The Sun.
London, England, 1860-12-19 00:00:00

(7-
•
E :RUT R •
- - .
71,
".41‘aft41),
;C-•-)-
" They did, and so did I." He said, "bltf is:
,fez
, mean to marry you
n1:01:42.2e:
)
•
fined." She w
i i
.
I-At& 1 4+,4 • S
4.,"111°:jr-i-1 414'01
•
- 114A:\-) " .) not seen the plainti ak him for ;Jr
of
to
Iratst. A.,eepr :daft
104
vured
ti'f; 7-*
visual when when he said he old nut marry her befort-lahe Ag
. tki -
Roar.was confined, but he would do soca', afterwards, and that
‘,:'?CY' 1:
; r- -
•-•
et±,;" -
he would suppl3r her with money as he did not wish any
14i
- ''''''
..zwv
r'4.ltP/H- 7/1 '`.4l//

expense to fall Von her family,. She had afterwards dis-
coyored that the defendant irad been keeping company with
another young man in the same neighbourhood.
His lordship having su.rnmed up, the jury found a vor-
diet for tho, plaintiff--damages, £l5O.

pt icE 4D sTAAirED, 51).

Pigott—l am the defendant, and live at Clopton-house,
Warwickshire. Twelve years ago my wife separated from
me. In 1848 I met Miss Hooper at Brighton. I hid been
annoyed by' thriftless servants, and I thought she would Le
a useful person as a spy over them. I engaged her o,s
housemaid, Cohabitation.counnenced on the 22d ofJ e_ijuar •,
1819 She accompanied roe to Ireland in 18/ ,f1,,,c1e
had been disagreetnents-between us on accu"7.it of her levity
of conduct, having labourers up to, the l, 'oust) and absenting
herself. Scenes of violence occurred el, ; the i t;
Ardig ,:ts,. six year::
that she lived With me. She wtr,
perpetually drunk and
quarrelsome. She drank a pint
months. She has been
giver to drinking during the last six
years. [The witness Nve"6 asked to refresh his memory by
reference to memoir:oda made at the time, and some
amusement was •
created by the production of three
immense comn,. of brandy every day for two
ercial-looking ledgers.] I remember her
staying out P 1
she had s): ept in the coach-house. The quarrels were so
multitudinous that it is impossible to separate ono from the
.1. night , me in the morning that
and telling
other. I remember sending for the police on one occasion
beta;;tg© she was
quarrelling and fighting me. It arose from
a dispute about the children. —ln her sober moments she
had expressed a wish to make over to me, as far as she
could, parental rights over the children. I had told her. she
should not come into the house until she signed the deed.
She ran about the house with repair of loadd pistols, and
threatened to shoot me. I was not alarmed. I was anxious
to have the deed signed. I was th.'eatening to have her
removed, but I did not intend it. I loved her too well,
and I love her now. She was tipsy on this occasion.
She would drink anything. She abused in the worst Bil-
lingsgate language my aunt, myself, my wife, my children,
myancestors, and everything belonging to me. Such abuse
provoked me. She was having up men to the house, and
I was perpetually annoyed by it, and unfortunately I sug-
gested that she should have a young man on the estate,
and not bring them from all parts. The suggestion arose
in a conversation with her, and in conseqUence of her being
extremely amorous. It is false that I ever was in the room.
I only know of what occurred from what she has told me.
I heard of it first soon after I had pointed out the lad
Williams on the lawn, and advised her to take him. She
told me of her having the bailiff. That raised a rancorous
feeling, and ended in a row. I never struck her without
provocation. On one occasion she repaired that I should
turn away an old nurse of 70 years of age,
who had lived
in the house since the year before I was born-49 years ago.
She went to the housekeeper's room and slammed the door
in my face. I put my foot against the door and forced it
open. She was hurt by the handle of the door, and I heard
she said I did it. On another occasion a servant came to me
and said "Do come down, or mistress will kill Sarah
Carter." When I got there I thought it was an artificial
quarrel. Another servant came in and said she would not
have a fellow. servant illused. Miss Hooper got the poker.
I said if the servant would knock her down I would give
two sovereigns. Miss Hooper advanced, and the servant
with one blow knocked her down. That was not me. I
afterwards gave the two sovereigns. The cart-whip I kept
in the dining room to drive out the cats, and I struck her
with it because she hit me as hard as she could. She has
thrown candlesticks, knives, and saltcellars at me. I did
not throw gravy over her ; but once I threw everything on
the table at her. I did not send her away. I would have
given £lO,OOO rather than she should have gone away. I
send away the mother of my children ! No I (The witness
here began to weep, but immediately recovered himself.) i
A friend of mine, Mr. Perry, was in Warwick Gaol, and
she wanted him released. She said if I would not do 'it
she would. She said she had money in the savings-11411k.
that it was a good opportunity to get it. She
I thought she might use the, money to go Way, and
not went over
with me and paid the £BO, and we brought 10',.ek Perry. I
thought it a generous thing, and I gave hP L. a note of hand
for £2OO, payable in three years. I dirk
.:
a wrong stamp. I took a written ac know it was on
should be left if sheleft me, il as aeement that the jewels
I wanted her to stay, and wo'o_Va s 'earnest of her remaining.
have given everything to
her, andLlo,ooo besides..
which she sent to o T.t. have none of the jewels. ' They
were sent with the elPihes, in consequence of this letter
'ar eldest daughter :

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DEC. 18.
(Sitising at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before the Lord Chief
Baron and Special Juries.)
BRANDON V. IIORTON.-SEDUCTION.

This was au action brought by the plalntiff fur thc seduc-
tion of hiS daughter, to which the defendant pleaded not
guilty.
The plaintiff awl Ur; defendant in this action reside at
Dagnall, in Buekinghaiwhirc, where the former was a faun
bailiff; in the service. of the father of the latter. The plain-
tiff has a family of six children, of whom one is a daughter
named Sarab, aged. 18. The defendant often called at the
vlaintiff's house for the transaction of the business of the
farm, and intimacy thus sprung up between him and the
girl, Sarah Brandon, to whom it, was sworn he had pro-
mised a watch and car-rings. Ile asked her to attend on
hint at his harvest feaBt,
and afterwards be succeeded
in seducing her under, as was alleged, a promise of tear-
riage, which ho had refused to fulfit, offering to pay 3s. 6d.
a week for the support of tho child to which the pl tin-
till's daughter had given birth, and adding, " As for mar-
riage, I shall arrange that when 7 think convenient."
Thc jury founds verdict filr the plaintiff—damages £lOO.

COUItT OF PIIOI3ATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before (Before Sir C. Cm rowell and a Special Jury.)
COMYN V. COMYN AND HUMPHRIES.- 0(
This was a suit instituted by Ed ward Stephen Corn vn,
a physician, practising at Cheltenham, for a dissolution of
marriage on the ground Of his wife's adultery with the co-
respondent, and for compensation in damages, and the
respondents entered no appearance*.
Dr. Swabey and Mr. Norman were counsel for the peti-
tioner.
It appeared that Dr. Comya and his wife were married
in January, 1842, and cohabited till May, 1859, when Mrs.
Comyn went to the house of a clergyman, a relation, who
resided in Essex, and subsequently left this country for
Toronto, where she was traced, and where she was alleged
to have been living with the co-respondent. It appeared
also the respondent had eight children, and that the defen-
dant, who had been master of a grammar school at Chel-
tenham, was a married man, with a family of six children. •
Dr. Humphries went to reside at Cheltenham in 1854, and
Dr. Comyn sent one of his sons to his school, which led to
an intimacy between the families, particularly the female
members. Ultimately Mrs. Comyn became ia the habit of
walking out with Dr. Humphries, which displeased her
husband, who remonstrated with her, and it was arranged
that she should go on a visit to her relatives, in order to
terminate the intercourse between her and Dr..Humpliries -
without exciting any remark. She accordingly left Chel-
tenham with the ostensible object of carrying out this
arrangement, and the elopement took place.
The jury found a verdict fpr the petitioner, with £2,000
damages.
The rule nisi was then granted with costs agail the
co-respondent.

CENTRAL CRIMIN.iL COURT—Dec..IS.

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
'Eliza Archer, alias Eliza. Anthony Manley, 29,
'a rather good-looking woman, was indicted for
feloniously intermarrying with Thomas Archer,
her husband, Herbert Anthony Manley, being still
alive.

Mr. Sergeant Parry was specially retained, with
Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Bowden, to conduct
the prosecution ; the prisoner was defended by Mr.
Sleigh,
The circumstances connected with this charge
have been so frequently before the public that it
is unnecessary to do more than briefly allude to
them. The prosecutor, Mr. Archer, was a young
man- possessed of considerable property, and he
picked up the prisoner, who was a woman of loose
character, and married her. They lived toge-
ther for some time in a most extravagant style,
the prisoner conducting herself in a manner such
as might have been expected from a per-
son of her original position, and in conse-
quence of a transaction that took place between her
and an omnibus conductor, it will be remembered
that the latter brought an action against Mr.
Archer to recover possession of a diamond ring,
when some extraordinary disclosures were made
relative to the profligate proceedings of the pri-
soner. Mr. Archer subsequently instituted pro-
eeedings, with a view to obtain a divorce, and in
the course of thorn he discovered that the prisoner
had another husband living, and, hearing that he
was at the gold diggings in Australia, steps were
taken to bring him to this country. It was clearly
made out that the prisoner was married in the year
1852, at St. Pancras Church, to a person named.
Herbert Anthony Manley, and he was now pro-
duced in court, and his sister proved that he was
the same person who was so married.
Mr. Thomas Archer was called to pruve the
second marriage, and he stated that he became
acquainted with the prisoner in March, 1857. He
met her one night in the Haymarket in that
month, and on the 24th of June following they
were married at St. Pancras Church. They went
to be married froma house in Norton-street. When
he came of age he was entitled to £13,000.
Cross•examined by Mr. Sleigh—When he first
asked the prisoner to marry him she said she
would consider of it. (A laugh.)

" Pall-mall, London, June 3.
"My de9.r Marie,—l should have written to you before
this had. not illness prevented me. now I are much better
and feel I can act and do what a mother should your father
if he can bare such a name to me has been a perfect brute.
I for him gave up every enjoyment, and this is my reward
so be it thank God I am happy and have plenty of kind
friends it is my present intention to leave England the end
of this month therefore I wish you to ask your Papa to
order two boxes of the most useful cloths belonging to me
sent to the above address the rest he can give to his scul-
lery maid the moment my dear child I have a home of my
own, not one moment shall you remain at Clopton I have
good advice and can at any moment claim one and all of
you rely on it my dear girl your mother will never desert
her own infant God grant you may never feel the want or
protection of your devoted

" Mother MAILIA."
I believe 16 boxeS were sent. I have not a single jewel of
hers left.

Cross-examined by Mr. James—My wife, in suing for
divorce, alleged that in 17 instances I had had children and
women up in the plantation before the house; but not one
instance was proved. The children of the marriage were
taken away from me by order of the Lord Chancellor. As
far as I was concerned Miss Hooper was a virtuous girl
until January, 1849 ; but. the way in which she went about
at Shoreham, shaking hands with every man in the place,
seems to me to make it very doubtful whether she was
virtuous before I saw her. She justified her levity of
conduct on the °ground that I was old and used up. I
never spoke to Williams on the subject until the intimacy
had existed for some time. I sanctioned it. I told her
she might. At the time the conversation took place she
gave ma this memorandum :—" If you get me a nice little
fellow to give me a kiss I solemnly swear I will never go out
of the house again." I did not suggest the terms. It was
a voluntary statement. You know what an amorous woman
is, Mr. James.
Mr. James—Pray say whatever you like of me.
Witness—l say'that I was reading your speech in the
Cambridge case, in which you said you did not think the
worse of a man who would kiss a milliner girl in his youth
ful days. (Laughter.)
Mr. James—But the men referred to in the Cambridge
case did not take memoranda like that.
Cross .examination continued—l swear I have never been
present with Williams and plaintiff in a darkened room. I
have known of her going to him, and have slept with her
the same night. I struck her when she was sitting at the
table the day before she left. I beat her with the whip, not
with' a billiard cue. I am a man istrate of the county of '
Warwick. I never asked Miss Hooper to sign the agree-
ment
about the children in the presence of the police. I
think I have beaten her 20 or 30 times. I beat her once with
a child's archery bow.. She stated truly yesterday about
my insisting on her coming to my room, but there was not
a word of truth in her saying she would not sleep with me
because of my conduct to another female servant. I defy
any one in the world to show that I had anything to do with
any other woman while Miss Hooper was in my house.
Sutton was my sculleryinaid, and is now my mistress. She
was the successor of Mrs. Warde, and I told Miss Hooper
if she went away I should have Sutton back as her succes-
sor. I have a son by Sutton. As to the jewels Ido not know
what were sent or what she took away with her. I have not
seen any of her jewels since she left. I broke some jewellery
at Hatchett's Hotel, and paid for mending it afterwards. I
broke the jewels in consequence of her leaving me at the
Conservative Club one night and going off to her brother-
in-law. I broke the jewels as a lesson to her, on the same
I principle as you box a boy's ears. 1 said just now, "
love her still," and so I do. I wrote a letter to her attorney
in January last, saying I should be ready to defend myself
against any proceedings which his drunken, dissolute client
might choose to institute. The Chinese love the devil. I
love her, and I wrote the letter.
To the Judge—l do not think I ever struck her before
1856. Many of the quarrels had reference to Williams.
Tho last child resembled him. I found I had committed
a most unfortunate fault. I intended it as pastime, never
expecting the result. I sent him away soon after the child
was born, but at her entreaty had him back. He then be-
came impudent, kissing her in open day in every room in
the house, and hence quarrels between us. When Prit-
chard the surgeon died there was a public subscription, and
I gave £2OO.
Some further evidence was given and the learned judge
summed up the evidence.
The jury retired at 25 minutes to 6 o'clock, and, after an
absence of three-quarters of an hour, returned into court
and delivered a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages for
the jewellery, £100; for the money lent by her to the de-
fendant, £BO ; and for the assaults, £5OO, making, alto-
gether, £6BO.
The foreman of the jury then said his brother jurors
desired him to express their feeling that the £5OO damages
were intended to include the £2OO promissory note which
the defendant gave the plaintiff.
The Lord Chief Justice—You cannot do that, gentle-
men. Your verdict cannot stand if you mix up the pro-
missory note with it. Besides, the note was on a wrong
stamp. You had better consider your verdict again, and
say whether you will give her the £5OO damages without
reference to anything but the assaults.
Foreman—Well, then, my Lord, we find damages £5OO.
Mr. James—We will give up the promissory note in that
, case.

Sergeant Parry—Thit is what all young ladies
say, I believe. (Laughter.)
Cross-examination continued—He would not
swear that when he first asked the prisoner to
marry him she did not positively refuse, and that
he implored her to marry him for several weeks
before she consented to do so. He did not remem-
ber anything of the sort, but his memory on such
matters was very bad. (Laughter.) He might
have asked the prisoner whether she thought
she could be happy with him. (A laugh.)
The prisoner did tell him that she had been
married before, but she also said that she
believed her husband was dead. They were mar-
ried by license, and a person named Richards went
with him to Doctor's-commons to get the license,
and when the name of the lady was asked for,
Richards called out " Eliza Anthony, spinster."
(Laughter.) Witness did not say anything when
this was stated. When they got home the pri-
soner " blowed up" Richards for saying that her
name was Anthony. (Laughter.) He might have
had a great deal of difficulty to get tht prisoner to
marry him, but he could not remember anything
about it. They lived a very gay life after the mar-
riage, and he introduced some of his Haymarket
acquaintances to the prisoner at his own house.
The neighbours :complained of their proceedings,
and he was obliged to remove from the house thy
occupied.
Re-examined—Witness spent £6,000 in about
two years after the marriage.
Mr. Sleigh then addressed the jury for the pri-
soner, and he said that before they could convict
her of this offence they must be satisfied that she
was aware, when she was married to Mr. Archer,
that her first husband was alive, and he submitted
that, upon the evidence before them, this was not
only not proved, but that from the circumstances
the prisoner might very reasonably a
that her first husband was not in
was also quite clear that the prisoner had not en-
deavoured to entrap the prosecutoreixisvte to marry her,. It
believed
ence
to do
but that, on the contrary, she
unwillingwas
snsequence of his
so, and that it was only
in
nat length consented.
earnest solicitations that
.she that he should
He then said that
represented to be thye
as
. appeared in court, and
be able to prove thheatw_triansms an who had that da
• first husband, was not
the person to whom she was
prisoner guilty, and she was
originally married..
months' imprisonment.
sentenced to two
The jury found the

The Union states that a committee has been
formed at Rome to raiso funds for the erection of a mow...
-1
nent, in the church of St. John de Latran, to the memory
of those who fell in the defence of the Papal cause at CAS'
telfidardo and Ancona.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—That is not the question,
gentlemen. Irrespective of all considerations relating to
the bill, do you find your verdict for the plaintiff, with
damages £5OO ?
Foreman—We do, my lord.
The Lord Chief Justice—And for the jewellery £lOO

---
—The great injury inflicted on many
[ADVERTISEMENT.]
Du Barry's Revalenta -Arabica Foode,swthiche
invalids by drugs increases the
medicine. We quote a few out of many thousand cases of
cures by the delicious F 6g Twenty-
five Food, Cure No. 180.— years nervousness.and indigestion,
no medicine could remove or relieve, have
de-
bility from which I have constipation, -"' and which
cured by Du ve suffered
great misery,
been
without
effectually
Reeves, 181, Fleet-street, London." Curet,.—" Eight
Barry's Food in a very time. W. B.
years dyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with cramps, spasms,
and nausea, for which my servantcu had y consulted t
Du Barry's Health
e advice
of many, have been effectually ed b
to answer any inquiries.
RReesvth. riliJoinFooMdT.. Fiat:11111, Ridlingyin Rectory, Norfolk."
Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and
perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment,
and. expense may be avoided bybanvsisngeDu Barl's Food
be happy
which, at a few pence per oa - e 5
«t roes
its cost . In
', tion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and
other remedies, removing effectual)y, 11,.thout pging,
constipation, images
il all their consequences. Certificate
liver complaints
WeafiThud it the safest remedy. Andrew TJre,
Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr.
Nm op.
.3, 6.12,i4i1118.5.Le.,t
'nvalids avoid the fearful dangei-s of spu-
Canire"l r•njuriou, imitations offered under a variety of
rious and
i.,,i tenccs. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the
hfai-Xjoeurt of Chancery £5,000 under a penalty of against
Alfred
Hooper Novill and his agents ; and the pretences
tbatNevill has a patent for. Arfl.3a. Food and that Du
Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly falsa.
Ice canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry
and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrapper.
Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must
expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 11b.
2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s, 6d. i 51b. lls.; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The
121 b. and 241 b. canisters aro sent carriage free on receipt
of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Roft
gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co.. Abbis,,
60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox.
bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60, Bishops ante.
street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Ce.
tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co., King William-streets
P City • at 127, High Holborn; and all grocers,

Foreman—Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice then said it had been suggeleveli
in the absence of the jury, that if the jewellery were g
up the damages respecting it would be reduced to ls.
Foreman—Very well, my lord, we agree to that.
The Lord. Chief Justice—We do not know their value.
When the verdict was delivered and settled, an
astic burst of applause emanated from the dense enthusi-
astic of
0
people with whom the court was crowded.
SECOND COURT.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice
Crompton and the Cominonujc tIT ri i 071.?
CATTEL V. GIFFORD.—SED
This was an action brought to recover damages from the
defendant for the seduction of the plaintiff's daughter.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
It appeared that the young woman whose seduction
formed the subject of this action, is the daughter of a
.
miller in Offord, Cambridgeshire, and the defendant is
the son of a farmer at the same place. The plaintiff's
daughter and the defendant kept company up to October,
1859, during which period he frequently promised her
marriage. According to her evidence he used to say, " I
will never leave you, I always intended to make you my
wife, An improper intercourse took place between them,
and after she discovered she was pregnant the defendant
said, "Now that this has happened, I will marry you as
quickly as possible. We have no witnesses of what I say,
but God is my witness." After that the defendant never
visited her when her friends were at home, but one evening
in January last he came to her parents' house, and said she
was fretting. He asked her what she was fretting for, and
she replied she was deceiving her friends, and wished to
make known to them the situation in which she was .to
She asked him to stay while she did so, but he declined.
The next day she told her friends, and when the defendante
came in the evening he asked her what they bad saldd Liar.
replied they did not care so much provided he
He said, " You tell them I don't intend to deceive
them." He did not call again for three weee_ iyeou or
said, " Did not your friends think I nd dksiowdheeeneihvee
you because I remained away so loningte She replied,