The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(YESTERDAY.)

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 9.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
mom v. CIOCCL

The arguments in this case were resumed this morn-
ng, when

br. Addams, continuing his answer to the charge of
cruelty, contended that a strong contradiction to the
charge was contained in the letters of Mrs. Ciocci.
These were the mild epistles written by a lady who
had left her husband on account of cruelty :
" Cuckfield, March 22, 1851.
"My dear Signor Ciocci,—you are kind in your in-
quiries about my health. I feel much better since I have
been here, and I hope in a short time to be restored to my
usual health, which is always very indifferent. I think
another week will be useful to me, and therefore I can-
not fix to return home at present. Would that I could
read with any deg-see of confidence the expressions of re-
gard (contained in your letter of this morning) for me,
but that, alas is impossible ; your coldness and indifference
are at variance with them. With every kind wish for
yourself,
" I remain, yours faithfully,
CIOCCI."

" Cuckfield, March 23, 1851.
"My dear Signor Ciocci,— You will be glad to hear I
am improving in health, and am desirous to postpone my
return a short time longer. To-morrow lam going on a
visit to a very old friend, and at the beginning of the
week I am expecting some old friends who are coming to
st,,y here, and the weather has been so unfavourable
there is no getting about as I wished. Hoping that you
are in the enjoyment of good health, with my very kind
regards,

"I remain, yours very truly,
"JEMIMA CIOCCI."

" April
" Your conduct towards me since our marriage has been
such, that I feel it to be impossible that we can ever re-
side together with the least prospect of happiness to either.
My health is so indifferent that I am utterly incapable of
bearing up against such ill-treatment and want of atten-
tion. I cannot ret mu to you. We must separate. I
have been in communication with Mr. Upperton, who is
well acquainted with ray determination, and to him I
Must refer you, and I hope that you will be able to come
to an arrangement with him that may be desirable for
both of us.

.TEMIDIA CIOCCI."
It was pleaded that Ciocci himself had told a person
named San Giovanni and Polly Miller that he had com-
municated to his wife the disease under which he was
labouring. Anything more extravagant and improbable
than this allegation he (Dr. Addams) had never heard.
No proof whatever had been offered in support of it.
It was indeed stated as a sufficient reason .for San
Giovanni not having been called that the man was
dead, and an affidavit to that effect had been handed
in. San Giovanni, it was said, died on the 13th of
April, and yet it was on. the 17th of March that the
libel was put in. There was, therefore, plenty of time to
examine the man, and why had not this been done ?
Polly Miller had not been called, and altogether of this
pretended admission by Ciocci there was not one single
proof. Leaving the charge of cruelty, which he con-
sidered wholly unestablished, he came now to the foul,
false, and filthy allegations made upon the other decla-
rations in the libel, which, he repeated, were supported
by as gross perjury and subornation as had ever been
heard of in that court. The gentlemen who seemed to
have got up this case were solicitors in the Temple,
Messrs. Bolton and Balfour, who employed a Mr. Edser,
a builder, to sustain the charges. This person engaged
Owen, who had been a police-constable, with five or six
ex-policemen, to watch Ciocci, and see what his habits
were ; and it was upon the information obtained by them
that this suit was instituted. None of the other persons
employed in this way had been called, and a greater
miscreant and ruffian than this Owen had never exhibited
himself in a court of justice. He was kept employed
from October, 1852, to the present time, and paid at
the rate of two guineas a week, with other little indul-
gences, which was much better than being a policeman.
One of the persons he was with was Polly Miller.
With this woman Owen swore he had never had con-
nexion, but the woman Hadley swore to the direct con-
trary of this. Owen declared again that he had never
had illicit intercourse with Miss Alexander, but the
fact appeared, from the evidence of Edser, that Owen
went down to Boxmoor, where the woman was staying,
and that soon afterwards Owen's wife went down, and
kicked up a row because her husband was cohabiting
with Fanny Alexander; Sarah French, a common wo-
man, in her evidence said, "I used to see him (Owen) very
often indeed at one time when he was looking after the
girl Alexander. , I used to see him every night." What
did Owen want with French ? Why, to cohabit with
her, and this was the witness to whose testimony such
weight was attached. Upon the reckless charge con-
tained in the libel, tkat Ciocci had, ever since his mar-
riage, been constantly consorting with prostitutes, only
one man out of the seven who had watched him was
produced, and this person had never watched defendant
at Brighton. Supposing any credence at all to be placed
in the evidence of Owen, it amounted to this—that
Ciocci had been speaking to abandoned women in the
streets, always openly and during the daytime. Meet-
ing women in the streets was no proof of adultery, and
it was not attempted to be established that defendant
ever went home with any of the women whom he
thus met, or ever took them home to his lodgings.
Then, again, what credence could be attached to the
evidence of Jane Legge ? This girl had been the
servant of Dr. Achilli, and had been examined in the
case of Dr. Achilli. /On that occasion she swore that
Dr. Achilli had had criminal connexion with her, but
the jury had shown their disbelief in her statement by
the verdict they had found. This witness owned that
she had many •‘ friends," and that she sometimes walked
the streets, yet on the unsupported testimony of such a
character it was that Ciocci was to be accused of solici-
tation of chastity! Coming now to the case of Char-
lotte Thomas, it was clear to him that this girl had
committed perjury in. her examination in chief, and her
after statement to Mr. Adamson that she bad never had
anything to do with Ciocci was evidently the truth.
She declared that, though she had received small sums
of money from defendant, it had never been for any im-
proper purpose ; that Ciocci had begged her to reform,
and on her promising to do so went home with her to
her mother ; that he had ever been a kind friend to
her ; and that she was very sorry for what she had said
before. It was evident that the girl's better feelings
came over her on account of what Ciocci had done for
her, and that what she had said in her depositions in
chief could not be relied on, If this part of the case
was a failure, much more was so the story respecting
Polly Miller and Fanny Alexander, in which there was
so much wicked falsehood that it tainted the whole of
the charge against Ciocci. The first story was, that
about the 29th of January, 1851, Mr. and Mrs. Ciocci
returned to Brighton after their marriage, taking up
their residence at 8, Clarence-square, and that from that
time Ciocci was accustomed to frequent two brothels
in that town, and had improper intercourse with Polly
Miller and others. Miller herself was not called, and
the only witness examined upon the allegation was
Juliana Beck, the washer-woman, who said she had
frequently seen defendant at one of those brothels.
This woman identified Ciocci in London, " although he
had shaved his moustaches off." Now, the fact was
the defendant never had worn moustaches in this
country, and had made an affidavit of that fact. There
was no proof whatever that he had worn moustaches,
and as Mrs. Beck deposed particularly that the gentle-
man she had seen at the brothels in Brighton had dark
moustaches, and swore to defendant in London, not-
withstanding he had " disguised himself by shaving
them off." he submitted the identity wholly failed. The
decree of confrontation had been executed in a most ex-
traordinary manner. Mrs. Beck and two or three of
the other witnesses had been placed at the window of
Dr. Dean's chambers in Doctor's-commons, and it was
agreed that when Ciocci came near to the clerk of Mr.
Bathurst, the proctor, should raise his hat, and then
the witness of course would say, "Oh, that's he !" The
mode in which this decree was executed was alone suffi-
cient to upset the evidence of Mrs. Beck, who was evi-
dently mistaken in her identity of the person who had
visited Polly Miller at Brighton. Then it was plead-
ed as an additional article to the libel, that one night,
about the middle of March last, when this cause was
in course of vigorous prosecution, Ciocci. visited Mil-
ler at her lodging, 17, Marshall-street, Golden-
square, and there slept with her, talking with her about
the suit, and saying he should beat them if she (Miller)
would stick to him. The sole witness in support of
this .extraordinary and incredible statement, made
so openly by a man who was described as "sly," was a
common prostitute named Mary Ann Hadley, who in
her evidence declared that she was first asked to become
a witness by Edser in the middle of March, just after
the circumstance to which she had deposed, and yet
afterwards she alleged " the first interview I had with
Edser was on the 23d of February," which day she
could positively fix, because it was her birthday, and
upon that occasion she told him what had occurred in
the month of March, just one month afterwards ! Again,
Hadley was interrogated upon the sums of money she
had received, and said she had received only three half-
sovereigns for her services. Now, Edser in his evidence
stated, that Hadley was paid at the rate of 1/. per
week, and a little wearing apparel was given to her
not only onthlyesev,iehwe
Addams)be i des
tAhAfter h
tsuch contradictionsmust
this
evidence with discredit, but must view with disapproba-
tion the insertion in the libel of such an article of accu-
sation, resting as it did upon the uncorroborated testi-
mony of a woman like this. Perhaps, however, the
grossest conspiracy against the defendant was developed
in the case of Fanny Alexander. He denied that ever
there was such a letter in existance as was described to
have been written by Ciocci to Alexander, and the per-
sons who procured evidence of the existence of this
letter he pronounced guilty of subornation of perjury.
The girl swore that Ciocci asked her to accompany him
before a magistrate, and instructed her to deny that he
had ever had improper connexion with her. This was
on the 2d of November, 1852, and the citation was not
taken out until the January following. It was not to
be supposed that Ciocci then knew of the contemplated
suit against him. Who, then, had accused defendant
of what he was alleged as being at that time so anxious
to deny ! Was a man to be attacked in purse and cha-
racter by such trash as this ? Again, Alexander de-
clared that she had not received or been promised any
reward for her evidence—that she had no expectation of
benefit either directly or indirectly from the success of
Mrs. Ciocci in this cause. Now, it appeared from Ed-
ser's evidence that Owen had already paid Alexander
30s. in all--that the girl had been residing in custody
at Boxmoor for some seven months with a Miss Jones,
who had been paid no less a sum than 801. for her hoard
and lodging, and that Alexander had been promised a
guinea a week during the time she had been resident at
Boxmoor. Yet a woman who had so contradicted her-
self was to be admitted as a witness in this case, and al-
lowed to come forward and convict Ciocci of adultery