The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-21 00:00:00

THEIISUN LONDON, SATURDAY, EVENING, JUNE 21, 1862.

THE NAVY.

The iron frigate Black Prince, 40, 1,250-horse
power, ordered to be commissioned for sea, is to
have a complement of 704 officers and men, as also
her proportion of Royal Marine Artillery and Royal
Marines, the number being the same as that for a
line-of-battle ship.

A plan of an improved steering apparatus for
vessels of the Resistance, Warrior, and Defence class,
whereby considerably increased power can be
brought to bear on the rudder, the invention of Mr.
Robinson, senior-assistant master shipwright at
Sheerness dockyard, has been laid before the Lords
of the Admiralty, and approved by their lordships.
The invention is to be fitted on board the Resistance,
18, iron frigate, fitting for the Chatham steam re-
serve, under the superintendence of Mr. Robinson,
and if found to answer satisfactorily, will be forth-
with applied to the other iron vessels of the same
class.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

The weekly meeting of the Board of Works was
held yesterday—Mr. L. Taylor in the chair.
Mr. John Muller, M.P., Mr. P. H. Le Breton, and
Mr. Charles Harris were respectively introduced as
representatives for the District Board of Westmin-
ster, Hampstead, and St. Saviour's, Southwark.

who are deer-stalkers, or frequenters of the August
moors, to the stand of Messrs. M'Dougall, there to
see the beautiful articles which we cannot, though
we would, describe at full length ?

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.,Tune 20.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
THE QUEEN'S PROCTOR V. WILLIAMS-THE STEPNEY
MURDER.

This morning the case for the defendant, who
asserted that he was the lawful nephew of Mary
Emsley, the old woman who was murdered byJames
Mullins, at Stepney, in the year 1860, was resumed,
and additional evidence of the kind tendered yes-
terday was given. A certificate was put in of a
marriage contracted in 1780 at St. Dunstala's-in-
the-East, between Samuel Williams and Mary Pou-
pare, who it was suggested were the parents of Mrs.
Emsley and the defendant's father.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., then addressed the Court for
the Crown, and said he should adduce evidence to
impugn the legitimacy both of Mrs. Emsley and of
the defendant. The learned gentleman called
Mr. Bigg, a minister of the " Catholic and Apos-
tolic Church," who said he had known the deceased
for about four years. She occasionally attended wit-
ness's chapel in Bishopsgate-street, and after her
husband's death she used frequently to talk to wit-
ness about her affairs. Was on intimate and confi-
dential terms with her—very much so. She did not
say much about her relations, but she frequently
stated that she had no one she cared about, and
that all her property would go to the Crown. NV fit-
ness used to laugh, and she would reply, "Alf, you
may laugh, but it will—it will indeed." The only
relation that she had ever spoke of, that witness
could recollect, was a niece that used to do a little
collecting for her—Mrs. Gotz.
Cross-examined by Mr. O'Malley, Q.C.—The
" Catholic and Apostolic Church" was sometimes
stigmatised as the Irvingite body, but that was an
offensive and untrue term.
Mr. O'Malley had known Irving, and regretted
to hear that his name was regarded as offensive by
any one.
Witness's rank was that of pastor. Had received
a regular ordination. Was a widower. Had proposed
marriage to Mrs. Emsley a dozen times. Could not
say that he had ever been directly refused. She
used to say the affairs were not settled. Did not de-
pose at the inquest that the last time she said
" No," to him, he replied " God's will be done."
Their intercourse always began in God's fear, and
always ended with "The will of the Lord be done."
Was not always "at her" to marry him. Was not
prepared to say when- he first mentioned these
declarations of the deceased. Had told Mr. Rose,
Mr. Emsley's solicitor, that he had never received
anything for his services to her. It was certainly
not her intention that he should not be paid. Mr.
Rose did not tell witness that if the Crown got the
property, his services would be considered. Would
swear Mr. Rose had never told him that the claims
of every one would be considered by the Crown.
Looking on this or any other court as a honourable
one, witness was satisfied that it would not let him
go unremunerated for the services he had rendered
the deceased. Expected that whichever succeeded,
the crown would see him remunerated. Had never
suggested to the deceased that she should make a
will, but had told her that if anything happened to
her, he was sure she would not feel comfortable to
leave him destitute. (Great laughter.) She often
spoke to witness about making her will, and said,
" What shall I leave you ?" He replied, "It is
not for me to choose." There was no necessity for
witness to press the making of the will on the
deceased. It was a mere volunteer on witness's
part. Knew that the deceased would not die com-
fortably if she made no provision for him ; and he
did not believe that she did, if she was conscious at
all when she died. She was a person more likely
to outlive witness than witness her. Witness's
motive was not mercenary—certainly not. His
motive was to do her all the good he could, and he
had done it. Had rendered her all the good he was
able, both in spiritual and in temporal matters.
Would that she had received more of better things !
(Laughter.)
Mr. O'Malley—You mean, "Would that she had
made a will !" (Laughter.)
Witness—You may say so—l don't.
The Judge—l think that the jury and I may say
so. (Laughter.)
Witness had wished to elevate the deceased in
life, (Laughter.) Did not go to her after chapel
on Sunday night to make up her accounts—certainly
not. Did visit her on Sunday evenings, but die_ not
look at her books on these osoasions. Kept a pri-
vate book in which he entered when the rents be-
came due, in order that he might know when he
should have occasion to write out receipts for her.
Had lunched at her house.
Mr. O'Malley—Did you ever have any pineapple
rum there? (Great laughter.)
Witness thought the question was a little inquisi-
tive. Did nut know that she had any pineapple
rum. Could not remember having any rum at all
at her house. Had taken a drop of beer with her.
Mr. R. A. Simmonds had been trustee to Mrs.
Emsley under her marriage settlement. Deceased
had asked him to be an executor. Said she intended
to leave her property to charities, as she had no one
particular to bequeath her money to: She said
nothing about her relations.
Edward Emsley, an inspecting messenger at the
Charing-cross post-office, was a brother of the de-
ceased's husband. Could not say bow she came by
her property. She had told witness that if she made
no will her property would go to the Crown. Never
heard her mention the Williams family. Had heard
her speak of a person who she said was her half-
sister; bat could not recollect that person's name.
Cross-examined—She told witness that her pro-
perty would go to the Crown not a month before
she was murdered.
Thomas Emsley, another brother, was a clerk in
the Inland Revenue-office. The deceased had told
him that she would make a will in favour of himself
and brothers; adding, " If I don't, the Queen will
get my property ; and I am sure I don't want that,
Thomas."
Cross-examined—Collected her rents for her; but
was not paid for his trouble. Was promised pay-
ment by Mrs. Emsley, but did not believe her. Be-
lieved her as little when she promised to make her
will.

Mr. William Rose, solicitor to Mrs. Emsley, had
never heard that the deceased had any relatives till
after her death. She had consulted witness about
making a will. She said she was desirous of
I building alms-houses, and she stated that
she had no relations. Communicated with the soli-
citor to the Treasury about a week after the disco-
very of her remains.
Cross-examined—Held several equitable mort-
gages over the deceased's property. Was preparing
to sell when a bill was filed by defendant against
witness charging him with being about to effect a
precipitate sale, without having made advances to
the deceased. Answered that bill, and denied that
defendant was heir-at-law. Did not allege in the
answer that deceased had made any statement about
having no relations. Put a great deal more in his
answer than his pleader thought judicious, and it
was struck out. Was aware that the Crown did
not redeem mortgages. Told Mr. Reynolds that
he should pay the balance into the Treasury to be
divided amongst the natural relations.
Benjamin Emsley, brother to the previous wit-
nesses, gave evidence similar to theirs.
Elizabeth Ann Bachelor, daughter of the Mrs.
Colchin already referred to,said her mother's maiden
name was Spencer. The deceased was witness's
aunt. Lived with her four years when she was
Mrs. Jones. Then the deceased apprenticed her to
the cap-making business. Witness's father's name
was Dr,uce. Had two brothers living. Her mother
used to call Mrs. Emsley her half-sister. She said
they had had two fathers and one moVier. The
witness, her sister-in-law Elizabeth Druce, and her
brother William Druce, identified a book produced
as having belonged to their mother. It contained
entries in their father's and their aunt Ann Spen-
cer's handwriting.
The court then adjourned.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque.)
IN RE AUGUSTUS NEWTON.
The bankrupt was a barrister, of Curzon-street,
Mayfair. He recently applied for and obtained his
order of discharge, but this being appealed against,
a rehearing was directed on the ground that notice
of the sitting had not appeared in the list exhibited
at the door of the court on the morning of the sit-
ting. The matter now came on for rehearing.
The official assignee, in his report on the case, says
that the debts amount to £3,150, and that the cre-
ditors are 149 in number, comprising Upwards of
70 trades, including four tailors, four
three hosiers, two drapers, three greengrocers,
,
six wine merchants, nine poulterers,lawyers, and
six moneylenders. There were no assets. His cre-
ditors had supplied household furniture and other
which property had
goods to the amount of £2BO,
not been accounted for.
Mr. Sargood opposed for Mr. Johnson, military
tailor, of Sackville-street, whose
bill was £49, and
he had also been put to nearly £4O
costs. more expense as
The bankrupt objected to any further examine.-
tion being gone into. The Lords Justices had
granted a rehearing, on account of the case not hav-
ing appeared in the list at the door ; and on this

occasion it neither appeared in the newspapers nor
in the list.
His Honour decided that the examination aould
proceed.
The bankrupt deposed that he was a member of
the bar ; he had been disbarred about 1850, and h d
thrice petitioned the Insolvent Debtors Court. is
1851 he was discharged from debts of upwards of
£8,000; in 1853, from £l,lOO of debts; and iri
1856, from £9,000, a great portion of which was
balanced by set-offs. In passing his examination
here, ho had only stated one of his insolvencies, in
1856. Since he was disbarred, he had followed no
regular occupation, but had been employed by the
late Sir R. Price in matters of agency connected
with his estate. Since his last insolvency had had no
regular occupation, but had been assisted by his
wife's friends, to the extent yearnxteonsteotttliedsOinOcaome. oncof the
s
average; but there was
present debts a great:proportion was for law costs.
Had lived in Curzon-street for the last five years.
Could not tell to whom the house belonged. An
action of ejectment had been brought by the mort-
gagee, a clergyman, in Connaught-spare, the mort.
gagor being the Rev. Brook Bridges, of Worcester-
shire. Witness was tenant to Sir Robert an'l after-
wards Lady Price, under a yearly lease, which had
expired. In 1858 lie was distrained upon. On;
~c'
part of the furniture was his. It was sold, bought
in by Lady Price, and settled on his wife and daugh-
ter after her. He had no interest in the settlement.
Some of the debts in his present balance-sheet had
been contracted since the settlement was made in
1858. There was nothing in the house of any
value purchased since the settlement was male.
There were some trifling articles, such as brushes,
supplied for the servants in 1860, 28s. 3d.
Mr. Sargood—What has become of cll the pro-
perty you have purchased of tradesmen since No-
vember, 1858 ?
The Bankrupt—Of course, the wine is con.
sumed. (A laugh.) Nothing has been given up to
the assignee. Messrs. Copeland are creditors for
china that was sent into the house, but believed it
was all broken. Messrs. Routledge were creditors
for £36, for the publication of a work of his. It was
a dead loss to him, and the copyright was worth
nothing. Messrs. Mechi were creditors for £l4 for
a dressing •case, of which he made a present to his
son on his marriage. Messrs. Serle were creditors
for £l6 for a pleasure-boat—what was called a gig;
that had been returned, and two-thirds the cost
allowed. Messrs. Weekes, nurserymen, were ore-
ditors for £lO, for flowers and plants supplied for
the garden.
Mr. Sargood—The Insolvent Court having let you
off £lB,OOO of debt on three occasions, what have
you to say for coming hero now with other £3,000
of debts ?
Bankrupt—A great deal of those debts are as to
law costs—all with the exception of about £9OO. I
have been involved in a great deal of litigation in
Chancery, and before the House of Lords.
Mr. Mallam, solicitor to Mr. Johnson, the oppo-
sing creditor, proved that the bankrupt defended
Mr. Johnson's action,and thus obtained six months'
time. The costs were taxed at £39 12s. They would
have £3 Bs. if judgment had gone by default.
The bankrupt stated that ho had been specially
advised to plead to the action by Mr. Justice Cromp.
ton, on account of time having been given. He was
then much occupied with the suit of " Newton v.
Ricketts" in the House of Lords ; it was appointed
for trial on same day as Mr. Johnson's action in the
Queen's Bench. He could not attend both places as a
witness, and on that ground only did he agree to com-
promise the action. Here, the creditor having made
his own arrangement without going to trial, he
could not be held guilty of a vexatious defence. As
to the settlement, he was not in London when it
was made, and had no control in the matter.
The Commissioner—Then how came you to incur
subsequent debts ?
The bankrupt said that they were chiefly law
costs ; beyond those he had not incurred debts of
£l,OOO, and many of those had been incurred by
members of his family. He was certainly not pre-
pared to justify all those debts. He had already
suffered two months' imprisonment at the suit of
Mr. Johnson, to whose action he believed he had a
good defence.
Mr. Sargood submitted that this was a case in
which no order at all should be granted. It was a
painfully discreditable one.
The Commissioner said he did not attach much
importance to the vexatious defence, though he
considered it proved ; and had it stood alone a short
suspension would have been sufficient. What
weighed most on his mind was this—that with an
experience of three insolvencies, under one of which
the bankrupt was discharged from a very heavy
amount of debt, he should still have persevered in
an unjustifiable course. From the date of the deed
of settlement he was denuded of all property; and
it did not appear that lie had any regular occupa-
tion or profession that would justify his incurring
debts; notwithstanding that, there was scarcely a
description of trader who did not appear in his
schedule, from Hunt and Roskell, jewellers, down
to a little milliner, whose debt was 225.
The necessary conelusion was that those debts
had been contracted without reasonable probability
of his being able to pay them, and that the expen-
diture had been excessive and unjustifiable. As he
had been two months in prison the discharge would
be suspended for 10 months from that date.
The bankrupt asked for protection.
His Honour would say nothing about protection
one way or the other. He did not know what pro-
tection meant under the new act.