The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-03 00:00:00

LAW I.NTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-FEB. 2.

NYE V. COLE.

This was an action to recover the sum of 381. for fur-
niture sold and delivered to the wife of the defendant.
The plaintiff was an upholsterer at Ealing, and the de-
fendant, Mr. Francis Sewell Cole, an independent gen-
tleman, living at Childown, near Chertsey.
Mr. H. Hill and Mr. Ogle appeared for the plaintiff.
The defendant conducted his own case in person.
It appeared from the statement of the learned coun-
sel, that the defendant married in Dec.' 1849, against
the consent of her friends, a daughter of Mr. Crawshay,
of O'Hersay Park, in Surrey (an elder brother of Mr.
Crawshay, the ironmaster). A child was born about a
year after the marriage. The defendant and his wife
separated in Feb., 1851, by mutual consent; and she
subsequently applied to a Mr. Caubert to become the
tenant of a house at Richmond-hill. That gentleman
went to the defendant, who agreed to pay the rent, and
said he had no doubt his wife would be a good tenant.
He told Mr. Caubert that he bad left his wife in come-
quence of a quarrel with her father, who wanted him
to sell a piece of his land adjoining Mr. Crawshay's
land, which lie (defendant) would not do. To assist in
furnishing the house at Richmond, Mrs. Cole obtained
from the plaintiff the goods, the value of which he now
sought to recover from her husband. There was no pre-
tence for saying that Mrs. Cole had acted unfaithfully to
her husband, or that there had been anything improper
in her conduct ; and the furniture in question must be
regarded as necessaries, the defendant having consented
to his wife taking an unfurnished house. The articles
which the plaintiff had supplied were all necessary, and
of the cheapest description.
Th 9 material facts having been proved,
The Chief Baron asked if Mr. Hill could show him
any case where a husband had been made liable for such
articles as those which had been supplied to the defen-
iant's wife ?

Mr. H. Hill could not ; but he contended that, under
the circumstances, they must be regarded as necessaries.
The Chief Baron—Where is it to end—suppose she
had bought an estate ?
Mr. Hill said the hire of the furniture would soon
have amounted to the sum charged in the present in-
stance.

The defendant (a person about 40 years of age) now
went into the witness box, and commenced addressing
the jury. He said he had never known the plaintiff,
and had not sanctioned his supplying his wife with the
goods for which he had sent him in his bill. It was
true that he had been married to her, but he denied that
she was his wife morally, because, by her own admis-
sion, she had been guilty of incest before her marriage ;
and Lord Thurlow, in the case of," Addison v. Addison "
had decided that where incest had been committed be-
fore marriage, the marriage became null and void.
Mr. H. Hill said that he was in a position to disprove
these statements, which were the result of an extraordi-
nary aberration of mind.
The Chief Baron said the case of "Addison v. Addi-
son" would not apply. Lord Thurlow had there decided
a very different point.
The Defendant—l will take it on higher grounds—the
Jewish law. (A laugh.)
The Chief Baron—There was no ecclesiastical impedi-
ment to your marrying your wife.
The Defendant—My friends think I have no other
course to take than to discontinue living with her, and I
have accordingly done so. _ . .

The Chief Baron—Have you any other point to urge ?
The Defendant—No, as you say you can't settle it, and
you are the head of the court. (Much laughter.)

The Chief Baron—You have no defence In law.

The Defendant—That may be Pint I have in justice. I
have not made it a question of pounds, shillings, and
pence. I shall, therefore, pay the money.
Mr. Hill—The defendant has raised a point upon
which no evidence has been given ; but it is altogether
an aberration, my lord. If he had become a witness that
would have appeared, and I should have shown why
it was that Mr. Crawshay refused his consent to the
marriage.
The Chief Baron said that he should reserve the
point for the opinion of the court, as to whether a hus-
band was liable for furniture supplied to his wife as
necessaries.

Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

SECONDARIES COURT—FEB. 2.
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)

BILLING V. lIELME.

The plaintiff in this case is an attorney, in King-
street, Cheapside, and defendant a farmer at Pontefract,
in Yorkshire, and the action was brought to recover the
sum of 8/. 12s. for a bill of costs.

Mr. Bagley appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Pollock for the defendant.

The case occupied a long time, but the point turned
upon very doubtful evidence as to the retainer. It ap-
peared that the defendant had in the first instance spoken
to a person named Saward, who described himself as a
"certificated convoyan cer," and attended the markets pro-
fessionally. Saward, rho had a brother in London a
solicitor, and who held a part of his offices on this occa-
sion, employed the plaintiff, who carried on the pro-
ceedings effectually. Defendant, however, denied that
he had ever sanctioned the employment of any third
party, and that he was willing to pay Saward according
to the original agreement between them, which was that
Saward should recover the money if he could, and take
his costs out of the party, or, if unsuccessful, to take
costs out of nocket. ••

The evidence was very conflicting, and after a long
consultation the jury gave a verdict for the amount
claimed.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—Feb. 2.

Mr. Randolph Routh surrendered in discharge of his
bail, to take his trial on an indictment charging him with
an assault on Lieutenant Alfred Cooper, a lieutenant in
the Indian army, at the East India United Service Club,
in St. James's-square.
Mr. W. Cooper appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
Parry for the defence.

M. Maude, the deputy-clerk of the peace, having read
the indictment, and put the usual question to the defen.
dant.

Mr. Parry said that he had communicated with his
learned friend who appeared for the other side, and he
hoped shortly to be able to relieve the Court of any fur-
ther trouble respecting this case;
The learned Judge was glad to hear it, for, having
read the depositions, he thought it would be extremely
desirable to have the matter arranged, if possible, with-
out a trial. .

Mr. Parry was bound to state that the gentleman for
whom he appeared was of the highest respectability, and
he believed he was formerly in the army. The prosecu-
tor was a gentleman of station and of the highest respec-
tability, who held a commission in the Indian army. r.
Routh was the husband of a sister of a'young lady who
he thought had been insulted by Lieutenant Cooper.
He naturally felt this very much, and a great many com-
munications had passed between them on the subject.
Mr. Routh was completely in loco parentis to this young
lady, for she had no father or brother living, and after a
communication he received from her mother, as a gentle-
man, he felt it his duty to protect her. Communications
had subsequently passed between Mr. Routh and the
prosecutor, and on the part of the former there was an
impression on his mind that he might have been mis-
taken with respect to Lieutenant Cereper's conduct. As
to the circumstances out of which this matter arose, he
might mention that these gentlemen met by appointment
in the visitor's room at the East India United Ser-
vice Club, and some dispute arose between them
about a .letter which Mr. Routh wished should
be restored to him, but, which Lieutenant Cooper re-
fused. A scuffle ensued, and a blow was undoubtedly
struck, a proceeding which in law he could not justify, and
therefore he must plead guilty to having assaulted the
prosecutor. Any course would be preferable to dragging
this young lady before the Court, and going into mat-
ters that must be distressing to her family. His own
feelings were very strong against such a course being
pursued. He thought the case must shape itself thus :
Lieutenant Cooper was desirous, in justice to the young
lady, to pledge his honour as a gentleman that no im-
propriety had passed between himself and her. Mr.
Routh was also desirous, when that pledge was given,
to admit that he went to the club under excited feelings,
and that the assault was committed under wrong im-
pressions.

Mr. Cooper said few words would be necessary from
him, after what had been so well said by his friend Mr.
Parry. He concurred in what ho had said—that it
would be desirable not to bring these matters before a
public court, and that the circumstances which would
necessarily have been brought forward were much bet-
ter kept behind the curtain.
Mr. Routh then pleaded guilty.
Mr. Cooper said his client pledged himself, as a soldier
and as a gentleman, that no impropriety had passed be-
tween himself and the young lady.
Lieutenant Cooper then said—l desire, my lord, to
state that, before I leave this court, I wish to do so with
honour and as a gentleman. The defendant has admitted
that his conduct to me was committed under erroneous
impressions. This impression I was desirous of remov-
ing ; and had I not considered that I could justify the
circumstances I was placed in, I should not have come
to the court this day. My endeavour throughout has
been to maintain intact the honour of the young lady as
well as my own ; and I will pledge my word, in the sight
of God, that nothing whatever to injure her character
has ever passed between us.

The Assistant-Judge said he must do Lieut. Cooper
the justice to say that a speech bearing more the character
of a man of honour and a gentleman he had never heard,
and he was glad that he had personally spoken instead of
leaving this expression to the learned counsel who repre-
sented him. This was one of those unfortunate cases in
which two gentlemen had some dispute, and in which
one had been betrayed by his feelings— which, although
natural, must be ccatrolled—to do an act which no gentle-
man could justify. But having committed this act, he
had the manliness to confess his fault, and to acknow-
ledge that he was now sorry for what he had done, ad-
mitting that he had acted under erroneous impressions.
The other gentleman had very properly said that he was
satisfied, and that he wanted no revenge. A blow was
a thing that no gentleman could sit down quietly under,
but ho had taken the wisest and best course to set the
matter right—he had brought it forward. The one had
apologised, and the other explained the cause of the af-
fair, and they withdrew without a stain on the character
of either. He must inflict a nominal fine, and that was
that he pay is. to the Queen and be discharged.
Mr. Routh said he was highly gratified at hearing
Lieutenant Cooper's explanation.
The parties then left the court.