The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-04 00:00:00

VI A TER-IVORIES.

Dividend
rime of Company. per
Annum.

Amount i
of i Paid.
Share.

East L0nd0n.......... 81.
Grand Junction ...... 31. 10s.
Kent................ 2/. 10s.
Vauxhall ............ 5/. per oent.
West Middlesex . . . Si. 10s.pr cnt.,

8. d.
100 0 0
41 13 4
100 0 0
100 0 0
63 12 9

Price.

FRACAS at MULLINGAR ASSIZES.
(From the Dublin Evening Mail.)
On Friday a most extraordinary scene occurred in
our court-house. Shortly after Mr. Justice Crampton
had taken his seat upon the bench, the Hon. W. Paken-
ham, foreman of the grand jury, entered the court and
stated that Mr. Cooke, of Cookesborough, had called Sir
Richard Levinge a liar, and other opprobrious name•.
The judge ordered the attendance of Mr. Cooke and Sir
Richard into court, and upon their appearing, they were
ordered to enter into recognisance, each in the sum of

10001., to keep the peace.
The origin of the quarrel was as follows :—On Thurs-
day last, a meeting of the grand jury, and the chair-
man of the different relief committees of the union of
Mullingar, was held, and the question as to townlands
being under discussion, Mr. Cooke objected to being
compelled to support the paupers which properly be-
longed to other estates, and he went on to charge Sir
Richard Levinge with having in the first instance ejected
a number of tenants who had now squatted on his
(Mr. Cooke's) property with others. who had been
similarly treated by Mr. Gibbons, of Bnllynagall. No
observation at that time was made by Sir Richard
Levinge.
On the following day, however, on the meeting of
the grand jury, Sir Richard Levinge called their atten-
tion to the statement made by Mr. Cooke on the day
previous, and assured that gentleman that, on inquiries
made yesterday, he ascertained there was not one of
his tenants on the townland alluded to who could have
squatted on Mr. Cooke's property, inasmuch as, for
forty years, he (Sir R. Levinge) had not ejected more
than two or three tenants. Mr. Cooke in reply, at-
tempted to deviate from his former charge, and wished
it to appear as if he bad merely been exemplifying
his argument ; but he was at once reminded that his
charge was precise and personal, affecting Sir R. Le-1
Tinge and Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Cooke again denied that
the fact was so, but the grand jury unanimously as-
serted the contrary, in which Sir Richard Levinge
joined. This led at once to a personal altercation, in
the course of which Mr. Cooke used the term liar, as
applied to Sir Richard Levinge, and announced at the
time his readiness to meet him or any other gentle•
man present, at a minutes' notice. The circumstances
as above stated, having been reported to the judge, the
parties were ordered into court. Sir Richard Levinge
immediately complied, but Mr. Cooke having refused to
enter into any recognisances, was committed to the cus-
tody of the sheriff, and conveyed to the county gaol.
At a subsequent period he was brought back to the
court-house, and allowed to remain out on his parol until
next day. His determination, however continued un-
changed, and Mr. Justice Crampton then committed
him to Mullingar gaol, where he is to remain until the
next assiz2s.

EXTENSIVE ROBBERY of SILVER
PLATE, GOLD WATCHES, &c., AT NORWICH.
A very extensive robbery was effected on Sunday evening,
between six and seven o'clock, at the shop of Mr. Cooper, a
silversmith, in London•street, at the corner opposite Mr.
Barnard's, and on the alarm being made at the station-house,
the superintendent of the police (Mr. Yarington) and seve-
ral of the men attended. It was soon discovered that about
fifty gold watches, which were safe in the shop on Saturday
night at six o'clock, had disappeared, and that a great deal
more very valuable property had been placed behind the
counter ready to be carried off. The amount of the goods
lost was variously reported, but after a strict investigation,
assisted by the magistrates, it seemed to have been from
1,500/ to 2,0001., and with this the thieves had got clear off;
leaving no trace of which way they had gone. Nobody ap.
pears to have seen any one either going to, or coming from
the premises, and the private door leading from Cockey-
lane, by which they must have entered, did not present any
' marks of being forced, or the lock having been picked. Every
possible exertion appears to have been made to detect the
robbery, but without any known effect. Telegraphic mes-
sages were sent in all nossible directions of the robbery, with
descriptions of the stolen property. The robbery must have
been committed between six and seven o'clock, for one of the
young Mr. Cooper's, with a friend, appears to have been into
the shop about six o'clock that evening, and his brother
gave the alarm of the robbery soon atter seven. A long
private investigation took place on Monday before the Mayor
and a full bench of magistrates, when one of the Cooper's and
one of the men were examined at very great length, but of
the nature of the investigation we know nothing. Nobody is
in custody.—Bury Herald.

THE AUSTRIAN LOAN.—VIENNA, FEB. 20.—1 am
enabled to give you positive information that the new loan,
so long talked of; was contracted for yesterday by the usual
firms. It is a five per cent. metallic stock, and the price
agreed on is 104, the contractors to have a jouissance of six
months' interest. Report says that the amount is forty mil-
lions of florins, and that the contractors are to have the option
of taking a similar amount at the same price six months
hence.—Chronicle. _ _ _

We arG. happy to announce that the health of
Viscount Torrington has much improved, indeed that it is
nearly quite repored.

LA.VF INTELLIGENCE.
ARCHES' COURT, March 2. •
(Before Sir H. JENNER FUST.)
THE COUNTESS DYSART v. EARL DYSART.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Consistorial
Court of London in a suit for the restitution of conjugal
rights, brought by the Earl Dysart against the Countess
Dysart, in which the Countess had been directed to return to
cohabitation. _ _

Sir H. JIENNER FUST proceeded today to deliver the judg-
ment of the Court. It appeared that the marriage took place
in 1819, and during a period of eighteen years the parties had
not lived together for periods of more than three years, at
various intervals. With whom was the fault? On the
patt of the Countess it was alleged that she could not live
with her husband but at the hazard of her life; and on
his part it was urged that the wife should comform to the
habits of her husband. The difficulty in this case, as in
others, was, the application of the general law. In " Evans
and Evans," Ist Haggard, it was said that if reasonable
apprehension existed of danger of life or limb, there was
ground for a divorce. In " Oliver v. Oliver," it was held
that everything, in legal construction, was sufficient which
tended to bodily harm. Whatever might have been the
origin of the quarrel, there was enough to satisfy the Court
that wilful violence was used upon the wife, from which
she had an undoubted right to be protected. In " Harris
v. Harris" the Court said that there must be something which
rendered cohabitation unsafe, or likely to be attended with
injury to the party. By these principles the Court must be
governed in the application of the law to this particular case.
If there had been actual cruelty er reasonable apprehension
from the conduct of the party, that was sufficient to entitle
the other party to the protection of the Court from a recur-
rence of the violence or that conduct which tended to pro-
duce bodily injury, and it was not necessary that the wife's
conduct should be altogether free from blame. What was
the state and condition of these parties at the time of
the marriage? The Earl and Countess were first cousins,
being the children of two sisters. The father of the Earl
was possessed of large estates, which were entailed on
the son, the present Earl, who, during
during his father's life,
was entirely dependent upon him. The marriage was
directly contrary to the express Wishes and opinions of the
father, and he refused to make any allowance. His son in
for 3,0001, during the
joint
r, and secured an annuity
consequenceofinlt,oll,oool. to
purchased
o f
hishhimself
eilff and
e shoauhnli4s fhtannuityhsu
ry
ive him. The e e
consi-
deration was 110,000/. This income was amply sufficient to
i
enable him to live in comfort and respectability. It bad
been said that the habits and
.tastes of Lord Dysart were
known to his wife before marriage to have been peculiar
and eccentric, and that she ought to have made up her
mind to conform to his wishes. But there was no
reason to suppose that those habits were to be
carried to such an extent as to deprive her of the
comforts of life. She could not have supposed that that
degree of economy would have been practised which would
deprive her of that to which she had been accustomed.
There was no reason to believe that she was anxious for
mare than was suitable to the fortune of her husband,
or that she was inclined to indulge in what had been called
the pleasures of a London life. There was no reason to
believe that the marriage was not one of mutual affec-
tion ; and there was nothing to reflect on the conduct
of the wife in expecting that she should be maintained
in decency and comfort, according to his income. It was
on the birth of a son that the first circumstance oc-
curred which appeared to have given offence to the Earl.
He then acted on the impression that the conduct
of his wife showed indifference towards him. After
that he was in the constant 'habit of swearing at and
abusing her. She was deprived of all authority in the
house; he was keeper of the stores; he gave them out as
he thought proper, and directed what supplies were to bt
furnished to his wife of articles of necessary consumption.
She had no fish, no poultry, and a joint of meat was only oc-
casionally dressed. He allowed her but one candle a night.
There was scarcely any fire in the drawing-room, and the
house and furniture were unfit for a lady. One witness said
she had known the Countess tremble at the sound of his fee;
on the stairs. It as there not, then, that degree of discomfit
which might have rendered it extremely dis3greeabh
for Lady Dysart to have cohabited under such circumstances?
Not that she was justified in leaving the house, but there
was grievous ground of complaint. It might have beet,
productive of inconvenience, it might have injured her
feelings, end to a certain degree affected her health ;
but still this was all to be borne. There were
other circumstances, however, of a more serious cha-
racter. His Lordship was heard abusing Lady Dysart, and
on the door being opened she was found in a fainting fit, and
said she bad received a kick from her husband. On another
occasion she was heard screaming out murder, and on another
he was seen pushing her out of the dressing-room. This wa:
the history of the parties up to 1827. From 1827 to 1834,
there was no residence together. In 1834 there was cohabi-
tation for a few days in Hyde Park-gardens. In 1536 she
returned to the residence of her husband, and the same
general system of degradation and insult was charged to have
been practised towards her. On the 23d January there wa,
no doubt there was an act of legal violence. Upon the whole.
therefore, notwithstanding the respect to which the opinioi,
of the Judge of the Court below was entitled, and which hao
induced him to give longer time to the consideration of thi:
case, he must reverse the sentence of the Court below, and
pronounce for the separation of the parties.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT. _

(Before the LORD CHIEF &ism and Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
Dr. Cronin, who stands charged with the manslaughter of
Sarah Ellen Collyer, and whose case, as it appeared on the
coroner's inquest, excited considerable interest, applied by his
counsel, Mr. Clarkson, this morning for a postponement of
his trial till next session, which was conceded by the Court.
Dr. Cronin was admitted to bail on Saturday last by Mr.
Baron Parke.

Jeremiah Hayes, described in the calendar as a labourer,
aged 26, was put to the bar under an indictment for feloni•
ously and indecently assaulting Mary Finn, a child under ten
years of age, on the Ist of February last.
The details were of such a nature as be Unfit for publica-
tion. The object of the prisoner was clearly of the most
beastly and criminal description, but nature interposed be-
fore it was fully accomplished.
The. verdict of the jury found the prisoner guilty only of
an indecent assault, and he was sentenced to 18 months' im-
prisonment and hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENC'.
BOW-STREET.

Major Bartholomew Beniowski, the celebrated Polish Re-
fugee, and teacher of phrenotypics, was placed at the bar
before Mr. Henry, charged with comtnitting a violent asmult
on Mr. David Urquhart, at the Freemason's Tavern, whirg
at the meeting held there last evening—on the subject of
Polish affairs.
Mr. Anstey, barrister, appeared for the complainant, and
Mr. Wolf, as attorney for the defendant.
The complainant said, that having attended the meeting
with a friend, be was going away at about half-past five
o'clock, when the prisoner, who was till then unknown to
him, met him in the vestibule, and asked him to speak with
him for a moment. He (complainant) asked him what his
name was,i and
m e
dy followed him,
theat
el
g" Buepnoino ws
him,
and would i ,
he turned away and went towards the entrance. The
prisonerm
have seized him by the throat, but that he
bowed his _head so as to meet defendant's grasp with the
lower part of his face. The prisoner having thus caught
him with both hands, gave him a " wrench ' by which his
face was severely lacerated, and the skin torn from his lips,
cheeks, and lower part of his face by pressure. He bled
profusely
knowledge
t of the
prisoner,
i me.He had
butno
knewdoubt the defendant's
dbeyfernedpauntatis
intenion was to seize him by the throat. He had no
personal
tion. No blows were struck on either side.
Mr. Urquhart, in cross-examination by Mr. Wolf, ad-
mitted that some years ago he had said of the defendant that
he was a spy. lie had also said, in a pamphlet which was
published in 1840, that Major Beniowski was a Polish Jew,
who had been employed by Russia to foment insurrections in
central Asia, and that he was at that moment acting as a
spy in London, and organising the Chartist disturbances for
the purposes of Russia. He had made this statement, be-
lieving it to be true, and still believed it to be true.
The Rev. J. Hamilton Grey and James Hays, complain-
ant's servant, corroborated his statement.
The Major, being called upon for his defence, said that he
could not deny any part of what had been stated against
him' though he had something to add. About six years
ago his attention was called to a pamphlet written by Mr.
Urquhart, in which that gentleman attacked him as a Spy of
the Emperor Nicholas. He bad a very great respect for Mr.
Urquhart, and he was only sorry that so good a man should
be so misled, and should injure his own cause by maligning
one of its advocates. He (Beniowski) had endeavoured to
find Mr. Urquhart for the purpoe of having an explanation
with him, and convincing him that he was wrong, but had
failed. At one time he (Beniowski) designed to bring an action
for libel against him, but was prevented by his poverty.
Having seen the complainant by accident at the meeting
last night, it occurred to him that he would speak to him.
and have such an explanation as he had long desired. When
he was contemptuously repulsed by Mr. Urquhart he was
much annoyed, and followed the complainant, intending to
detain him and press the conversation. He laid his hand on
Mr. Urquhart's shoulder, and that gentleman turned round
and made a blow at him with a stick, which he carried in his
hand. Then he committed the assault described, and he was
glad when he was taken into custody, that he had an oppor-
tunity of confronting him. He could not but regret the as-
sault, which he knew was not justifiable under any circum-
stances.
Mr. HENRY committed the prisoner for trial, admitting
him to bail in his own recognisances of 401, and two sureties
in 201. each.