The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-16 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb.ls.

The sittings here terminated this morning. As many as
twelve causes were set down for trial; but some were with-
drawn, and others could not be proceeded with in conse-
quence of the absence of attornies and witnesses. Therefore
the court rose before eleven o'clock, from not having any
business to proceed with.
Lord DENMAN said he bad taken one day from the city
sittings, in order to facilitate the trying of causes at West-
minster, and that it was too bad the public time should be
trifled with in this way.
The cause "Richards v. Lord 'Maidstone," was amongst
those withdrawn.

The court will sit at Guildhall to-morrow (this day).

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Feb. 15.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins before the LORD CHIEF BARON and

Special Juries.) • --'
Several cases were disposed of during the day, none of
which, however, presented any features of public interest.
The Court of Exchequer commence their sittings in London
to-morrow.

COURT OF COMMON FLEAS, Feb. 15.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justices COLTMAN).
CRIM. CON.—IIAWKES r. MOORE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the landlord
of the Jolly Butchers public-house, Newport-market, St.
Martin's-lane, against Mr. Moore, a print seller, in the same
locality, for damages for the seduction of his wife.
Mr. Sergeant :Byles and Mr. Bramwell appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Pigot for the defence.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES opened the case for the plaintiff, going
over the evidence he intended to adduce. He stated, that
iu 1833, the mariage of the plaintiff to his wife took place,
and that they lived together fur many years in a comfortable
state. A short time ago he took the Jolly Butchers public-house,
and then commenced the intimacy which had led to the present
action. The defendant had been in the habit of attending the
house, and the result was an estrangement of the wife's affec-
tions, which ended in the neglect of her child, and her ulti-
mate elopement with the defendant. The result was, the
plaintiff neglected his business, and acquired habits of in-
toxication, so affected had he been by the conduct of his
wife, and now the oniy course left him was to recover damages
for the injury done in a court of law.
Several witnesses were called to prove the marriage of the
parties, and that they had for some time lived together in a
comfortabie manner.

Catherine Ryan was the first material witness called.
She had been servant at the Jolly Butchers, and deposed that
the defendant was in the practice of attending the public-
house, and that she had noticed several acts of intimacy
between plaintiff's wife and the defendant. She further
stated that various quarrels took place between them, which
ended in their separation about Christmas, 1845.
In cross-examination, the witness stated that the plaintiff
often struck his wife, and was in the habit of getting repeat-
edly drunk.
John Cooke, a butcher, in Newport-market, who had been
in the practice of attending the Jolly Butchers, gave evidence
to a similar effect; and further, that on one occasion, in
December, 1845, he had late at night seen the defendant and
plaintiff's wife come out of a house of ill fame together.
.Joseph Bates, a nurseryman, near Oxford, stated that be
had assisted the plaintiff in getting up the case. He had
done so because he had been in town on business, and had
known the plaintiff before. When the plaintiff's wife left,
the plaintiff did not know where she had gone to, and wit-
ness endeavoured to find her out. After some difficulty he
traced her to a house in Islington, where she was living with
the defendant under the name of Mrs. Moore.

Harriet Willis stated that she lived at 35, Charlotte-ter.
race, Islington. She let the first floor of her house about
Christmas, 1845, to a lady who called herself Mrs. Moore.
A gentleman named Mr. Moore came often there and slept
with Mrs. Moore. They passed as man and wife. The defen-
dant had that morning been pointed out to her outside of the
court, and it was the same gentleman as lived with Mrs.
Moore at her apartments.
Mr. Kingdom, the plaintiff's solicitor, proved having
pointed out the defendant that morning to the previous wit-
ness, in order to identify him.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. COCKBULN, for the defence, said that after the evidence
of the witness, Mrs. Willis, he had no intention of opposing
a verdict for the plaintiff, but the question to which he would
address himself, would be that of damages, which, he submitted,
should be only nominal. Though he admitted that Mrs.
Hawkes had lived under the protection ofithe defendant after
she,had been turned off, yet he was instructed to repudiate
the evidence of the witness Cooke, and to deny that any
criminal intercourse had ever taken place while under her
husband's roof. The Learned Gentleman then went on to
show that the plaintiff, up to the time of his wife leaving,
though he was in the habit of continually ill-using her, lie
never imputed anything wrong to the defendant. He would
further prove that not only up till the period of Mrs. lierwkes
leaving, but for many months after, he was in the habit of
continually receiving loans of money from the defendant;
and that not till after Mr. Moore had refused further
sums, was there a word about the present action.
At the very time, therefore, that he was stated to be droop-
ing away and withering. on account of his wife's faithless-
ness, the injured husband was drawing continually from the
seducer's exchequer, and only when the latter would bleed
no more, did he think of recovering damages in a court of
law. The ill-usage of the plaintiff to his wife before she
left could not, therefore, arise from his belief that the de-
fendant had seduced her, or, if it did, then he was the
most crawling wretch upon the face of the earth to coin '
money, as he must have done, cut of the seduction of his
wife.

Several witness were called in support of those allegations,
proving that for many years, and before he took the Jolly
Butchers, he had been in the habit of getting drunk and ill-
using his wife, and also on the other points relating to ad-
vances of money by the defendant to the plaintiff. The
former had received sums of money from the defendant so
late as in June last, and about six months after plaintiff's
wife had left, and placed herself under the protection of
the defendant.
The jury raturned a verdict for 100/.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

John Lock yer, a powerful-looking drayman, was placed at
the bar, before Mr. Hall, charged with inflicting on his wife
a wound in the side of her head, whereby her life was en-
dangered.

Policeman F 85, about half-past three o'clock that
morning, heard a cry of " murder" from a house in Rose-
street, Long-acre, where he found the prisoner and his wife in
their own room, the woman having a severe cut on the side
of the head, and being exhausted by loss of blood. She said
that the prisoner gave her the wound with the poker. She
was taken immediately to the Charing-cross Hospital, where
she then lay.
Mr. John Steghorn, house-surgeon at the Charing Cross
Hospital, described the nature of the wound. He considered
that she was in danger, and could not give any positive opi-
nion on her case at present.
The prisoner said that his wife quarrelled with him, and
struck him several times, and he threw his shoe at her. He
had not had the poker in his hand at all.
Mr. HALL, remanded the prisoner for a week, and desired
the surgeon, in case he should find that death was approach-
ing, and that the woman was aware of her early dissolu-
tion, to send for him, and he would take her evidence in
articulo mortis.