The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-18 00:00:00

COUSINS V. COUSINS.-JUDGMENT.

This was a suit by the wife for the dissolution of the
marriage on the ground of her husband's adultery and
cruelty. The parties were married in April, 1861, and
separated in May, 1862.

His Lordship, in delivering judgment, said that the
Court was called on to pronounce that the respondent
had been guilty of legal cruelty on the ground that he was
in the habit of isolating himself from his wife and was
wanting in affection to her. The only question was whe-
ther these facts amounted to legal cruelty, which, it was
contended, they did, taken in connection with the adultery
committed by the respondent, which was committed in his
own house. The learned Judge having cited the dictum
of Lord Stowell to show that that learned jurist did not
consider adultery, when committed with a servant under
the roof of the (parties, amounted to legal cruelty, he
could not, therefore,. dissolve the marriage, but would
grant judicial separation if the petitioner applied to the
court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Winslow.)
A CLERK IN THE BOARD OF WORKS.-IN RE CANTRILL.

This bankrupt was described as a clerk in the Woods and
Forests-office, and his debts are £l,lOO, to-day being ap-
pointed for the order of discharge.
Mr. Reed, for the assignees, asked that an account should
be filed showing the nature of the bankrupt's expenditure.
Mr. Griffiths, for the bankrupt; said his client had only
£l6O per annum. His duty was to look after the National
Gallery and other public places at the West-end, and, in
common with the rest of the clerks in the Woods and
Forests, had a district assigned to him. He was willing
now to set aside £3O per annum for his creditors.
Mr. Reed pressed for the accounts, and Mr. Longtaffe,
for large creditors, complained of the mode in which his
clients had been treated.

His Honour said that the case must be adjourned for the
accounts, which Mr. Reed required on behalf of the
assignees.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ARE POLICE CONSTABLES DEBARRED FROM GIVING Evx-
DENCE ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS 2-Mr. Edward
Dillon Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, attended before
Mr. Tyrwhitt, and said his worship would remember that
on the previous day a cabman, named Couch, was charged
before him with being drunk, furious driving, &c., and
fined 40s. In the course of the case he (Mr. Lewis), having
been instructed by the prisoner that Police-constable Gor-
don, 36 C, had known him some years, and could speak to
his character, called him to give evidence on the part of
the prisoner; he (Mr. Lewis) denied the allegation that
the prisoner was drunk, and asked that the inspector who
took the charge might be called to give evidence. It
appeared, however, that the inspector was in attendance at
the Middlesex Sessions, when his worship inquired whether

there was any one present in court who was at the station
when the charge was taken. Another constable (Adams,
135 C) then came forward and stated that he was acting
gaoler at the station on the occasion mentioned, and ho de-
posed that the symptoms spoken to by witnesses for the
prosecution might, in his judgment, be attributed to in-
juries received by the prisoner in the fall from his cab. A
c omp hist bad been made, he (Mr. Lewis) knew not by
whom, to the superintendent, in consequence of the con-
stables having given this evidence. He had therefore to
ask, on behalf of the constables, for a copy of the notes, in
order that the same might be transmitted to the Commis-
sioners of Police, and that they might be able to form a
proper judgment on the evidence given. He thought it
right to state that both constables were in court
on other business, and not for the purpose of
being called as witnesses in the case. He (Mr.
Lewis) could not conceive why the fact of the men being
police constables was to prevent them giving evidence
when called on to do so, such a theory being contrary to
all principles of justice, and one which would, he felt, never
be sanctioned by a magistrate. It appeared, however, that
the police authorities entertained this idea.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he had no wish to interfere between
the constables and the superintendent. If he was asked
whether a man when he became a constable was to forfeit
his rights as a citizen he should say it was an absurd doc-
trine, because a police constable might in many cases be
able to give important evidence but be held back by the
fear of offending his superiors. Besides, police constables
would be open to the charge of giving partial evidence.
He should decline to give the notes, and he thought there
must be some mistake about the matter, as he did not think
the commissioners would suffer such a thing.
Mr. Lewis said such a report had been made, and the
constables were summoned to appear before the superin-
tendent to-morrow.

Mr. Tyrwhitt, in again declining to give the notes asked
for, said he had not a word to say against the officers, and
he had no doubt they had spoken to the best of their belief.

WESTMINSTER.

WHOLESALE ILLEGAL PAWNING.—WiIIiam Little, de-
scribed as a watchmaker, was charged with illegally pawn-
ing a watch, value £5, the property of Thomas William
Jenkins.

In consequence of above 30 complaints having been made
to Mr. Selfe on Monday against the prisoner for illegally
pawning, Knowland, 141 B, the warrant officer, was ordered
to go to the prisoner's house, and, if possible, take him into
custody.

Thomas William Jenkins, bookmaker, 20, Eaton-lane,
Pimlico—Six months ago I gave the prisoner a watch to
repair. I asked him for it several times, and found he had
pawned it. That is my watch (produced). I never autho-
rised him to pawn it.
William J. Squire, assistant to Mr. Courtenay, Stock-
bridge-terrace, pawnbroker—l produce the watch pawned
on February 9. I took it for £1 from a woman.
Knowland, 141 B—The wife gave me the tickets and
told me she had pawned all the watches by prisoner's
direction.

Jenkins—Two months ago he said he had pawned it, and
when ho had some money he would get it out. His wife
also told mine the same.

Knowland—l have twenty-one duplicates relating to
watches. Prisoner had a situation at the Grosvet or Hotel,
but lost it by this. _ .

Prisoner—l had a contract from Brixton prison. I got
into difficulties somehow. I was exposed at the Grosvenor
Hotel, and lost my situation. I did not pawn the watches,
but my wife did. I have been in very trying circum-
stances, and am very sorry for what I have done.

He was apprehended 1:)3, Knowland, who stated that,
among other depredations, he had obtained a watch from
the matron of the Brixton prison, and, under pretence of
repairing, had pawned it.

Mr. Arnold remanded the prisoner till Friday, offering
,o accept X2O bail.

THAMES.

BRUTAL OUTRAGE.—Edward Donovan, a powerful
fellow, about 23 years of age, was brought before Mr.
Knox, charged with violently assaulting Margaret Rear-
don, whose face was mutilated, and her left eye cut and
swollen.

The complainant, a young Irish woman, said she had
been acquainted with her countryman, Donovan, for some
time. He was the father of her child, which she had left
outside the court. She met him last night between the
hours of eight and seven.

Mr. Knox—Between the hours of seven and eight, you
mean ?

Witness—Yes, sir. I met him then in Royal Mint-
street, and asked him to support his child. He imme-
diately up with his fist and struck me on the eye and
knocked me down, and when I was down he kicked me
as hard as he could, and 1 was quite senseless.
Mr.. Knox :liked if the child had been affiliated, and the
woman replied in the negative.
Samuel Damarck, police-constable, No. 140 11, saw the
woman last night bleeding copiously from the eye and
mouth, and the bystanders said she had been very much
ill-used. The prisoner was inebriated, the woman was
sober.

The prisoner, in his defence, said he had seen the com-
plainant as a casual acquaintance, whom ono looked at and
soon forgot, and she importuned him for money and'said
he was the father of her child, which ho knew was not the
case. She threatened to stab him and to obtain nine
pennyworth of vitriol and throw over him and blind him.
She had persecuted him in every possible way, hunted him
through the streets, called at his place of business, and
" shown him up."

Mr. Knox believed the prisoner might have received
provocation, but it was not to be wondered at if he was
father of the young child. The provocation did not jus-
tify such a brutal assault as that which the prisoner had
committed, and a portion of which the prisoner admitted.
He sentenced tho prisoner to two months' imprisonment
and hard labour.