The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-18 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall,. before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
RCENIG V. RITCHIE.—LIBEL AND SLANDER.
The further hearing of this case was resumed.
Mr. W. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Watkin Williams,
and Mr. Edward Besley were counsel for the plain-
tiff; Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr.
Reid were counsel for the defendants.
Mr. M. Chambers continued his address to the
jury on behalf of the plaintiff. lie immediately
revieved and criticised the evidence on both sides,
and also the statements and counter-statements
contained in the pamphlets, observing in the course
of his remarks that probably he was hasty in what
he said against the directors about the days of grace.
He also added that if he was hasty and warm in his
remarks a few days since to Mr. Macaulay, he
apologised for it. The learned counsel, in con-
clusion, called upon the jury to give the plaintiff
heavy damages for the libel which the defendants
admitted they bad published by sending copies to
each of their 250 agents.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said he
congratulated the jury on having arrived at the
close of a case which was the most wearisome he had
ever known, with the special exception of the ad-
mirable forensic argument and disputation of Sir
F. Kelly the previous day, which caused the
hours to pass quickly instead of heavily. He
thought it lamentable that the time of twelve
commercial men should have been occupied four
weary days with this case, and in the meantime the
arrears of the Queen's Bench stayed, whilst trying
over again matters finally settled long ago. The
questions raised upon this policy were proper sub-
jects for discussion in a court of law, and after they
had been discussed in the Court of Exchequer and
in Chancery he could not help thinking that all
parties might have been very well contented. But
it pleased Mr. Fowler, with the co-operation and
assistance of Mr. Koenig, to go into print and ap-
peal to the policyholders. That provoked a reply
from the directors, and he could not help owning
that he had not much sympathy for a man who,
having appealed to tho public, on being
changed the tribunal he had chosen and had re-

course to a court of law. It was very like the case
of one man knocking down another, and as soon as
he rose to renew the combat call for the police. As
he had said, he had not much sympathy with a man
coming into a court of law, but, as the °Lee was
there, they must deal with it as they found it. The
action resolved itself into two heads—the libel al-
leged to be contained in the pamphlet, and the slan-
der spoken by Mr. Ritchie. The facts with regard
to the libel were not in dispute, and it was for them
to say, when they were stripped of the highly-
coloured and exaggerated complexion given to them
by counsel, whether they did or did not make out
the truth of the passages in the pamphlet complained
of. They could not but lament the series of mis-
takes and misunderstandings that existed, but for
which the civil rights of the parties would have been
determined without the imputation of suspicion and
distrust that seemed to have presented themselves,
and were prominently put forward in the course of
the proceedings. It was clear that the directors were
not liable on the policy, and Mr. Fowler's pamphlet
made serious imputations on them,which were calcu-
lated, if unnoticed and unanswered, to do them great
and serious injury, On the slander there was a
conflict of evidence. Without referring to what
had been said about Mr. Jones, there could be no
doubt it was owing to him, as mischief-maker, they
had been engaged four mortal days in inquiring
again into these squables and disputes. It was for
' them to say, in the face of positive contradiction by
two respectable witnesses, if they could put faith in
the evidence of the mischief-maker. A man who
puts himself forward to stir up strife between par-
ties might not be the most reliable witness. He
left it to the jury to say whether, under the circum-
stances, there was express malice on the part of the
I directors in putting forth their pamphlet, and in
Mr. Ritchie in the statement made by him to Mr.
Jones, or whether both were done bona fide.
Whilst the jury were out considering the ques-
tions left to them by his lordship, Mr. M. Chambers
tendered a bill of exceptions, and his lordship had
them back and explained the excepted points.
The Jury said they had made up their minds.
The Lord Chief Justice asked them if they be-
lieved Mr. Ritchie spoke the words attributed to
him by Mr. Jones.
The Foreman—No, we do not.
The Lord Chief Justice—Are you of opinion that
the directors have made out a justification of the
libel complained of ?
The Foreman—Yes, we are. •
The Lord Chief Justice—Then that is a verdict
for the defendant.

The Foreman said they were of opinion no impu-
tations rested nn Mr. IT tnnis.

FONN.K.Me AND ANOTHER V. THE MANCHESTER AND
LONDON LITE, &C., ASSOCIATION.
This was an action brought by the executrix
and executor of the deceased, Henry Fowkes,
commercial traveller and agent at Birmingham,
to recover the sum of £l,OOO on a policy of in-
' surance. The defendants pleaded fraud, relative
to the withholding of certain information required
by the proposal paper.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were
counsel for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr.
Mellish, Q.C., and Mr. T. Jones were counsel for
the defendant.

The proof rested with the defendants, anti their
case was heard first. The fraud relied on was, that
the deceased withheld from the company the filet
he had suffered from gout, and further that he had
stated be had been accepted in another office at the
ordinary rates, whereas he had been declined.
The Jury ultimately retired, and upon returning
into court, answered certain questions put to them
by the learned judge, which amounted to a verdict
for the plaintiffs.

A verdict was then entered for the plaintiffs—
Damages, £1,062.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
SECOND COURT.
Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before Mr.
Justice Willes and a Special Jury.)
KNIGHT AND ANOTHER T. THE OCEAN MARINE IN-

SURANCE COMPANY.
The plaintiffs in this case, Messrs. Knight and
Coleman, had been engaged as brokers in disposing
of the shares in the defendants' company whilst it
was being established, and their case was that their
commission upon the 40,000 shares would amount to
£5,000, but that instead of their being paid in this
way it was arranged that they sbonld receive £750
and 600 shares in the company, and that in addition
they should be appointed permanent brokers to the
company. They now claimed damages upon the
ground that they had been dismissed from their po-
sition. There was a plea upon the record alleging
that the plaintiffs had not performed their duty
efficiently, but early in the day that plea was with-
drawn, and it was admitted that there was no impu-
tation upon the plaintiffs.
Mr. Bovill and Mr. M. Williams appeared for the
plaintiffs ; and Mr. M. Smith, Mr. Mellish, and Mr.
Garth were for the defendants.
It was stated that the formation of the company
was commenced in 1858, and that the plaintiffs
were employed for many months in getting fit per-
sons to join the company and in disposing of shares.
They were appointed brokers to the company by the
provisional directors, and continued to act in that
capacity until September, 1861, when they learned
that some other brokers had been employed to
make an investment; thereupon the plaintiffs wrote
saying that they still held the unrevoked appoint-
ment as brokers to the company, and asking for an
explanation ; and the directors in reply repudiated
any appointment such as would restrain them from
employing any other broker if they thought fit ;
and in this way the connection came to an
end. In the course of the plaintiffs' case it was
stated that they had been offered the valuable ap-
pointment of brokers to the Thames and Mersey In-
surance Company, but they declined it because it
was thought that they could not hold it consistently
with their duty as brokers to the defendants.
Some evidence was given, and in the course of
the day his lordship suggested au arrangement, and
he more fully communicated with the leading coun-
sel in his private room.

Mr. Smith, upon their return, said that the plain-
tiffs' counsel felt that he could. not succeed in
establishing that the plaintiffs were appointed per-
petual brokers to the company, and he. (Mr. Smith)
had to say that the directors had not the slightest
wish to complain of the conduct of Messrs. Knight
and Coleman in reference to investments made by
them. It had appeared in the course of the cause
that the plaintiffs had been asked in a friendly way
to withdraw their letter claiming to be perpetual
brokers, but declined, and the directors felt that
they could not admit any such claim. Under the
circumstances it had been arranged Ghat the litiga-
tion should terminate by a juror being withdrawn.
Mr. Justice Willes said that there would have
been a great deal of difficulty in the way of the
plaintiffs establishing that they were permanent
brokers to the company, but the principal object of
the plaintiffs being to show as publicly as they
could that the defendants ceased to employ them
Nithout any fault upon their side, and this having
been established, he was glad to say that the litiga-
tion was now at an end.
Juror withdrawn.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
,(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before the Lord
Chief Baron and a Common Jury.)
SIMMONS V. BRETON-CASE OF ALLEGED INSANITY.
This was an action upon a cheque for £2,000.

The defendant pleaded that when he signed the
cheque he was in an unsound state of mind.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. M'Namara were
counsel for the plaintiff: and Mr. M, Chambers,
Q,C , and Mr. Gray for the defendant.
The issue being on the defendant, Mr. Gray (in
the absence of Mr. X Chambers) opened the case.
He said that plaintiff was station-master at Crawley,
in Sussex, and the defendant was a young gentle-
man aged 26, who had been brought up to the pro-
fession of an engineer, and who entered into prac-
tice on his own account, 1861. The defendant, on
17th A pril last, signed an agreement to buy a house
called Highfield Lodge, where he had been residing,
from the plaintiff for £2,000, bat the bargain was
to be void if the money was not paid within two
months. On the 12th May, before the expiration
of that time, the defendant gave him a cheque for
£2,000 on his bankers ; but the defence was that he
signed it while of unsound mind, and if that were
proved it would be a good defence to the action.
The learned counsel said he had at that time no
means of meeting the cheque, as ,he had only a
balance of £2OO at his banker's, and his other pro-
perty consisted in a reversionary interest worth
£3,000 5n an estate in the Isle of Thanet, which had
been mortgaged for £2,000 to pay his debts. He
contended that giving a cheque under these cir-
cumstances was not the act of a rational man. In
1860 he became so violent:that it was necessary to
place him under restraint, and in April, 1862, he
had a renewal of the attack, and after committing
various acts of eccentricity was sent to a lunatic
asylum upon the certificate of two medical gentle-
men. After the lapse of two or three months he
got better, and now it was not alleged that he was
insane.
The following evidence was then adduced—
Mr. Henry Breton, the defendant's brother, a
farmer at Hawley, in Surrey, said—ln Autumn,
1860, my brother was residing in London. One
Sunday he came to see me. His manner was very
strange. He walked about, and plucked out the
hairs of his beard. He was not quite right in his
head. He said he was Albert Edward, Prince of
Wales, and also a greater man than Rothschild.
His face became all sore from pulling out his beard.
Ha Annnpri, sang, and porfor....a wii oor6a of antioca.
In the beginning of this year I again noticed some-
thing strange in his manner. I saw him in a pub-
lic-house at East Grimstead, with a hat on made of
hedge-hog skins. When he was at his brother-in-
law's house (the Rev. Mr. Norton, curate of Horne,
Surrey) he conducted himself in a very extraordi-
nary manner. His hands and feet had to be tied.
He knocked a hole through the wall and was quite
raving. He talked incoherently. When given
anything to eat he would rub it over his face. He
would drink beer, but sometimes he would pur
it over his head. In May he was in the same state
as to his mind. He did no' know what he was
doing. I never knew of his drinking at that time.
I saw him at the Camberwell-house Lunatic Asylum.
That was when we took him out. He then seemed
quite right, and he has continued to improve ever
since.

Cross-examined—My brother was on some works
in Portugal for which Sir M. Peto had contracted.
I considered that up to 1860 he was a very tempe-
rate young man. I know that since then he has
drunk. Drink had the effect of exciting him. I
do not know that his illness in 1860 was caused by
delirium tremens. At the time the attack was on
him he said we had ill-treated him. After he got
well I never paid him anything in the shape of
compensation. In 1862 he used to drink occasionally,
I believe that in April last he went to a volunteer
review at Brighton, but I do not know whether
he then had a drinking bout. He was angry
at our not allowing him to drink, but we
allowed him to smoke. He was kept tied four days
but let loose at intervals. A medical man saw him,
and said he was tied down in a proper manner.
When he was released he knew what he was about.
Mr. Smith, a medical man, did not refuse to sign a
certificate of his insanity. I heard that he was thrown
out of a gig in May last. I signed the order to re-
ceive him at the asylum. There was a telegram
from Mr. Spencer, of the Bridge-house Hotel, in
London, stating that he was conducting himself in
a very strange manner. It was after receiving that
that I signed the certificate. I applied to Mr. Hay-
man, a surgeon of Town Malling, to sign the certi-
ficate, and he did so. My brother-in-law got some-
body else to sign it, but I don't know his name.
He is a London man. lam not aware that a Mr.
Chapman refused to certify.
Re-examined—He did not know his mother when
he was in the state I have described. He spoke to
her disrespectfully, bat at other times he showed
great affection for her.
Mrs. Mary Norton, the elder sister of the defen-
dant, said—l saw my brother when he was ill in
1860. Between his recovery and March in the
present year he was well enough, but he seemed
always strange. In April last he swore dreadfully ;
that was contrary to his usual habit. He talked
and laughed at night when he was by himself, and
woke us all. He boasted of his great wealth, and
said he would keep servants and carriages at Craw-
ley. He also said he would make a railway through
the sky. I knew he was not in his right mind.
Cross-examined—He became more sensible after
he had a little drink.
Re-examined—He was under restraint at my
house, at Horne, in Surrey. He nearly knocked
down the partition in the room, and every one who
came near him.

Charles Turner, the keeper of wine shades in the
Strand, said the defendant's conduct was very eccen-
tric. He had once offered witness a cheque for any
amount, simply as an act of kindness ; and once he
stood on his head, in imitation of the boys who
followed the omnibuses. His impression was that
the defendant was suffering from an attack of
delirium tremens, and was not in his right mind.
Cross-examined—l had several business transac-
tions with the defendant.
What ! with a madman P

Witness—Yes; we have transactions with mad-
men every day of our lives. (Laughter.) The last
time I saw him was on May 29, 1862. He came
with no neck-tie on, and covered with mud. I
thought he was mad, but he appeared sober. There
s in his eyes. He paid me my cheques.
the right amounts, and were cashed
Twhaesya
wweirlednfeosr
by his bankers. I don't think he offered me the
cheque for as much as I liked by way of chaff. He
was not drunk at the time. I thought it was a
piece of vain boasting, or the saying of a man who
did not know what he was about.

Ed ward Silvester, landlord of the Fox, at Three
Bridges, said that on April last the defendant came
to his house and ordered three bottles of cham-
pagne, bread and cheese, hay and corn for his horse,
and two gallons of water, saying he was going out
on night duty. The articles were eventuallyesup-
plied to him, and he drove off in his cart. He used
to lie down under his horse, and also get under the
table and say he was a volunteer, and was in search
for the enemy. He was well known by the name of
Blondin, as he said his friends were trying to take
his property from him. He owed witness £lB
odd, and on sending in his bill he gave him a
cheque for £4O, and said he was to give the few
shillings over to the servants. He sent the cheque
to his bankers and got the money, but he gave the
sum he had been overpaid to his family. He did
not think he was of sound mind.
Cross-examined—He drank moderately. Never
saw him do so excessively. He had seen him the
worse for liquor. When he had the champagne he
said he was going on night duty, no ho expected
some one would rob his fish-pond.
Mr. G. Chapman, a medical man, said he attended
the defendant in September, 1860. He appeared in
an excited state; at first he thought from drink.
He spoke irrationally, but he would not have signed
a certificate of his insanity at that time. He was
suffering from great excitement. He struck the
wall with his hands and feet, and spat upon the
ground and rubbed his head in it. Witness then
thought it necessary that he should be placed under
some restraint. In May his brain was not in a '
sound condition, but he was rational on some sub-
jects. _

Cross-examined—l was not asked to sign a cer-
tificate. It was talked about. To my recollection, I
did not say that I thought he was not insane. I
considered he was in a state of temporary insanity.
Ile-examined--On May 25 I did not consider he
was in a proper state of mind. He was of unsound
mind.

Mr. John Lacy, a surgeon, of Wellington-street,
London-bridge, said he was called upon to see the
defendant in May last, and after examining him he
signed a certificate. There was great excitement in
his manner; tte laboured under various hallucina-
tions, and fancied he was Albert, Prince of the
World. He emitted great quantities of saliva, and
showed extreme restlessness. He was also informed
that he had a similar attack before, that he had
written cheques for absurd amounts, that there was
great irregularity in his mode of living, and that he
had indulged in spit ituous liquors. He then signed
the certificate produced, upon which he was confined
in the asylum. He was still of opinion that at that
time he was insane. The insanity might have been
brought on by drink and other causes. He must
have been working up to that condition for months.
The trial had not concluded when the court rose.

couß r OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
'win V. WITT AND KLINDWORTII.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Keane, for the peti-
tioner; Mr. Karslake Q.C., and Dr. Tristram for
the respond3nt ; the Queen's Advocate and Mr. S.
Hill, for the co-respondent.
The petitioner, a music-seller, carrying on busi-
ness in Regent-street, under the name of I. I. Ewer
and Co., sought a dissolution of his marriage on the

ground of his wife's adultery with Mr. Klindworth,
a teacher of music in the neighbourhood of Man-
chester-square. The case, which had already occu-
, pied two days, was fully reported on Saturday and
Monday lest.
This morning additional evidence was given on
behalf of the respondents, who denied the charge
and pleaded a recrimination.
Mrs. de Clermont, of Champion-hill, a friend of
Mrs. Witt, deposed to the very delicate state of the
respondent's health. At her instance a nurse, named
We.keman was engaged to take care of her.
Maria 'Wakeman said she was in attendance on
the respondent from the 3d December, 1860, till the
20th January. Mr. Klindworth was frequently at
the house, but it was with the perfect cognisance
of the petitioner. Recollected him copying music
in the dining-room. Witness went in several times
while he was so engaged. Mr. Klindwotth had
been sleeping at the house the night before; and
Mr. Witt left him there when he went away to busi-
ness. After Miss Karop, the respondent's sister,
came, Mr. Klindworth went away and did not re-
turn till he came back with Mr. Witt. Mrs. Witt
was very ill ail the time witness stayed with her.
Cross-examined—She did not go out of the house
at all daring the whole time witness was there. Saw
the co-respondent in Mrs. Witt's bedroom three
times, but once a lady was also there. It did not
snrprise witness that he went there after so many
gentlemen had been taken in.
Esther Pearson, apparently a German, said she
frequented the Haymarket. Was a foreigner, but
declined to say where she came from, for she did
not think her fader and moder and country had any-
thing to do with these things. Had known the pe-
titioner before he was married (viz., in Jan., 1858).
Had met him on several occasions in the course of
the following year. One was after midnight in
March or April. He was dressed as if he had come
from a party. He went home with witness. Did
not remember if they walked or rode, for witness
had had too much wine. Was too drunk to recol-
lect what passed, but could guess. Went on the
19th of March last to the City with Mr. Witt and
a friend. Met him again not long ago in the Hay-
market. That was not above a fortnight since.
Had also met him on the Bth of October, and had
been with him to his place of business in Regent
street. Could not explain what passed.
Cross-examined—Came over to England in 1857
from Paris. Had been " keeped" there by a gentle-
man. Had been brought to England by that gen-
tleman. Who was still living in London. Was not
with him now. Had since done as well as she could.
Declined to say within 150 how many gentlemen
had been home with her. Went to night-houses
when she felt inclined. Had a little to drink some-
times, but declined to say whether she drank too
much. If she drank she spent her own money.
Drank when she felt inclined. Never felt inclined
to go to the police-station for being disorderly.
Declined to say whether she went without being
inclined. Might have been before a magistrate
once, but it was not for being " screwy." (A. laugh)
Knew Klindworth. He had been home with her
once to her knowledge, but that was four years
ago. Eight or nine months ago witness went with
Klindworth and other friends to some night-houses.
They had supper. That gentleman (pointing out
one near the jury-box) was a friend of Mr. Witt
and Mr. Klindworth. He was present. Had lunch
with him on Saturday last. The parish officers had
once threatened to prosecute her for keeping a bad
house.

Mr. Wm. Kumpel, of Berners•street (the person
identified by the last witness), was a friend of
Mr. Witt. The letter produced was in his hand-
writing. [The document seemed to have been
written after the respondent had left him. It was
written in affectionate terms, and implored forgive-
ness for some offences of which the writer appeared
to think that he had been guilty, but of which
the precise nature did not appear.] Had been ac-
quainted with Mrs. Witt ever since her marriage,
and had frequently visited the house. Used some-
times to go about with Mr. Witt of evenings. Went
with him to the Haymarket, to the cafés, and night-
houses there. The people who frequent those houses
were gentlemen and prostitutes. Began to go there
not long after the petitioner's marriage. Used to
look around and take a glass of beer. Mr. Witt
used occasionally to converse with the women there,
and sometimes sup with them. On one of these
occasions Witt left the room and a girl also went
out. They returned afterwards almost together.
Cross-examined—Was an artist—an historical
and landscape painter. Klindworth was also an in-
timate friend of witness. Knew Esther Pearson.
Happened to be at the same table with her at lunch
on Saturday. Had been once to her lodgings, and
had been about with her at night three or four times.
Had left off that kind of life since July, 1861. Had
long been tired of it; but had latterly been with
friends now and then. Had never talked of these
Haymarket adventures before Mrs. Witt. Had
lately met Esther Pearson and taken her to a house
in the Haymarket. _

Sir C. dresswell—lf you are so tired of this sort
of life, you had better avoid the Haymarket alto-
gether. (A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins—Yes. They'll ruin your morals,
Kumpel. (Laughter.)
Sir C. Cre9swell—Are you a married man ?
Witness—No.

Mr. Karslake then summed up the case for the
respondent. He maintained that both her pleas had
been proved. It was shown that she had been in
such a state of health all the time at which the adul-
tery was charged, that nothing could be more im-
probable than the idea of her accepting the impro-
per attentions of anyone. As for Mr. Witt, not-
withstanding the attempt which had been made to
depict him as a model husband, it was clear from
the evidence just given what his real character had
been. He pretended, forsooth, that the cares of his
business made him require, to quote an expression
from the letter which had been put in, " a nightly
boisterous excitement now and then." That letter,
and the evidence of Mr. Kumpel, so far corroborated
the story of Esther Pearson, that the jury would
readily understand how pained a Wife would be by
his conduct. It was only when he found that his
wife would live with him no longer that he had re-
sorted to this snit as a means of getting rid of her.
Mr. Hawkins, in reply, ridiculed the evidence
given for the defence, and asked the jury what they
thought of such an excuse as that Mr. Klindviorth

was Sitting up from 11 to 7, reading the " Arabian
Nights Entertainments ?" (A laugh.) As to the
counter-charge he must say that he had never met
with a case of more cruel exaggeration. There had
really been no evidence against him but the word
of a drunken prostitute, whom he (the learned
counsel) had almost felt ashamed to cross-examine.
He protested against allowing a man's prospects in
life to be blasted by the bare statement of a witness
so infamous, and called on the jury to give their
verdict for the petitioner with substantial damages
against the man who had deeply injured him.
Sir C. Cresswell having addressed the jury on
the whole case, they found a verdict for the petitioner
on all the issues. They assessed the damages at 40s.
The Court then made a decree nisi, with costs,
against the co-respondent.