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

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, MONDAY.—The Linzerich Chronicle men-
tions, on the authority of " the friends of Mr. Smith
O'Brien," that, no matter how the writ of error may
be decided, he will not continue a Member of the Legis-
lature, " being determined, if exempt from penal restric •
Lion, never again to appear in public lite. ' It would
appear, from an address to the electors of the county
.of
Limerick, from Mr. Samuel Dickson, that there are
already four candidates in the field, in the expectation
of a vacancy in its representation. Referring to an ad-
dress from an anonymous candidate, Mr. Dickson says—
"l beg now, most respectfully, to state that from
motives of delicacy and feelings of high respect for
many valuable friends, I postponed publicly addressing
you; but being aware that two other candidates, besides
this anonymous gentleman, have bc-en tor months pri-
vately canvassing, I therefore felt it but right to acquaint
my many friends of my determination, in the event of a
vacancy, to solicit the honour of their support, as a
resident landed proprietor, having no personal object
to accomplish, but to obtain good measures four our
country."

The- Cork Constitution says—
" On Thursday an order was received in this city from
the Government, requiring copies of the warrants under
which the several prisoners are detained in gaol, under
the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act."
THE VACANT BISIIOPRICK.—So rapidly are the can •
didates for the vacant see of Down, Connor, and Dro-
more increasing, that it would be difficult to count them.
The Limerick Chronicle adds to the number the Rev.
Francis Brady, rector of Kilmahon, Cloyne (brother of
the Lord Chancellor), and the Rev. Dr. Vignolles, Dean
of Ossory, who had been for a long period Dean of the
Chapel Royal, Dublin Castle.
The Cork Constitution says:—" Commissioners have
arrived in town for the purpose of inspecting the palace
of the late Lord Bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, and
assessing what his Lordship's effects are liable for, by
reason of dilapidation of the residence. The commission
which is usual to issue, if prayed for, has been granted
on the requisition of his successor."
Further evictions have taken place in the union of
Kilmanoch. The Limerick Ezaminer states that notice
has been served, in the form required by the Act of last
session, upon the relieving officer of the electoral divi-
sion of Ardpatrick, in that union, that twenty-six heads
of families are to be evicted from the lands of Graigue.
A list of the unhappy people is set forth, and the number
including women and children, is estimated at one hun-
dred and thirty.
The Cork Constitution has the following announce-
ment:—" Government have it in contemplation to build
forthwith four new barracks on an extensive scale in
Dublin, Tipperary, Ennis, and Clonmel. With the erec-
tion of these buildings, which will cost a great many
thousands of pounds, and the building of sixty new
workhouses next year, those engaged in the building,
timber, and iron trades are likely to have something
to do."

At the Thurles (county of Tipperary) sessions, which
is one of the heaviest ever remembered, a person named
William Ryan was convicted for obstructing a policeman,
on the 23d July last, in the removal of an inflammatory
placard posted in the town of Borrisoleigh. The prisoner
was sentenced to one month's imprisonment.
DESPERATE ATTEMPT AT ASSASSINATION.

The Westmeath Independent of yesterday contains the
following :
" This morning our town was thrown into considerable
excitement in consequence of the reported attempt to as-
sassinate Mr. W. H. Daniel, J.P., of Halston, in this
county, on his way to the market of this town. We lost
not a moment in dispatching our reporter to the scene of
outrage, where he learned the following particulars :
This morning at eight o'clock Mr. Daniel left his resi-
dence at Ralston, in his gig, forAthlone, and when about
midway, and within a few perches of the residence of
Mr. H. Jones, at Kiicornan, he was fired at from behind
a hedge, where it appears two men lay in concealment
with the intention of depriving Mr. Daniel of his life.
The shot took effect in the left shoulder ; when the arm
dropped Mr. Daniel, with much presence of mind, imme-
diately seized the reins with the right hand, and drove on as
speedily as possible, when a second shot was tired but fortu-
nately it passed harieles-dy over the unfortunate victim's
head. Mr. Daniel continued to urge his flight, and did
not stop until he reached the cottage at Glasson, the re-
sidence of Mr. Nathaniel Fallon, sub-inspector, where
his wounds were dressed by Dr. Fallon, who extracted
five balls from the shoulder, which is much lacerated,
but there is reason to believe that no unpleasant conse-
quences will arise from his wounds. Sub-Inspector
Fallon immediately called out the police at the Glasson
station, with whom he is at this moment scouring the
country in search of the diabolical ruffians. The cause
of this outrage is attributed to the serving of ejectments
on the lands of Ballincliffy, a property lately purchased
by Mr. Daniel from Mrs. Betty, of Auburn. Through
this the apprehension of the assassi❑ is looked upon as
certain. Since receiving the above, Mr. Daniel has ar-
rived in town, and appears in his usual good spirits. He
is pale and languid from the effects of the wounds. His
clothes are literally riddled with bullets, and he owes his
escape, under Providence, to the venom of his intended
muruerers, who loaded their arms too heavily to take
effect at the distance."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Nov. 13.

CRIM. CON.-PRATT V. FLETCHER.

This action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for a criminal conversation with the wife of
the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is a young man of ♦ery respectable
family and connexions, holding a situation as clerk
in the Customs, and the defendant a surgeon, carrying
on business at Hoxton.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Addison appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Humphrey and another Learned Gen-
tleman for the defendant,
From the statement of Mr. Sergeant Shee it appeared
that the plaintiff, who is twenty-five years of age, mar-
ried in 1843 the object of his affections, being a parti-
cularly beautiful and accomplished young lady, of
eighteen years of age, the subject of this action,
and the daughter of a respectable tanner living in
the neighbourhood of Bristol. In the present year
they resided at De Beauvoir-square, Kingsland, and it
appeared that the defendant was called in in his pro-
fessional capacity to attend the wife of the plaintiff, who
was indisposed, and in the course of his attendances an
acquaintance sprang up between them, which ultimately
led to the alleged criminal intercourse. The Learned
Sergeant then went into a detail of the facts of the case,
which will be found reiterated by the subjoined evi-
dence:—
John Mantell Pratt—l am the father of the plaintiff,
who is a clerk in the Custom• house, where he has been
for sixteen years. He has only two clerks above him in
his office, and his salary is 2501. a year. I have occa-
sionally visited my son since his marriage, and he and
his wife appeared to live upon the most affectionate
terms. My son's conduct to his wife was always ex-
tremely affectionate and kind. The last time I visited
my son was about a fortnight prier to his wife's elope-
ment. They were then residing in apartments at Engle-
field Cottage, in Do Beauvoir-square, Mr. Farrow's,
Kingsland. Mrs. W. Pratt's maiden name was Emily
Taylor, and she is the daughter of a tanner, near Bristol.
I identify the signature of the parties to the marriage re-
gister. My son is about 33 years of age, and his wife
now about 24 or 25.
Cross-examined—l live at Chelsea in one of my own
houses, and I have one house I let. I have two daugh-
ters. My wife has been dead four years. I was not
aware of my son's marriage till some months after it had
taken place. My son was living at Camberwell in a cot-
tage, but he did not let out a portion in lodgings. I
cannot say how long they lived there. It might have
been a year, or a year and a half. I visited them. Ido
not know that my son's wife left him, and went to live
with her mother in Somersetshire. I never heard of it.
She did, however, go into Somersetshire, but I do not
know when that was. I never heard that she went in
consequence of my son having beaten her. Ido not
knowlhow long she was away, but I should think not a
month. My son came and told me that his wife was
gone into Somersetshire. Ido not remember that he
complained of her having left him. He might have said
so, but if he did I have forgotten it. I will nut swear
that he has not told me that his wife had left him
against his consent, but if he did tell me so I do not recol-
lect it. My daughters are 27 and 24 years old; they are
not here. My son's wife has never left her husband and
come to my house for protection. My brother's daughter
is here. Ido not know that my son's wife ever took
refuge at my brother's house to be protected from her
husband. My son was suspended at the Custom-house—
and very likely it was when he was at Peckham—be-
cause he had been compelled to go through the Insol-
vent Court. This was about four years ago perhaps.
My son then went Ido not know where. lie went sub-
sequently, twelve months afterwards probably, to Graf-
ton-street; after that he went to live at Dulwich. lam
not aware that at that time there were any executionslin
his house. After this he lived in Trinity square, with
an attorney; and while he was there my son told me that
his wife left him, much against the advice of that at-
torney, and went to her sister's. She did not call at my
house to tell me that she was going. Soon after they
met at my house, when they were reconciled at
once. She left with ber own mother at that time.

It was by accident that my son met his wife
at my house. I know not where she and her mother
had been living. I next knew them living, early in
September, at Mr. Farrow';.. I knew that they had been
living at tioxton, but not with whom. My daughters
visited her, and saw her probably about once a month. I
did not see her while she was ill, but I saw her husband.
My niece is here, and it was with that niece that she
went to my brother's house. She took her as a blind.
The salary of my son is about 2501. a year. I never
knew his wile to be iu a destitute situation, nor has she
complained to tne of his treatment of her. I never
heard any complaint from her. I never asked my son
how it was that his wife had left him, for it did not con-
cern me.

Re examined—The salary of my son was restored as
soon as he had pissed through the court, as the board
were satisfied that there had not been any fraudulent
conduct on his part.
C. H. Powell, parish clerk of St. George's, Hanover-
square—l produce the register of marriages.
Mr. HUMFREY objected to this document being read,
seeing that there were two attesting witnesses, and they
were not called.

Mr. Sergeant SHEE submitted that such a course was
not necessary.
Mr. Baron PLATT would take a note of the objection,
but he was of opinion that the book might be read.
Witness—l was present at the marriage, and the entry
is in my own handwriting.
The register was here read. The marriage was dated
April 7, 1843, aid was between W. W. Pratt and Emily
Taylor.
J. T. Robinson—l live at 23, Clifton street, Finsbury,
and am a chemist and druggist. In 1847 and 1848 I
was with the defendant at Horton for about ten months.

May, June, and July in the present year I was with hi
I have seen the plaintiff's wife at the defendant's. Sh e
was ill about six months ago, and the defendant at-
tended her. After her recovery I saw her occasionally
at the defendant's house—four or five times a week. She
went into the surgery sometimes; perhaps seven or eigh
times, end has stayed there several times an hour at a
time. I had no suspicion at that period. The practice
of the defendant may be worth 350/. a year. He is
about 26 years old.

Cross-examined—l did not then know that the plain-
tiff and his wife were in lodgings. The plaintiff called
upon us to ask the defendant to go to Wenlock-street,
to attend his wife, who was ill. 1 have seen the plaintiff
one or two evenings lately. Ido not remember his
having said on one of those occasions that he had been
treating so many persons that he had no money left,
and that I must treat him. I may have paid for things
for him. I have, I think, heard him say that he was
short of money. This was last week. The house he
went to was the British Lion, but I cannot say we roused
the British Lion, and so made him give us some gin.—
(Roars of laughter.) I certainly said at one time that
my " uncle" had kindly taken charge of some of my
clothes, as I had becime short of money.—(Laugh-
ter.) This was after the plaintiff had told me he was
short of money. One night, after we had been out
drinking, we had a bed between us, the plaintiff paying
Is. 6d. for the bed before we went into the room. We
had nothing to drink the next mottling before we went
home at that house. We had not that evening had as
much as one shilling's worth of drink between us. My
time was out when I left the defendant, for he would
not have the any longer. My clothes are still at my
uncle's." The coat I now have on my father lent me.
I had told the plaintiff that he must lend me some money
to get my clothes out of pawn to come into the court,
but he did nut do so, for he said he had not got sufficient
money. My shop is very well stocked with drugs and
medicines, notwithstanding some of my clothes are in
pawn. The plaintiff asked me to give my evidence. He
did not tell me that if the defendant had only called upon
him they might have settled the affair without going
into court, but he may have said something of the sort.
I believe he said something about settling the case, but
I have no recollection that he said they might have
" fisted it." I have not much doubt but that he said so.
This was last week-. He did not say anything more that
lam aware of. The house we slept in was near Wen-
lock-street.

Re-examitsed—l had no knowledge .of the plaintiff
until his wife's illness.

John Farrow—l live at Englefield-cottage, De Beau-
voir-square, Kingsland. I built it. The plaintiff and
his wite came to live there early in August. Soon after
they came I went to the back bedroom to make an ob-
servation in consequence of what one of my tenants had
told me, as well as my wife, and I saw a gentleman at
the extremity of my back wall looking up at my window.
I have since ascertained that it was the defendant. I saw
Mrs. Pratt returning with a mutton chop, but on a signal
she went back to the defendant. They separated and
went different ways, but as she did not come home I
whipped out of my front door and came upon them at
the east end of the square, when upon seeing me they
again separated. Mrs. Pratt once more joined and went
away, and after an absence of half an hour she returned
home to my house. This was on the 7th of September,
in the present year. I was so much excited about the
affair that I wanted to see her. A " gracefuller little
woman," I assure you, I never saw—(Loud laughter)—
she is a most insinuating little creature.—(Renewad
laughter.) I spoke to her and reproved her for her
conduct, and soon after a cab came to my door and she
went away in it, taking her luggage with her. I told
the man, at her request, to drive her to the Green Man
and Still, Oxford-street, from which place she meant to
take the omnibus to Hendon, as she was going to her
mother there. I told the plaintiff when he came home
what had occurred, as it was my duty to do. The poor
fellow cried like a child, and I said he ought to be glad
of it, and should have more manly fortitude rather than
cry at the loss of a woman who had turned out a prose
tit ute. On the following Monday I went to the Feathers,
in Oxford-street, and saw Mrs. Martin, the landlady,
and a porter of the name of Gray, and from what we
heard I went to the Portland Coffee house, Great
Castle-street, Oxford-market. I there saw the
chambermaid, Elizabeth Heath, and the " boots."
Heath afterwards went with me on the Fri-
day to the defendant's. We saw him in his shop, and
Heath recognised him. The defendant said he remem-
bered the woman, and I then said, " More villain you,
then." '['he defendant pushed me out of the shop.
When the plaintiff and his wife came to my house they
were unable to open their trunk—a hair one—and my
wife lent Mrs. Pratt a key to unlock it, but when she had
done so the key could not be got out. It was, therefore,
left in. When Mrs, Pratt was packing up the afternoon
she went off she could not lock the trunk, and so we
lent her a bit of cord to tie ronnd it. The key still re-
mained in the lock. When the chambermaid went with
me to the defendant's she remembered him as the gentle-
man who slept with the lady at their coffee-house on the
night of the 7th of September.
Cross-examined-1 had before been to another gen-
tleman's, but I said lie was not the man, as the girl
could not recognise him. I could not " indemnify" him
as the man I had seen waiting. I did not say I thought
that gentleman was the man I had seen on the 7th of
September loitering about my garden wall. The plaintiff
and his wife were in my house five weeks only. His
father, his sisters, and a gentleman or two of the Cus-
tom-house used to visit them at my house. They were
so loving that I really thought it was the " honeymoon"
with them.—(Loud laughter.) The plaintiff and his
father asked me to go to see the gentleman.
Elizabeth Martin—l am the landlady of the Feathers
Tavern iu Oxford-street. On the 7th of September a
lady came to my house in a cab, and she had a young
lady with her, who came in and asked if the luggage
could be left. I assented, and it was thereupon brought
in, and it consisted of a hair trunk with a key in the
lock, and some other articles.

Cross-examined—She called the young lady her niece.
The things remained there about three-quarters of an
hour.

James Gray, an occasional porter at the Feathers, said
I was on this day employed by the landlady to carry
some luggage. I took it to a coffee-house in Great
Castle-street. I saw a hair trunk, but that was carried
by another porter; there was a key in in it. There was
only one lady accompanied her. There was a hair trunk
with a key in the lock, which a stranger carried. The
lady paid us for our trouble.

Eliza Heath—l was chambermaid in September last
at the coffee-house in Great Castle-street. I remember,
on the 7th of that month, a lady coming to the house
with a porterwho brought a hair trunk and other things.
There was a key in the trunk, and there was a cord
round it. She asked for a bed fur her and her husband.
I showed her a room, which- she approved of: I then
supplied her with pen, ink, and paper. Having written
a note, she gave it to me to dry in another room. I read
what she had written and returned it to her, when she
folded it up, put it in an envelope, and went out carry-
ing the note with her.
Mr. FIUMPREY objected to the contents of this note
being given in evidence unless the note itself were pro-
duced.
Mr. Sergeant SitEz submitted that as his Learned
Friend did not produce the note he was bound to give
the next best evidence of the contents.
Mr. Baron PLATT was of opinion that the proposed
evidence could not be given in evidence. He would, how-
ever, take a note of the tender and the objection to the
reception of the evidence.
Examination resumed—The lady took the letter out
with her. She was away about a quarter of an hour.
She then partook of some refreshment, and retired to
the bedroom. It was between five and six o'clock
when she came. About ten o'clock a gentleman came
and asked if there was a lady waiting there for him.
The defendant is that gentleman. He went up, and re-
mained about half an hour, and then came down. They
had some porter, and then they went to bed, and passed
the night together, the gentleman telling the porter that
he must be called at six o'clock in the morning. I made
the bed the next day, and saw that two persons had
slept in it. At eleven o'clock the next morning defend-
ant came again, and took the lady away in a cab. On
the following Friday I went with the plaintiff and Mr.
Farrow to a house is Cropley-street, Boxton, and there
I saw the defendant, and recognised him at once as the
gentleman who had slept with the lady at our coffee-
house on the nigth of the 7th of September. lam quite
positive as to the identity.
At this stage of the proceedings,
Mr. Baron PLATT said that as his presence was re-
quired in another place, the further hearing of the case
must be postponed till to-morrow (this morning).