re-
mained amiable—

Sir C. Cresswell—Having discovered the wolf, as
long as the wolf remained quiet—
Sir F. Slade—Or retained his sheep's clothing.
Capt. Arthur Lowe said he received a letter and
subsequently a telegram, requesting him to take
Mrs. Zychlinski away from her husband's cruelty.
Cross-examined by Sir F. Slade—lt was one of
the charges against the respondent that he was an
impostor. Witness did not go to the respondent,
because it would have been useless. The French
authorities were not applied to, because the con-
sul represented that several things had happened
to English residents which were treated in such a
manner that the consul recommended the wife
to be removed. Lord Kerr also advised the
proceeding. The respondent followed his wife
to witness's house, at Nottingham, where his wife
was. Witness gave the respondent in charge of the
police for threats.
Mrs. James said she kept lodgings in Talbot-
street, Nottingham. Respondent brought a lady
there other than his wife. She noticed on several
occasions the impression of two persons in the bed.
The respondent had had a bad throat, which wit-
ness poulticed with linseed, a portion of which was
afterwards found in the lady's bed. This person's
linen was marked "Adeline Baroness Zychlinski."
She also left behind a pair of boots, which had in-
side the name of " Maltby." The petitioner was not
the person who resided with Zychlinski. Heard
the respondent say that he was charged with ob-
taining money under false pretences, or something
to that effect.

Mary Anne James, daughter of the last witness,
proved having heard the respondent go into the
bed-room of the woman who came to him at her
mother's house and remain there.

This concluded the case for the petitioner.

Mr. Macaulay addressed the jury'. He contended
that the case was clear, and lest it should be said
that he was afraid to put Mrs. Maltby in the box,
he would simply state that he did not desire she
should be tortured in cross-examination. She had
acted perhaps unwisely, and had been grossly de-
ceived, but that vas all that could be said.

Sir Frederick Slade said she was the only person
who could tell the jury the relations which subsisted
between these people, and the circumstances under
which the money was obtained from Cardinal An-
tonelli, or whether the respondent had obtained it
for the lady. He sympathised with the young lady,
but the jury had to discharge a public duty and do
justice between the parties. He could not deny the
adultery, but he would deny that any cruelty had
been committed. _

His Lordship said that a great deal was made of
the mother of the petitioner not being called. But
why was not the respondent called to give evidence ?
He was equally able to speak to these matters, and
he had an obvious interest in the issue. Lord
Stowell had said it was not easy to define what
was cruelty. It was to be constructed out of all
the circumstances surrounding each particular case.
The Jury having deliberated, found that the re-
spondent had bean guilty of cruelty and adultery.
Sir C. Cresswell granted the decree, and the costs
of the suit as against the respondent followed as a
matter of course in cases of judicial separation.

—•
if they had any doubt the high character the defen-
dant had received ought certainly to have consi-
derable weight.
The jury, atter deliberating a short time•., re-
turned a verdict of not guilty.
W. Brown, 25, pleaded guilty to three charges of
arson.

It appeared that the prisoner on the same day,
and within a very short period, had committed all
the offences to which he had pleaded guilty. In the
first place, he set fire to a barn in which there was
a quantity of wheat ; he then set fire to a stack of
straw, and afterwards to a stack of hay, the whole
of which were destroyed.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in passing sentence, said
he was of opinion that no crime was more hateful or
detestable than the crime of arson. In ordinary
offences the person who committed them had some
advantage, because he obtained possession of the
money or property of another ; but when property
was destroyed wilfully by fire it was of no benefit
to the person committing the act, but was an injury
to man kind at large. It appeared by a report that
had been made to him, that the prisoner had several
times enlisted as a soldier and that he deserted, and
then re-enlisted and obtained the bounty, and he
appeared to be an incorrigibly bad fellow. On the
present occasion he appeared to have committed the
crime of arson three times in one day, and it also
appeared that he stated when he was apprehended
that he should have done more mischief of the same
description if his hicifer matches had not gone out.
It was necessary under these circumstances to pass
a sentence that would prevent him from doing any
more mischief for a long time to come, and he should
therefore order him to he kept in penal servitude
for 20 years.
Simon Child, s. little urchin, stated in the calendar
to be 11 years old, was charged with feloniously
placing some stones upon the London and North-
Western Railway, with intent to obstruct the en-
gines and carriages passing along the line, and to
endanger the safety of the passengers.
Mr. Clark prosecuted, and the prisoner was de •
fended by Mr. Codd.
It appeared that on the evening of May 27th the
down train to St. Albans, upon arriving near Wat-
ford, ran over two stones that were placed upon the
rails, and the driver giving information of the cir-
cumstance upon arriving at the Watford station, the
signalman at the spot was directed to keep a strict
watch. He did so, and on the following day the
prisoner and two other boys were seen to go up the
line, and the prisoner was observed to stoop and
place something upon the rails, and it turned oat
that two stones were placed there. It also appeared
that at the time the engine ran over the stones on
the previous evening a search was made, and it was
discovered that stones of a similar kind had been
placed upon both the up lines of rails. When the
prisoner was apprehended it appeared that he denied
having placed the stones upon the rails, and said
that one of the other boys had done it,
Mr. Codd made an earnest appeal to the jury on
behalf of the prisoner, and, while admitting the
act imputed to him was one very likely to be at-
tended with the most serious consequences, and
which m erited severe punish ment when it was clearly
established, he submitted that in the first place it
had not been proved beyond doubt that the prisoner
placed the stones upon the railway; and, secondly,
that, supposing the jury should consider that this
fact was proved, there was nothing to show that he
did so with any of the intents charged in the indict-
ment. He then called the attention of the jury to
the law regarding offences committed by persons of
tender age, and said that in the case of any one
under 14 years of age they were not responsible for
an offence of this description, or any other, unless it
was shown they were aware of the probable conse-
quences of their acts, and were at thaasame time ac-
tuated by a malicious intention to do mischief.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up, said he did
not think there could be any doubt that the prisoner
did place the stones upon the railway, but the next
important question was, to consider with what
intent the prisoner had so placed them. In the case
of a grown-up person the law considered him re-
sponsible for the probable consequences of his acts,
but this was not so in the case of a child under 14
years of age. In the present case therefore, if they
should be of opinion that the prisoner was merely
actuated by a feeling of mischief, or to see the effect
of a train going over the stones, that would not be
sufficient ; it was absolutely necessary that they
should be satisfied that he was actuated by one of
the intents imputed by the indictment before they
could convict him.

The jury, after some deliberation, returned a
verdict of not guilty.
Mr. Baron Bramwell told the prisoner that,
although he had escaped upon the present charge,
he was still liable to be proceeded against under
another section of the act of Parliament. He might
have caused serious mischief and loss of life or
broken limb by his act, and he hoped that he would
be punished.
The criminal business was brought to a close in
the afternoon, and both courts will be engaged to-
day in trying causes.