The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-01 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Emanuel Young, butler, in the service of Mr. Latham,
23, Norfolk-street, Park-lane, was summoned before Mr.
Hardwick for assaulting Maria Young, his wife.
The complainant, a young woman of very genteel ap•
pearance, with one of her eyes badly discoloured, said
she went on Saturday last to Norfolk-street to ask her
husband a question respecting their little girl, when, as
soon as the hall door was opened, her husband struck
her a violent blow on the face and blackened her eye.
Her husband then seized her and threw her down the
steps into the street, falling on her with the force he
used. Complainant was picked up almost in a state of
insensibility by a match-woman, and conveyed home in
a cab.

The complainant's landlady proved that the com-
plainant was very much injured by the treatment she
hadtreceived.
Mr. Robinson, who appeared for the complainant, in
stating the case, hoped the Magistrate would not inflict
any fine, but send the defendant at once to prison, if the
gross case of crnelty was established.

The de endant said his wife had been separated from
him for some years, and had been more than once for •
bidden to call on him at his master's house She came
on Saturday last, and he ordered her out of the house.
She would not go readily, and be opened the door and
pushed her out. In the struggle she struck her face
against the knocker, and caused the bruise which her
face now exhibited. The complainant began to knock
and ring, and defendant was obliged to use more force.
and as he-was stronger than h:s wife, he compelled her
to let go the door post, and in so doing both f 11 down
the steps, and by so doing stood a chance of breakir g
their necks.

The complainant told the Magistrate that when her
first husband saw her he gave her a blow, and said, "
you, liwish Ilcould end you altogether." omplainant had
not received a farthing from her husband for several
years past towards her upport.
The defendant called two witnesses, but they did not
disprove the assault.
Mr. HARDWICK said lie wanted no further evidence
of the violence used by the defendant than the defend-
ant's own account of the transaction. Nothing could
have been more unmanly and brutal than the defendant's
conduct. It might have been indiscreet on the part of
the wife to go in person to make inquiries about the
child, but this indiscretion was no justification for the
husband to use the shameful violence he had exercised.
The law did not permit him to add imprisonment, other.
wise in addition to the 5/. penalty which he should in-
flict, he should certainly have sent the defendant for
two months to the House of Correction.

➢lr. Latham (the defendant's master) said it was by
his desire that the wife was prohibited from calling at
his house. He should pay the 51. penalty for his
servant.

The defendant said his wife had left him of her own
accord, and led an immoral life.

Mr. Latham was proceeding to defend the conduct of
his servant, when

Mr. IliaDwicic put an end to further discussion, by
telling Mr. Latham, that, as P man, it was quite impos
sible t suppose he could justify the use of brutal vio-
lence towards a woman, and that woman the assaulter's
wife.