The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-18 00:00:00

,AILWAY RETURNS

RAILWAY TRAFFIC.—The following are the Total Receipts of Rail-
ways for the past week—that is to say, up to the date to which the
respective returns are made, together with the receipts of the same
week in the previous year:—

LAW INTELLIGhNCE.
CONSISTORY COURT. June 16.
(Before Dr. LIISHINGTON.)
FAWCETT V, FAWCETT.

Dr. LIISHINGTON gave judgment in this case this
morning, which was a suit for a divorce on the ground
of adultery. He said—Mr. Fawcett is a clergyman of
the Church of England, and was married on the 4th of
October, 1847, to Miss Eleanor Trevelyan, of Walling-
ton, in Northumberland. There were issue of the mar-
riage two children. The ordinary residence of the par-
ties was at Cropthall, in Worcestershire, of which Mr.
Fawcett was the curate. During the first nine years
that this marriage subsisted, nothing was alleged to
have taken place which could in any degree require the
notice of the Court. The adultery with which Mrs.
Fawcett was charged was alleged to have been committed
with Mr. Walter Blackett Trevelyan, a second cousin
of Mrs. Fawcett's. It was pleaded that on August 5,
1846, Mrs.Fawcett left Cropthall, and proceededona visit
to her brother, Mr. Trevelyan, of Longwitton, near
Newcastle-upon-Tyne. She was accompanied thither by
her husband, and he remained at Longwitton until Sep-
tember, when, after visiting Lady Trevelyan, his wire's
mother, he returned to Cropthall. The first article then
charged the formation of an undue intimacy. That
charge was the foundation of all that followed, and yet
there was but one single witness examined to support it,
Jane Rochester, the maid servant of Mrs. Fawcett, a
servant with whom she appeared to have at one time
quarrelled. That was a matter of surprise to the Court,
because there must have been individuals capable of es-
tablishing the fact of the alleged undue intimacy between
Mrs. Fawcett and Mr. Walter Trevelyan with great faci-
lity. The whole proof of the article amounted to this, that
Mr. Walter Trevelyan visited at Longwitton, and was
acquainted with Mrs. Fawcett, who was resident there
with her brother for a time. The sixth article pleaded
certain transactions which took place at Seaton Carew,
between the 22d of September and the 13th of October.
That article did not charge adultery, nor any act of
indecent behaviour, but it charged great intimacy. It
also pleaded that the going thither by Mrs. Faw-
cett, was unknown to Mr. Fawcett, and with-
out his consent, but of that there was no proof.
Mrs. Fawcett lodged in the house of a Mr. and Mrs.
Dixon, at Seaton Carew, and they, with Jane Rochester,
Mrs. Fawcett's maid servant, were the witnesses in sup-
port of that article. That lrticie alleged that
Mr. Walter Trevelyan was backwards and for-
wards at Mrs. Fawcett's lodgings, that on the
last occasion of his visit to Seaton Carew he stayed
there for a week, that he took all his meals with Mrs.
Fawcett, that he was there till a late hour at night, and
that there was an extreme degree of intimacy subsisting
between them. All that was very distinctly established
by the evidence of the three witnesses to whom he had
adverted. More could not have been proved, because
more was not charged in the article. But Mr. Dixon,
at the conclusion of his evidence, added, "from what I
saw pass between them on one occasion, while they were
walking out together, having watched them on that occa-
sion, I can state that they not only appeared, but
certainly lived on the same terms of intimacy as hus-
band and wife." Now, he (Dr. Lushington) apprehended
it was quite clear that the Court would never be justi-
fied in considering this as any proof of an adulterous
connexion subsisting between the parties. Independently,
however, of the observation he had just made, enough
was proved, and he might say more than enough, by the
evidence on that article to excite the vigilant suspicion
of the Court. So far it was possible, though not pro-
bable, that the intercourse might be innocent, but cer-
tainly an unrestricted intimacy between a married lady
in the absence of her husband, with a gentleman so dis-
tantly allied to her, might very rarely be proved to
be a connexion of a very different and a very cul-
pable kind. The 6th article pleaded that the
parties remain in the drawing-room with the door
locked on the inside, and charged adultery then and on
other occasions in the drawing-room. It alleged that
whilst they were living together at Seaton Carew, and
after the servant had taken away the tea-things on one
occasion from the drawing-room, while Mrs. Fawcett
and Mr. Waiker Trevelyan were alone together in the
room, in which there was a sofa, the door was locked
from the inside, and the parties remained in the drawing-
room for several hours, until Mr. Trevelyan quitted the
house to go to his lodgings in the adjoining house, and
that on that occasion, when they were so alone
together, indecent familiarities passed between them.
The only witness on that article was Jane Rochester; the
Dixons themselves could say nothing. Jane Rochester
said, on one night, whilst the parties were together, she
heard the door of the room bolted from the inside. She
could be under no mistake about it, though she did not
try the door. From the kitchen below, where she was,
she could hear any one walking in the drawing-room, or
do such a thing as fasten the door. Now, he (Dr.
Lushington) must say, he thought a person was blessed
with a peculiar faculty for hearing, who could hear
when she was in the kitchen, when the door of the
drawing room was bolted. Then she said there was a
considerable interval elapsed between the bolting -and
the unbolting of the door. That was evidence upon
which standing singly and alone he could not found
his sentence and his decree. The seventh article pleaded
that on the return of Mrs Fawcett to Cropthall, Mr. and
Mrs. Fawcett did not sleep together or ever cohabit
afterwards. Jane Rochester proved that allegation to
some extent. The eighth article pleaded that during the
visits of Mr. Walter Trevelyan to Cropthall, in No-
vember, 1846, and January, 1847, adultery was there
committed. The evidence on - that article consisted of
the testimony of two witnesses Jane Rochester and
Charlotte Barton. Jane Rochester proved that on one
evening, after family prayers, she was going up to
Mrs. Fawcett's bed-room, as was her custom, when she
saw and heard Mrs. Fawcett and Mr. Walter Trevelyan
speaking together on the stairs, Mr. Fawcett being
at that time reading down stairs, and that she heard Mr.
Trevelyan telling Mrs. Fawcett he had got a fire in his
room, and asked her to come and see how nicely it
burned; that Mrs. Fawcett went into Mr. Trevelyan's
bed-room, and remained with him for twenty minutes;
she (the witness) waiting for her returning during that
it terval in Mrs. Fawcett's own bed-room. Then, Char-
lotte Burton said thst, in her opinion, there was a great
deal too much familiarity between Mrs. Fawcett and
Mr. Walter Trevelyan when he was on a visit at Crop-
thall, and more than she (witness) should have
liked if she had been Mrs. Fawcett's bus.
band; she considered they conducted them.
selves towards each other with unbecoming
familiarity; she witnessed it in their looks and manner;
and on one occasion she saw Mr. Trevelyan put his arm
round Mrs. Fawcett and kiss her. The Learned Judge
then proceeded to review at great length the evidence
a.
relating to other acts of familiarity alleged, and thus
concluded his judgment. The question was, whether,
upon the whole of the evidence, he could pronounce
adultery to have been proved. He could not conscien-
rtieofuersel
but he could
say there were very ample opportunities for the com-
mission of adultery if the parties were so disposed; and
conscien-
tiously
say
yto that
any particularanyact of
time adultery
or teryplace' was proved with
he could say great and most undue familiarity, totally
incapable of being justifiably accounted for was este
blished by the evidence in this case. He therefore pro
nounced for the separation.

CENTRAL CRIMIN.AL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(13 fore Mr. Baron ROLFE )
Eliza Schollenberger, 23, a good-looking young wo-
man, with an infant in her arms, was indicted for felo-
niously attempting to administer to her husband, Philip
Schollenberger, a quantity of arsenic, with intent to
murder him.
Mr. W. Cooper prosecuted; Mr. Prendergast defended
the prisoner.
According to the evidence of the prosecutor, who is a
German, he had on several occasions during the last few
weeks felt sick and ill, and was gradually getting weaker,
when he suspected, in consequence of the conduct of his
wife, that something improper had been administered to
him. On searching about his apartments, he found a
parcel containing some white powder, which he showed
to the prisoner. He asked her whether she knew what
it was. The reply was, that it was salt of prunella,
which had been given to her by her brother's wife. On
inquiry, this statement appeared to be unfounded, when
he charged her with attempting to poison him, which she
at first denied. A short time afterwards she said to
him, "Philip, I have given you poison, God forgive me;
you are not dead yet." She afterwards denied this,
when her parents rem•)ved her from his residence. He
had some suspicion that his wife was intimate with a
man who lived opposite to him. He had had the con-
tents of the paper examined by Dr. Ryan.
On cross-examination, he admitted that he had not
had the contents of the paper examined until six weeks
after he found it. He had not seen the man he alluded
to, who was married for upwards of a twelvemonth. He
had enjoyed good health until within the last six months.
His suspicions were excited by finding some white
powder in a cup of tea, the contents of which were very
nauseous.

After some other witnesses had been called in support
of the evidence of the prosecution, Mr. John Ryan,
M.D., of Dalston, deposed that the contents of the paper
given to him contained a mixture of common salt and
arsenic in the proportion of eight grains of the former to
two of the latter. The prosecutor appeared to be ill,
and the effects which he observed were such as would
be produced by the administration of arsenic.
Mr. PRENDERGAST then addressed the jury for the
prisoner. He urged that the whole proceeding originated
from an unfounded feeling of jealousy entertained by the
prosecutor.

The father of the prisoner contradicted the evidence of
the prosecutor in some respects. A number of he
conductwitnesses
of
w thee re
prisoner,called, whobo
thbefore
spoke mostanfda
after
a favourably
They also stated that the prosecutor had always fthe
marriage.
ap-
pesred to be a sickly ailing man.
Dr. Letheby, lecturer on chemistry at the London
Hospital, said he was satisfied that the symptoms de-
scribed by the prosecutor were not the result of the ad-
ministration of arsenic, but arose from some chronic
affection of the stomach. lie added, that the prosecutor
presented the appearance of a very weak man, and was
evidently labouring under some chronic disease.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury, after a
short deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
There was another indictment against the prisoner,
charging her with the actual administration of the poi-
son, but it was not proceeded with; the jury in that case
also returned a verdict of not guilty, as no evidence was
offered in support of the charge.

IVE if COUR T.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
William Jackson, alias Mayhew, alias Margan, alias
May, alias Colman, aged 53, described in the callendar
a; an agent, was indicted for a burOsry in a dwelling-
house belonging to the overseers of the parish of Saint
Pancras, and stealing 2,44 in gold, and 1,554 in silver, the
moseys of the said overseers,