The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-April 25.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HIECHWELL V. INGRAM.
This was an action for libel brought by the plaintiff,
who is secretary to a water-works company, against the
defendant, who is the publisher of the Ladies' Newspaper.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and at the trial
before Mr. Justice Crowder on Saturday last, the jury
returned a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins (Mr. Houston Browne with
him) now moved for a new trial on the ground that the
verdict was against the evidence. The libel was con-
tained in article headed " Woman and her Master," and
after referring to a case of alleged brutal treatment of a
woman by her husband, it proceeded thus
The other case has probably more than once come
under the notice of our readers. It is that of Mrs.
Hakewell, who having been restored to the protection
of her husband by :decree of the ecclesiastical court
found her miseries so aggravated by the restitution of
her conjugal rights that she was compelled to resort
to a police court for the little help which our glorious
English constitution gives to the English wife and
mother. Now neither Mr. Fitzroy's bill, nor the
proposed reforms in the law of divorce, will meet the
bitter exigence of either of these cases. Woman and
her master will remain precisely in the same relation
in which they stood to one another before—a relation
of love, of protection, and reverence, where honour
and manliness hold the sway, but more degraded,
servile, abased, and oppressive, where the brute in-
tervenes, than the condition even of the negro." If
that were not a libel, the learned sergeant said, he
did not know what a libel was ; but the jury had been
so wrought upon by his learned friend Mr. Chambers,
Q.C. (probably he saw some of his constituents in the
box, and that made him more than usually eloquent)
that although the learned judge told them if the article
assumed a state of facts which, if proved, would throw
great discredit on the plaintiff, it would be a libel for
which he would be entitled to damages, they nevertheless
returned a verdict for the defendant. His learned friend
was so eloquent and so poetical, he thought the jury
disposed not only to give him the verdict, but three
cheers afterwards ; whereas he himself had been so con-
fident that the mere reading of the article would establish
his case, that he had said very little to them. Amongst
other things he told them that if they should find the
article to be a libel they would deprive the public of the
advantages of newspaper reading, and they would be
thrown back upon philosophy and ancient history.
(Laughter.) He also said so much to them about the
style of the article—

-The Lord Chief Justice—That probably they did not
understand, and so found for the defendant. You may
take a rule, brother.
Rule nisi granted.

The Court will not sit to-day, but will proceed with
the special paper on Thursday, and with the new trial
paper on Friday.

ARCHES COURT.
(Before Sir John Dodson.)
ROBERTS V. ROBERTS.
A report of the facts of this divorce suit appeared in
our journal a short time since. The learned judge
gave his decision this morning.
The Court said the present suit was brought by the
husband, the Rev. Edmund Roberts, of Paul's Cray,
against his wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Ann Roberts, by reason
of adultery. In support of Mr. Roberts's case that gen-
tleman had brought in a libel, which pleaded the mar-
riage of the parties, their subsequent cohabitation, and
that the issue of the marriage still living was six children.
It also pleaded that Mr. Roberts received and educated
pupils at Paul's Cray, and shortly after the Easter vaca-
tion of 1852 he engaged Mr. James Mowat, a youth about
twenty years of age, as an assistant ; that soon after Mr.
Mowat's arrival Mrs. Roberts began to evince consider-
able affection for him, and he had been seen kissing and
embracing her ; that they occasionally walked out to-
gather ; and that indecent familiarities had passed be-
tween them. The libel further alleged that while Mrs.
Roberts was staying at Brighton a clandestine corres-
pondence was carried on between her and James Mowat,
in the absence of Mr. Roberts in Ireland, and that they
afterwards met in London and went to Bath together, and
lodged in the same house, and after their return to Paul's
Cray they were observed on one occasion coming out of
the bedroom of one of the pupils. It pleaded that, upon
some of these facts coming to the husband's knowledge,
Mowat was dismissed, and a quarrel took place between
Mr. Roberts and his wife, upon which she left him,
saying she should go to her mother's, at Brighton, but
subsequently returned, when the husband, having dis-
covered a letter which had been written by his wife to
Mowat, the parties finally separated on the 27th Sep-
tember, 1852. The libel charred adultery on several
of the occasions before referreSto. In answer to this
charge the wife had brought in an allegation denying
that any indecent familiarity had taken place, and
that adultery had been committed. It pleaded that
when James Mowat first went to Paul's Cray he was
in a delicate state of health, and that she conse-
quently occasionally offered him a glass of wine, and
that he had offended his family, who were \Vesleyans,
by joining the Church of England, and he sometimes
advised with Mrs. Roberts upon the subject; that in
June, 1852, being unwell she was recommended by her
medical men to take the air, and, in consequence, began
occasionally, with her husband's sanction, to walk out
with the pupils, and that, when fatigued, she might have
taken Mowat's arm, but never did so clandestinely. It
denied that the tutor and herself were ever in the library
at Paul's Cray, with the doors locked, and pleaded that
all the circumstances connected with Mowat's visit to
her in London were known to her husband, and that
she having hired some servants who would not suit, de-
termined to go to Bath, where she had obtained ser-
vants on former occasions ; but, before mentioning her
intention, Mowat, having heard that his parents were
prevented from joining him in London, resolved to return
to Bath, and to escort Mrs. Roberts thither. It further
alleged that she was enciente at the time, and while in such
state occasionally became deranged, which rendered her
irresponsible for what she said or did. Since the ad-
mission of this allegation, Mr. Roberts had brought in
a responsive allegation, which pleaded that a medical
man had prohibited Mrs. Roberts walking, but had re-
commended her to ride out in the open air, and denied
that she was in a state of derangement when enceinte.
The court, after examining the charges contained in the
libel, and the evidence to support them, considered there
were proximate acts which justified it in concluding that
if there was an opportunity afforded the offence would
be committed. There certainly was opportunity while
in University-street, in London, and also afterwards at
Bath_; and, looking at all the circumstances attending
t,he case; he (the learned judge) was clearly of, qpinion,
that the offence, had been committed by the parties in
question, and therefore that it was his duty to decree a
sentence of divorce.
The Proctor for Mrs. Roberts appealed.