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

THE INCOME-TAX.

Yesterday a meeting of the inhabitants of Bread-
street Ward was held in Cordwainers' Hall to petition
against the renewal of the income-tax. Mr. Deputy
Bridge presided. The meeting was addressed by several
influential inhabitants of the ward, And resolutions con-
demnatory of the income-tax were unanimously agreed
to. A petition to the House of Commons founded on
them was also adopted. Similar meetings were also bold
yesterday of the inhabitants of St. Paul, Covent-garden;
St. Mary, Whitechapel; St. Clement Danes, and other
metropolitan parishes. In addition to the meetings we
have mentioned on previous days, at which steps were
taken to prevent the re-imposition of this tax, we find
that others have been held within the last few days at
Greenwich, Stroud, Kidderminster, Sherborne, Salis-
bury, Tewkesbury, Evesham, Tiverton, Dudley, and
other places. The Chamber of Commerce at Leith and
the Town Council at Edinburgh have also agreed to
petitions against the renewal of this tax.
A meeting of the. inhabitants of the Ward of Far-
ringdon Within, convened by Mr. Alderman Kelly, in
compliance with a requisition, for the purpose of peti-
tioning, the House of Commons for the total abolition of
the income-tax, was held on Wednesday at the Queen's
Arms Tavern, Newgate-street.

Mr. Alderman KELLY having taken the chair, briefly
explained the objects of the meeting.
Mr. Deputy EAGLETON proposed the first resolution,
which, with those that followed, will be found in our
advertising columns.
Mr. RUSSELL said he objected to the resolution, be-
cause it was one not dissenting from the proposed in-
crease of the tax, but demanding the total repeal of it.
lie contended that the income-tax was a fair and just
impost, and was hailed with joy and surprise when Sir
Robert Peel first proposed it.—(Laughter.) When this
tax was put on, it should be remembered that a large
sum of money was taken off in the shape of indirect
taxation that pressed upon the poor man; while those
only who could best afford it paid the income-tax. At
all events, those who proposed its abolition should first
show that it could be done without.

Mr. BLAKE said that the income-tax had been im-
po,ed for the purpose of paying a debt whiCh had been
incurred by a House of Commons that did not truly re-
present the people.
Mr. PAINE said that this was a tax which ought to
have died a natural death at the time when the country
was led to expect it would.

Mr. C. You-No observed that when the old income-tax
of 10 per cent., or 15,000,0001., was proposed, the country
refused to sanction it, and the result was that the Mi-
nister had to reduce his estimates; and the same course
could be adopted now.—(Herr, hear.)
A petition founded ea the resolutions was also
adopted, and a deputation appointed to wait upon Mr.
Pattison and Mr. Masterman, to request those gentle.
men to present the petition to the House of Commons,
and to support Its prayer.
The usual votes of thanks were passed, and the pro-
ceedings terminated.
ST. JAMES'S WESTMINSTER.
Wednesday the parishioners of St. James's Westmin-
ster, held a public meeting on the subject of the income-
t•tx. The meeting had been convened by the church-
wardens for the purpose of taking into consideration the
proposed increase of that tax, and took place, notwith-
standing the abandonment of the Ministerial plan. The
chair was filled on the occasion by Mr. W. Geesin,
churchwarden, and great unanimity prevailed in the
meeting which was a very crowded one. Mr. C. Coch-
rane moved, and Mr. R. Osborne, M.P., seconded the
first resolution, which reprobated in strong terms the
proposed increase of the income-tax. Next came a reso-
lution condemning the tax as it at present exists, urging
its repeal, and the supply of any deficiency in the revenue
by extensive retrenchments. This was moved by Mr.
Brett, seconded by Mr. Alexander Bidgood, and spoken
to by Mr. George Thompson, M.P. General Sir De
Lacy Evans, M.P., Mr. C. Lushington, M.P., and other
gentlemen also addressed the weeting, which did not
break up till a late hour. We subjoin the second reso-
lution as a fair specimen of the proceedings :
" That this meeting considers that the Government
was solemnly pledged to the remission of the income-
tax at the expiration of three years, or at the most of
five years, from the period of its imposition; that the
time has arrived when the people will no longer submit
to the continuance of such art oppressive and unequal
measure, and that this meeting, therefore, calls for the
entire removal of this tax; and if, after a searching in-
quiry into the state of public affairs, means should be
found wanting of increasing the revenue beyond the
enormous amount which a wise and judicious system of
reduction in the various departments of the national ex-
penditure R ill yield, that the deficiency may be supplied
by the substitution of probate duties on landed property
as
sd will
guard be
and such other descriptions of taxation only
least injurious to the industry of the country, and
against the extreme injustice of estimating the pre-
carious and transitory income of the professional man
and tradesman at the same value as permanent income

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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClUGUlT.—Hertford, March 2.
(Before I)ENMAN and a special jury.)
CRIM. 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 SsIEE, 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 pcssessed 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 a
country residence at Muawell-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 wore on
very friendly terms with the plaintiff and his family.
For some time after this the wife of the plaiutiff 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 OR 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 request 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 th,ey had heard all the facts, he
felt assured that they would 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 years 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 understood him to boa 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.
Ile had gone into the parlour when they were so en-
gaged, and they both appeared very much confused.
When the plaintiff was 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 Garvin, 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 not
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 he
was going away witness heard him say to plaintiff that
he would try and coax Mrs. Cooke to come home again.
Samuel Joseph Flight, gardener and groom to the
plaintiff at Muawell.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 Oly 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
ho got out about a half a mile from the house. Hs
afterwards took up Mrs. Cooke and her baggage, and
drove back and rejoined the defendant, who got into the
fle, and he drove both to his house, and she stayed there
until he left the service. During the time ho was there
he frequently saw the defendant walking about the
grounds with Mrs. Cooke, with their arms round each
other's waists, while Mrs. , 'fanner was in the
house, and they used to call each other "My dear,"
and they very often went out together in a chaise.
Upon ono occasion, while witness was engaged in the
garden, the defendant and Mrs. Cooke came up, and his
master ordered him to another part of the grounds, and
his suspicions being aroused ho 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 lie 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, he saw Mrs.
Cooke in the defendant's bed-room in her night dress,
and shortly afterwards be saw the defendant dressing
himself in the same room.
William Gayer, another servant, gave evidence of a
similar character.
Some other evidence, of an immaterial character, was
then adduced, and this closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. PLITERSIDORPF then addressed the jury for the
defendant, and urged that it would be monstrous to
convict a man of such an 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 coniuct to his wife had completely changed,
of
fugbhutt f
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
she should have done so, all unnatural that
con-
sidering the intimacy that subsisted between them,
and all the little familiarities that had been spoken
in a bill to Mr. Cooke for
of were merely, as he contended, acts of good breed-
lorotthtoe fbaecto
as-
cribed to any impure motive. This action would, in all-
probability, anti innocent familiarity,
heardbfaaravoilibaerientY,
and
• , portion of which had been' peofessional services, a
pthr,';bdaebfieliiitdy;nt having sent
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. He .
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 fasteacd the windows.

Cross-examined—She never upon any occasion saw
the defendant come to the house by himself, or when the
plaintiff was absent.
Mr. Plater, defendant's clerk, 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
were struck out. The witness entered into some other
details, but the evidence given was not material.
Mr. Sergeant &LEE briefly replied.
The Loan JuSTICS summed up, and the jury,
alio- a very bhort deliberation, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damsles 500/.

NORT HE RIV CI R C UIT.—N ewcastle, March 1.
The assizes for the county cf 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
tew of the minor cases in the calendar for the town.
This morning Mr. Baron 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 ono case of burglary, two of robbing, and one of eut-