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

COPELAND APPELLANT AND BARTLETT RESPONDENT,

This was an appeal from the decision of the Revising
Barrister for the Southern Division of Essex.
The appellant, who was a member of a building
society, became the purchaser in fee-simple of a cottage
and garden, the purchase-money, 654, being advanced by
the society, who had a mortgage upon the property as
security for the payment of the month), instalments of
15L1,which the appellant was required to pay until the
loan was satisfied, and the society ceased to exist.
The Revising Barrister decided that as the society
had a mortgage upon the property the appellant was not
entitled to be registered in respect of it.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES supported the appeal against that
decision, and contended that the Court ought simply to
take into consideration whether the appellant occupied
and received the rent and profits of the property, and
not look to the mortgage.
The COURT affirmed the decision of the Revising
Barrister.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 13.
This afternoon the ceremony of "pricking for the
sheriffs" for the counties of England and Wales, for the
ensuing year, took place in the presence of the Lord
Chancellor. Lord Campbell, the Marquis of Lansdowne,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Baron of
the Exchequer, and the Chief Justices of the Queen's
Bench and Common Pleas, and the majority of the
puisne judges. The court was crowded to excess during
the ceremony.

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 very 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, Kmgsland, and it
appeared that the defendant was called in in his pro-
fessional capacity to attend the wife of the plaintiff, who
as 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 ho 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 ho 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 prior to his wife's elope-
ment. They were then residing in apartments at Engle-
field Cottage, in De Beauvoir-square, Mr. Farrow's,
Kingaland. 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 wile 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
know how 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 not swear
that he has not told me that his wife had left him
against his consent, but if he did tell use 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. Ile went sub-
sequ, ntly, 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 sun 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 her own mother at that time.
It was by accident that my son met his wife
a: my house. I know not where she and her mother
had been living. I next knew them living, early in
September, at Mr. Farrow's. I knew that they had been
living at lioxton, 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 tooka heryea
year.
aI
never blind.
Thesalary. tn
my
ofb rmotyhesre'snhiosu
knew his wife to be in a destitute situation, nor has she
complained to me of his treatment of her. I never
about outSh2e 5O
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—I produce the register of marriages.
Mr. HUMPREY 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, and was between W. W. Pratt and Emily
Taylor.
J. T. Robinson—l live at 23, Clifton street, Finsbury,
anda s
am
a chemist and druggist. In 1847 and 1848 I
was with the defendant at Hoxton for about ten months.
May, June, and July in the present year I was with him.
went into the surgerTiseom—etimes;
was ill about six monthswire at the defend She
times, and has stayed there several her recovery I saw her occasionally
at the defendant's h
apniedrt
mtahpeess
sadenevfeehnnodouarrneightat-
tended
fo.ur or five times a week. She
time. I had no suspicion at that period. The practice
of the defendant may
be worth 3501. a year. He is
about 6 years dd.

,