The Sun.
London, England, 1860-12-06 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, Dec. 5.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
Mr. Frederick George Eyre, the chaplain of the
Feversham Union, an elderly man, surrendered to
take his trial upon a charge of feloniously assault-
ing Sophia Foreman.
Mr. F. Russell conducted the prosecution. The
prisoner was defended by Mr. Barrow.
The prosecutrix, a young and rather good-looking
woman, deposed that she was the wife of William
Henry Foreman, who was a pastrycook at Fever-
sham, and she and her husband lived in the same
house with the prisoner at Ospringes, and witness
acted as his housekeeper. The occurrence com-
plained of took place on the 4th of October, and on
that day her husband had gone to attend to his busi-
ness at Feversham, leaving her alone with the pri-
soner in the house. Soon after her husband was gone
the prisoner called to her and told her to get him
his boots. At this tithe witness was in the sitting-
room on the ground-floor and the prisoner was in the
kitchen, and she took the boots to him there, and gave
them to him, and he then made an improper pro-
posal to her, and witness told him she did not
understand him, and left the room and returned to
the sitting-room. Shortly afterwards the prisoner
came into the sitting-room. She was on her knees
at the time, engaged in sweeping, and the prisoner
caught hold of her wrists and pulled her into a
room up stairs. She did not recollect that he said
anything while he was dragging her along, but she
did all she could to prevent him, although she was
not able to offer much resistance on account of her
weak state, from having been recently confined of
a still-born child. The prisoner then pulled her
into his bed-room, and forced her on the bed in
spite of her struggles, and committed an assault
upon her. (The witness detailed the particulars,
which are not fit for publication.) She went on to
say that she was almost insensible at the time, and
was not aware whether she shrieked out or not, but
she endeavoured all she could to prevent prisoner
from carrying out his intention. The prisoner left
the room and went down stairs, and as soon as she
was sufficiently recovered she also went down, and
saw him in the act of going out at the street door.
No one came to the house during the day except
Mr. Alvey, the master of the union workhouse,
who called in the evening, and her husband did. not
return home until 12 o'clock at night, and she told
him that the prisoner had been pulling her about.
He said " Pulling you about ; what do you mean ?
how did he pull you about ?" She then told him
that he bad pulled her up stairs, but he was in
such a rage that she did not like to tell him any
more, particularly as he said that if he had come in
at the time he would have killed him. On the
Sunday after the occurrence she told her husband's
mother how the prisoner had behaved to her, and
said that he had forced her up stairs into his bed-
room, and assaulted her. She remained in the pri-
soner's house until the 10th of October, but he was
not there during the time. He had gone to attend
the funeral of his brother at Bath, and he told wit-
ness and her husband where he was going to before
he left; but he did rot say when he was coming
back. He told tkem that he was going away before
the offence was committed. Witness went before a
magistrate on 10th October ; but she did not then
make any particu!ar chargeagainst the prisoner, and
her reason for that was that her husband wanted to
get the furniture away without any bother. She
told the magistrates' clerk and superintendent of
police that she could say a good deal more than she
did if sne was not afraid of her husband. Her
sister subsequently told her husband of all that
occurred, and he immediately obtained a warrant
against the prisoner, and he was taken into custody
upon this charge.
The prosecutrix was subjected to a very search-
ing examination by Mr. Barrow, and in the course
of it she stated that the house where the offence
was committed was one of a row, and there were
houses on both sides of it, and she bilieved that
persons in the adjoining houses could have heard if
there had been any noise or screaming in the pri-
soner's house. She struggled as much as she could
when the prisoner laid hold of her. and she believed
that she screamed while he was forcing her up
stairs. When the prisoner forced her upon the
bed she resisted with all her strength. She first
told her husband the whole of what took place at
Ramsgate, but he had heard the story from her
sister before.
Re-examined. —Witness suffered a good deal after
her confinement, and was subject to palpitation of
the heart ; and when she was so attacked she lost
all her strength. The reason she did not tell any.
of the neighbours was that the prisoner had told
both her and her husband not to have any commu-
nication with them.
In answer to questions put by the learned judge,
The prosecutrix said that she had only been
married two years. She had no family. She would
be 29 years old next birthday. When she saw her
mother she told her that she wanted her advice,
and she then informed her how the prisoner had
behaved to her; and when she had done so her
mother said, For God's sake, don't tell William
(meaning her husband), he is such a violent temper.
something serious will occur." Her husband was
a violent-tempered man.
William Foreman, husband to the prosecutrix,
deposed that he was formerly a private in the Royal
Marines, and was now employed at Faversham.
He and his wife went to live at the prisoner's house,
at Ospringe, a short time before the 6th of October.
He remembered going out on that day to attend to
his business, and he did not return home until
late at night. He observed that his wife did not
seem well, and he asked her what was the matter,
and she made a complaint of the conduct of the pri-
soner. On the following Sunday he went with her
to his mother's, at Faversham, and in consequence
of something he heard afterwards he obtained a
warrant against the prisoner 'charging him with
this offence. The prisoner upon one occasion asked
him where his " miss.B" was, and he told him that
he could not expect that she would stop in his house
after the manner he had behaved to her. The reply
the prisoner made was that we wanted to catch him
in a trap. Witness told him they did not want
anything of the sort; and the prisoner then told
him to go into his study with him, and he then said
to him' What is all this bobbery about ?" and then
inquired what witness's wife had said to him. He
told him that she said he had dragged her up stairs
and made obscene propositions to her. The prisoner
thou inquired whether he had taken any steps on
' the matter, and he replied that he had been before
a magistrate and had obtained a warrant; and the
prisoner then said that if he had not done that he
would have made it all right with him, and witness
replied that all he wanted was to get out of his
house as soon as he could, On the morning after
this occurred the prisoner came to him in a very
excited state and asked if he wrote a letter to his
wife to ask her to come back whether she would
do so, and witness told him he knew that she would
not, for he would not let her. The prisoner after
this did write a letter to his wife and read it in er
to witness, and asked him whether he thought it
would do, and he at the same time said that he
could not be expected to commit himself. Witness
told him that was his (prisoner's) affair, and not
his own, and the prisoner then said that if his wife
did not come back thA people would think there
was something up, and they would hoot at him
and lie should lose• his living. He also said that
if she would only conic back for a day or two
he would not mind.
The letter referred to was put in mid read. It
was addressed to the prosecutrix, and in it the pri-
soner expressed his astonishment that she had left
his house, and said it would be much better if she
came back and the matter was settled amicably.
Examination continued—When witness told the
prisoner that his wife had made a charge against
him of pulling her about he said lie did lay bold of
her wrists, but he had no motive for doing
so, and made use of sonic other word which witness
did not understand. At this time he did not know
all that had taken place.
The mother of the last witness and the sister to
the prosecutrix were then examined, and they
proved that she made a complaint to them of the
manner in which the prisoner had behaved to her.
Mr. Alvey, the schoolmaster to the union,
deposed that he called at the prisoner's house on
the evening of the 6th October, and saw the prose-
cutrix, and inquired if Mr. Eyre was at home ; and
she told him he was not.
ay Mr. Barrow—The prosecutrix made no com-
plaint to him at the time, and there was nothing at
all particular in her appearance that attracted his
attention. The partitions of the houses in the row
where the prisoner lived were very thin, and he had
frequently heard voices through them.
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
the
jury Barrow than made a very able addl.( so tooc at
ihae
jury on behalf of the prisoner, and he commente
some length upon the improbability of the stow
told by the prosecutrix, antialso that if she had

made the resistance she represented her cries must
have been heard in the adjoining houses.
The learned Judge then summed up, and thejury
retired to deliberate upon their verdict. They were
absent about half an hour, and upon their return
into court they gave a verdict of Not Guilty.
There was a slight manifestation of applause
when the verdict was delivered.

CHEMISTRY IN RELATION TO

COJIMEI?CE.

(From the Chemical Noes.)
To discover a new chemical combination which
shall produce a brilliant dye at a cheap rate is
enough to gladden the heart of any chemist and to
fill his pockets with gold. To find out the art of
manufacturing diamonds would likewise, for a time,
be a profitable discovery; but neither of these dis-
coveries would be comparable in value with one
which would preserve beauty,-unimpaired by time,
or, at least, preserve a fresh and clear complexion.
The attempt to manufacture a cosmetic, which will
effect this, is as laudable as an attempt to unite
England and America by a telegraphic cable, and
success would be quite as useful in- the former as
in the latter case—provided, however, that in
beautifying the faces of our ladies it did not
destroy their health. At the present moment
there are cosmetics enough manufactured to float
a man-of-war, and skin-powders enough to fill
it. The names given to these substances
would fill a volume, though the actual number
of ingredients which go to their formation are very
few indeed. Unfortunately, the greater portion of
these are of a highly injurious character, and their
evil effects are not lessened by their being applied
externally., That ladies should endeavour to make
their personal appearance agreeable is excusable,
not to say praiseworthy ; and such an endeavour is
quite in accordance with their self-denying charac-
ter, since it cannot be for their own pleasure that
they employ such means to heighten the effect of
their natural charms, but solely because they think it
gratifies the eye of the harder and uglier sex to rest
on what is called a brilliant complexion. Laud-
able, however, as such a motive is, we cannot but
think it to be our duty to point out at what
possible cost this result is obtained. For example :
—lt cannot be beneficial to the skin of the face to
have its pores stopped up with a mineral com-
posed chiefly of flint and magnesia, such as talc,
a substance extensively used under the name of
French blanc : neither can oxide of bismuth,
or a combination of fluorine and bismuth, be an
advisable application to the countenance, not-
withstanding its innocently sounding name of
blanc de perle, or in vulgar English, pearl white.
Being insoluble in alkalies, it can only be removed
from the skin on going to bed with great difficulty,
and indeed after a time it is doubtful whether it can
be thoroughly removed at all. As to its • effects,
without wishing to be alarmists, we cannot refrain
from stating that its continued employment pro-
duces a twitching of the muscles of the face, which
is by no means unlikely to end in paralysis. There
is another objection to its use, which may perhaps
have more weight with those who think that
" sufficient for the day is the evil thereof;" than
that we have mentioned, and this is that it blackens
when exposed to sulphuretted hydrogen, a gas fre-
quently met with in badly-ventilated rooms, and,
indeed, everywhere where gas or sewers exist.
Many a lady who would not hesitate to use a face
powder would, we will venture to say, pause before
laying on her delicate skin a hydrated silicate of
magnesia, which, under the name of steatite, is
extensively used in the manufacture of such
powders. As to the colours used for giving a rosy
tint, and sold under the name of bloom of roses, or
plain rouge, it is impossible to enumerate all the
substances which enter into their composition ;
suffice it to say that they are most frequently made
of a mixture of talc and carmine, a compound
which is so various in its composition that no two
specimens are alike. Beside the substances we
have mentioned, there are others which are largely
used in the manufacture of face-powders, and which
are quite as, if not more, injurious than those we
have mentioned. For the benefit of those ladies
who consider they must use a powder of some kind
to prevent the skin from becoming rough in cold
weather, we may mention that the most harmless
is that known as violet powder, which is formed of
wheat-starch and orris-root powder, with the addi-
tion of a little scent. What chemist who reads the
numerous advertisements of hair-dyes of marvellous
properties, or, still more, who notices the number
of persons who disfigure their hair with such ap-
plications,'can have helped asking himself how far
the use of these may account for the increase of
that obscure class of diseases which the physician
finds it so difficult to deal with. Some of the most
extensively used of these hair-dyes are composed of
a mixture of quick or slaked lime, powdered white
lead, and litharge. The mode of using these powders
is to mix them into a paste with water, and plaster
the hand with It, covering it with oiled silk, or
some other waterproof tissue, to keep it moist, and
letting it remain on for several hours. Now, there
cannot be a doubt that during this time a consider-
able portion of lead must be absorbed into the
system through the pores of the skin, which are
rendered more than usually absorbent by having
been previously cleansed, and by the heat which is
engendered while the head remains covered with
this impervious tissue. The poisonous property of
lead when taken into the body in any form is well
known, but it is only reasonable to conclude that
its effects must be peculiarly injurious when ab-
sorbed through the skin so near the brain. These
effects exhibit themselves in various forms ; some-
times by inflammation of the alimentary canal ;
at other times by spasm of the muscles ; but,
its effect in this particular instance under conside-
ration would probably be on the nervous system,
which might ultimately lead to apoplexyor partial
palsy. Neither can the use of hair dyes. which
are composed of nitrate of silver, sulphide of potas-
sium, sulphate of copper, or prussiate of iptash, be
otherwise than injurious ; and when we have men-
tioned these substances, we have not nearly speci-
fied all the deleterious substances used in their
preparation.

THE LA TV OF LANDLORD AND TENANT

lAN FRANCE.

Three cases of some interest to landlords and
tenants were submitted to the courts on Thursday
last. The first was this :—A person named Du-
plessy, who held on lease certain buildings in the
Quai de la Gare, sublet, iu 1854, part of them to
one Chevallier, on lease for six or nine years. The
Orleans Railway Company, in 1859, bought the
buildings, and gave Duplessy notice to quit ; he, in
his turn, gave Chevallier notice to leave on the Ist
of January, 1860, and that person formally ac-
eeptea it in writing, as putting an end to his lease.
Subsequently Duplcssy took the buildings on a
new lease from the railway company, and he
allowed Chevallier to remain in the portion occu-
pied by him. But on the 30th of June last he gave
him notice to leave on the 6th of January next.
Chevallier refused to accept that notice on the
ground that by leaving him in occupation he had
tacitly annulled the acceptance of the former notice,
and had virtually renewed the lease for the same
length of time as that which he (Duplessy) had
obtained from the railway company. An action
having been brought before the Civil Tribunal,
judgment was given in favour of Chevallier. But
the Imperial. Court yesterday, on appeal, holding
that this deCision was bad in law, quashed it, and
declared that the notice to quit on the Ist of June
last was valid. The second case was as follows :
—A lady named Geoffrey, some time back, let to
one Cherre a garden attached to a house in the Rue
Vaugirard, and authorised him in the lease to raise
against the wall of the garden any construction he
might please, subject to his paying the expense.
He built some sheds against it, and then the pro-
prietor of the adjacent garden, a M. Durand, who
had paid for the construction of the wall, de-
manded that, as Madame Geoffrey derived as much
advantage from it as he did, she should pay him
323 f., or half the expense. Madame Geoffrey did
not deny that, as the wall was a party one, the sum
was due, but, she contended that it was Cherre
who ought to pay it, as he profited by the wall fer
his constructions. Cherre, however, refused, on the
ground that the expense of a party-wall falls by
law on the landlord, inasmuch as it is he who de-
rives permanent benefit from it; and that, besides,
the lease, though throwing on him the expense of
any construction he might make, did not render
him liable to pay for the wall itself. The case was
Civil yesterday argued before the
after long pleadings for the different parties, judg-
ment was given to the effect that Madame Geoffrey
must pay the 323 f. The third affair was of a dif-
ferent kind. A lady named Gerard lately took on
lease an apartment in a house in the Faubourg
Poissonniere, and, after sending in her furniture,
she wentto
shetak ehepossession, amccso:nbpuatntiehde
cboyncaielragpe-
dog, which
positively refused to let the animal enter, and after
a long altercation she was obliged to send it away.
On appeal to the landlord she could obtain no
redress, and she then applied to the President of
the Civil Tribunal sitting in chambers to order
that, as her lease did not contain any stiprtlation
that she should not keep a dog, the animal should
be allowed to enter. The President granted the
application, and, moreover, directed that if need be
the commissary of police of the district and the
armed force should be employed to compel obedience.

The Bonn Gazette of the 30th ult. states that
Professor Dahlman had on the previous day au attack of
apoplexy, but hopes were entertained that it would not be
attended with fatal results.