The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-31 00:00:00

FRIOAY EVENING, JAN UARY 31, 1862.

looking young woman, who was allowed io be
seated while giving her evidence, deposed—The
prisoner is my husband. About half-past 1 o'clock
in the day on Thursday last, the 23d inst., he came
home. When he had been in the house about 10
minutes, he asked me if any one was coming to
fetch my things away, or if I was going away with
any one. I said decidedly no; no one. He then
asked me if " I would stay with him." I said,
" How can I, when you have ill used me as you
have ?" I referred to his constant ill usage for five
years and a half, especially the last 18 months.
I went on cutting out some work I was doing,
when I felt a tremendous blow on my head.
The blow was from behind. I had a second blow
in front. I turned round, and saw the prisoner had
a poker in his hand, and as I ran round the room
from him he followed, striking me. I put my hand
up to save my head, and received a blow which
disabled my hand. I then fell, and either as I was
falling, or after I was down, he struck me, and
broke my finger. When I was down I held my
breath to make him believe I was dead, sons to pre-
vent him further beating me. I did not lose my
consciousness. I saw him put the poker down. He
then took hold of my injured hand, lifted it up, and
let it fall, saying, " I have killed you." He then
went out. I recovered myself as well as I could,
and staggered after him, as I thought he would
escape, and, feeling I was dying, I did not wish
him to. When I gut up I found clots of blood on
the floor. I went out of the door into the road.
My husband was then going down the road. A
man who was passing in a cart said I ought to have
a policeman. I said no. My husband came back,
and said to the man, "I have done it—l have done
it. He then went away. I sat down on the door-
step, and Mrs. Mason, who lives opposite me, and
Mr. Southy came and assisted me indoor. The
poker now produced is the one I was struck with,
and the hair-net is the one I had on at the time.
In answer to the magistrate, prisoner said he had
no questions to ask his wife.
Mr. John Growse, surgeon, Brent-street, Hendon,
said—On Thursday last prisoner came to me at my
house, about ten minutes to two o'clock, and said,
"I think I have murdered my wife; and I wish you
to go up and see her." I said, " What has made
you do that, Hamshar ?" He said, " She has dis-
honoured me, Sir." I told him I would go directly.
Ho said, " I shall go and give myself up." I went
to prisoner's house and found his wife, the com-
plainant, sitting by the fire. I examined her head,
and found five contused wounds, a severe bruise on
the left forearm, and the little finger of the left
hand fractured. I dressed the wounds, and have
since attended her. The poker now produced I saw
at the house, and such a weapon would have caused
the injuries I have described.
Sergeant Hughes, 3 S, gave confirmatory evidence
and added that he conveyed prisoner to the station.
Mr. Inspector Webb, S division, said—Prisoner
is one of my constables. On Thursday last I was
at Hampstead station when he was brought there
by last witness. I told him the offence he was
charged with was a very serious one, and it was
my duty, although he knew it) to catttion him that
what he said would have to be stated before the
magistrate and given in evidence against him. He
said " I know it will, sir," and then added, " Yes-
terday morning, after coming off duty at 6 o'clock,
I returned home. I went upstairs and went to
bed. Joseph Collier, who is a lodger of mine, was
in bed. He stopped in bed about a quarter of an
hour. When he got up my wife, who was sleeping
in an adjoining room with her mother, got up about
the same time, My wife and Collier went down-
stairs. I got out of bed and went to the top of the
landing, I heard some whispering. I heard Col-
lier say to my wife ' You go down home for a week
and I will send for you.' I heard other whispering,
but I could not hear what it was about. Collier
and my wife went into the middle room together;
they were in the room a minute or two. I went
downstairs. I saw my wife lying on ttiJrioor with
him in an indecent position. I ordered Collier to
leave the house, which he did." Subsequently pri-
soner told me that he had been dishonest to his
wife, and when he found her with Collier, being
very fond of her, he said, " Now, Sophy, you are as
bad as me ; let us forget what has passed, and try
and live happy together. She said No, I shall not
stop with you. I intended after leaving you to
have written and told you of this, but you have
found it Qut, and perhaps it is M wtal yob 41941:

I spoke to her several sines during Wednesday
about stopping with me, and I thought she
would ; but on going hone on Thursday I found
her with her clothes packed up, and believing
she was going away witt Collier, I lost all con-
trol of myself, I became mid, and struck her with
the poker." On the sane evening I went to
prisoner's lodgings. On going into the house I
saw Mrs. Hamshar's sister, and inquired what
had become of Collier, and to my great surprise
was told he was upstairs. I went upstairs to see
complainant, and found the man Collier concealed
under a bed in an adjoining room.
Mr. Tanqueray said the statement respecting
Collier's being under the 13)(1 could not be received
in evidence.
The prisoner said he should reserve his defence.
He was sorry for what he had done.
Mr. Tanqueray fully corimitted the prisoner for
rial, and refused bail.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Tan. 30.

BAIL OURT.
Sittings in Banco.—(B efors Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
LEVY V. LEWIS-A NICE POINT.
In this case a rule had been obtained calling upon
the defendant to show cause why he should not pay
a certain sum of money pursuant to an award.
Mr. Keane showed cause against the rule for the
defendant. It appeared thst the action was referred
to two arbitrators, and the learned counsel contended
that as the arbitrators had not signed the award in
the presence of each other, as they ought to have
done, such a signing would not do.
Mr. Huddlestone, Q.C., admitted that he could
not get over the technical objection raised by the
defendant. He suggested that the award should be
remitted back to the arbitrators.
Some discussion took place between the learned
judge and the learned counsel, and ultimately Mr.
Huddleston's suggestion was adopted, ana it was
arranged that the award should be remitted to the
same arbitrators, but the rule must be discharged.
His lordship disposed of several motions during
the day of a very technical nature.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORe.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
ROBINSON V. ROBINSON AND JACKSON.
This was a suit instituted by the husband for a
divorce, on the ground of his wife's adultery with
the co-respondolt, The defendants appeared and
pleaded denial, condonation, and misconduct on the
part of the petitioner.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott tied. Dr. Spinks were coun-
sel for the petitioner ; and Mr. Mclntyre appeared
for the co-respondent ; the respondent was not re-
presented by counsel,
Mr. Sergeant Pigott stated the case. The peti-
tioner, who is an assistant at a grocer's shop, was
married to the respondent in 1869, both being very
young at the time. After the marriage they went
to live at Florence-road, New-cross. The cohabita-
tion continued until the 9th of Feb., 1861, when
the respondent left her home. It appeared that
Jackson, who is engaged in business with his father
who is a printer and publisher at Woolwich, was
an acquaintance of the petitioner. Jackson took
lodgings at the petitioner's house, in Florence-road
where he remained ten weeks. He was in the habit
of being in the house during the absence of Robin-
son, whose business prevented his returning home
from an early hour in the morning until late
in the
evening. The suspicions of Robinson were excited
and he communicated them to Jackson, who denied
that there was any ground for them. When he
came home on the 9th of February, he found that
his wife had gone out, having previously said to the
servant that it was not likely she would return. He
made inquiries which satisfied him as to his wife's
improper intercourse. After she left his house it
appeared that she and the co-respondent lived
together as man and wife in different parts of Lon-
don. It appeared, also, that the respondent ad-
mitted she had been unfaithful to her husband, his
father being present when this admission was made.
In support of this narrative the learned counsel
called a large number of witnesses, who deposed to
different acts of familiarity between Mrs. Robinson
and the co-respondent at the time when they were
alleged to have been living together and passed as
man and wife.
Mr. Mclntyre addressed the Court for the co-
respondent, but adduced no evidence.
The Court considered that the petitioner was en-
titled to a decree nisi, with costs against the co-
respondent, and pronounced accordingly.
DEWES V. DEWES AND FRAMPTON.
This was a suit by the husband, a solicitor, in
partnership with his father, at Ashby-de-la-Zouch,
and was instituted for the purpose of obtaining a
divorce, on the ground of his wife's adultery with
the co-respondent, a clergyman of the Church of
England. The suit was undefended.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey were
counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married in 1848,
and lived together for some years, during which
time they had four children. The co-respondent
was curate of Ashby, and visited the family of the
petitioner, when, according to the evidence, he
succeeded in seducing Mrs. Dewes, who eloped with
him in the August of 1860.
The case was proved, and the Court pronounced
a decree nisi, with costs against the co-respondent.
td- _

C'ENIR-4L CRIMINAL COUI4T.—Tint. 30,

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
James Nutt, 38, a well-dressed man, described as
a silversmith, was charged with feloniously and
contemptuously omitting to surrender and pass his
examination at the Court of Bankruptcy, after he

had been declared a bankrupt.
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
He was then charged, upon a second indictment,
with having feloniously concealed and embezzled a
portion of his estate and effects, after being duly
adjudged a bankrupt, with intent to defraud his
creditors.
To this charge the prisoner also pleaded guilty.
He was then charged, upon a third indictment,
with having obtained goods within three months of
his bankruptcy, under the false colour and pretence
that they were to be used for the purposes of his
trade, with intent to defraud his creditors.
The prisoner pleaded guilty to this charge also.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson, who (with Mr. Kemp) was
instructed for the defence, addressed the Court in
mitigation of punishment, and said the prisoner had
carried on the business of a silversmith in Cheap-
side, and had a wife and six children. He was in-
formed that in August he was pressed by one of his
creditors, and at his suggestion he made away with
a considerable amount of property, in order to raise
money to meet his bill, which was becoming due, and
this was the commencement of all his difficulties.
It was certainly true that he had placed some portion
of his property in the hands of a friend, and that
his object in doing this was to give him an oppor-
tunity of doing something for himself and his family
after his bankruptcy, which he knew was inevitable,
had been settled ; but he also begged to be allowed
to state that the creditors had obtained possession
of a considerable quantity of property, and they
would receive a dividend of 10s. in the pound. He
was also instructed to state that the prisoner had
rendered all the assistance in his power to enable

them to recover this property.
Mr. Giffird, who (with Mr. Poland) appeared for
the Prosecution, said he was sorry to be obliged to
state that his learned friend was not quite correct in
saying that the prisoner had given all the informa-
tion in his power to enable the creditors to obtain
possession of their property. The facts were that
within a very short time of his bankruptcy, and
when he must have been perfectly well aware that
that event was inevitable, he obtained a considerable
quantity of goods from some of his creditors, and he
afterwards disposed of this property for his own
use, and then absconded. It was also his duty to
inform the Court that within a very few days of
his bankruptcy the prisoner went to his shop, and
took away almost every portable article that it con-
tained. He then absconded to Brussels, and was
traced to that city by Foulger, the officer, and taken
into custody,
The Recorder, in passing sentence, said that the
prisoner had pleaded guilty to three offences, every
one of which was most serious in a commercial
community ; he, therefore, felt it his duty to pass
such a sentence as was likely to deter others from
the commission of similar crimes, and that sentence
would be that he be kept in penal servitude for the
space of three years.
Thomas Fox, 36, labourer, was charged with felo-
niously killing and slaying George Norris.
Mr. Warton prosecuted ; the prisoner was de-
fended by Mr. Dickie.
It appeared that the prisoner, the deceased, and
several other labouring men were in the taproom of
the Kentish Drovers publichouse, in the Kent-road,
on the 23d of December, and that the prisoner and
one of his companions were amusing themselves by
playing at the game of " shove halfpenny." The
deceased, who was drunk, interfered with them,
and said that they were not playing the game fairly.
The prisoner requested him to sit down and be quiet
and not interfere with them, and, upon his doing
so, the deceased offered to fight him, and threatened
that he would serve him as some other man, whose
name he mentioned, had done. He at the same
time pulled off his gloves, apparently with the in-
tention of preparing himself for fighting, and the
prisoner accepted his challenge, and a struggle took
place between them. After they had had one round
the deceased fell and struck his head with consider-
able violence. It was observed that immediately
latOr this tat the &mad appeared to be Tery 111,

and some water was given to him, but he was un-
able to drink it, and he was taken away on a truck
to his own house, were he was attended by a doc-
tor, but he remained in an almost unconscious state
until the Bth of January, when he died. There
were no external marks of injury upon the person
of the deceased, but the cause of death was alleged
to be the shock sustained by the nervous system
from the fall he had sustained in the st uggle with
the prisoner.
Mr. Dickie, in his address to the jury for the de-
fence, urged that the deceased had brought the
misfortune upon himself by his own misconduct,
and that he had forced the quarrel upon the pri-
xsoner who was consequently not criminally
onsible for the unfortunate result that had taken
p

place.
The Recorder having summed up,
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict of not guilty.
The Recorder observed that in this case the
grand jury. had made a presentment to the
effect that, in their opinion, the landlord of the
publichouse where the affair took place had not
acted properly in the matter, inasmuch as he had
not taken any steps to procure assistance for the
deceased when he had evidently received serious
injur and he directed that a copy of this present-
ment should be forwarded to the licensing justice
of the district.
Mr. Dickie subsequently addressed his lordship,
and said that Mr. Wheeler, the landlord of the
Kentish Drovers, was in attendance, and anxious to
assure his lordship, and also prove tohis satisfaction, if
necessary, that there were no grounds for the alleged
neglect on his part. He had kept the house for 14
years and had always conducted it respectably, and
upon the occasion in question, so far from there
having been any neglect on his part, he sent imme-
diately after the affair for his own medical man, and
did all that was possible for the unfortunate de-
ceased.
The Recorder said that he had no power io enter
into those particulars. He expressed no opinion
upon the subject, but, as the grand jury had made
the presentment to which he had referred, it was
`he duty of the Court to send it to the proper
-tarter.

'NEW COURT.
Before Mr. T. Chambers, Q,C., Common Sergeant.)
Samuel Howard, 38, labourer, was indicted for
the manslaughter of Sarah Smith.
Mr. Orrldge prosecuted, and Mr. Ribton defended.
It appeared that the prisoner and the deceased
cohabited together and lived at a placed called New-
court, St. George's-in-the-East, and upon the night
of the Ist of this month some of the neighbours liv-
ing opposite heard the prisoner and the deceased
quarrelling, and then the sound of blows being
struck and of some one falling ; and upon the fol-
lowing morning, about 6 o'clock, the prisoner went
to the Arbour-square police-station, and said that
he had had some words with his wife, after which
he went out and upon coming home again laid down
at the foot of the bed and slept until 4 o'clock, when
on waking and getting- up he fell over the body Of
his wife, who was on the floor, with her head
towards the window, quite dead.
The medical evidence proved that the deceased
woman was suffering from disease of the heart ;
that that was the immediate cause of her death,
which had been accelerated by the violence that she
had received.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was
sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard
labour.
William Brittain, 46, carpenter, was indicted for
stealing a quantity of battens of yellow deal tim-
ber, the property of Thomas Brown.
Mr. Ribton prosecuted; Mr. Metcalfe and Mr,
Orridge defended the prisoner.
Mr. Ribton narrated briefly the following case to
the jury :—The prisoner had been employed by
the prosecutor as surveyor and manager of some
building transactions in which he was engaged,
and in the course of these transactions had com-
mitted the fraud now imputed to him, which was
that he obtained a check from the prosecutor for
the payment of about £5 for some battens which
he (the prisoner) alleged were required for the work
which he at that time was superintending. These
battens the prisoner obtained from a timber mer-
chant in Gray's-inn-road, paid for them with the
prosecutor's check, and instead of taking them to the
works for which he had alleged they were required,
sent them to a place belonging to himself and ano-
ther person at Notting-hill. These were briefly
the facts which the jury would hear more in detail
from the witnesses. The learned counsel then

called
The prosecutor, who said that his name was
Thomas Henry Johnson Brown, that he resided at
No. 2, Robert-street, Adelphi, and was an ar
chitect and surveyor by profession. The prisoner
was in his service, and had been so since the year
1859, and his duty was to superintend buildings
under his (prosecutor's) orders, to note the time of
the men, to let him know the materials required,
and to undertake the general management of the
job, whatever it was, and to apply, as directed,
the money supplied to him. In December last he
(the prosecutor) was engaged as architect in
the reconstruction of some houses in Bennett's-
buildings, Drury-lane, for the Association
for the Improvement of the Dwellings of the
Poor, of which Mr. Bosauquet was the treasurer.
There were a great many men employed at the
work under the prisoner, and as the work proceeded
the prisoner intimated to prosecutor that it
would
uld
be necessary to have some new joists, and
same time handed him a list of the number of bat-
tens which would be required for that purpose. He
(prosecutor) gave the prisoner a cheque for about
£6, and the prisoner obtained the battens, paying
the cheque to the timber merchant, and returning
to him (prosecutor) the invoice of the timber, and
also bringing him in debt 6d., which he alleged he
had paid for cartage. That timber had not been de-
livered, to his knowledge.
The witness was severely cross examined by Mr.
Metcalfe, and answered with great flippancy and
with a continued laugh as each question was put to
him by the learned counsel. In reply to the inter-
rogatories he said that the invoice for the timber in
question was made out in the prisoner's name, and
added Ido not know lioVv that was. I have been
engaged in a great many building speculations. I
was a bankrupt in 1859, when the prisoner was my
petitioning creditor. -I really do not know how the
affairs of the bankruptcy stood. I really cannot tell
you. I was an insolvent in 1855, but I really can-
not tell you the particulars of that. I have done
some business in Oxford, and I was in business at
Birmingham. I cannot say whether I have other-
wise compounded with my creditors. In 1857 I was
engaged in some bill transactions with a man named
Bradley. An action was also tried in which Lord
Campbell ordered some of the documents to be im-
pounded; to that action I was a party.
Mr. Metcalfe--Have you ever been in trouble ?
Witness (with apparent surprise and nonchalanter
ce)
—Trouble ! Ido not know what you mean.
Af
some hesitation, when pressed on the point, witness
said he had been charged with forgery by a man
named Hawkins, but the inspector at the police sta-
tion declined to take the charge. In 1855 he lodged
at the house of a Mrs. Bennett, against whom he
made a charge of robbing him. "I do not know,"
said witness, "whether the servant of Mrs. Bennett
said that I had told her to make the charge. I have
not done very much in bills, but I did discount a
bill for Mr. Pullein. I agreed to pay £3O on a bill.
and I paid £2O. I know Mr. Gale, of Greenwich,
who had a cheque of mine for £2, which cheque
had 'no effects' marked against it. Ido not know
that the cheque was said to be a forgery. The
charge I first made against the prisoner was for
obtaining money by false pretences in the case of
the wages of the men."
In reply to further questions put by Mr. Met-
calfe the witness denied that he had preferred the
charge in order to forestall the prisoner in prose.
cuting him (the witness) on a charge of forgery.
His attention was first drawn to the course of con-
duct pursued by the prisoner by Mr. Bosanquet,
but he did not know whether or not that gentle-
man was now contributing to the prisoner's defence.
He saw Mr. Bosanquet in court sitting behind, and
occasionally instructing the learned counsel. There
were two men, named Conly and Davis, employed
on the work to which allusion had been made ; but
they never, to his knowledge, ever came to his
house on a Sunday. He would not swear that
they had not done so, for they might have come for
the keys. Some of the men he understood had
broken open the prisoner's desk. Witness had told
them•to clean out the place. Mr. Bosanquet had
since stopped the works, and witness had brought
actions against Mr. Bosanquet and others for con-
spiracy, together with an intent to charge him
(witness) with forgery.
Mr. Metcalfe—Who was your attorney in that
action ?
Witness—Pray in what case do you mean ?
Mr. Metcalfe—Have you so many ?
Witness—ln this case my attorney was Mr.
Abrahams, of Bow-street.
In further cross-examination the witness said he
had been very unfairly treated on the charge of
forgery by Hawkins, against whom he had brought
an action in connection with that wrongful charge ;
but Hawkins got out of the way, and was
next heard of in Whitecross-street Prison.
Hawkins, however, now came forward again, and
had given witness into custody, but he had been
discharged, and the documents ordered to be im-
pounded. Hawkins had said of witness that be
would so,)ner spend £lOO to got him transported
than that witncso should succeed in convicting the
prisoner. ,
The remainder of the evidence for the prosecution
simply Went to shoal that by the prisoner's 9r4erill