The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-17 00:00:00

against Johnson till that morning ; I was rather
friendly with one of his brothers."
The Coroner, in addressing the jury, said It ~..ras
quite clear that the deceased came to his death by
the hand of Ballard. The question for them to con-
sider was whether there was any provocation suffi-
cient to justify the blow, and how the instrument
was taken up. There could be no doubt but that
Johnson's children began the disturbance on the
night previous. Well, then, was there provocation
at all sufficient to justify the striking ? and was the
instrument fetched with the intention of so using it?
The jury consulted for some time, and then re-
turned a verdict of "Manslaughter" against John
Ballard, who was handed over to the custody of the
police. The superintendent of police strongly urged
for an adjournment, stating that he should be pre-
pared with more witnesses, but the coroner and jury
I were satisfied with the evidence given..

LA TV 111TTE LLIGENCZ—March 15.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)
IiVITEDDON V. WHEDDON AND SAUDI,
In this case, which commenced on Friday the
,
husband, who is a tailor and hatter, at Bath, 'eti-
tioned the Court for a divorce on the ground of his
wife's adultery with the co-respondent, who was
described as a portcr and who entered no appear-
ance. The wife denied the adultery, and pleaded
cruelty and neglect on the part of the husband.
The chief witness was a person named Martin, an
ex-policeman, who deposed to having seen Ars.
Wheddon in company with the co-respondent at a
publichouse in Newington-causeway, and to having
traced them to a house of ill-fame. In the course of
a very long cross-examination it was elicited from
him that he had been employed by the petitioner,
and he gave a most confused and improbable narra-
tive of what he witnessed. It appeared also that
the co-respondent was in the employment of a Mr.
Hayes) an acquaintance of the petitioner, and who
had taken an active part in getting up evidence in
his behalf.
We haVe already reported the facts of the peti-
tioner's case, which was concluded on Friday.
Dr. Spinks, at the sitting of the Court on Satur-
day, addressed the jury, and contended that his
client (the respondent) was not the woman who had
been seen with the co-respondent, and that in point
of fact there had been a collusive attempt to get up
a sham case against her. The plot had, however,
completely broken down, the evidence of Martin and
other witnesses who had been called to make out the
identity being contradictory and obviously false. It
so happened, moreover, that a person who had been
in the court on Wednesday week, and who had been
sworn to by several witnesses as the respondent,
was in reality her sister, Mrs. Roberts. Feeling
convinced of the innocence of his client, and hardly
knowing how to meet the charge against her, he (the
learned counsel) had deliberately advised that she
should be kept out of the way ; and she was not
near the court at all when the witnesses for the
petition mobbed Mrs. Roberts in Westminster Hall
and declared that she was Mrs. Wheddon.
The defence was fully established by the medium
of Mr. and Mrs. Roberts and other witnesses, and
upon the cross-examination of the witness Martin,
a superannuated detective, and another witness of
the name of Brushfield, both of whom swore to
seeing the respondent with Smith on a certain even-
ing walking about London, and proceed from Lei-
cester-Square to Golden-square. There, however,
Brushfield said he parted from Martin, while the
latter said that he and Brushfield followed the re-
spondent and Smith, and that they saw Smith
tickling the respondent, and that they were very
familiar with each other.
The witness Martin, as well as other of the peti-
tioner's witnesses, went up to Mrs. Roberts, the re-
spondent's sister, in Westminster Hall, and pointed
to her, saying, "That's she," meaning that she was
Mrs. Wheddon; and altogether the evidence in
support of the case was of a character that called
down the reprehension of the learned judge, who
asked if the witnesses Martin and Brushfield were
in court. The former only, however, was present.
He was ordered by the judge to remain in court
until the close of the case.
Dr. Tristram, for the petitioner, in summing up
the evidence for his client, said that while he ad-
mitted a mistaken identity as regarded the respon-
dent, he yet could not suppose that there was not
some truth in the case brought against her.
The jury, however, instantly brought in a verdict
declaring that the respondent was not guilty of the
charge of adultery brought against her.
The learned Judge then called upon the witness
Martin to stand forward. He was placed upon the
floor of the court.
The Judge then addressed him, and said that he
had been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury in
respect to the evidence which he had given in this
case, which was a gross conspiracy to bring a charge
of adultery against the respondent. He therefore
ordered that Martiu be committed to stand his trial
for perjury at the next session of the Central
Criminal Court.
Martin was accordingly given into the custody
of the officer of the court, in order to his commital
to the Queen's Bench Prison. Bail, however, would
be allowed to be taken for his appearance in the sum
of £5O.
Sir C. Cresswell said there was another person
who, if he were there, he would likewise have com-
mitted for perjury, and he did not know that he
would not communicate with the Attorney-General
in order to a prosecution being instituted against
the person in question. The learned judge took
occasion to express a hope that solicitors would be
careful in the getting up of their cases for that
court, for if he found any laxity in that respect he
would exercise the power vested in him to deal with
such parties as the circumstances connected with
the case might demand.
Martin was then taken out of court in custody,
and the proceedings terminated.