The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-12 00:00:00

rnE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 12, 1865.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day).

COURT OP DIVORCE.
(Before the Lord Ordinary and a Special Jury.)
CHETWYND V. CHETWYND.
The examination of Mr. Chetwynd, the respondent in
this case, was resumed this morning. It will be recollected
that the examination of Mr. Chetwynd commenced at the
last day of hearing, and that he denied the whole of the
allegations of Mrs. Chetwynd as to his having treated her
in a cruel manner.

Mr. Kinnealy examined Mr. Chetwynd. He said—l
never acted in a cruel manner to a horse named Doctor.
Mrs. Chetwynd, on the contrary, once tied up a horse
named Wiggs by the legs in a very painful way, and put
some bread in the manger in such a manner that the poor
animal could not eat it. She attended very much to stable
matters. She used to make the horses's beds, clean up the
stables of a morning, and do all the dirty work. On one
occasion she assisted in painting out the stable. She wore
the apron I now produce. I recollect the visit to the Isle
of Wight. I don't know what Mrs. Chetwynd means when
she said I never paid any money for her. I did not pay for
her clothes, because she had her own banking account.
Mrs. Chetwynd became very much altered after the death
of my mother. She then, from being fond of home, became
restless and never contented with anything. We first began
to talk about Mrs. Chetwynd's debts about two years before
the separation. I never kept any of her money back. I could
not do so, as she drew her own cheques, and got them
cashed without any reference to me. She used to buy and
sell her own horses. I complained of bills in one of the
letters referred to, and not to the exclusion of Mrs. Chet-
wynd's sister Jessy. She used to come when she liked.
I never, it is true, sent her invitations, but I never excluded
her from my house. I never interfered with any of her
visitors. It has been said that I did not like the society of
ladies and gentlemen ; on the contrary, I was always de-
lighted when any of them visited us. The bills I objected
to were for jewellery. Amongst the demands made on me
was one, from Emmanuel's lawyer for jewellery to the
amount of 5001. I have in my possession a bundle of writs
that have been served on me for tradesmen's bills since Mrs.
Chetwynd left me. lam very particular and punctual in
my payments. Amongst the writs was one for 48/. I
know nothing of the person. There is another for 691.
from Tessier for jewellery ; another from Mr. Gattie, the
horse-dealer for 45/. ; another for 1931. from a
person named Chamberlain ; another for 121.
from Neal, of Liverpool, for jewellery ; another
for 276/. from Le Jenne, for dressmaking, and another for 151.
I don't know a single one of the people making these de-
mands upon me. She once insisted on refurnishing our
house. It was not at all necessary, but she did it in a most
extravagant manner. It quite indicates the manner in
which she did it. The furniture was altogether unsuitable
and entirely useless. I might as well have furnished this
Court for my own convenience. I recollect Mrs. Chetwynd
telling me she had had a very handsome brougham. She
told me it was a present from Lady Lothian. I knew it
would be perfectly useless, as I knew she would never ride
inside it. The brougham was eventually sold. I had to
pay for it. So I found to my cost it was untrue about its
being given to her. I have bills in my possession for extra
liveries for servants. One is for 501. from a tailor whom I
never employed. The person who supplied my liveries was
Woodruffe. I paid his bill. When I spoke to Mrs Chetwynd
about it she said, "Don't be angry, I'll pay for the things." I
thought she had done so. Mrs. Chetwynd always hired the
servants. She kept four horses and a brougham at Rugeley,
and three horses at Longdon Hall. The distance between
these places is only about four miles, but she was con-
tinually journeying between them—she was so very rest-
less. Mrs. Chetwynd had at least seven carriages, and she
wanted another. I know a Mr. Nicholson ; he took a great
interest in Mrs. Chetwynd. He called two or three times
at Longdon Hall, but I never recollect inviting him on any
single occasion. I found the fragment of a letter written
by Mr. Nicholson, which I produce, in Mrs. Chetwynd's
bedroom. [The letter was read ; it related to
the Nicholsons coming to Longdon]. When Mrs
Chetwynd went to horse fairs with me, she bought.
horses quite independent of me. She even bought a horse
for Mr. Mathews. Previous to the commencement of these
proceedings, I gave a letter to Mr. Collis for delivery to
Mrs. Chetwynd, asking her to reflect on the course she
was about to take.
Mr. Kinnealy—At the time you wrote that letter, had
you any knowledge of the alleged acts of adultery ?
Witness—No, I had not.

The Judge Ordinary objected to the question, and it
was withdrawn.

Examination continued—l did issue a notice to trades-
men, stating that I would not pay my wife's debts. I never
sold off her clothes. I know a Me. Hayes ; he is a horse
dealer. I never forcibly compelled her to sit down to din-
ner with him. On the contrary, Mr. Hayes entered one
morning, and she sent out for him to come up and take
luncheon. On one occasion Mrs. Chetwynd invited
two horsedealers to Longdon, and they spent the
whole .of the afternoon with her. In 1860 there
was an ancient festival celebrated in Wiltshire called
the Bower. I went to it. I remained to hear Wombwell's
band play until nine o'clock, and I returned home before
ten. In 1861 I took children to the same festival. I re-
turned early. I went again in 1862, but I am sure I re-
turned very early. I went again in 1863, but I was home
before ten. I never went to the Dolphin public-house on
the occasion of the festival of the Bower. I am, I may
say, a temperate man. It is as false as it is
disgusting to say that I only acted as a husband when I
was intoxicated. Mrs. Chetwynd had a certain fondness
for her children, but it was not that of a mother. Mrs.
Chetwynd used to go out frequently, without the slightest
intimation as to where she was to be found. My magiste-
rial and farming duties used to necessitate my absence very
frequently. She used to go to the Knight's. Mr. Knight
was a very good friend. He was fond of farming. I have
complained to him of harbouring Mrs. Chetwynd. Mrs.
Chetwynd went off to two balls, one at Derby and one at
York, without the slightest intimation. On December 18,
1861, Mrs. Chetwynd went to Stafford. It was assize time.
The Queen's Advocate—l think, my lord, we ought to
know why these questions are asked.
The Judge Ordinary—l don't see the materiality of them,
but we had better proceed.
Mr. Kinnealy—ln 1861, on 31st December, did Mrs.
Chetwynd go to Stafford?
Witness—(referring to his diary)—Yes.
The Queen's Advocate—How do you know she did ?

Witness—l wrote it down here, and I should not write
down a lie. Mrs. Chetwynd told me she had been to Staf-
ford, and I made the entry accordingly. I certainly did
not follow her to see.
Mr. Kennealy—Did Mrs. Chetwynd invariably receive
her visitors in the boudoir ?
Witness—No.
Mr. Kennealy—What rooms had she to receive visitors.
Witness:—The drawing-room, dining-room, library, and
a variety of other places.
Mr. Kennealy—Have you the original inventory of Long-
don Hall ?

Witness—Yes.
The Queen's Advocate—When was the inventory
made ?
Witness—ln 1859.
Mr. Kennealy—Was there a bed in the boudoir ?
The Queen's Advocate—My learned friend cannot put
such a question as that.
The Judge Ordinary—The learned gentleman must
point out what it has to do with the allegation of cruelty.
Mr. Kennealy—lt has been denied that there was a bed in
the boudoir in which Mrs. Chetwynd received her friends,
and therefore I contend I have a right to ask the question.
The Queen's Advocate and Mr Karslake both objected
on the part of Mrs. Chetwynd to an answer being given•
They contended that the Act of Parliament prevented the
learned gentleman from putting it.
Mr. Kennealy—My learned friends have not shown one
good reason why the question should not be answered.
The Judge Ordinary said the Act of 1861, which was an
amendment of the Divorce Act, laid it down that in suits
for cruelty and desertion both husband and wife could give
evidence, but in cases where adultery was pleaded the case
was very different. The question whether there was or
was not a bed in the boudoir could have nothing to do
with any act of cruelty, therefore he decided against the
question being answered.
Examination continued—After Mrs. Chetwynd left
Longdon I locked up her room. To my surprise, on one
occasion, I found the door had been opened, all the clothes
taken away, her jewellery, her letters, in fact everything
had been cleared off.
Mr. Kennealy—l suppose my friend will object to this.
Did you find a smelling bottle ?
The Queen's Advocate—l most certainly shall.
The Judge Ordinary—Then I reject the question.
Mr. Kennealy—Did you find three books or diaries
there ?

Witness—Yes.
Mr. Kennealy—There were some leaves torn out of one
of them ?
Witness.—Yes. I also found two French novels.
Mr. Kennealy—Were those books of an improper cha-
racter.

--- --- _
A long discussion ensued, the Queen's Advocate objecting
to the question. The result was the question was not

answered.
Examination continued—l never saw the books and
diaries until I found them in Mrs. Chetwynd's boudoir.
Mr. Kennealy—You heard the evidence of Sarah Price
relative to your children. Is it true ?
Witness—lt is not.
Mr. Kennealy—A female witness named Wilkins has
said that you told the children you would flog them if they
wished their mamma "good night." Is that true ?
Witness—lt is entirely untrue.
Mr. Kennealy—Did you ever use bad language in the
presence of your children ?
Witness—No.
Mr. Kennedy—Now, with regard to the assertion of
Mrs. Corns. She has stated that when she asked you whe-
ther you really meant Mrs. Chetwynd to go from her home,
you replied in the affirmative.
Witness—l have no recollection of doing so. I don't
think I did. My belief is entirely contrary to that.
Mr..Kinnealy—When Mrs. Chetwynd finally left her
home in January, 1864, did you know she was going ?
Itness—No ; I thought she was merely going on a

visit to the Morris's. On the 9th of January she sent her
carriage and horses back to Longdon. . _

Kinnealy—When she left on that occasion, she
parted with you in a very friendly way.
Witness—Yes, perfectly.
Mr. Kinnealy—Had you the slightest idea she was
never again coining home ?
Witness—Not the slightest. In fact, Mr. Nicholson
wrote to me telling me she was going to return by train.
Examination continued—l first became acquainted with
Mr. Mathews in March, 1861.
How soon after that did he visit your house ?
The Judge Ordinary objected to the question, as it had
nothing to do with cruelty.
The question was not answered. I first heard, in 1862,
of Mrs. Chetwynd's change in her religious views. She
wrote me a letter on the subject. [The letter was here
read at length by the learned counsel for the respondent.]
The Judge Ordinary—You know nothing about the
matter ?

Witness—No, nothing, my Lord.
Mr. Kinnealy—MY Lord, I now propose to ask the wit-
ness if he has ever intercepted a letter directed to his wife ?
The Judge Ordinary—Has the letter anything to do with
the charge of cruelty ?—We cannot tell that until we know
the contents of the letter.

Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., for Mr. Chetwynd, said as the ques-
tion was objected to, he would postpone putting it until
another opportunity.
Mr. Kinnealy—Did Mary Jane Smith, one of the wit-
nesses already examined, make a statement to you relative
to a half-sovereign which she had from Mr. Mathews ?
The Queen's Advocate objected.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., said the question was only asked for
the purpose of enabling Mr. Chetwynd to give a flat con-
tradiction to the statement of the witness.

The question was rejected as it had no reference to the
charge of cruelty. •
Cross-examined by the Queen's Advocate—I cannot tell
how much money I got with my wife when I married. I
don't know whether it amounted to 20,0001. I can't say
whether I have a life interest 'in it after her death. I
paid 3001. for Mrs. Chetwynd's first confinement. I paid
1001. for a dressing-case for her and other things. I took out
my horse-dealer's license in 1862. I have known noble-
men's sons take out a license. I cannot reccolect who
first suggested the taking out of a horse dealing license.
Mrs. Chetwynd was never ordered to ride certain horses
in order that they might be sold at a high figure. She was
not in the constant habit of doing so at my direction. I
was not in the constant habit of drinking at public
houses in Litchfield. I have been to one or two.
The Dolphin might be one of them. I went into
the hotel, and drank like other people. 'I always drink
like a gentleman. I will swear I did not fight at a public
house. A man once struck me, and I hit him again. There
was only one blow given. I did not take off my coat. My
wife never waited for me outside a public-house. I will
swear she never had to wait for me outside. I never used
the horrid expressions that have been attributed to
me to women. I don't know a lady named
Boone. I never called her to her face a
; but I believe I wrote it. I dont know
where she was staying. I may have written a letter
to Mrs. Knight, calling her disgusting names. [A number
of letters were here handed to the witness, who admitted
them to be in his handwriting, and that they were valen-
tines he had written to Mrs. Knight. j The reason I sent
these valentines to Mrs. Knight was that she had placed a
person in my own house to watch me.
The valentines were read by the registrar : they were of
the most indecent and objectionable nature.

Cross-examination continued—l know a Mr. Mulock.
He is now in Stafford Gaol. He writes for the Stafford
newspaper. I have not seen him since these proceedings
commenced. I have had a communication with him re-
specting this case. lam aware that he is in prison for a
contempt of this court. I was in communication with him
before the fact. It was not for the purpose of getting him
to intimidate my wife from bringing this suit. I told him
he must not publish certain matters. The reason that I
had a private letter bag was because I found that my letters
had been opened.

(The case was proceeding when we went to press.)

Liverpool Cotton Market—This Day.

The market opened with a, steady demand.
Sales, probably about 6,000 bales.

International and Maritime Law,

--- .4.

Yesterday a lecture on the above subject was de-

livered by Mr. Leone Levi, LL.D., in Lincoln's-inn
Hall, in presence of a large audience of members of
the legal profession. In the absence of the Attor-
ney-General, Sir Edward Ryan took the chair. The
lecturer commenced by pointing out the importance
of a well understood international and maritime
law to a country like England, with its 38,000 mer-
chant vessels of 6,500,000 tons burden. Having
glanced at the first establishthent of maritime law
in the Mediterranean by the Rhodians, he gave a
summary of its history during the palmy commer-
cial days of Genoa, Venice, and Barcelona, and
from thence down to modern times. From the
peace of 1815 the great powers of Europe con-
trived with some difficulty to preserve tranquillity
until 1854, when the commencement of the
Russian war raised the question of international law
and the rights of neutrals to primary importance.
After the war came the Congress of Paris, the re-
solutions of which were a great advance on the sub-
ject, and the United States had subsequently to
regret that they had not given in their adhesion to
the resolutions of that congress. The Trent affair .
especially showed the importance of a clearly defined
and well understood international code. Mr. Levi
here quoted at length the works, French, English,
and German, which modern times had produced on
the subject, but regretted that the subject had
all through been left to the lawyers and philo-
sophers, and the nations had in time of war
shown very little respect for international obli-
gations. However, the promuigation of sound
principles had done something in making civi-
lised peoples ashamed of what under other circum-
stances might have been subjects of national glorifi-
cation. Positive politics, they must recollect, were
always ruled, by expediency, and expediency must
have regard to the existing state of public morality
and public opinion. The lecturer next deplored the
uncertainty that existed respecting what was, and
what was not, international law, quoting Sir J.
Mackintosh, Grotius, and the late Sir G. C. Lewis,
for definitions. He complimented the Emperor of
the French for his suggestion of an European con-
gress, and regretted that his Majestf& proposal had
not assumed a more definite form. What they wanted

was a certain law, and its general diffusion and ac-
ceptance all over the world of commerce. Steam,
the telegraph, iron ships, rifled ordnance, and other
modern inventions, had rendered much of the old
law of the sea obsolete, and what was wanted
was, the great principles of international and
maritime law adapted to modern contingencies, and
accepted by common consent by all the civilised
nations of the world. For example, formerly the
range of a cannon shot was fixed at three miles, '
whereas now it might be taken as six or seven. The
great questions of freedom of the seas, of free ships,
free goods, &c., were all exhausted, but that of the
limit of belligerent rights were as important as ever.
The claims of neutrals were more troublesome than
of old in consequence of the increased number of
nations that now engaged in trade, and it was
therefore all the more necessary that the maritime
and international law should be universelly under-
stood and adopted. The learned professor con-
cluded with an eloquent peroration on behalf of
peace, progress, and civilisation, amid the general
applause of the audience. A vote of thanks was
put from the chair, and carried by acclamation.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
GROSS IMPOSITION ON A GENTLEMAN.—Edward Harper,
described as a bricklayer, was charged as follows
Captain Batchelor, of the Army and Navy Club, said
that, while in Pall-Mall yesterday evening, about seven
o'clock, the prisoner requested him to give him an order
for the hospital, saying that he had a child dying. He
(Capt. Batchelor) immediately went into the Club and
wrote the prisoner a letter to a medical man, and on giving
it to him the prisoner began to complain of his distressed
condition, saying he had no candles, but left, saying he
would take his child to the hospital. Thinking there was
Something suspicious in the prisoner's conduct, he watched
him, and walked round another turning, and the prisoner
again met him, and, not recognising him again, told him
the same story as before about his dying child, and con-
cluded by asking for an order for the hospital. He told
the prisoner that he had already given him one, and called
a constable and gave him in charge.
Abel Dickens, 306 A, said the prisoner, on his taking
him into custody, at first said he resided in the country,
but afterwards that he lived at Fitzgerald's lodging-house,
in Old Pye-street. On going there he saw a female, who
said she was the prisoner's sister, and that he had a wife
and children, but she did not know where they were.
The prisoner said they were in the country, and that if
he had something given to him he would go away.

Mr. Knox asked if anything was known of the prisoner ?

James Tyler, one of the constables of the Mendicity
Society, said he had known the prisoner for 14 years. He
had been three times convicted at that court for begging,
once at Marylebone, and twice charged with begging at
Westminster, but discharged owing to the non-attendance
of the complainants. He had been convicted and sentenced
to three months' hard labour at the Westminster Police
Court for obtaining money by false pretence; he having
represented that he wanted to purchase a coffin for one of
his children. He had also been tried at the Clerkenwell
Sessions and the Old Bailey, receiving a sentence of six
months' hard labour at each place for fraud.
Mr. Knox said the prisoner seemed to be one of the worst
imposters in London. The prisoner was an able-bodied
man, and it was a scandalous thing that he should go about
imposing on the benevolent. It was wasting words to talk
to such a man. The utmost imprisonment he could give
the prisoner under the Vagrant Act was three months' im-
prisonment with hard labour, and that ho should give
him.

DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF A CABMAN.--James New-
man, a cab-driver, badge 12,555, was charged before Mr.
Knox with—being drunk during his employ as a cab-

driver.

Sergeant John Curm, 19 C, said that about 11 o'clock
last night hearing cries of " Police" proceeding from Bur-
lington-gardens, he went there and saw the defendant
driving his cab very fast. He stopped the defendant, and
found that he was very drunk. A lady and child were in
the cab, and appeared to be very frightened.
Mr. Thomas Cook, of Clifford-street, Bond-street, said on
leaving Covent-garden Theatre last night with his wife
and child, he got into the defendant's cab, and told him to
drive to Clifford-street. The defendant passed the street,
and nearly ran into an omnibus. He spoke to the defend-
ant twice, but he made no answer, and he (Mr. Cook) then
got out to get on the box so as to direct the defendant's
way. As soon as he got out of the cab the defendant
started off as fast he could, and he (Mr. Cook) with great
difficulty pursued him, calling out " Police," and at last
the defendant was stopped and his (Mr. Cook's) wife and
child released from their perilous position.
The defendant said he had a previous fare to Kentish-
town, and was given half a tumbler of whiskey, and it
affected him.
Mr. Knox said it seemed the defendant was in the habit
of taking too much, for there was an endorsement on his
license showing that he had been charged at that court
with being drunk a short time ago. The defendant was
totally unfit to be entrusted with a cab, as he had placed
the lives of persons in danger. He would not go so far as
to suspend the defendant's license, but he would fine him
20s. or 14 days.
COMMITTAL FOR OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES.
—John Weedman, formerly carrying on business as a coal
merchant at the Chalk Farm Station, and residing in the
Prince of Wales-road, Kentish-town, was again brought
up by Rose Kelly, one of the warrant officers of the court,
charged with obtaining goods by false pretences.
The prisoner already stood committed for trial for ob-
taining a quantity of shirts and hosiery by false pretences
from Mr. Hammond, shirt-maker and hosier, of Oxford-
street.
A second case was now gone into, in which it appeared
that the prisoner, on the 4th of November last, sent a letter
with a heading attached to it, representing himself as a
coal merchant at Chalk Farm Station, to Mr. Thos. Morgan,
of Barnet House, Cheshunt, requesting three tons of man-
gold wurtzel to be sent to him, and asking Mr Morgan
whether he had more to sell, and the price. On the faith
of the representation in the letter that he was a coal mer-
chant, carrying on business at the place stated, Mr. Morgan
sent the mangold wurtzel by one of his carmen to a place
stated by the prisoner. The prisoner told the carman that
he would write to Mr. Morgan the following day, and the
man left without the money he was to have taken back-
-41. 6s.

Mr. John Foster Owen, coal merchant, of Maldon-road,
Kentish-town, manager of the Cannock Chase Coal Com-
pany, on being shown the two letters signed "John Weed-
man," sent to Mr. Morgan, said he believed they were in
the prisoner's handwriting.
Mr. Miall, of the Adelaide Tavern, the landlord of the
offices in which the prisoner formerly carried on his busi-
ness, said the prisoner had ceased to occupy the offices
some time before the letter to Mr. Morgan was written.
Itosekelly said he had received a number of letters from
different parties, complaining of the prisoner having ob-
tained goods by similar pretences, but the persons writing
the letters were not in attendance.

The prisoner was committed on the second charge also,
the magistrate stating that any other persons having
charges to prefer, could do so at the trial.