The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-13 00:00:00

assuming it to be true, showed that the parties were in
a state of great irritation, and that Mr. Williams had
used very improper threats, but alone it was not suffi-
cient to found a decree. On the 22d July differences
re specting some very trivial matters took place between
then parties, and on the 24th another conversation en-
sued, in which Mr. Williams insisted upon his wife re-
canting the expression " hypocritical fellow." That she
declined to do, and he then used words, if Miss Tides-
well was to be credited, which no one would attempt to
justify. According to the same witness, his conduct on
that occasion was very outrageous, and he threatened to
destroy everything in the house, but it did not appear
that any act of personal violence towards his wife was
committed. In consequence of that occurrence Mrs.
Williams became unwell, and was confined to her bed
and room. These circumstances might be material, as
showing the probability of future conduct more intem-
perate and violent, but did not call for particular
investigation. The Bth article charged a threat of
personal violence on the 10th of August, and adeclara-
tion said to be made by Mr. Williams, that he hoped he
should be able to keep his bands off his wife. Miss
Tideswell deposed that Mr. Williams desired the
footboy to bring a bucket of water that minute to
throw over his mistress, and that rvas confirmed
by Sarah Jacob.. Whether Mr. Williams really in-
tended to commit the act of violence he threatened was
a question which no tribunal could satisfactorily decide,
but the inevitable consequence must have been to excite
great alarm in the breast of Mrs. Williams, and naturally
and justly to occasion apprehension of personal ill-usage.
lie (the Learned Judge) was of opinion that that charge
was proved. After that occurrence, Mrs. Williams re-
mained in her bed-room, or Miss Tideswell's, until the
17th of August, when the circumstance took place which
ended in her quitting the house. The evidence of Miss
Tideswell as to the commencement of the transactions of
the 17th of August was not very favourable to Mrs.
Williams. It was not very prudent to have a door locked
which was to be opened immediately on Mr. Williams
knocking, and still less so to renew the former quarrel,
by reminding Mr. Williams of his threat to throw the
bucket of water ; it savoured rather of resentment than
fear. Mrs. Williams quitted the sitting-room and went
to the bed-room, which was then locked, but on Mr.
Williams coming it was opened, and a scene of
abuse and swearing followed. Whether Mr. Williams
actually struck his wife, and whether he did so inten-
tionally, had been matter of much discussion. If
Miss Tideswell was to be believed, he grasped her
neck with his hands, and she heard a gurgling in her
throat. Both their faces were covered with blood. He
(the Learned Judge) had no hesitation in saying
that, even on the supposition that Mr. Williams in-
tended the violence for one of the servants, and that Mrs.
Williams only incidentally partook of it, there was no-
thing appearing on the face of the evidence that could
justify it. Such deficiency of self-command rendered
future personal violence more than probable. Accord.
ing to the evidence of Sophia Neale, on interrogatory,
there was no violence towards any one; all that hap-
pened was, that Mrs. Williams slipped off the ottoman,
and Mr. Williams tried, but could not succeed, in lifting
her up again. The Court could not understand why
that witness had not been examined in chief, and from
her very limited cross-examination the Court was sub-.
stantially deprived of her testimony. Another witness
examined was Sarah Jacobs; but he considered her pre-
sent statement to be deliberate perjury, and her evidence
must be blotted out of the case altogether. It was not the
law, and never could be, that, because a party produced
a witness, they should therefore be bound by it, what-
ever it might be. Miss Tideswell deposed to her and
her aunt going to the window on the 17th of August,
and screaming " Murder murder." Whilst they were
thus screaming, Mr. Williams pulled Mrs. Williams
violently away from the window, slammed it down, and,
turning round, said to her emit, accompanied with oaths,
" I'll give ityou for screaming murder," and he then struck
and knocked her down, after which the man-servant
John came into the room. The men John had not been
examined on either side, and the Court had some right
to complain of it. Mr. Williams had given no responsive
plea, and examined no witnesses—a very singular course
in such a ease. Was Miss Tideswell corroborated as to
the main fact, that of personal violence? If the evidence
of Thomas Cox, a servant in an adjoining house, and
who deposed to seeing the blow from a window, was to
be believed, the proof of personal violence, and of the
grossest kind, was undeniable. An exceptive allega-
gation, however, had been pleaded to his evidence, which
pleaded that it was impossible he could have seen what
he had sworn be did see, from his own house, and the
part of the house he described himself to have been in.
In such cases it was necessary to show that the witness
was perjured. Mr. Cotton, a surveyor of no very great
experience, being only 24 years of age, had made a plan
of the premises, and sworn that the statement of Cox
was in part incorrect ; that it was impossible for him
to have seen Mrs. Williams on the floor or Mr. Williams
strike her. On comparing the two statements, however,
it appeared to him (the Learned Judge), that there was
only an apparent contradiction between them. He was
of opinion that Cex was not in the slightest degree dis-
credited ; but when Mr. Hardwick's evidence was taken
into consideration, there was really no longer room for
doubt. It appeared to him (Dr. Lushington), therefore,
that the acts of violence charged against Mr. Williams
on the 17th of August were established by the evidence
of two witnesses, both entitled to credit. These acts of
violence were of so gross a description that they tell
under the definition of legal cruelty in the strictest sense
of the term, and they were not justified by any provo-
cation proved to have been given by Mrs. Williams.
Enough was proved to entitle Mrs. Williams to
the decree of that Court, separating her from her
husband.

CONSISTORY COURT OF ROCHESTER,
August 11.
(Before Dr. LUSUINGTON.)
IVEY V. IVEY.
This was a suit for a divorce, promoted by Mrs. Ivey
against her husband, on the ground of cruelty and adul-
tery. It appeared that there was a great disparity of
aze between the parties, Mrs. Ivey being many years
older than her husband, and possessing a handsome for-
tune settled upon her for her own use.
Dr. ADAMS (with whom was Dr. Bayford) submitted
that the adultery was fully proved. It was true that
up to a certain period their had been condonation on
the part of the wife, but the adultery, he argued, had
been revived by subsequent acts, and also by acts of
cruelty.
Dr. DEANE rested the defence on the alleged condo-
nation of the adultery, and the impossibility of bringing
the cruelty charged within the legal definition of that
term.

The Learned JUDGE intimated to Dr. Adams that he
considered the adultery proved, but he was of opinion
that the acts of cruelty were not sufficient to justify him
in pronouncing for a divorce on that ground.
Dr. ADAMS admitted that the acts of cruelty per se
were nut sufficient to entitle his party to her prayer. He
would therefore abandon that part of the case.
The Learned JUDGE then signed the sentence of sepa-
ration on the ground of adultery only.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, August 11.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
FOX V. COLLINGWOOD.
This was a summons under the sth and 6th Viet.,
for the purpose of getting the defendant declared bank-
rupt unless ho paid the sum claimed.
An objection was taken to the heading of the sum-
mons, which was simply Court of Bankruptcy.
The COURT was at first of opinion that that was suf-
ficient, as all the other courts were district courts ; but
ultimately held, that under the 24th rule, made by the
Lord Chancellor, it was necessary that it should be
stated that it was the Court of Bankruptcy, London.
His HONOUR also decided on a second objection, that
the initials, or the abbreviation of the name of the plain-
tiff in his signature, was not sufficient, although it fol-
lowed, " I the undersigned William Fox."
The summons was therefore discharged.
CONTEMPT OF COURT.—AISTROP V. SOLOMON.
In this case the defendant, who had been summoned
under the Small Debts Act, was committed for contempt
of Court. The summons was originally returnable, on
the Ist inst., but the defendant, on being served, said he
was " too busy to attend the Court.', The Commis-
sioner suggested that a notice should be given, so that
he might not be ignorant of the consequence of not at-
tending ; but, on receiving it, the same answer was re-
ceived.
The Learned COMMISSIONER, therefore, ordered the
commitment to be enforced.

SECONDARIES' COURT, August 12.
(Before Mr. Secondary Pops En.)
ASSAULT. -- NEYLAND V. PE.ARsoN.
This was an action to recover damages for an assault. Mr.
12.5 land appeared for the plaintiff. and Dlr. Sergeant Jones for
the defendant, who suffered judgment to go by default.
The facts of the case, as elicited from the plaintiff's wit-
nesses, were these : —The plaintiff is a dealer in Bass's Indian
ales, and the defendant a licensed victualler, keeping the
Mitre, in Chancery-lane. On the 6th of July last the
plaintiff took six dozen of ale, and charged it at six
shillings a dozen, which the defendant objected to, and
said that it was agreed when the dozen was sent as a
sample that it should be only ss. 6d. per dozen, and he
would not pay any more, and plaintiff might take it away
again, on which plaintiff called him a d—d humbug, &c., kc.,
and said he would not do so. Defendant told him not to
repeat the offensive words, which, however, he 'did, and
defendant then went round the corner and struck him in
the face. It was act pretended that the injury was severe,
but plaintiff went to an attorney a short distance
away, who immediately sent a letter requiring com-
pensation for the injury and an apology, also
payment for the beer, and the next day writs were issued.
Defendant paid for the beer, but determined to take the
opinion of the jury as to the assault.
Mr. Sergeant -JONES contended, that although the de-
fendant could not justify the assault, yet that, if the jUry
sanctioned such conduct by their verdict, they would be
encouraging actions of this kind, and no tradesman would be
safe from insults and imposition.
The jury retired for two hours, and at three o'clock gave
51. damages.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD CIRCUIT.— Gloucester, Aug. 11.
No case of any interest whatever occurred in the Civil
Court to• day. The indictment of the Queen against
Robinson, clerk, is appointed to be taken to-morrow
morning.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice MAULE.)
Eliza Cross, aged 24, was placed at the bar to take
her trial on an indictment and a coroner's inquisition
charging her with the murder of ber newly-born illegi-
timate female child, on the 17th of May last.
Mr. Skinner appeared for the prosecution, the prisoner
was defended by Mr. Symons.
The prisoner, who was an ironer to a washerwoman
named Mrs. Rowley, slept on the night in question with
her fellow-servant, Sarah Young, who had long sus-
pected her of being pregnant, but had received denials
to every question she had put to her on the subject. The
prisoner, on the morning of the day in question, got up
6,4weeia four end fire o'clock, and went down stain, and