The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-22 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 2') 18r1

and then took Mi-s ; Bussell and her son for a drive.
The defendant came frequently after tba; to the house cf
witness, and he and the plaintiff conducted themselves as
engaged people,' whose intentions are honearsble,
usually do. His visits spread over a fortnight and four
days. Oa the itla of November he came to agree upon
a list of drawing-room furniture, and passed the evening
at witness's house. Plaintiff had a reluctance to name
the furniture, and witness proposed that defendant
should employ a Mrs. Allen for the purpoie, but he in-
sisted on the plaintiff acting in the matter. They saw
hing of him from that time until the 13th, of Novem-
ber, when he came accompanied by his sister and a
friend of her's to pass the evening. 'His conduct to the
plaintiff on that occasion was.exceedingly cool and re-
served. He did, not come to witness's house until the
following Tuesday, when he came during service, and
did not see the plaintiff, she being at church. ThiS alte-
ration in his conduct made the plaiatiff very unhappy,
and witness deemed it advisable to send her to the house
of the Rev. Mr. Chichester, at Chipping Hampton, near
Barnstaple, where she stayed for a week, and then came
back, still very unhappy and low in spirits.
Cross-examined by Mr. CHARMERS Defendant's
fathers was a client of witness's husband, and died ou
the 23d of August, 1850, soon after which defendant
came to live in the country. He appeared to witness to
be about 28 years of age. She did not know that he
was only 24. His father was a tanner, and was rather
a " riggardly" sort of man. , Defendant ..served his
articles to Mr. T. Cooper' Law, at Barnstaple, who was
ail-elation of witness's, and it was at his house that
witness first met defendant. There was ,dancing going
on at the time, and defendant seemed to .pay great
attention to the plaintiff. A few days after that he
called at witness's, end proposed marriage. Witness
knew a Captain assey, and recollected be was at the
dance on that occasion, but be did not seem:to pay at-
tention to the plaintiff. Plaitakiffs hero glad au
'Writer-ad-a' Ttirre-1 otiirrar -Exeter, called
" Honey Lands." Witness gave her opinion as to what
kind of furniture ought to be ordered for the house in
which the defendant and Miss Bussell ought to reside;
and recommended that the "wedding" should take place
in May, 1851, when the parties could take London in
their tour, and thus see the Great Exhibition. Witness
hail known the plaintiff four or five years, and that she had
been conditionally engaged to a Mr. Price. That was be-
fore the sanction of the plaintiff's father was applied for.
rhis occurred at the end of 1849. Plaintiff's father
had expressed his disapproval of Mr. Price, and wrote
a letter in January or February, 1850, to that effect. Mr.
Price visited at Mr. Hooper Law's for two months in
1849, but did not visit at Barnstaple in that year. He
is a surgeon at Marlborough. The plaintiff was staying
with witness in August and September, 1850, but witness
had nothing to do with the breaking off of the engage-
meat between her and Mr. Price. Witness heard that
bailiffs had come to Mr. Bussell's house with an execu-
tion, but went away on the debt being paid. Mr. Bets-
sell left Honeylands in last October, and now lives at
Barnstaple.
Miss Frances Demay, examined by Sir F. THESIGER,
deposed that she is a cousin of the plaintiff, and knows
the defendant. They met at private parties and public
balls in 1848. In September, 1850, Miss Bussell was on
a visit to Mrs. Law, with whom witness lives. Tho de-
fendant was in the habit of joining witness and the
plaintiff in their walks. Recollected a den& at Barn-
staple, and that the defendant on that occasion pre-
*Lard the plaintiff with a bouquet. He used to take
my cousins, raystlf, and Miss Williams for a drive.
liecollects a slight accident the defendant's siter met
with, and that defendant on that occasion visited Mrs.
Laws. He had never been there before. Mrs. Wil-
liams, the plaintiff, and witness, went the next day to
see the defendant's sister, and sat some time with
the family. The defendant then took them to Brad-
ford near Barnstaple, where they looked over
a house which he had taken for himself and
rh© plaintiff to live in. He said if the plaintiff
liked the hi use that that was all he cared about. He re-
membered hearing that plaintiff made an offer of mar-
riage to defendant, and that she accepted it. Defendant-
eels received on the footing of an engaged person to
pleintiff,:aathe house of Mrs. Laws, and 'settled consulted,
plaintiff with respect to the horses, carriages, and live-
ries.
He wished plaintiff to marry in white glac6, and
it was arranged that witness was to be one of the brides-
maids. Wedding cards were fixed upon. Witness at that
time constantly saw the defendant's mother and the plain-
tiff frequently dined with her. The defendant's mother on
Leese occasions always treated the plaintiff with the greatest
affection, and the defendant told witness that he and the
plaintiff would be very happy; that his income was
1.1001. a year, and that Ws mother would live with him
and add 4001. a yearto it. On the 7th November de-
fendant called about some furniture, and his manner on
that occasion struck witness as rather cold. From that
time he appeared to alter still more in his manner, and
witness observed, on the occasion of one of his visits,
that he was very rude. He contradicted the plaintiff in
everything she said. His misconduct, however, did not
irritate her, although she was much affected by his con-
duct. Her spirits became desponding, and witness ac-
companied her to the Rev. Mr. Chichester's, whither she
was sent, in the hope of diverting her mind from the
thoughts that distressed it. Plaintiff has not since been
in the same good spirits as before these events.
The witness was subjected to a cross-examination, but
nothing material to shake it was elicited.
Mr. Henry Shepherd Law, attorney to the plaintiff,
was then examined by Sir F. THESIGER, and
stated that he had interviews with Mr. Green, the
partner of the defendant, who stated that he did not in-
tend to fulfil his engagement with the plaintiff, his
mother and friends disapproving of it. The defendant
had come to this resolution partly on account 'of Mr.
Bussell's affairs, and partly because he understood that
the plaintiff had another engagement. The witness
again met Mr. Green, and informed Mr. Green that Mr:
Bussell approved of the engagement, and admitted that
ne was in embarrassed circumstances, but that he had
never done anything to disgrace himself. It was further
objected that one of the plaintiff's brothers had enlisted
in the East India Company's service, and the matter
was ended by his stating that the defendant had made
up his mind not to marry the plaintiff. Mr. Green then
said, if that is the case, Miss Bussell and her family
must prepare themselves for a thorough scrutiny, adding
at the same time that the defendant had nothing to say
against the plaintiff.
Nothing material was elicited in cross-examination of
this witness.
Mr. Thomas Lee, one of the executors to the will of
the defendant's father, was then examined, and stated
that the defendant, under that will, was entitled to a
life interest in 17,000/, and had a legacy of 5,000 e, and
also landed property.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS then addressed the jury
ter the defence. He laboured, he said, under a great
difficulty in this case, because he had to oppose himself
to all the geestlemanly sympathies and honourable feel-
iugs of the jury. The Learned Counsel then briefly
ran over the facts connected with the courtship of the
parties, and subi submitted that
conduct,"thathdei
dallegationsapply o
tof j'heeru let-
tersel
When a
party, as was the case in the present instance, found his
crafty,arti
Wittene anda heartless
by the defendant to the plaintiff.
feelings Changed towards an individual, and that there
was wanting in his breast those feelings which could only.
wake the married life happy, he was bound to inform
the other party of that change. What did the de-
fendant do? Why, he said that in taking the plaintiff
as partner for life, he could not make her happy,•
however much he might respect her. He said to
t'se plaintiff, "If you marry me, you incur the
danger of another attachment taking place on
either aide;" end if the defendant felt that be
could not he happy with a woman with whom he must
pass his life, it was his duty to tell her so. A party,
when he was married, went to the altar, and there en-
tered into a solemn engagement; but if? the defendant
had done so, be would have been guilty of hypocrisy,
and therefore it was far more just and honourable, on
the part of the defendant, to have openly and candidly
communicated the real state of his affections to the plain-
Hi. Under all the circumstances, therefore, while he
admitted that in law the verdict must go against his
client, he submitted that the smallest possible amount of
dsmages would satisfy the case; and hoped that the
plaintiff, be wti(ul flower as she was—(Laughter)—might
get a husband more suited to her than the defendant.—
(Renewed laughter.)
Lord CAMPBELL then summed up, and said, that he
thought the case wa . a very aggravated one on the part
of the defendant. The defendant had placed three pleas
on the record, first, that he did not promise to marry the
plaintiff, which was disapproved; secondly, that she was
not willing to marry him, which was proved not to be
the tact; and, thirdly, that a reasonable time had not
alsoelad to
uentrue, allow
because the
tehadfulfilment of
positivelyh t e p
refusedr omi se that w
; to marry
her. He (Lord Campbell) further thought the case
an aggravated one, because the defendant, through Mr.
Green had said that if an action was brought Miss Bus-
selland her family must prepare for a severe scrutiny, and
now he had not been able to bring anything forward to
affect her in the slightest way. He thought that if levity
was not proved against the plaintiff, the defendant would
have shown that the plaintiff was a mercenary person, who
wished to marry him for his money. But the defendant
had not bean able to prove either the one or the'other.
It was said that her former acquaintance with Mr. Price
was a reason why the defendant should not marry her.
But that was no reason, as that engagement was broken
Lefore the defendant knew her, on the grodind that her
father did not approve of it. The Learned Judge then
went through the whole of the evidence, and, commented
strongly on the letters and conduct of the defendant. His
opinion was, that the defendant had refused to marry this
unfortunate young lady from mere caprice; and with re-
spect to damages, the defendant was in a position which
enabled him to pay, and this aggravated the case, as
the plaintiff had been deprived by his conduct of a com-
fortable settlement in life.

The jury then retfred,—and after an absence of about
20 minutes, returned into court with a verdict for the
damages 8001.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION--HO USE.
Mr. William Gibbs, aged 20 years, was brought bc-
fore the Lord Mayor, charged with having assaulted a
F&liee•cor)ftahle on duty.
Alfred Waterman (policeman 4ZO said—Last night I
dt3y et the Ore wkiCh took place in Eastchtap,

[PRICE SD.

and was stationed et the corner of St. Mary-at Hill to
keep the crowd off. I was obliged to tap people on the
hats to induce them to let soma women pass with goods
from the fire, and among the rest I tapped this gentle-
man with my truncheon on the bat, but be made no
more to do when I tapped him but struck me a blow in
the face 'with his fist and ran away. He and a friend .of
his had been on the spot all the evening, and I had•
spoken to them to keep back before I tapped him. It
was not a blow. It made his hat rattle. I only just
touched him. I followed and took bim into custody.
The Loan MAYOR—Did you know the gentleman ?
Witness—No: '
George Barry (ppliceman 461)-1 was also stationed ht.
the fire last night to.keep the crowd back. It was difficult
to keep the people from obstructing the engines and those
who were employed to do duty on the spot. We were
obliged to tap several.on the. bats, and I heard tbe blow
which the defendant gave to the first witness. There were
three or four young men jeering at the police. lam sure it
Waslnot a blow given by the witness to the defendant
that I heard. I followed the witness to *take the defen-
dant into custody. A gentleman who was,with the 4-
fendantiaid that ha was a friend of Idr,:P. W. Harvey,
the Commissioner, and that he Would make a complaint
to that authority upon the subject. -
This was the case for the prosecution.
The defeudankaid not * either of, the witnesses a
.•
question...

Mr. William Barclay, surgeon dentist, of Little
Tower-at:red, .appeared as evidence for the defendant.
He said-e The defendant is a-personal friend of mine,
and lives in George-lane, hbout a hundred yards from
the pretnisetavihich.were on fire. I wasavith him upon
the occasion alluded to. Mr.Alibbe, sen., hiss'fath: re-
quested us'toitay on the epOt, to protect the Pres.' :teas
he had property there.. The meshed was quiet. tetise
dfieera 'had been forcink the people back, and twg'or
three young mere Jeoratteet etlie eloniplainante- who ap-
peared to be irritated. The _ defendant told the com-
plainant not to lose his temper, and the complainant then
said, "I'll Mark you," or words to that effect, and struck
him a violent. blow over the head with his truncheon. I
am certain that the officer straok the defendant with all
his force.
The complainant—That's quite false. If I had struck
him with all my force he Must have been severely
marked.
Mr. Barclay—ln my opinion you struck him with
your whole force.
Mr. H. S. Gibbs, father of the defendant, said am
a shipowner and insurance broker, and my address is
No. 2, George-lane, Tower-street. My premises are in
the immediate neighbourhood of the fire, and I re-
quested that my son and Mr. Barclay would remain on
the spot for the protection of the property. I went
home when Ifound that the fire was declining, but I was
surprised in a short time with the intelligence that my
son was injured by a terrific blow from a policeman,
and that he had been dragged to the station-house
through the water. I then went and found him at the
station-home. It was necessary to bathe his temples
with vinegar, and to make other soothing applications,
so that the blow he received must have been severe.
A gentleman of the name of Simpson, who was present
at the time, said the outrage was the most wanton he
had ever seen.
The •LORD MAYOR—The case before me is one of
considerable difficulty. I well know what the police
have to encounter on emergencies of this kind ; how
hard it is for them to perform their duty amidst
the terrible bustle and confusiou of a conflagration,
and, knowing that, I am exceedingly unwilling to
condemn the proceedings they may consider neces-
sary to be adopted for the preservation of private
property and the public peace. At the same time I
wish to impress upon them the necessity of being guided
by the principle of forbearance upon occasions of strong
excitement, from whatever cause arising. I shall dis-
charge the defendant, and send. the whole ease to the
Commissioner, to be investigated by him. Ido not say
that the officer has exceeded his duty, but I certainly
consider that he is bound,' for the sake of his own cha-
racter, to convince the Qutumissioner that he .has not
done so; and I consider too, that it is due to tin defen-
dant that he should hale the full opportunity of show-
ing that the officer acted urjustifiably.
The case will, it is presumed, immediately undergo
investigation before Mr. D. W. lilarvey, the Commis-
sioner'ot the City Police.
Sarah Mahoney, a 'well-known beggar, who has lately
come from America, and uses crutches in the day, but
manages to do without them when she is not observed
by the police, was brought up charged with having en-
deavoured to impose upon the relieving officer of the
City of London Union. She called, it was proved, at
the house in Northumberland-alley, and asked for relief,
declaring that she had not a farthing in the world, but
suspicion having been entertained of her sincerity, the
female searcher of the union went to work, and found
silver in the finger of one of her gloves, and halfpence
concealed about her person in various parts of her dress.
She was also proved to have a little before deceived other
officers of the union.
The defendant said she had brought the money from
America, where she had left the body of her husband,
who had made her promise to convey it safe to Ireland,
where she expected to go one of these days.
The LORD MAYOR—I think the sooner you go the
better; and I shall send you to prison for fourteen days,
and then ship you for your, native country.
Defendant—You can't do that, your Lordship. lam
not able to go. I can't walk, except upon crutches.
The LORD MAYOR-0, yes, I'll send you away after
you shall have left Bridewell. You can take your
crutches with you, but you won't want them to carry you.
Defendant—They told me in America, that as my
husband was a citizen of London, I had my parish here;
and I don't want to go, and I am sure I won't go.
The LORD MAYOR—You shall go on board the moment
you are discharged.
The defendant was then moving down stairs, but his
Lordship called her back, and told her she had already
forgotten her crutches; upon which she took them up,
but seemed no longer to be in the least need of them.
BOW-STREET.
Eliza Ellis, who stated that she was the wife of a
clergyman, and appeared to be in great distress, was
charged with having attempted to commit suicide, by
poisoning herself.
Sergeant Ashman, of the E division, stated that he
found the defendant sitting upon a step in Surrey-street,
Strand, at about half-past ten on Thursday night. She
seemed in a helpless condition, and very much exhausted.
Witness saw a small bottle, labelled " poison," lying on
the pavement near her, and being unable to get any an-
swers to hie questions, he conveyed her to King's College
Hospital.

The prisoner, in a feeble voice, expressed her contri-
tion for the offence, and promised not to repeat it.
Mr. JARDINE inquired if anyone present knew any-
thing of the young woman?
The defendant's landlady stepped forward and said
that Mrs. Ellis had lodged with her at No. 36, Sand-
wich-street, Burton-crescent, for a considerable time
past, and that she was the wife of the Rev. Robert Ellis,
a clergyman of the Church of England, who was 70 years
or age, and lived in Grenville-street, Brunswick-square.
Witness had reason to know that the defendant had been
very cruelly treated by her husband, and that her pre-
sent state of despondency was the consequence of it. She
had been compelled to separate from him, and had tried
to obtain a living by needlework, as he refused to allow
her anything for her support.
Mr. JARDINE inquired if the husband had the means
of affording her assistance?
Witness replied that he had hr en chiefly supported,
be believed, by some noblemen and gentlemen who were
formerly his pupils, and to whom he was in the habit of
writing for assistance. The defendant had paid witness
her tent until about ten weeks since with great regu-
larity; but she had been latterly unable to support her-
self. The husband occasionally paid her a visit at her
lodgings, but he was generally intoxicated, and never
left her any money. So recently as Friday last he called
upon her at night quite drunk, and abused the defendant
and her son (a boy of 13 by a former husband) in foul
and shameful language.
Mr. JARDINE asked the witness if she could under-
take to prevent a repetition of the offence by using her
influence to persuade the defendant of the folly and wick-
edness of her conduct? The, witness said, that she
would gladly take care of her, as she believed her to be
a very respectable, hard-working woman.
Mr. JARDINE then directed a small sum to be paid
out of the poor-box for the present relief of the de -
fendant; and, after a suitable admonition, ordered tho
constable to deliver her up to the landlady, who had
shown a very creditable feeling on her behalf.

Miles
opened,
1851.

LAMBETH.
Matthew Longman, a silk-dyer and scourer, residing
at 3, Bradley-terrace, • Wandsworth-road, appeared be-
fore Mr. Elliott, to answer to a summons charging hin,
with refusing to pay two men in his employment the
wages due to them.
man to
an
.advertisement in a morning paper for a
young
grat in a
learn a good working trade, which
coulhdebttne of learn-
ing, and employment and
he had several
re.
the business. To this advertisement
young men he
plies, and the result was that from tre(_)
to teach them the art and
got 101. each, and a third 51,
glazing • and calico in six
I mystery of dying. scouring,
good wages whent proficient in
apprenticeship, with plenty of em 1 • during their short appren employ..
meat at IL and sob. a week when out of their time, as
journeyman, and to the third ss. a week daring appren-
months. To the first two he was to allow 10s. a week
appren-
ticeship, and similarly liberal terms afterwards. The
men found that though' they were taken on. Lougman
had not work sufficient to employ one out of the three,
and their promised allowance was not forthcoming.
hiuedianinpt
ed l'iNotwithstanding this, another advertisement appeared
from the defendant a.fow days ago, and the men, who
felt themselves deceived and imposed on by the de-
fendant, came forward both to expose the system and ob-
tain the money due to them.
Tle
had an n
pi ona re
his d
vmostniee , pion defence,
v er t poverty-stricken,
-s t ric k
saide n,
and
the complainants bad not acted up to the written
agreement they heel entered into, as, instead of 8 o'clock
in the morning, they sometimes did not come until
9 and 10.
The complainants replied that there was no nse in
their coining at 8 o'clock in the morning, when
.there
was no work to set them to.
Mr. ELuorr observed That there, could be .no doubt