The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-14 00:00:00

THI fl N, LONDON,

gued that the reference to the Master assumed that
something was due, whereas his finding negatived that
assumption, and by so doing the Master had exceeded
his povvi r. In this case the company had adopted the
work performed by Nixon, and the very use of the rail-
way would amount to an adoption. The decree was
confined to matters under the contract; and it was final
and binding upon the Master, who could not, under a re-
ference to take an account of what extra works were
done, answer that there were no extra works of any sort
or description. On behalf of the company, and in support
of the Master's finding, it was admitted by Mr. Rolt
and Mr. W. M. James that the Master was precluded
from considering whether these were extra works or nut,
because the terms of the contract were that they wore to
be extra works " under the contract No. 10." They
submitted that the Court would not allow the plaintiff
to enter into the consideration, whether independently of
the contract there had been acquiescence or adoption by
the company, which would place the plaintiff in as good
a position as though it had been decided expressly that
the works had been done under the contract. The term
" extra " works was ambiguous, inasmuch as it in-
cluded everything that was not done under the contract.
There were four kinds of works—First, those wi,hin
the contract price ; secondly, extra works, ordered
in writing in the manner provided for by the con-
tract ; thirdly, works referred to in a clause of the
contract, as alterations and additions in the works at
connect price ; and, fourthly, works not within the
contract. It was argued that nothing could be
called " extra" work under the contract, unless it
was mentioned or referred to in the suecification.
The Master's finding was quite in accordance with
the eh cr. e. If the plaintiff were right in his argumeni,
he would be entitled to be paid for his work as " extra,"
although no order whatever had been given, which was
a proposition wholly untenable. The words "extra
works," as used in the plaintiffs bill, clearly meant such
works executed " under the contract." Upon the excep-
tions it was found convenient to depart from that defi-
nition. It was dcubtful, at the time the bill was filed,
whether such works, not done under a contract, could be
rt covered for at law. The statement in the company's
answer of an admission that there were extra works to
the amount of 3,0001., for which they were liable to pay,
was not an admission that they were done " under the
contract;" and this was the question before the Master.
The argument of the plaintiff might be reduced to this
syllogism :—it was established before the Master that no
order had been given; this company admitted that 3,0001.
worth of work had been done " under the contract;"
therefore the company had admitted that there might be
extra works done under the contract without an order
in writing. The fallacy of this reasoning, and the case
which was founded upon it, was obvious.
The further arguments occupied the Court the whole
day.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
ALCOCK V. ROYAL EXCHANGE INSURANCE COMPANY.
This case occupied the whole of the morning. The
question at issue is how far an insurance office is respon-
sible to defray the injury to a ship when it is caused by
the intemperance or neglect of the captain, and also
whether evidence of this kind ca❑ be given at the trial.
The case is likely to occupy the greater part of the
day.

EXCHEQUER.—(TI-1 IS DAY.)
:Sittings at Nisi Pries at Westminster, before Mr. Baron
PLATT and a Common Jury.)
CHIN. CON.—PRATT V. FLETCHER.

The trial of this case, which was brought to recover
compensation in damages for criminal intercourse with
the plaintiff's wife, was resumed this morning, when the
case for the plaintiff was proceeded with.
Thomas Price, examined by Mr. Aimisoti—Said he
was " boots" at the Portland coffee-shop, Castle-street,
in September last. Recollected a lady coming on a

Thursday evening to the shop. She had luggage with
her, consisting of a box, a bundle, and a basket, and he
took them up to No. 7, which was a bedroom. Saw the
lady at the bar writing a note. Did not see a gentleman
in the evening, but did so in the morning. Called him
at six o'clock in the morning in room No. 7, where he
was sleeping, and saw him after he came down. He had
a cup of coffee and went away, and returned again about
eleven o'clock. He then went for a cab and came back
with it. Witness brought down the luggage, and the
lady and gentleman got into the cab and drove away.
Saw the gentleman again about a fortnight afterwards
at his house at iloxton. That gentleman was Mr.
Fletcher, the defendant; had no doubt of his identity.
By the COURT—The gentleman's hair was dark, and
he was about the middle age—about 28 years.
The JUDGE—That is what you call the middle age?
—Yes.
Mr. HUIVIFREY-4 hope you won't take that down as a
fact.—(Laughter.)
By the COURT—The gentleman was rather thin, but
did not take particular notice of the lady.
John Farrow examined by the Learned JUDGE—
The plaintiff and his wife resided in my house five
weeks. I am always at home; thank God, I have no-
thing to do, having retired from business.— (Laughter,)
I had opportunities of observing the conduct of the hus-
band and wife constantly. He always left about a
quarter before nine in the morning, and returned at six
in the evening, and frequently sooner. Her habit during
that time was to go in and out, but she endeavoured
always to be at home when her husband returned. After
:he first week she went out nearly every day. She ap-
peared happy and delighted to see him when he came
hemp, and they kissed each other in the morning when
he left and shaked hands.—(Laughter.) He was re-
markably steady ; never observed any pr, fligacy
about him. He never slept out at night. Indeed,
they were the happiest couple I ever had seen.
He seemed to be over-fond of her, and that is the fact.—
(Lsughter.) When he knew of her infidelity, he was
more like a madman than a man in his senses. He cried
like a child, and did not appear to know what he
was doing.
Eliza Heath examined by Mr. BARON PLATT—Re-
membered the gentleman who slept at the coffee-shop;
he had dark hair, and dark eyes, and a pale complexion,
and was inclined to be stout. lle was about twenty-eight.
Remembered something being said about the key to the
box when they went away in the cab. The lady said she
could not get it out. Had no doubt, whatever, that the
gentleman was Mr. Fletcher.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. HUMFREY then addressed the jury on the part of
the defendant. He admitted that the charge against the
defendant was the most serious which one man could
commit against another, and in that respect it was a
peculiar action, and the law regarded it with peculir
formality. He complained that no one of the plaintiff's
sisters, or any female, had been called to speak to the
terms upon which the husband and wife lived from the
time of their marriage up to the period when it was said
the seducer took her away. In fact every one of her
own sex, to whom she might have made complaints that
she would not convey to the ear of a man, had been
studiously kept back. And that was a case, of all
others, in which the terms upon which the husband and
wife lived together ought to be plainly, truly, and ho-
nestly given in evidence to the jury. He would ask,
therefore, whether there was not some object
in the plaintiff refusing to produce such evi-
dence, especially as it turned out that several
members of the plaintiff's family were present in
the Court? They should look at the conduct of
the husband, so far as it came out in evidence. Why,
six weeks after his wife loft him it was proved that he
slept at a pet house, paying Is. 6d. for a joint bed with
the witness, and that in the morning he went to a public •
house to have some gin and water, and told the drunken
fellow who pawned his clothes, and whe was obliged to
borrow a suit to make his appearance in Court, that he
was sorry Fletcher had not come to him to make a settle-
ment, because he might have settled the action without
going into Court. Was that the state of a man whose
feelings was represented as being so deeply wounded and
injured that he was not likely to entirely overcome the
°fleet which the infidelity of his wife had had upon him?
His Learned Friend (Mr. Sergeant Shee) had alluded
to those beautiful feelings of affection to a wife, which
had ever influenced man since he first lived in the woods,
and had descanted upon that fine theme with all
that tenderness and eloquence for which he
was noted. To carry out the fine metaphor
they might imagine the amusing witness (Mr. Farron)
who gave so glowing a picture of the plaintiff.'s wife,
describing her as " the most graceful and most insi-
nuating little woman he ever saw," roving in the woods
among the most graceful of nymphs, satyrs, and fauns,
or whatever they might be, conversing with trees tied
woods like the poets of old.—(Loud laughter.) lie
would give his Learned Friend the whole benefit of the
picture he had conjured up, but let them look at the
contrast—the husband getting drunk, sleeping in a pot-
house with the witness, who pawned his clothes,
and drinking gin-and-water at a public-house
in the morning.—(Loud laughter.) Fortunately in
that primitive state of nature, there were no pawn.
brokers to pledge clothes with, and no public-house at
which to drink gin and water.—(Loud Laughter,) Then
said Mr. Humfrey, fancy to yourselves, the wild savage,
Mr. Farron, wandering in the woods.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Farron exclaimed with much warmth, and not a
little anger—My Lord, that is too personal. I am a
married man, and have been married 50 years.
Mr. Hume:REY—l am merely thinking of the well-
known words of the poet—
" When wild in woods the noble savage ran."
—(Great merriment.)
Mr. Baron PLATT—I believe, however, Mr. Humfrey,
that the poet has not mentioned Mr. Farron's name.
Mr. Iltnuesteir then alluded to that part of the evi-
dence which tended to criminate the defendant, in the
first instance directing his observations to the time when
Mr. Farron saw him and the plaintiff's wife together
near the garden wall, when he leant up to his bed-room
window to take what he called nut observation, describ-
ing the positions he took, first to the cast then
to the west, and to the other points of
the compass, just as if he were laying down
a map.—(Laughter.) With the exception of this and
the statements of the witness from the coffee-house in
Castle-street, there was no other evidence against the
defendant, except, indeed, that of his discharged assis-
tant, who said that the plaintiff's wife came frequently
to the dehindant's house, and remained generally about
an hour in the surgery. But it was customary for pa-
tients to stop some time there, and as it did not appear
that the door was locked, no inference could be
drawn from the fact. Ile implored the jury, be-
fore they came to a conclusion to consider what the
most important witnesses had been studiously kept
back, not the relations of his wife, who might be
biassed, but the plaintiff's own relations, viz., his sister
and his cousin, who could say on what terms they lived,
and to bring furward whom there could not object, if
the plaintiff's case was a true one. It was the only case
in his remembrance in which no female had been called„
and it would naturally occur
.to the jury, that if ,

e wife was subject to ill-treatment, the would
only confide the knowledge of it to a female.
In conclusion, he intrea;ed them not to be led sway by
the eloquent and flowery statements of his Learned
Friend in his opening speech, and to weigh well in their
minds the points he had urged in defence, impressing
upon them the fact that the character and position of the
defendant in society as a medical man would be deter-
mined by the conclusion at which they might arrive.
The Learned JUDGE, in summing up, said the action
was brought to recover cempensation in damages for an
alleged criminal intercourse with the wife of the plaintiff,
and the damages were laid at 1,000/. The defendant de •
nied the admission of the wrong, but there could be no
doubt that he had committed this gross injury to the
plaintiff, and if they concurred in that view of the c-se,
which it was almost impossible to doubt, the only ques
tion would be the amount of damages which they
thought the plaintiff was entitled to. They had been tild
of the position of the defendant, of his prospects in life,
and that his professional character depended upon their
verdict; but whatever the consequences might be, the
law of England required that justice should be done to
those whose feelings were thus injured and insulted, and
the more aggravated the surrounding circumstances w re
under which the act was committed, the greater should
be the damages. Whatever the consequences might
be, the guilty party had brought them upon himself,
and he was compelled to suffer the fate which awaited
him. This case was one of very serious character, and
could the defendant complain of their verdict it it had
the effect of preventing every head of a family, and
every man who loved his wife and his daughter, to al-
low such a man as this to pollute them? a man who had
abused the trust reposed in him as a member
of the medical profession, by hav'ing criminal
connection with the wife of another who hwl
called him in to attend her during her illness?
Certainly not. And it was fortunate for society. that
such instances rarely occurred in a court of justice. The
Learned Judge then directed them to consider their
verdict,
The jury retired, and, after a brief absence, returned
into court with averdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 8001.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(THIS DAY.)
The Judges sat in the Exchequer Chamber this morn-
ing, and appointed Sittings in Error to be held on the
following days:—
QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 27, 28, and 29; and, if ne•
cessary, on Dec. 4 and 5.
COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 30.
EXCHEQUER, Dec. 1 and 2.

•
KING U. DUNN.
Mr. Baron PARKE said that all the points in this case
were disposed of except one, upon which the Court enter-
tained some little doubt. The question was whether, in
a conviction for perjury, it was competent for the Court
to impose, as part of the sentence, the obligation to give
security for good behaviour and for keeping the peace,
end to order imprisonment until that security was
given. The Court would have entertained no doubt
on this point if they had bees enabled to have access to
the Journals of the House of Lords; but, having now
consulted them, they found that the judges had delivered
an unanimous opinion that it was competent for the
court in all cases of misdemeanour to pass such a sen-
tence. The judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in
this case must, therefore, be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed accordingly.

MARLBRO' STREET-(THIS DAY.)
A well-dressed middle-aged gentleman, who gave the
assumed name of John Smith, was charged before Mr.
Bingham with having been drunk and ziotous in Regent-
street.

The police-constable proved seeing the defendant in
Regent-street in a state of intoxication and ♦ery riotous,
and as he appeared to be incapable of taking care of
himself, the constable very properly took care of him
by taking him to the'station. As there was no violence
or resistance used, Mr. Bingham was about tl discharge
the defendant, when the latter interrupted the worthy
Magistrate, and said, " I deny being either in liquor or
riotous. The fact is, I was walking down Regent-
street, when the constable came up, and told
me to move on and not make a disturbance.
I certainly remonstrated with him for interfer-
ing with me, when he collared me and took me
to the station, where I was treated very insolently and
put into a dark hole. I refused to enter such a place,
when I was roughly told that the cell had once been
occupied by the Marquis of Waterford, and, therefore,
was quite good enough for my reception."
Mr. BINGHAM—A s you choose to dispute the con-
stable's testimony, I shall put you back until the inspec-
tor arrives, who, no doubt, will be able to prove whether
you really were in liquor or not.
Inspector Plume shortly after came into court, and,
in answer to the magistrate, said that the defendant was
not only very drunk but very obstinate.
Upon hearing this Mr. BINGHAM fined defendant 55.,
and told him it he had not disputed the charge of drunk-
enness he should have discharged him.

CIVIL WAR IN PRUSSIA.
(From the Chronicle.)
The plot thickens at Berlin. The die is cast.
Frederick William has accepted the alternative forced
upon him by the failure of his last attempt to retain,
under the external symbols of Constitutional Govern-
ment, a remnant of that power which his Parliament
contends has centred, in indivisible completeness, in
their own. Ever on the defensive, yet ever receding,
the King has long struggled to maintain an attitude
of contentious equality towards an Assembly, which
he was neither sufficiently powerful to command, nor
sufficiently humbled to obey. The contest which, in
the constitutional history of our own country, ex-
tends over a period of many generations, interrupted
by the struggle in which monarchy was struck down,
and renewe d after it had risen from the dust, and
which English legists loved to imagine still subsisting
long after the extension of the prerogative of Parlia-
ment had set it at rest for ever, has, in Prussia, tra-
velled through its first, perhaps its single and only,
stage in the eight months which have elapsed since
the revolution of March. The Crown has started into
an aggressive position, and taken a step in advance,
and we have now entered upon a new chapter of the
history of the revolution in Germany.

(From the Post.)
Affairs at Berlin seem to have come at last to what
s technically termed a dead-lock. It was a contin-
gency which all expected, and which could scarcely-
fail to take its place in the stream of events at some
period or another. Such being the case, we feel the
less compunction at entertaining a certain degree of
satisfaction at the event. This feeling is partly due
to principle ; partly, we do confess, to mere human
weakness, which positively sickened at the wretched
exhibition of hypocrisy and pretence which for some
time past has characterised, on both sides, the rela-
tions between the King and the faction which called
itself the people. For months past, Frederic William
has been twaddling in parodies on Parisian cant,
perfectly conscious, all the while, that the democratic
movement with which he was affecting to sympathise
must, in its development, rob hini of his throne and
plunge his realm into anarchy; and, for the same
period of time, has Frederick William's faithful
people, so far as it is represented by Assembly dema-
gogues, by street spouters, and by Radical newspa-
pers, slavered forth their lip loyalty and grandiloquent
patriotism, every word a lie. The farce grew weari-
some, and the audience longed for the curtain to
fall, and the actors to be men again. That mockery
is over, and order and faction are now fairly pitted
against each other. The Prussian monarchy must
conquer or fall. Whatever may be thought of the
appointment of Count Brandenburg in the first
instance, it is now apparent that to succumb to the
arbitrary demands of a lawless and usurping majority
of the Assembly would inevitalely be the subversion
of the royal house of "Frederick the Great, and the
demolition of all rule in Prussia. But the King. of
Prussia has an arduous task before him. He will
now discover the value of the ground which be has
ldh oii sna ten. s
own
IHtl
io
ndividual
ad
eirytemporising
sacrifice
fidcuealto
oth schemes
epolicy,
thnhis
ef
safety selfish
ambition,oftahnodsregardehi
s r
e ato
monar-
chical institutions whose guardianship had devolved
ai mt r—u
ea l
hl
et
ah
ri st tit s ar u
al r esai da
,37
andalienatedhas e
mfrbooml dehnied
umanypon hm
and strengthened those whose projects are mixed
up in his overthrow. Whether he will succeed in
retrieving these errors now remains to be seen.