The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-03 00:00:00

OVIININcit MARCH 85 IS4i4.

derived from real estate, and other accumulated pro-
perty."

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Hertford, Marsh 2.
(Before Lord I)ENmAN and a special jury.)
CRDT. CON.-COOKE V. TANNER.

This was an action to recover damages from the de-
fendant for having debauched the plaintiff's wife. The
damages were laid at 5,0001.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Lush were for the plain-
tiff. Mr. Petersdorff was for the defendant.

Mr. Sergeant SEIZE, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiff in this action was a poulterer, carrying on busi
ness at Holborn-bridge, and the defendant was a solicitor
in New Basinghall-street. The lady who was the un-
fortunate subject of this inquiry was possessed of con-
siderable attractions, and at the time of her marriage
was about twenty years of age. The plaintiff was six
years her senior, and the match was one purely of
affection, and the result was the birth of four chil-
dren, two of whom were alive. About six months
after their marriage the plaintiff went into business, and
shortly afterwards became acquainted with the defen-
dant, who acted for him as his legal adviser, and an in-
timacy of the warmest nature sprung up between them.
The plaintiff, finding his business increasing, took ft
country residence at Muswell•hill, near to one occupied
by the defendant, and it appeared that the families were
in the habit of visiting each other. The defendant was
also a married man, and his wife and daughter were on
very friendly terms with the plaintiff and his family.
For some time after this the wife of the plsiutiff was in
the habit of coming to town to assist her husband in
the business, but she very soon discontinued doing so,
and the plaintiff observed a great difference in her con-
duct towards him, and also more particularly towards
her children, one of whom was imbecile and bodily
afflicted. This went on for some time, and the plaintiff
discovered that the manners and demeanour of his wife
appeared to become more and more estranged ; and
matters continued in this state for a period of two
years, until at length his suspicions became aroused,
but no suspicion was entertained of the guilt of the
defendant, who professed the warmest friendship.
They continued to live very unhappily until the year
1846, when a deed of separation was drawn by the
defendant, at the recpest of the plaintiff, and the
plaintiff's wife left her husband's roof, and, it appeared,
took up her abode with the defendant's family, and it
was then that the plaintiff obtained satisfactory evidence
of his dishonour. Shortly after the lady had gone to
live at the defendant's house it was observed that his
wife was frequently seen by the servants in tears and
apparent great distress of mind, and this was no doubt
occasioned by her conviction of the guilty connexion
that existed between the plaintiff's wife and her hus-
band. It would be shown in several occasions that the
parties were walking together in the grounds, he with
his arm round her waist and she with hers round his,
and they also frequently addressed one another as " my
dear." There were also various other circumstances
which would be produced in evidence that would leave
no doubt, he was satisfied, in the minds of the jury of
their guilt, and, when they had heard all the facts, he
felt assured that they wculd give exemplary damages.
John Cooke, brother of the plaintiff, proved the mar-
riage, which took place on the 20th of July, 1830, at
St. George's, Bloomsbury. Four children were the result
of the marriage, and the plaintiff and his wife appeared
to live very happily together until they removed to
Muswell-hill.

Mr. J. Bull proved that he had been acquainted with
the plaintiff and his wife for several yeara after their
marriage, and he said they always appeared to be on
the most affectionate terms. The plaintiff's wife was an
exemplary and kind mother.
George Daniel, an occasional servant to the plaintiff,
deposed that he first knew the defendant in consequence
of his coming to his master's shop, in 1836, and he
always understoodhim to be a friend of the family. The
plaintiff used to go to market every morning, and the
defendant used frequently to come to the shop at that
time, and go into the parlour to Mrs. Cooke, and he had
frequently seen them with their hands locked in each
other, and the defendant pinching Mrs. Cooke's arm.
He had gone into the parlour when they were so en-
gaged, and they both appeared very much confused.
When the plaintiff a as present the defendant neveracted
in that manner.

Joseph James Clark, another of the plaintiff's shop-
men, also spoke as to the familiarity that appeared to
exist between the defendant and the wife of the plaintiff.
James Garvan, another person in the service of
plaintiff; and who was employed at the cottage at
Muswell-hill, deposed that the defendant and his family
were in the constant habit of visiting his master's
family, but the defendant always came alone when the
plaintiff was from home. Mr. Cooke was always
engaged in London the whole of Saturday, and did net
come home until Sunday morning ; and almost every
Saturday Mrs. Cooke went out in the afternoon alone,
and did not return until a late hour, and no one knew
where she went. At the latter end of 1846, Mrs. Cooke
left her home, and Mr. Cooke did not know where
she was gone to. She returned in a few days and
packed up all her music, clothes, and other articles
belonging to her, and a fly was then brought to the
garden gate. He recognised the horse drawing the
vehicle as one belonging to the defendant, and Mrs.
Cooke got into it with her luggage, and was driven
away. The next day the defendant called, and saw his
master, who appeared in very great trouble ; and as be
was going away witness heard him say to plaintiff that
he would try and coax Mrs. Cooke to come home again.
Samuel Joseph night, gardener and groom to the
plaintiff at Muswell hill, said that upon three occasions
he saw defendant at his master's house in his absence,
and observed him walking with her on the grounds,
playing and toying together. Upon another occasion
he saw from the lawn that they were sitting together
quite close, and when they observed him they pulled
down the blind. On another day plaintiff's wife went
out with the defendant in a chaise, and she did not re-
turn home till the next day,
Jeremiah Crump, formerly groom to the defendant,
proved that in the autumn of 1846, he went with Mr.
Tanner's horse in a: fly- to the house of the plaintiff with
the defendant. On the road defendant told him there
would bo a lady awaiting his arrival at Mr. Cooke's, and
he got out about a halt a mile from the house. lie
afterwards took up Mrs. Cooke and her baggage, and
drove back and rejoined the defendant, who got into the
ay, and he drove both to his house, and she stayed there
until he left the service. During the time he was there
he frequently saw the defendant walking about the
grounds with Mrs. Cooke, with their arms round each
other's waists, while Mrs. Tanner was in the
house, and they used to call each other " My dear,"
and they very often went out together in a chaise.
aroused nwthilewitness was engaged in the
and Mrs. Cooke came up, and his
to another part of the grounds, and
Jai
master
r sedtneerrio ont
suspicionsrehdeoe crdceeadfsebihnoei
dnimna,
being
h
used he watched their move-
ments, and observed Mrs. Cooke and the defendant go
in different directions towards a shed in a secluded part
of the grounds. He was prevented from seeing whether
they entered it, but in about half an hour he saw them
coming in a direction from the shed. He went in and
saw a quantity of hay strewed about, and there was an
appearance as though some persons had been lying upon
it, and he found a handkerchief lying on the hay,
marked "E. C." On several other occasions he saw
the defendant and Mrs. Cooke go towards this shed, and
afterwards observed the same appearances. He had
frequently seen Mrs. Tanner crying while the defendant
and Mrs. Cooke were walking about the lawn. One
morning while Mrs. Tanner was absent, ho saw Mrs.
Cooke in the defendant's bed-room in her night dress,
and shortly afterwards he saw the defendant dressing
himself in the same room.
William Gayer, another aervaat, gave evidence of a
similar character.
some other evidence, of an immaterial character, was
then adduced, and this closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. PgTERSDORFF then addressed the jury for the
defendant, and urged that it would be monstrous to
convict a man of such au offence as this upon such
evidence as had been adduced by the plaintiff. It was
alleged that there had been a criminal intimacy subsist-
ing for a period of thirteen years, and that there was not
an atom of direct evidence to show that such intimacy
or connexion had ever taken place between the parties.
lie said he should be in a position to show that although
for the first five years the plaintiff and his wife had lived
happily together, yet that, after that period, from an ill
founded feeling of jealousy or some other cause, the
plaintiff's conduct to his wife had completely changed,
and he constantly abused her, and on one occasion pro-
ceeded to personal violence, and she was at length com-
pelled to leave him, and a deed of separation was
drawn up. With regard to her taking up her resi-
dence at the house of the defendant, it was not at
all unnatural that she should have done so, con-
sidering the intimacy that subsisted between them,
and all the little familiarities that land been spoken
of were merely, as he contended, acts of good breed-
ing and innocent familiarity, and ought not to be as-
cribed to any impure motive. Thisaetion would, in all-
probability, never have been heard of but for the fact of
the defendant having sent in a bill to Mr. Cooke for
of which
professional services, a portion had been in-
curred for consultations upon
the conduct of his wife,
Mr. Cooke having consulted the defendant upon the sub-
ject of his wife's infidelity with other persons. The
Learned Counsel concluded by calling the following
witnesses :
Mary Duffy deposed that she was in the service of the
plaintiff at Muswell-hill. lie frequently used to abuse
his wife and accuse her of infidelity, and, upon one oc-
casion he struck her several times in the face, in the
presence of witness and the children, and he also locked
her in her room and fastened the windows.

any occasion saw
theCdroefsesn.
d a n t coma examined—Shet
to th e
plaintiff was absent.
Mr. Plater, defendant': cleric, produced the bill of
costs referred to in the speech of counsel, and said that
he presented it to the plaintiff in December, 1846. The
bill was subsequently taxed, and several of the items
neverhouse upon ohnimself,
or when the
were struck out. The witness entered into some other
details, but, the evidence given was not material.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE briefly replied.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, and the jury,
after is very short deliberation, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 5001.

NOR7'HE R 1V CIRC WT.—Newcastle, March 1.
The assizes for the county of Northumberland com-
menced here this morning, the commission having been
opened last night. Mr. Baron Alderson, after opening
the commission, sat at the Town-hall, and disposed of a
few of the minor cases in the calendar for the town.
This morning Mr. P iron Rolfe and Mr. Baron Alder-
son sat at the County Court. Mr. Baron Rolfe pro-
ceeded to try the prisoners for the county, and Mr.
Baron Alderson proceeded with the cause list. In the
town calendar there are twelve prisoners for trial. There
is on• case of burglary, two of robbing, and one of cut.

' ting and wounding. Against one prisoner there are
three charges of sheep stealing.. In the calendar for the
county there were eight prisoners for trial. There is
one case of manslaughter, one of murder, and two of
highway robbery. Six causes are entered for trial; five
in the county, and one in the town.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON )
TAYLOR V. THE SOUTH SHIELDS FERRY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover damages for the injury
done to the plaintiff's ♦essel, from a collision with a
steam:tug belonging to the defendants.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Hugh Hill for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Martin, Mr. Temple, and Mr. Heath for the de-
fendants.

I the
pmpoenatriei do
ffrom h e
river
evidencebout
of
eightf the
witnesseso'cl oc
plaintiff that the vessel injured, the Mart, had arrived
at tht
on
nr
the
e
evening of the 29th of October. She was a sloop of
about 60 tons burden, and was laden with a cargo of
railway sleepers from Dundee. She was taken in tow
by the steam-tug Brilliant, and proceeded up the river.
The rope by which she was towed was about thirty-
six yards long. While passing between North and
South Shields the men on board the Brilliant, as
well as those on board the Mart, saw the tug be
longing to the company leaving the station on the
north bank. The ferry boat crossed the bows of the
Brilliant. The ferry station on the south side lies con-
siderably further up the river, and in the interval there
is adjoining each bunk a tier of vessels. Shortly after
the boat from the north shore had passed the crews of
the Mart and Brilliant saw a steamer coming down the
river on their larboard bow, and when she got nearly op-
posite the Brilliant she starboarded her helm, to turn
her head in the direction of the ferry landing place on
the north shore. She was then some sixty yards dis-
tant. The crews of the Mart and Brilliant called out to
them to stop the engines, and this, it seemed, was
quickly done, but not in sufficient time to prevent the
way already on the vessel carrying her into the line of
the' track of the Brilliant and the Mart. The Brilliant
cast off the hawser by which the Mart was tugged, and
by this means got clear, but the Mart came in contact
with the ferry-boat, and was injured to a considerable
extent. The amount of damages, it was agreed, should
be left to be settled by one of the jurymen, in case of a
verdict for the plaintiff.
For the defence it was urged that the injury arose
from inevitable accident. The light of the Brilliant it
was said was but a dim one, and when it was seen, the
crew of the ferry-boat ported their helms for the pur-
pose of clearing her. They succeeded in doing so, but
not observing she had a vessel in tow, which was not
distinguishable in consequence of the tier of vessels
behind, they were unaware of her proximity until too
late to avoid Ihe collision.

A verdict was finally returned for the defendants.
(Before Mr. Baron RoLFE.)
lachard Bird and George Wheatley, two soldiers, were
charged with a robbery at Tynemouth, on the 17th of
November last.

Mr. Heath conducted the prosecution. The prisoners
were not defended by counsel.
It appeared that the prosecutrix, Ann llornby, was
walking with a young man of the name of Stonebank,
adjoining the new church at Manchester, on the night in
question, when they were assailed by three men, two of
whom, they said, were the two prisoners. They de-
manded money, and one of them seized hold of the
young woman and put his hand over her mouth. lie
pulled her some distance along the road, while the other
prevented Mr. Stonebank from assisting her. Mr.
Stonebank finding his endeavours to rescue her were
in vain, ran a short distance along the road for assistance;
and, having met a young man, they hastened to the spot,
and the soldiers made off. Miss Hornby was nearly in-
sensible from terror, and on recovering a little, it was
found that her pocket was partly turned out, and a few
halfpence she had in it gone. She was unable to say,
however, whether it had been taken out or lost in the
struggle.
Verdict—Guilty of an assualt.
The two prisoners were again indicted for a similar
offence on the same evening.
It appeared that they met a person of the name of
Wolstonecroft walking with a young wotaau and de-
manded some money. He refused, and one of the prisoners
then threatened to knock him down with his belt, on
which Wolstonecroft gave him a shilling.
Verdict—Guilty. Bird to be imprisoned two years;
WheatLey eighteen calendar months.

SOUTH WALES ClRCUlT.—Swansea, March 1.
(Before Mr. Justice ‘VintlAms.)
John Lloyd, aged 25, and Richard Mahoney, aged 27,
were indicted for being armed with a pistol, and feloni-
ously assaulting and putting Mr. Charles Bowring in
bodily fear and danger of his life, and with having felo-
niously stolen from his person monies and bank-notes of
the value of 1,0001.

Evan Evans, aged 38, a weaver, and Richard Thomas,
woollen spinner, aged 26, were also indicted for feloniously
receiving a portio❑ of the 1,0001., well knowing it to
have been stolen.

The prisoners Lloyd and Mahoney, the principals in
the attack, on being arraigned, plesde.l guilty. They
were accordingly withdrawn, and the trial of the other
two prisoners was proceeded with.
Mr. Grove conducted the prosecution. Mr. Richards
defended Evans, and Mr. Lloyd Hall appeared for
Thomas.

The evidence adduced in support of the prosecution
showed that on the 4th of November, Mr. C. Bowring
proceeded with a horse and chaise to Bridgend, for the
purpose of drawing the usual amount of cash at the
bankers, to pay wages at his iron works. At Bridgend
he was joined by Dr. Bearing, M.P., and at about twelve
o'clock at noon they proceeded to return home to Bow-
riugton. After getting a considerable way on the road,
they noticed two men walking in advance of them on
each side of the road, and on coming up to them, they
seizt d the horse's head, and each presenting a pistil at
the doctor and his brother, demanded their money or
their lives. Not being in a position to resist them, and
it appearing evident that they were determined in their
purpose, the bags which contained the amount were
given up to them. The money comprised 570 sovereigns,
100 half sovereigns in a canvass bag, and 270 five pound
notes, and 60/. in silver in another bag; the notes being
those of the National and Provincial Bank of England
issued at Cardiff. Haring obtained and secured the cash
about there, the prisoner Lloyd (who with Mahoney was
clearly identified as being the parties who committed the
robbery) deliberately pointed his pistol to the horse's
head, and shot the poor beast dead on the spot, thereby
preventing the doctor or his brother giving any imme-
diate chase of them. The highwaymen having made
off over some of the fields by the side of the wood, Dr.
Bowring hastened to a neighbouring farm, and having
been furnished with a horse, alarm was quickly spread
throughout the district, and numerous workmen turned
out to scour the country in quest of the ruffians. In the
course of the afternoon, Mahoney was apprehended,
and 1381. I Is. lid. was found in his possession, but
none of this money was in notes. For the other
offender, Lloyd, the search was kept up with great
zeal, and after some difficulty he was captured at ten
o'clock at night. At the moment, however, of the
officers seizing him, he was seen to puss something over
a wall, against which he was standing; and a labourer
of the name of Jones who had been mainly instrumen-
tal in apprehending him, heard the chinking of money
on the other side, and on the spot being examined, a
handkerchief containing 515 sovereigns was found.
Ten pounds was also found in his possession, but no
notes.
With reference to the case against the receivers, it
appeared that a day or so after the robbery, a reward of
501. was offered for the recovery of the remainder of the
property stolen; the prisoner Edwards invited a farmer's
son, named David 'Thomas, to go out with him in search
of the missing property. They went through the Maes-
cadro fields, and when there Evans suddenly left
Thomas, and went into an adjoining wood. In a few
minutes he returned to his companion and said, " Here
is the bag." There was nothing in the bag; and on con-
tinuing the search a short time, they found a bundle of
bank notes, three letters, a newspaper, and stamps.
There were 34 five pound notes, amounting to 1701.
(The missing notes amounted to 2701.) On finding the
notes, Evans said, " Now, David, we are only two, if
you like we will divide them, and no person
shall ever know." David Thomas declined the
proposition, and the 34 notes were accord-
ingly handed to Mr. Bowring, who gave six
five-pound Rotes to Evans as a reward. The silver
had not been found. These six notes were cashed at
the bank by Evans and David Thomas. A few days
afterwards Evans appeared at the Union Inn at Swansea,
and while there sent for the other prisoner, Richard
Thomas. Several persons joined their company. Evans
treated them, and they spent a considerable sum in beer
and liquor. He paid the landlord in a five-pound note of
the National and Provincial Bank of England. [lt
should be remembered that the six he hail got from Mr.
Bowring he had previously got cashed.] In the course
of conversation Evans told the landlord, Mr. Hopkins,
that he was the first man who had caught one of the
thieves, and that he had received as a reward 341. He
also added that his grandmother had died at Birming•
ham, and had left him upwards of 1,000/. They
frequented the house on the following day, and spent
and drank freely, and Richard Thomas paid the
landlord in one of the notes of the bank in
question, who inquired of him how he had be-
come possessed of so much money. Thomas re-
plied, " It's all right," and said the money had
been given to him by Evans. He subsequently
said that he was not such a fool as to refuse
them, as he had on the night before. He added that he
had three parcels of notes, containing Si. notes, and that
Evans would never ask him for them, as it was robbery
money.' The bundle of notes produced were those of
the Provincial Bank of England. The two notes ten-
dered by Evans and Thomas having been proved to
have been of the same description as those stolen from
Mr. Bowring, the inspector spoke to having appre-
hended them. Evans expressed considerable surprise as
to what had become of some money he was possessed of
at the public-house. In the presence of 'I Thomas, he
said he had 16 five pound notes, 16 sovereigns, 205., and
two watches, and, pointing to Thomas, said, " You
know where they are." Evans was sober when ho made
this accusation, but Thomas was intoxicated.
The counsel having addressed the jury for the
prisoners,
The Learned JUDGE summed up at some length, and
the jury found both prisoners Guilty, but recommended
Thomas to mercy.
Lloyd and Mahoney, with the latter two convicted
prisoners, were then called up to receive judgment, and
Lloyd threw himself on the mercy of the Court, as he
had not been previously guilty of violating the law.
The Learned JUDGE, in passing sentence, said that the
prisoners Lloyd and Mahoney had pleaded guilty to a
crime of great enormity,. and he could discover no miti-
gatory circurestances which would warrant him in passing
upon them any other sentence than the severest which
the law prescribed. A very few years ago their lives
would have been forfeited. They were not in want of
money, neither were they pressed by the means of des-

titution, and he felt that he would be guilty of a dcre•
liction of duty towards his country did he not inflict
such a sentence as would banish them from this country
fur the term of their natural lives. Ile was willing to
believe that Evans bad no connexion with the original
robbery, and he also felt willing to attend to the recom-
mendation on behalf of Thomas, as his offence was corn
mitted under still more mitigatory circumstances. '1 be
sentence on Lloyd and Mahoney was, therefore, that
they should be transported for life, Evan Evans to
eighteen months' imprisonment, and Richard Thomas to
six months' imprisonment,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A man named G. W. Rowley was brought before the
Lord Mayor, charged with haring forged a cheque for
51. upon a banking-house.
The prisoner went into the shop of Mr. Trent, a
hosier in the Royal Exchange, o❑ Wednesday morning,
and purchased goods to the amount of 41. 155., in pay-
ment of which he tendered the cheque, without having
any account at the house, or being known there. It
was supposed he had stolen or found the cheque-book of
some customer of the banking-house.
The LORD MAYOR Said that two g,ntlemen had called
at the justice-room, in the course of the morning, and
descried a person who appeared to be identical with
the prisoner, and had played a similar trick upon a
shopkeeper at the west-end of the town. By the suc-
cess of the scheme the impostor obtained the amount of
41. 165., in change for a cheque of 81. 12a. but the goods
were not sent.

The LORD MAYOR thought it very probable that if
the press noticed the system upon whieb, he was given
to understand, much property had been thus obtained
from shopkeepers, there would be more accusers than

The prisoner was accordingly remanded.
HAMMERSMITH.
William Lamb, a tall man of military appearance, was
charged before Mr. Seeker, the sitting magistrate, with
hawking without a license.

The charge was preferred by George Humfreys, a
licensed hawker, living at Hammersmith, who swore to
seeing the defendant hawking brushes and brooms at
Kensington and Hammersmith, and calling out " Buy a
broom or a brush." He gave the defendant in custody.
Defendant bad no license.

The defendant, in answer to the charge, said he was
the maker of the articles he sold, and therefore entitled
to hawk them without a license. Besides, he was a
discharged soldier, and discharged soldiers were entitled
to hawk anything under the value of 40s.
Mr. SECILER said, with regard to the first part of the
defendant's defence, though his being the maker of the
articles would entitle him to hawk them in boroughs,
market towns, or towns corporate, the privilege did not
extend to villages. He must not, therefore, hawk in
Kensington or Hammersmith without a license. In
respect of the secsed part of his defence, he was under a
mistake, the law only giving him a right, as a discharged
soldier, to set up any trade, and not to hawk without a
license. As he had acted under a mistake, ho would
discharge him en his paying the complainant ss. for his
expenses. Not having the money, a week was allowed
him to pay it.