The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-13 00:00:00

_
also a case in which the jury was simply called on
to assess damages, They were laid at £2OO.
The parties were married in 1849 at Lepton, in
the parish of Kirkheaton, near Huddersfield ; and
they had one child. The petitioner was a dyer.
In 1854 John Wood, a tenant farmer in the neigh-
bourhood, began to obtrude his company upon the
family, and in the course of the year the respon-
dent went off with him. They had since co-
habited and had had an illegitimate family.
The jury found a verdict for £lOO.
Decree nisi with costs.
'WITT T. WITT AND KLINDWORTII.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Keane appeared for
the petitioner ; Mr. arslake, Q.C., and Dr. Tris-
tram for the respondent; the Queen's Advocate and
Mr. Holi for the co-respondent.
This was a petition for a divorce on the ground
of the respondent's adultery, and the husband also
claimed £l,OOO as damages. The respondents both
denied the charge, Bud also filed recriminatory
pleas of adultery and cruelty against the petitioner.
Mr Augustus W. Witt was a music publisher,
carrying on business in Regent-street, under the
style of I. I. Ewer and Co, He married a Miss
Henrietta Matilda Karop on the 7th of January,
1858, and they lived together at 82, Mornington-
road, Hampstead-road, The co-respondent, Mr.
C. Klindworth, who was stated to be a music com-
poser and teacher of some reputation, was an inti-
mate friend of the petitioner ; and he was charged
with having abused the opportunities which his ac-
quaintance gave him to seduce the respondent.
Miss Mary Ann Karop, sister of respondent, said
—I frequently visited Mr. and Mrs. Witt. They
appeared to be very happy and affectionate towards
each other. I occasionally met the co-respondent
Klindworth at their house. He was on very friendly
terms with the family, and he came very often.
Once, about Christmas, 1861, my sister asked me if
I would mind leaving the room while he was there,
alleging that he was going to copy some music. Mr.
Witt was not then at home. The co-respondent
was alone with her about two or three hours. I was
asked to take the child away with me lest he should
interrupt, and I did so.
By Mr. Karslake—My father is a German, and
a member of the firm of S ule and Co. My mother
is dead, and he has married a second time. Mr.
Witt and Mr. Klind worth are both Germans. My
sister was 19 when she was married. My father was
at that time paralysed, and my stepmother managed
the household affairs. Mr. Witt had known my
sister about a year before he married her. At that
time he was manager of a music business at 390,
Oxford-street. My father had a difference with
him about money affairs soon after the marriage of
my sister. Mr. Witt called at our house in Welbecke
street a week last Tuesday. I never saw him there
after the quarrel until after my sister had left. I
understood that he objected to my sister coming to
see us. She visited us about once a month. She
generally came when Mr. Witt was at business. I
remember the second birthday of my niece, on the
7th Jan., 1861. My younger sister and I both spent
the evening at Mr. Witt's. We took a knife, fork,
and spoon from my father for the child. Mr. Witt
objected to receive the present. I told him that if
he would not take it my sister would be hurt, and
he then accepted it. My sister's health was very
delicate for a long time after her confinement.
By the Queen's Advocate—Soon after my sister
was confined I remember seeing Mr. Bruckman in
her bedroom. Mr. Witt and Mr. Klindworth were
present. I cannot remember if they played cards on
the bed. I have heard that that is not unusual in
Germany.
On re-exam.nation the witness proved the hand-
writing of 23 letters written by the respondent,
principally to her husband,
Sarah Brown—l was servant to Mr. Witt from
Dec. 1860, till Midsummer, 1862. Mrs. Witt was
taken ill about Christmas, 1861, and the next day
Mr. Klindworth called. By my mistress's directions
I showed him into her bedro He stayed with her
an hour or an hour and a half. The next time he
Cline I delivered to him a message to the effect that
Mrs. Bruckmann was in the drawing-room, and
that he was to go upstairs till she went away. I
recollect my mistress going to Tunbridge Wells in
the spring of 1861. The day before she went she
told me to prepare, the top spare room for Mr.
Klindworth. He spent the evening at the house, but
did not use the room. The next day my master did
not go to business, and my mistress told the other
servant to watch at the window for Mr. Klindworth
so as to prevent him coming into the house. If he
did come she was to ask him to the top room. In
point of fact he did not come. When my mistress
went to Tunbridge Wells she took the other servant
Ann, with her. When she came home she told me
that Ann had been telling Mrs. Cox different things
about Mr. Klindworth and the house affairs at home
—that she had beaten the baby, and had threatened
to telegraph to Mr. Witt of Mr. Klindworth being
there ; and that lest she, Ann, should see Mr. Witt
when he came down, she had sent her off. After
then Mr. Klindworth came three or four times a
week, and he would stay with my mistress three or
four hours at a time. He did not, however, wait
till Mr. Witt came home. Sometimes they went
out together. Miss Cox came back with my
mistress from Tunbridge IV ells, and stayed with us
about six weeks. Once Dr. Oliver called while
Mr. Klindworth was with her; and the co-respon-
dent immediately went through the dining-room so
as not to meet the doctor. The same kind of thing
happened also on another occasion. In May, 1861,
Mrs. Witt, Miss Church, Miss E. Karop, myself,
and the man servant George, went on a pic-nic to
Hampstead-heath, Mrs. Witt proposed to leave
the provisions and the extra clothing which we had
taken with a waiter at Jack Straw's Castle. I
asked if she thought they would be 'Cafe, and she
replied " Oh yes, the man knows me quite well
from going there so often with Mr. Klindworth."
(The witness gave a great number of similar de-
tails tending to show the extraordinary intimacy
which had existed between the respondents, and the
clandestine manner in which their intimacy had
been carried on.) So far as I observed my master
and mistress rived very comfortably together. They
seemed very affectionate to one another till the time
my mistress went away. Mr. Klindworth never
came to the house after that.
By Mr. Karslake—ln August my mistress went
to Barnard Castle without my master's kn wledge.
He went after her and fetched her back. They were
on affectionate terms after their return, but my mis-
tress left home soon after for good. Never saw them
quarrel. The domestic affairs which the servant
Ann had been talking about were the bills that were
owing. Never heal(' Mrs. Witt tell her husband
of the difficulties she had in managing the London
people ; but she was in debt to them " unbeknown"
to Mr. Witt. When she came back from Tun-
bridge Wells, Miss Cox slept with her. Do not
remember whether my master ever slept with her
at all before she went to Barnard Castle.
At the conclusion of this witness's evidence the
court adjourned.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LIVERPOOL, Dec. 12.

CROWN COURT.

CHARGE OF WILFULLY DESTROYING 'VESSELS AT SEA.

George Ruxton was indicted on a charge of con-
spiring to destroy a vessel called the Roscoe, of
which he was the owner, in order to obtain the in-
surance from the underwriters.

The case has excited great interest, not only in
Liverpool, but throughout the country, and the
court was crowded from an early hour.
__ _

Mr. Brett, Q.C., with Mr. Pot-ter and Mr. M'Cul-
loch, appeared for the prosecution ; and Mr. Overend,
Q.C., with Mr. Deighton, for the defence.
In opening the case, Mr. Brett said that the pri-
soner, who up to the time of the present charge be-
ing preferred had been a prosperous merchant and
shipowner in Liverpool, was charged with having
counselled and directed the captain of the Roscoe
(Jamieson) to set that ship on fire, for the purpose
of defrauding the underwriters, and the jury must
at once see that if such a crime could be committed
with impunity by a person in the prisoner's rank in
;ife, a very heavy blow would be inflicted upon the
commercial and maritime prosperity of the country,
because no individual credit was sufficient to stand
the serious loss of a ship, and it was only by the
system of underwriting and a division of risks that
the great commercial transactions of this town and
country could be carried on. Mr. Brett then pro-
ceeded to show that the prisoner had insured the
Roscoe for an amount greatly beyond the value of
the ship, and that he was therefore in the very dan-
gerous position of its being greatly to his pecuniary
advantage that she should be lost. In Jan., 1857,
she was insured at Glasgow for £1,500, which
amount was paid over to the Western Bank of Scot-
land, to the order of the prisoner, after the loss of
the vessel. In the same month she was also insured
in London, at Lloyd's, for £5OO, and this sum
(less some amounts due on other premiums) was
paid over after the loss to Ruxton. In April,
1856, Ruxton became a member of the London
Marine Insurance Club, in which the Roscoe was
insured for £6OO, and the policy, being one of time,
was renewed in 1857. This money had also been
paid over. In May, 1856, Ruxton also obtained a
time policy on the freight in the London Trade
Outfit Insurance Company for £3OO, and further
insurances in the same offices were made subse-
quently for £6OO and £3OO on the vessel and freight
respectively. In January, 1357, an insurance was
made is the London Maritime Insurance Club for
£BOO. There was also an insurance of £250 upon_
some goods and stores alleged to be on board, an
nel
at the time the vessel sail©d she was by these
d
other policies insured altogether for about £6,550,
including the insurances on freight, though her
real value, as would be preyed by witnesses, was not