The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-09 00:00:00

spite of warning contract the marriage, and impart to
Mrs. Ciocci the, disease in question, whereby she was
reduced to a state of great debility. It was also alleged
that ever since the marriage the defendant had been in the
habit of consorting with prostitutes both in Brighton and
London, and had been constantly seen in their society. That
on or about .7, uly 29, 1851, Mr. Ciocci, then living at
No. 8, Clarence-square, Brighton, frequented brothels,
where he had aiulterous intercourse with an abandoned
person named Polly Miller, and divers other prostitutes.
He was further alleged to have habitually committed
adultery with his cook, named Emma Brown, and that
afterwards in London on the 2nd Nov., 1852, he pur-
sued. a similar course of conduct with a person named
Fanny or Ellen Alexander. In answer to the libel
given in on behalf of the wife, Mr. Ciocci had given in
an allegation setting forth that so far from treating his
wife with neglect, she had experienced at his hands the
most uniform tenderness, and he had done everything in
his power to promote her comfort and happiness. His
wife had, two months after marriage, gone to Cuckfield,
in Sussex, as she informed him, for the benefit of her
health, but instead of returning to her husband, she sig-.
nified her intention of never living with him again.
From that time she had carefully concealed her resi-

dente, and Mr. Ciocci had never heard from her for
a year and a half, when he was served with a cita-
tion to appear in the Consistory Court. It further alleged
that he (Mr. Ciocci) was a member of the Society
for the Protention of Females, in Red Lion-square,
that he had indeed spoken to Fanny Alexander,
but that in so accosting her he had merely en-
deavoured to persaade her to alter her course of life,
and that it was altogether untrue that he on that
occasion, or at any other time, took indecent liberties
with her. The defendant alleged, that in August, 1852,
he saw a countryman of his named Guateleta (who at
the time was a candidate for the office of minister of the
Italian Protestant Church, in Newman-street,) convers-

ing with the female in question, and, as he suspected for
an improper purpose. He, therefore though with much
reluctance, represented this to the Rev. J. D. Glennie
and Mr. Burgess, who were concerned in the appoint-
ment in question. He alleged, that on the 3d of Novem-
ber, 1852, he procured an interview with the girl Alex-
ander, and, after putting questions to her, took her in a
cab to the police station, in Rochester-row, for the pur-
pose of having her sworn to the truth of the answers
which she had given relative to. the illicit intercourse
between her and Guateleta • that this object was frus-
trated by the magistrate refusing to interfere in any way
in the matter ; and that he then took the girl in the
cab as far as it went her way, whilst he returned to his
own lodgings alone.
Dr. R. Phillimore, on behalf of Mrs. Ciocci, con-
tended that the two charges before the Court were in sub-
stance proved, and that, in particular, adultery of a
most gross and sensual kind was clearly established by
unimpeachable evidence. The learned advocate sub-
mitted it was fully proven that Mr. Ciocci had married
his wife when. he was in a state of disease, and that
shortly after such marriage the victim of his cruelty had
suffered in body in the manner described in the evidence.
The defendant was an Italian, who after leaving his
country and renouncing his faith had become a Pro-
testant. His friendship with Dr. Achilli appeared to
have been struck out in the plea, but it came out again
in the interrogatories put to the witnesses, and it seemed
that Achilli, Guateleta and Ciocci resided together.
Some of the interrogatories went to show that Ciocci
pretended he was subjected to persecution, owing to his
having renounced the Roman Catholic faith. One of the
witnesses was a Miss Anna Chinnery, who deposed in
answer to various questions, that she had no knowledge
whatever of any Roman Catholic cardinal, or bishop, or
priest having been in communication with Mrs. Ciocci.
It was evident from this, that the suggestion on the
part of the husband was, that the suit could be nothing
less than a Popish plot against him, only, unfortunately
for his case, there was no imputation that the medical
witnesses were under the command of any priest or car-
dinal. The first witness to prove adultery was a ser-
vant of No. 3, Shaftesbury-crescent, Pimlico, named
Jane Legg, who stated that Ciocci called at the house
one Sunday, when her master and mistress were out,
and on learning that fact, seized hold of her, and tried
to force her into the parlour, but desisted upon being
told that a person named Augusteni was in the house.
She further deposed, that after this he used to joke her
and ask her to meet him by appointment. It appeared
that she had had an illegitimate child, and had said she
was unable to say who was the father of it, having had
connexion, as she asserted, with both Achilli and the
person named Augustini. The nature of the defence set
up by Ciocci was, that he was the most persecuted man
in the universe ; that he was a holy man and a saint
whose vocation it was to redeem prostitutes. He pro-
fessed the purest and loftiest motives, and it was urged,
nothing could be more hard than that this exemplary
Christian, who ought almost to have a halo round his
head wherever he went, should be charged with the very
act which his whole life was spent in endeavouring to
prevent. By what miracle Mr. Ciocci had contracted
the disease in question, did not yet appear, and the court
would see how this would be reconciled with his extreme
piety, and the learned advocate on the other side. The
evidence of Charlotte Thomas went to prove, that she
bad never heard of the Female Aid Society, although
she knew Ciocci, and was not aware he was an agent
of that society, but she refused to answer the question
as to whether he had sexual intercourse with her. The
learned Advocate then referred to the evidence of seve-
ral other witnesses, the result of whose testimony, he
submitted, fully proved the charge of adultery. In con-
clusion he called upon the court to pronounce for the
divorce.

Dr. Deane followed on the same side.
Dr. Addams appeared for Mr. Ciocci. He said the
case was of such a nature that he should ask the Court
to dismiss the case, with a sentence condemning the
wife in the costs. It was assumed by the other side
that Mr. Ciocci had been a Roman Catholic, and had
become a Protestant. There was no evidence in the
case to show this ; but even if there were; was that to
subject a man to proceedings in an ecclesiastical court,
and to subject him to be loaded with discredit and con-
tumely. It was also alleged he was associated with Dr.
Achilli. Why, Dr. Achilli stood justified by a jury of
his own country as a person not open to the imputation
which had been made upon him, and the use of Dr.
Achilli's name, therefore, was merely a handle to make
a reflection upon the character of Ciocci. He contended
that Mrs. Ciocci had entered into the marriage, in
common parlance, with her eyes open, and that
her husband had acted most generously in the
matter, by abstaining from endeavouring to find
her out after she had left him in the manner described.
It was true that she was possessed of independent pro-
perty settled upon herself, but Ciocci, had he felt dis-
posed to seek her out would certainly have been entitled
to share her income, so far as living in the same house
and other general expenses went. In proof of the
manner in which he had behaved towards his wife, the
learned counsel read the following letter :
" April 22, 1851.
"My Dear Wife,—The publicity which you have
been pleased to give to our affair, necessarily obliges me
to put forth my defence, that I may not also lose, besides
the domestic happiness I expected, my honour, which is
dearer to me than anything, much more than my in--
terests which have been injured by your conduct, and are
in danger of becoming more injured. But can my de-
fence be pleasant and honourable to you, especially after
I have been obliged to seek among the articles you left
behind for the cause of your withdrawal ? I have disco-
vered but too clearly what these causes have been. If you
assert that you are unhappy, with how much greater
reason may I not say that you have made me very un-
happy. You have taken a foolish step without foresee-
ing its consequences. If I did not desire your return—
(but after a satisfactory explanation, and a fresh agree-
ment, which should prevent the renewal of similar
rashness), but with the agreement of finding in you a
gentle and reasonable companion, without intercourse
with dangerous friends (who are only friends in name,
and who have been the principal cause of our present
unhappiness)—l would not write to you. The present
state of things cannot last—it must have an end. Take
counsel with your former declarations and promises,
with your reason, and with your heart, and if they
tell you (as I think they will) that duty calls you home
again, come, and I will do all I can for your happiness,
both of us remembering, however, that perfect happiness
is not for earth ; that those who are called liappy
have often need of the virtue of resignation. If you per-
sist in a resolution which is not yours, but with which
you have been maliciously inspired, the public shall hear
my voice also, and so much the louder, because I have
warned you of it. You know that the law would assist
me, and you also know that when I have entered upon
a course lam accustomed to persevere in it. I send this
letter through your lawyer, and this act almost of
humiliation best shows to you the state of my mind.
I do not know your direction. Is this right ? Is it
proper and kind ? Perhaps you think I should avail
myself of the right granted me by law to come and take
you by force out of your concealment. Your will joined
you to me, and I am neither so foolish nor so brutal, as
to wish for a violent reunion. I shall wait your definite
resolution till next Saturday. I hope your health is
perfectly restored, and believe me now as ever, your
affectionate husband. "R. CIoCCI."
He contended, the statement that the wife had contracted
a disease, was totally unfounded, the only medical man
called to give testimony as to her health having been of
opinion that her illness arose from general weakness of
the system. That part of the case, then, was an utter
failure. As to the charge that Ciocci himself had con-
tracted the disease, he (Dr. Adams) designated the evi-
dence of the medical men on this point as most uncandid.
It might be that Ciocci himself had been suffering from
the disease in question at some early period of his life,
and that some slight signs of it were still apparent ; but
there was no testimony to prove that it had been con-
tracted lately, and he (the learned Advocate) must con-
fess that his ideas of morality did not carry him to such
a point, that he would be ready to affix enduring stigma
on the character of a man because he had been led into
an act of imprudence in his youth, and in an unguarded
moment.
The further hearing of the case was then adjourned
until to-day, •

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY—Nov. 8.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fane.)

IN RE BARTON.-THE " ROSEMARY BRANCH" GARDENS.
This was the certificate meeting in the case of W. Bar-
ton, described as a licensed victualler, of Islington. The
bankrupt had kept the Rosemary Branch Gardens, a
place appropriated to al fresco amusements. The nc•
counts, prepared by Mr. Thomas, extended over a twelve-
month prior to the 12th August last, commencing with
a deficiency of 2,429/. The sum owing to creditors was
7,1691. ; assets put down at 7001. in property. The pro-
fits were stated at 850/. ; trade expences, 1,1221. ; per-
sonal ditto, 175/. ; losses, 3,5931. The last item was
thus explained by the bankrupt :—" Lost by fire at the
Rosemary Branch Tavern, Islington, when the circus
and stabling recently erected by me at an estimated cost