The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-06 00:00:00

LAFOREST V. CATCIIPOLE.
The plaintiff in this action is a tavern-keeper in the
City, and defendant a solicitor. The action was
brought to recover the sum of 31. 17s. for wine,
spirits, &c.
The defendant did not appear, but
The Learned JUDGE said he must strike out the items
for spirits. As the law was so strict on that point,
licensed victuallers ought to get paid at the time.
The plaintiff said that was next to impossible.
A verdict was given for the plaintiff.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Kingston, April 4.
(Before Lord DENMAN and a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. ➢IITCHELL.

This was an indictment for an assault upon some
officers of the Queen's Bench Prison, in the execution of
their duty.
Sergeant Shee and Mr. Ballantine were for the prose-
cution.

The defendant, who is a lady-like, middle aged per-
son, conducted her own case.

This prosecution arose out of some proceedings taken
aga:nst a prisoner in the Queen's Bench, named Her-
ring, the circumstances connected with which have been
frequently before the public. It appeared that upon the
day in question the person referred to was taken upon
a habeas to the Bail Court, and on his being brought
back in a cab it was alleged that the defendant placed
herself in the way of the officers, and obstructed them,
The defendant conducted her own ease with a good deal
of skill, and occasioned much amusement i❑ the Court
by the ingenious manner in which she cross-examined
the witnesses, and objected to questions being put by
Mr. Sergeant Shee for the prosecution.
The defendant, at the close of the case against her,
addressed the jury, and called witnesses to show that
she did not commit the acts imputed to her.
The jury returned a ♦erdict of Not Guilty.
CHADWICK V. ARCHER.

This was also a special jury case.
Sergeant Shee and another Learned Gentleman were
for the plaintiff, and Sergeant Channell for the de-
fendant,
This was an action for libel. The plaintiff was the
Chairman of the North 'Wales Railway Company, and
the defendant, it appeared, had formerly been in the
service of the company, and on his b,ing removed he
published a pamphlet, entitled " A Black Book with a
White Face," in which he made a variety of charges
against the plaintiff, connected with the management of
the railway. The defendant pleaded a justification as
to some of the charges, but he failed in supporting the
pleas.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, 100/.
The business of this circuit concluded with these cases.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.— Warwick, April 5.
THE QUEEN V. GUTTERIDGE.

The various events giving rise to this transaction hav-
ing been gone.through, a number of witnesses were called
to speak to the habits and mode of life of the reverend
prosecutor, commencing with the Bishop of Worcester,
who spoke in the highest terms of his reverend brother.
The evidence of the Bishop of Worcester was taken
yesterday.
This morning the case for the prosecution recom-
menced with a witness named Blackister, who deposed
to having been acquainted with the Bishop of Man-
chester for more than twenty years. Considered him
a singularly temperate person, almost amounting to
abstemiousness. Had been very intimate with him, but
had never seen anything approaching intemperance.
The Rev. John Garbett, rector of St. George's, Bir-
mingham, and dean of the rural deanery called the
Deanery of Birmingham, has known Dr. Lee, since
1838, intimately, and been at his house at all hours.
Believes him to be a man of great temperance. Witness,
Dr. Lee, and Captain Tindal were on the committee of
the Bluecoat School. The Rector took a very active part
with those gentlemen. Dr. Lee had an affection of his
eyes, producing at times the effect of partial blindness
and giddiness,
Cross-examined—King Edward's School is one of
the largest endowed schools in the kingdom. There
are about 1,200 or 1,400 scholars. Dr. Lee was head-
master, and had a visitorial authority over the elemen-
tary schools, of which there are five. The Bishop of
the diocese has no power in the actual management of
the school.
Mr. George Harris, a solicitor, and Samuel Buckland,
a surgeon, at Rugby, had been very intimate with Dr.
Lee, and spoke in high terms of his temperance.
The Rev. Mr. Hastings, curate of St. George's, Bir-
mingham, was a pupil for three years and a half of Dr.
Lee, and resided in the house during the whole of that
time. He was an early riser, and read prayers to the
boys nearly every morning. Considered him as most
sober, temperate, and abstemious.
Mr. Charles Evans, of Trinity College, Cambridge,
who had obtained distinguished honours there last year,
and was a pupil of Dr. Lee's, gave similar testimony.
Captain Charles Tindal, brother of the late Lord Chief
Justice, was a Commander in the Royal Navy, and now
manager of the branch Bank of England at Birmingham.
Was well acquainted with the Bishop and knew his
character. He was a sober man. Never saw him other-
wise than sober, or knew of his being so. He was
scrupulous with respect to statements at public meetings,
at which he often spoke. Had remarked him as being
particularly so—always very careful. This (the en-
dorsement on the envelope before adverted to) is not the
Bishop's writing—most decidedly not.
Mr. S. H. Amphlett was a surgeon at Birmingham
and to the General Hospital. Had well known the
Bishop, almost from his first arrival in Birmingham, and
attended his family at all hours of the day. Always
found him quite sober. Never knew him at all otherwise.
Cross-examined—This (an opinion of Sir F. Pollock's)
belongs to me. I got it from Mr. Whately—perhaps
you will allow me to have it again. I have lost it several

years.
Captain Constantine R. Moorsom was intimately ac-
quainted with the Bishop. Had long been so. Corro-
borated the other testimony.
George Bennett was servant to the Bishop durirg the
time in question.
Susan Smith was so also.

These witnesses were asked no questions, and put into
the box only for the defendant to cross examine them,
which he declined to do.
Mr. Richard Tapper Cadbury was a member of the
Society of Friends. Well knew the Bishop. He was a
sober man. Never knew of his being otherwise, &C.
Cross-examined—" We have often met at the hos-
pital." " Thou sayest it, and Ido not deny it." " There
have been stormy discussions in thy presence."
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—We must not get into
irrelevant matters. _ _

The witness—l hope that rule will be observed.
Cross-examination resumed—l did not say at a
meeting, on account of illegality of proceedings, " Then
let us make a law." I called on thee. Thou gavedst
me a written document. I did not at all approve of thy
document, although I suggested an alteration. I did
not wish the contest to be stopped, but I knew at the
same time that could only be by thy acknowledging thy
great errors. I was very much surprised at thy calling
on me at all. I suppose thou didst so because I am a
man of peace. [Nearly every ansv,er of this witness was
received with roars of laughter, from the imperturbable
gravity with which he gave them, especially when ihe.
gave his imprimatur to the remark of the Lord Chief
Justice.]
This closed the case for the prosecution at about
twelve o'clock this day.
The defendant then proceeded shortly after twelve
o'clock, to open his address to the jury, which was con-
cluded in about two hours and a half.
HALF-PAST SIX..

Mr. Gutteridge is at present examining in chief
the schoolmaster of the Blue-coat School, who is speak-
ing positively to the intoxication, about which he made
communications the next day to the authorities.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, April 4.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice CaEswELL.)
Octavia SarakWyatt, alias Lady Ada Alice Vilyatteille,
28, was arraigned on an indictment charging her with
having, at Cheltenham, on the 17th of December last,
feloniously married one Thomas Hinckley, her former
husband, Henry Wyatt, being then alive.
Mr. Greaves, with Mr. Ings, conducted the prosecution,
and Mr. Cooke defended the prisoner, who appeared far
advanced in a "certain state," and was allowed a seat in
the dock.

It appeared that on the Bth November, 1838, the pri-
soner was married at Kensington Church, in the name of
" Octavia Sarah Moore de Bellone, daughter of Henry
de Bellone, Marshal of France," to Mr. Henry Wyatt,
the witnesses to their marriage being Francis Brothers,
the clerk of St. Mary Abbott's, Kensington, and a Mrs.
Murray (then Miss Cully), who officiated as lady's
maid for the prisoner, and accompanied her and
Mr. Wyatt to Boulogne, where they stayed one night.
The next day he put the two females into a Dieppe
diligence, and left them, since which time no com-
munication appears to have taken place between them;
for what reasons he adopted so extraordinary a modo of
action is involved in mystery. From Dieppe Mrs. Wyatt
went to Havre, when Miss Cully left her and returned
to England, Mrs. Wyatt not again visiting this country
until the end of 1839. In May, 1847, from an account in
the newspapers, Mrs. Murray went to Marlborough-street
Police-office, where she saw the prisoner, who, although
it did not appear to-day, was then before the magistrates
at that office on a charge of having intermarried with
Anthony Joseph Collard, an artist. A few days after
this the two females met by accident in the street, and
had some conversation, Murray telling her she had seen
the procession pass on the day the Duke of Wellington's
statue was put up, and saw Mr. Wyatt on that occasion.
Prisoner said to her, " Did you speak to him?" The
witness replied " No, another gentleman was with him,
and I did not like to." She then asked her how she
came to marry Collard, knowing Wyatt was
which she evaded by scmo light remark, and
again asked, " Are you sure yen have seen Wyatt ?"
In the latter end of 1846 the prisoner told Mr.
Tyler, an assistant of Mr. Collard's, that she had
been before married to Mr. Wyatt, who was after-
wards knighted, and became Sir Henry Wyatt, that she
had met him in the streets since her return'from France,
and that he had discarded her. In the autumn of last
year the prisoner went to Cheltenham, and mixed in the
first society there, under the designation of " Lady Ada
Alice Wyattville," residing at No. 14, Victoria-street,in
which house also lodged Mr. Thomas Hinckley, a civil
engineer (whose father is clerk of the peace for the
county of Stafford). Tho young gentleman was fasci-
nated by the blandishments of the "Lady Ada," who
was described as a rich widow, and on the 17th of De-
cember last: they repaired, in an unostentatious manner,
by no means suiting the high sounding title and aristo-
cratic appeararce of the lady, to the venerable church of
St. Mary, where they were married by the Rev. Mr.
Geneste, an accountant and a chamber-maid from the
Queen's Hotel being the witnesses. But they soon found
that happiness in this world is but transitory. A cloud
hung over their prospects, and burst upon the astonished

husband and adventurous wife, transferring her from his
arms to the county gaol. Mr. Hinckley, sen., not ap-
proving of the marriage, and having some suspicious
circumstances intimated to him, prosecuted ii.quiries,
came to Cheltenham, and caused the prisoner to be taken
before the magistrates, by whom the veil was removed,
the title vanished, and the "Lady Ada Alice Wyat-
ville" appeared to-day as plain Octavia Sara Wyatt, to
take her trial on three indictments for bigamy.
It appeared that after the last wedding the repast was
partaken of at an humble bonnet-shop, and it was
elicited that the three husbands had all been staying at
the Lower George Inn, in this city, during the assizes,
and that the marriage to Collard took place on the 22d
of June, 1847, at St. James's Westminster.
Mr. COOKE made an ingenious and feeling address to
the jury, contending that it was doubtful whether she
knew her first husband was living at the time she mar-
ried Hinckley. Then the fact of the three husbands
staying at one house, and seeking, as it would appear, to
get her banished from the country, showed, that with all
her faults, she was more sinned against than sinning,
and he confidently asked for a verdict of not guilty.
The prisoner was Acquitted, and no evidence offered
by the prosecution o❑ the other two indictments.

NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Refore Mr. Justice PATTESON and a Special Jury.)

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE-PHILIPS V. CHARLES

In this case Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, with Mr. Godson,
Q.C., and Mr. Cooke were for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Whately, Q.C., represented the defendant.
This was an action for breach of promise of marriage.
The plaintiff was a lady of 43, the sister of a merchant
at Cardigan; and the defendant, who was 46, was an
attorney in that town. They had known each other for
nearly twenty years. What was remarkable in the case
was, that after the wedding-dresses, cards, and cakes had
been prepared, the breakfast ordered, the day fixed, and
a wedding-party invited, the defendant, without any
previous intimation of his change of intention, married
an invalid old woman of seventy, just two days before
the day fined for his marriage with the plaintiff.
Mrs. Margaret Gwyer was the wife of a commission
agent, at Bristol, and the sister of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff kept house herself at Cardigan, and her brother,
who was a matster, lived with her. Was at Cardigan in
August last. The defendant called at plaintiff's house
at seven in the evening of Thursday, the sth of August.
There was a pic-nic party the next day on Cardigan-
bar. A Mr. M'Cord and the defendant went before the
party to make arrangements. Saw the plaintiff and the
defendant together there. They walked about together,
and came up to near where I was. I heard Mr. Charles
say, he hoped I would not place any obstacle in the way
of his marriage with my sister. I replied, " I
never dictated to her in my life, but have always
looked to her for advice." He made no remark, but he
wished the marriage to take place immediately—on the
following Tuesday. My sister said, " No, I will take
time to consider it." He did not become pressing. I
do not recollect anything further. I then separated for
a short time from them. We met again at dinner.
After dinner the plaintiff and defendant walked away
together, and again came together to tea. After tea
the defendant joined me and renewed the subject, and
expressed a wish that the marriage should take place on
the Tuesday. He talked of his property, said he was
worth 9,0001., and would settle his landed property on
Mary, and his personal property too, if she wished it.
I said she would no doubt be satisfied with any arrange-
ment he might make. I was the first to name the place
where the marriage should be solemnized. My sister
wished to have one of her sisters to be present at the
wedding. Elizabeth Jordan is her other sister. Mr.
Charles said he had not the slightest objection to go
anywhere. After that we went home. On the next
day, Saturday, I saw him about one o'clock, at my sis-
ter's house. He said he called to apologise, and hoped he
had not offended her the day before. I said she was
not very well pleased, but I would go for her. That
phrase referred to his having been excited the day be-
fore. He had been excited after the dinner, just as we
were leaving. I went for her, and brought her to him,
and he then expressed his sorrow. He generally called
her Mary. I went away, leaving them together. They
remained together for half an hour. Before I left I saw
him trying a ring on her finger. He came again the
same evening. Mr. M`Cord came with him. He still
wished the marriage to take place immediately. lie
said it was useless to spend longer time in courtship.
My sister said she was not prepared—she was in mourn-
ing—she would take time to consider—and would never
marry until she could do so as it suited;her station in
life. It was then arranged to postpone it, and that she
should come to Bristol. I was to go the marriage trip
with them to Paris. They remained together some
hours that evening. My sister came to Bristol on the
Ist of September, and resided at Clifton with my sister,
Mrs. Jordan. The 16th of September was named for
the marriage. Dresses, cards, and cake were ordered
and prepared. Bridemaids were spoken to, a wedding
breakfast was prepared. Mr. Charles was expected in
Bristol on Tuesday the 14th. Called on Wednesday on
my sister. He had not arrived, and she could not ac-
count for his absence. After it was clear on the Wed-
nesday that he would not come, the breakfast was coun-
termanded, and the guests were apprised of it. My
sister was deeply depressed, and felt insulted, and her
health appeared to suffer. The cards were ordered
and printed.
Cross-examined.—My father was a spirit merchant.
Spirits could be had at his shop in small quantities.
After his death my sister kept the shop for a year, or a
year and a half. She also let lodgings, and continues to
do so up to the present time. Mr. M'C•ord keeps a spirit
shop at Cardigan. My father was also a shipowner.
He had shares in several coasting vessels. He was not
a fisherman in early life. The picnic had been fixed a
week before the sth of August. It was on that evening
the defendant was invited to join it. After the picnic
there was some brandy drank. The defendant did not
become so drunk that he was brought home in a donkey-
cart. He rode home part of the way in a donkey cart.
I left the next day. The defendant lodged at Miss
Williams's for some years. I have not seen her for 20
years. When last I saw her she was far advanced in
years. My sister told me that Miss Williams sent her a
message that the defendant could not marry her while
she (Miss Williams) lived. Miss Williams was the lady
the defendant had since married. Mr. Charles gave my
sister 501. to buy wedding favours.
Re-examined.--The 501. was expended in the purchase
of wedding favours. After defendant, in returning from
the pic-nic, had ridden for a short distance in the don-
key-cart, he walked home with me. The bar was three
miles from our house.

Mr. Henry Brown Jordan (the brother-in-law of the
plaintiff), proved that the marriage was arranged to take
place at his house, and that the breakfast was ordered.
On the 14th witness and the plaintiff went to the Cum-
berland-dock to meet the defendant, who was expected
by the Swansea packet. On the next day he was ex-
pected by the mail, but on his not appearing the break•
fast was countermanded. On the Thursday morning a
letter came from witness's brother-in-law, Mr. Philips,
stating that the defendant had been married to Miss
aseuhetelwyasthdeeciddeefdenly-
ddWiasnitl trl'iesasmsc
eosdn.d ale)! ,a ianntdi ffs
usffe ee de ds
et ero f
ee leyl .
examined—l went by her direction that very
morningCiss: to an attorney's office and the next day a writ
was issued.
Mrs. Elizabeth Jordan, the wife of the last witness,
proved that she was present when a letter from the de-
fendant, dated the sth of September, 1847, in an enve-
lope, addressed to Mr. Jordan, was received.
The letter was read, it commenced thus:—" My dear
Maria,—ln answer to your kind favour, which relieved
my mind of some anxiety, we had a storm here last
Tuesday." This singular opening created some laughter
in court. The letter then went on to describe the storm
and the casualties arising out of it, and then to request
a few lines "to know it our plans are altered; if not, I
shall start by the mail this day week for Swansea, and
thence on Thursday by the packet to Bristol, and on
Thursday week I hope to be happy for ever. Cardigan
has been very flat since you left. In the mean time,
after dinner, I study to be steady and domestic. I smoke
one cigar every evening in my small garden to while
away the time. The old maids begin to think that) ou
have given me the slip, as there is not a word said about
our getting married. Mr. Morgan invited me to spend
the Sunday at his house, and offered to take me in his
chaise, but I declined, as you did not seem inclined to
like my going. Mr. Lucas called but did not notice our
affair. Mr. Nugent calls almost every day, generally in
his usual state. lie has no encouragement from me.
Drinking in the morning is ungentlemanly and dis-
graceful."
Elizabeth Bradford, a dressmaker, at Bristol, proved
that she made the wedding dresses; and when about a
month after the time fixed fur the marriage she at-
tempted to fit on one of them she found Miss Philips
very ill, greatly depressed in spirits, and considerably
thinner.
The Rev. J. Thomas, the clergyman of Cardigan,
knew the plaintiff and defendant for many years. She
was a regular communicant. On the 13th of September
the defendant applied for a license to marry Miss Wil-
liams; on which the witness saki, he was very much
astonished at the application, as he understood he was
to be married to Miss Philips, and desired him to re-
collect what he had said in the week about his intention
to marry Miss Philips, and told him it was a serious
thing to say the week before that he meant another
person, and asked him, did he feel comfortable? 11
said he had quite altered his mind and would marry
Mrs. Williams. That he had lodged with her for
29 years. The witness added, I told him ho had a
solemn oath to make before my granting the license,
and I handed to him the printed form of oath and the
license. He carefully and deliberately read both over.
I said, " Mr. Charles, you will see, on reading these,
whether your way is quite clear." lie was married
the next day, the 14th et September.—(llis bride was
called by the witnesses Mrs. and Miss Williams indis-
criminately).
Cross-examined—Have known Mrs. Williams for
years. She was brought into church to be married in
a sedan chair up to the steps of the communion .table.
She cannot walk in her own room without crutches.
She appears to be about seventy. She has been fur
years an invalid. She had been a sort of mother to Mr.
Charles. We frequently called her his mother.
Re-examined—Did Mrs. Williams' infirmities increase
or diminish your surprise that he should so insult the
plaintiff? Witness—l cannot say, as lam not a medical
man.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. WHATELY having addressed the jury in mitiga-
tion of damages,

His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury, after a few
moments' deliberation, returned a verdict for the plain.
tiff—Damages, 1,0001.
The Court was engaged the rest of the day with an
action of replevin, to try a right of common.

VISCOUNT lIAIUMNGE. - The banquet to this
Nobleman by the members of the Carlton Club will
take place on Wednesday next. The magnificent suite
of rooms of the new building will be thrown open on
the occasion.