The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-26 00:00:00

LAW

ENCE.

ARCHES' COURT, June 24.
(Before Sir H. J. FusT.)
WILSON V. WILSON.

This was a suit for divorce, by reason of cruelty,
promoted by Mrs. Ann Wilson against her husband,
who resides at P4shore, in the diocese of Worcester.
The cause was brought to this court by letters of
request. A libel Was given in on behalf of Mrs.
Wilson, and witnesses examined upon it. No de-
fensive plea was tendered by Mr. Wilson, but he
interrogated the witnesses adduced by his wife.
The parties were married in May, 1817, and
cohabited together until September, 1833, when in
consequence of Mr. Wilson's misconduct a deed of
separation was drawn up, by which it was agreed
that he should allow his wife 451. per annum; but
this sum, as alleged by Mrs. Wilson, not being
regularly paid, notwithstanding he had received a
large accession to his income, making a gross
amount exceeding 1,8001. a year, she instituted a suit
in 1847 for the restitution of conjugal rights, and he
was decreed to take her home. He provided her with
a house next door to his own residence, and occasionally
took a small portion of food there, under the sem-
blance, as was pleaded, of complying with the order
of the Court. The charges of cruelty embraced two
periods—that inflicted prior to the separation in
1833; and that which occurred in the time intevening
between the return to cohabitation and the final se-
paration in October, 1847.
Dr. PHILLIMORE contended that the cruelty ante-
rior to the first separation was clearly and distinctly
proved, and that from its aggravated character it
mounted to legal scevitice. There was not only great
harshness, and the frequent use of most insulting lan-
guage, but he several times struck her violent blows.
On one occasion he jammed her head, according to a
witness, against the cellar door, and caused the blood
to flow from her nose. If those facts had been
brought before the Court, in 1838, it would have had
no difficulty in granting the separation ; and the
only question was whether there was not a sufficient
revival of that cruelty by the subsequent acts. Mr.
Wilson was ordered to take his wife back, and treat
her with conjugal affection ; but what had been
his conduct towards her ? Although he had an ad-
mitted income of 1,8001. per annum, he allowed
her only one servant, who was entrusted
with the entire management of the household affairs.
.His conduct was so bad that the servant used to
make a point of stopping in the room when Mr.
Wilson was there, in order to protect the wife from
his violence, and he sometimes said that he so treated
her in order to get rid of her. When suffering from
a bad foot, he deprived her of fruit in the garden,
which was deemed necessary, and said he must sell
it to pay for the servant. He shook his hands back-
wards and forwards before her face, and thrust a
csmdle so near her that it was difficult to prevent him
burning her, in fact, he kept her in a state of con-
stant alarm. He said he would not strike her, but
would go as far as he could. He did not accompany
that declaration with violence, but with threatening
and most abusive language. Another witness de-
posed that he used to clench his fist and strike it on
the table, but she added, that he did not shake his fist
at his wife. It was impossible, however, that Mrs. Wil-
son could return to cohabitation without danger to her
life. Insinuations were made against the wife of in-
toxication and infidelity in the interrogatories, but
they had not been put in plea, so that the wife was
unable to answer them, and the witnesses had nega-
.tired them. He (Dr. Phillimore) admitted that the
former cruelty had been condoned by the return to
cohabitation, but he submitted that it had been
revived. The whole of the evidence tended to show
that Mrs. Wilson was a lady of great mildness and
gentleness of temper, and by abstaining as long as
she could from exposing her husband had placed her-
self in a favourable position before the Court. Ac-
cording to the principle laid down in " Westmeath v.
Westmeath," (2 Hogg,) former deeds would be
revived by subsequent misconduct of a slighter
nature than the original cruelty. The conduct of
Mr. Wilson had been outrageous, affronting, indecent,
and insulting to an extraordinary degree ; the home
of Mrs. Wilson had been wretched and miserable,
and he trusted that the Court would not send her
back to cohabitation which must end in the ruin of
her health and the misery of her life.
Dr. ADDAMS followed on the same side.
Dr. JENNEE said, that the simple question which
the Court had to decide was, whether or not since the
return of .Mrs. Wilson to cohabitation her husband
had bean gullty of cruelty to such a degree as to
entitle ths- wife to the sentence she now prayed for.
He subinit'e.i that he had not. What was it that in-
duced this lady- to institute the suit for the restitution
of conjugal rights ? Her object was doubtless to ob-
tain a larger amount of alimony than 451 a year.
But whatever the reason might be the parties had
lived together for a period of six months, and it was
proved that Mrs. Wilson had said that she wrote a
letter to her attorney every day ; that she kept a re-
gular journal, and if she could procure an additional
allowance she would pay the debts of a relative. The
frequent absence of Mr. Wilson from the house occu-
pied by his wife, and the not partaking of his meals
there, arose from his pursuits as a farmer. It ap-
peared that when the candle was put in the lady's face
she only laughed at it, so that she could not have anti-
cipated any danger. He admitted that there might have
been a want of affection on the part of Mr. Wilson,
but it was not likely that after the parties had been
separated for fourteen years they would live together
very comfortably. Mrs. Wilson could not expect that
her husband would be all at once converted into an
angel. There had been harsh language used by him,
and it was not his (Dr. Jenner's) intention to justify
it ; but hard words, according to a doctrine laid down
in that court, broke no bones. Not the slightest fear
need be apprehended that there was any danger to
life, health, or limb. Ile refrained from entering into
a consideration of the former cruelty, because he con-
tended that nothing had occurred during the renewed
cohabitation to revive it. The dictum of the Learned
Judge in " Westmeath v. 'Westmeath" had no bear-
ing on the present case. There the husband entreated
his wife to remain with him, but here the return of
the wife to cohabitation was voluntary. The life of
Mrs. Wilson might have been rendered very uncom-
fortable, but beyond that the case did not go; and if
the Court granted the wife's prayer, it would be car-
rying the doctrine applicable to these cases to a
greater extent than had ever been done before.
Dr. BAYFORD was heard on the same side.
Dr. PHILLIMORE and Dr. ADDAMS briefly replied.
The Learned JUDGE said, it really appeared to him
that the case lay within a very narrow compass.
With the deed of separation he had nothing to do.
The Court could not inquire on what grounds Mr.
and Mrs. Wilson had lived separate and apart, nor
upon what principle it was that 45/. per annum had
been allowed her. The ill-treatment to which the
wife had been subjected from the time of marriage
up to the first separation was sufficient to create ap-
prehension that the same cruelty would be resorted to
on her return to cohabitation, even if it fell short of
absolute personal violence. It was impossible not
to see that gross cruelty had been prac-
tised towards this lady from 1821 to 18a3.
One of the witnesses had seen the husband aim blows
at her, and something strike her. Without the
slightest provocation on Mr. Wilson's part he once
struck her, aad a black eye supervened on the blow.
On other occasions he struck her with his open hand.
He was frequently in a violent passion, and had
attempted to push her down stairs even when he was
not in that state. There had been no denial of these
facts, and no attempt to excuse them. The epithets
applied by Mr. Wilson to his wife were most oppro-
brious. He (the Learned Judge) would say nothing
as to the mode in which the lady had been received
on her return to cohabitation ; the usual certificate
was exhibited, and no complaint was made until after
the final separation. Was Mr. Wilson emendatus
moribus during the period that she resided with him
the second time? On the contrary, there was con-
stant abuse, unkindness, and harshness, and a series
of acts of personal violence. There were reasons
connected with his occupation which might, particu-
larly during harvest, prevent him taking his
meals with his wife ; but he had by a variety of
acts sought to annoy her. If there was any
truth at all in the insinuations contained in the
interrogatories, the facts ought to have been pleaded
so that Mrs. Wilson might have had an oppor-
tunity of replying to them ; but in his (Sir H. J.
Punt's) opinion there was no ground for them what-
ever. It was true that Mrs. Wilson some times laughed
when her husband had recourse to conduct which
was now charged against him ; but the reason she
assigned for it was, that had she acted otherwise he
would have subjected her to still greater cruelty, and
the Court saw no reason to
doubt the truth of her
statement. 'The shaking of his fist in her face, and
the striking of the table with the clenched hand,
showed a malignant disposition on his part towards
his wife. The holding a candle to her face was
not clearly proved. of
here , owever, enough i
theconduct of Mr. Wilson to excite terror and alarm.n
had
If the case had rested on what
occurred
have
since the
renewal of the cohabitation, there
might been
some difficulty in pronouncing that there
was
iansubac.
stantive case of cruelty to justify the Court
ceding to the wife's prayer; but; looking to what took
place in the former part of the cohabitation, there
was every reason to apprehend that Mr. Wilson would
renew his violence. He had no hesitation in saYing
that the case was sufficiently proved, and in signing
.the sentence of separation.
Sentence signed accordingly.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, June 24.
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
THE CHARTIST LEADERi.—According to notice
served by Mr. James Macnamara, solicitor, Lincoln's Inn-
fields, on Friday, on the Solicitor to the Treasury and the
Governor of Newgate, Mr. Toseph Irenseus John Fussell
appeared before Mr. 'Justice Erle, this day, in order
that his sureties might be ersmined as to their sufficiency

to become bail for his appearance at the Old Bailey in the
July sessions next ensuing.
Mr. Thomas Lister, watch-case finisher, 51, Percival-
street, Clerkenwell, was immediately accepted, and Mr.
William Gazeley, builder, 9, Grange-road, Camden
Town, after a slight opposition by Mr. Hayward on the
part of the Crown, was also accepted.
Mr. Fussell, then entered into his own recognizances
for the sum of 3001., and his above-named sureties in the
sum of 1001 each.

Mr. Fussell was looking exceedingly well. He is now
the second out o❑ bail, Ernest Charles Jones being
liberated on Friday.

POLICE INT ELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

On Saturday, a young man of respectable ap-
pearance, named Alfred Grogan, for some time con-
nected with the metropolitan theatres, was charged
with forging orders of admission to the pit of Her
Majesty's Theatre, and obtaining money upon them.
Mr. C. Nugent, box-office keeper, and manager of
the free list department at Her Majesty's Theatre,
stated, that the prisoner had sold several tickets to
different persons without the sanction of Mr. Lumley,
the signatures of which were all forgeries, there
being no such persons as those represented connected
with the establishment.
Sergeant Bray, A 21, stated, that he had been em-
ployed by the treasurer, Mr. Robinson, to make in-
quiries respecting the forgeries, and having suspicions
of the prisoner, he went to him at a public-house in
Leather-lane, when, after questioning him on the
subject, he admitted at once that he had written
the orders, one of which was sold for ten shillings
by a man to whom he gave it for the purpose.
He also said he had written and signed five
orders of admission, mentioning the persons who
had purchased them. These were Mr. Emanuel,
of Gee's-court, Oxford-street, to whom one was sold
for 43. 9d.; Mr. Bennett, for 4s. 6d. ; Mr. Wilson,
a publican in Drury-lane, for ss. ; and Mr. Jones, of
Howland-street, for 2s. 6d. It was through the last
individual that the prisoner was discovered. Witness
had known the prisoner and his family for years.
They were all connected with the theatres, his father
having been a box-keeper at the patent theatres and
the Lyceum. Prisoner told him he was driven to the
forgeries by poverty.
Mr. C. Bennett, a bootmaker, of No. 3, Tavistoek-
row, Covent- garden, stated that he had known the
prisoner and all his family for a long time. He
called upon him a few days back, and said he had a
ticket for the pit of Her Majesty's Theatre to dispose
of, and he wished to know whether witness knew
any one who would buy it. Witness replied he
did not, but he would try what he could do.
The prisoner said it was a press order, and as he
was going to Greenwich and could not use it
he would sell it for five shillings. After the
prisoner had gone a gentleman named Sherwell
came to hisshop, and
agreed to purchase it. The
prisoner returned in the evening, and witness told
him to take his order to Mr. Sherwell's residence.
He left for that purpose, but returned shortly after,
saying that Mr. Sherwell was from home. Witness
then agreed to give him the money for the order, and
he sent it by his errand-bay to Mr. Sherwell's house.
He afterwards heard that it was a forgery.
Mr. Nugent stated that the prisoner and his father
had both been employed by Mr. Lumley. The pri-
soner had the
.care of the coats and cloaks. He had
no authority whatever to write orders for Her Ma-
jesty's Theatre. The five orders produced were all
forgeries. One of them, which had been sold to a
Mr. Jones for 2s. 6d.,' was brought to witness at the
box-office in the daytime by Mr. Jones, who in-
quired whether it was all right, as he had purchased
it at so small a sum, and was rather suspicious. This
led to the discovery of the other forgeries. The
orders had all been 'presented at the free-list office
and returned as forged. They were signed with dif-
ferent names, such as Johnson, &c.—no such names
being in the books.
Mr. HENRY inquired what the prisoner had to say
to the charge, which had been clearly brought home
to him ?—The prisoner replied, that he had been driven
to it by poverty,
Mr. HENRY requested Mr. Nugent to inform Mr.
Lumley that, as he would have to employ a solicitor
to prosecute, it would be as well he should attend the
next examination, as the case was of some nicety. The
prisoner could either be tried for forgery, or for ob
taining money under false pretences.
Remanded until twelve o'clock on Wednesday.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

James B. soord, a very young man, who has been
assuming the title of viscount, and who states himself
to be a lieutenant in the Madras Cavalry and a nephew
of Sir Fitzroy Kelly, was brought before Mr. Hard-
wick, charged with having obtained money by false
and fraudulent pretences.
Mr. Joseph Lane, hotel keeper, St. Alban's-place,
Haymarket, said, on Thursday afternoon the prisoner
came to his house and asked if he could be accommo-
dated with apartments. Witness said his rooms
were full, but he gave him a recommendation to a
lodging-house, 08, Haymarket, where the prisoner
was accommodated. The following morning the
prisoner came to his house and asked to see him. The
prisoner offered him a cheque for 151., and wished to
know if he could cash it. Seeing the cheque was
only a written cheque, he told him it was not his
practice to cash cheques, but if he would write a
proper cheque he should then know what he was
about. The prisoner, then named two gentlemen
who frequented the room, and said he was known to
them. The prisoner then wrote out a second cheque,
and on the representations he made witness was in-
duced to advance 51., promising that the pri-
soner should have the remainder in a few
hours if he found all right. Witness after-
wards saw the gentlemen whom the prisoner
had named, and they denied all knowledge of
the prisoner. Witness then sent his porter to Gard-
ner and Urquhart's, St. Helen's-place, with the
cheque. When it was presented the party was told
there were no effects, and that the prisoner was not
known to them. The name of Colonel Morgan was
on the face of the cheque, but he was not known to
Messrs. Gardner and Co.

Thomas Cooper, porter, proved that the cheque
was refused payment by Messrs. Gardner and CO.
He was told at St. Helen's-place that the drawer of
the cheque ought to be taken to a police-court.
In reply to the charge, the prisoner said that Col.
Morgan was his intimate friend, and that he had
_ _

served under him for a considerable time, and if the
cheque had been presented to Colonel Morgan it would
have been paid. He had been told at the East India
House that Colonel Morgan was to be found at St.
Helen's-place.
Mr. Lane said, this was not true. He held in his
hand a letter from Messrs. Gardner and Co., which he
had received the previous evening, advisinghim to be on
his guard against the prisoner, as they had received a
second draught for 201. signed by the prisoner, who
had endeavoured to pass it away, but without success.
The next charge was preferred by Mrs. Elizabeth
Heylin, 68, Haymarket, who said the prisoner came
to her house on Thursday evening last, recommended
by Mr. Lane. The prisoner took one of her apart-
ments, and shortly afterwards asked her for the sum
of 21. She said she had nothing less than a 10/. note.
He then wrote out a cheque for 101. on Messrs.
Grindley and Co., Cornhill, and she gave him the
10/. note, he promising- to return the money the next
morning.r The prisoner went out, and when he re-
turned he wanted to borrow 101. more, which witness
refused to lend. The prisoner then stated he was
going to Mr. Lane, who had promised to cash a
the 1
cheque for 25i
0/. cheque. to Messrs. Grindley and Co.; and the
Witness's brother-in-law presented
answer was, that they knew nothing about the pri-
soner, nor i‘ad
they a
, Piccadilly, hands. Witness saw, nothing more of the prisoner
awa
a 5,,,,, nt ,
teiiilmoney at all of his in their
until that morning,
he found he was in custody.
The next case
0107. Hemming, shirt-
maker. y, wshoonesraisdaitdhe prisoner
andawaonmd
woman
hloetheimere
to
his
on Friday night and
aonmdewshithinretesswslyotoionllgdd
was forthcomingthey
were.
Witness called in the Haymarket on Friday night,
and found that the prisoner had gone away.
Police-constable Checkley apprehended the prisoner
in a brothel in Oxenden-street on Saturday morning.
He told the prisoner the nature of the charge, and
then took him to the station-house.
The prisoner, in defence, said he told Mrs. Heylin
that she was not to present.the cheque until Monday,
on which day be should have money lodged to meet
it. He did not know why he should be brought to
that court.

Mr. HARDWICK said the charge:wore a serious as-
pect, and he should remand him until Tuesday next
(to-morrow), but would take bail.
The prisoner,:after, great resistance., was removed
to prison.

WORSHIP-STREET.
Saturday being the day appointed for the re-exami-
nation of George Hart, who stood charged upon his
own confession with having been implicated in the
murder of the unfortunate child Henry Lazarus, the
court was crowded to inconvenience by members of
the Jewish persuasion, and other; inhabitants of the
district, who manifested the warmest interest in the
proceedings.
To elucidate the evidence now brought forward in
support of the charge, it is necessary briefly to advert
to an anonymous letter received by the police, bearing
the initials "J. J.," and denouncing the prisoner in
direct terms as the principal in the murder, but in
reference to which the prisoner subsequently declared
that, although he had certainly been present upon the
occasion, the real perpetrator of the dreadful act was
a man named John Jervis, who had no doubt written
the letter in the hope of fixing upon another the fear-
ful consequences of his own culpability.
Sergeant Sanders stated, that while keeping watch