The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

Several witnesses were examined, who gave corroborative
testimony, and deposed to the commission of several acts of
adultery by the respondent since his marriage, which closed
the case for the petitioner.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
SBRIOUS ASSAULT.-LE GRAND V. MASSON.
This was an action for assault, defendant having allowed
judgment to go by default. The jury now had to assess
damages.

It appeared that the plaintiff is a fruit salesman in the
Borough Market, and defendant is the skipper of a vessel
bringing over fruit. Some dispute arose, which led to de-
fendant knocking the plaintiff down, cutting his head open,
and inflicting other injuries, which might have resulted in
much more serious consequences.
The plaintiff was called, and his counsel explained that
the plaintiff could not speak English well, but it would be
an additional expense in calling an interpreter.
The learned Secondary —No doubt he will make himself
understood ; it is not so difficult now as formerly.
Plaintiff was then examined, and gave his evidence in a
very candid manner. He admitted that there was a great
deal on both sides. Defendant had told a great many un-
truths, and ultimately made an assertion against him
(plaintiff), and he said, " you're a liar," on which defend-
ant struck him a violent blow, and knocked him backwards
on the table in the Market-house, and his head was cut
open, and he was rendered insensible ; he was taken to the
hospital, where the wound was dressed, and he was after-
wards attended by Mr. Lacy, a surgeon. Ho had lost a
good deal by the sale of las htciskye, ; 01, I,- bna tenon nhlioar~
,vllll

Mr. Lacy was called, and said plaintiff was very feeble
when he was called in, and erysipelas had commenced, and
the white of ono eye was suffused with bleod and swollen
above the corner. The erysipelas was subdued, but it was
at first very threatening. He had charged a guinea.
The learned Secondary said that in some instances the
words used by plaintiff might have justified a blow, but it
appeared that the defendant had been the first to use lan-
guage likely to provoke an assault, and plaintiff was en-
titled to be paid fur his sufferings and any loss he had in-
curred.
4j f I The jury gave a verdict for £l5.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
NEGLECTING TO PAY FOR THE SUPPORT OF A CHILD
IN A REFORMATORY.—AIfred Austin, a tall, powerful-
looking labouring man, was brought up on a warrant,
charged with neglecting to pay for the support of isis
daughter, Julia Austin, who is detained at a reformatory
school at Hampstead,

The prisoner, when he was taken into custody, gave the
officer considerable trouble, trying his utmost to escape.
Inspector Brennan produced the order signed by the
Secretary of State, authorising proceedings to be taken
against the prisoner, upon which he was summoned before
Mr. Beadon, and an order for 4s. a-week made on him for
is daughter, who was now in the Rescue Society's Re •
formatory School, at Hampstead. There were seven weeks
due on the order, amounting to 28s. The prisoner and his
wife earned 30s. a-week between them, and it was a ease of
wilful evasion of the order.

The prisoner, who said he had no goods, no money, and
no furniture, was then ordered to pay the sum of 28s. and
costs, or be committed for 28 days.

THAMES.

SCANDALOUS CONDUCT OF PAWNBROKERS.--William
Ogilvie, of the firm of French and Ogilvie, pawnbrokers, of
No. 207, Hizh-street, Poplar, appeared before Mr. Selfe to
answer two summonses, taken out by Ann Nightingale, a
seamstress, which charged the defendant with unlaw-
fully taking in as pledges materials for the manufacture of
two shirts, the same being in the course of manufacture.
Repeated complaints have been made against French and
Ogilvie by poor individuals for several years, and the ma-
gistrates have frequently condemned their loose and un.•
satisfactory mode of doing business. A few weeks since
Ogilvie was fined £lO for a violation of one of the clauses
of the Pawnbrokers' Act, and Mr. Selfe then lectured him
severely. The present case was a very flagrant
one. The complainant had given out shirts to
be made to several persons, who instead of returning them
had pawned them with the defendant, who received them
without making any inquiries. The defendant had seven
dozen shirts not made up belonging to complainant. There
was not a stitch in one of them. One woman to whom the
complainant had entrusted the materials for making one
dozen of shirts had taken them direct from her house to the
defendant and pawned them. When she remonstrated with
the defendant for receiving the goods he said, " You have
no right to employ persons without taking security." The
defendant had sent her four dozen and a half of shirts not
made up since the summons was taken out.
Mr. Selfe—Why, he has been doing this by wholesale.
Tho Complainant—Yes, sir, and he has now two dozen
and a half more shirts of the same description belonging to
me. Not one of the shirts sent to me had been touched.
They were just as I delivered them to the woman. I have
a person in court who applied to Mr. Ogilvie for some of my
shirts, and ho has stuck to the ticket, and refused to part
with it or to restore the shirts. Ile has put me to great in-
convenience and expense.
The defendant, in reply to the charge, said he had
already delivered two dozen and a half shirts to Mrs.
Nightingale, and was now willing to give np the remainder.
Mr. Selfe—That is not the question. You are charged
with taking in unfinished work—work in the course of
manufacture, and I have no hesitation in saying that your
mode of doing business :s highly discreditable. It is the
worst pawnbroker's shop in the district by a long way.
The defendant repeated that be would restore all the pro-
perty to the complainant.

Mr. Selfe—That won't do. I fine you £1 in one case for
taking in eight shirts in course of manufacture, and 6s. in
the other case for taking in two shirts in the course of
manufacture, with 2s. costs in either case.

051
39 }

11 161

Mrs. Nightingale aNlic.(l how the was to obtain the re-
mainder of her property.

Mr. Selfe—lf the defendant will not give them up take
out a fresh summons.

321
$Ol
611 601

90
281 41

The defeniant—l will give up all the shirts.
Mr. Selfo—You had no business to take one of them in.
You received them of persons who had no right to pawn
them. The mischief done by you pawnbrokers, by lending
money on slop work, is incalculable. It is a premium upon
crime, and leads to wide-spread misery.

- -
The Milan Gazette speaks of numerous arrests
made by order of the Austrian Government at Venice, and
estimates the number at about 400.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell, Mr. Justice Wightman, and Mr.
Baron Watson.)
BOYNTON V. BOYNTON.

This was a suit instituted by Elizabeth Laura Boynton
for a divorce from her husband, a younger scn of the late
Sir Henry Boynton, on the ground of his adultery and
cruelty, to which the respondent pleaded denial.
It appeared that the parties were married in 1849, the
petitioner being 17 years old and the respondent 27. At
the time of the marriage the respondent• retired from the
army, in which he held the rank of captain. Sometime
previously he became acquainted with the petitioner, whose
maiden name was Keeling, and who was entitled to pro-
perty amounting to £19,000 pounds. The mother of the
petitioner had formed a second matrimonial alliance with a
gentleman named Hodges, a captain in the army, and her
daughter's marriage was without her knowledge.
Mrs. Boynton, the petitioner, stated that she was mar-
ried to the respondent at St. George's, Hanover-square, and
after the ceremony they left town by the Great Western
Railway. When they reached Slough they were over-
taken by Captain Hodges, accompanied by her mother and
one of her sisters, and, after an angry altercation
between them and her husband, the latter was induced to
enter into an arrangement by which he settled two. thirds
of her money on her, and reserved only one third of the
interest for himself. He did not settle any propeety of his
own on her, though she understood that he was possessed
of some at the time. After the marriage he took her to his
father's residence in Yorkshire, where she was treated very
unkindly by his sisters. They afterwards removed to Bur-
ton Agnes, and there he commenced his ill-treatment.
They then came to London, where he continued his ill-
treatment, from which her health suffered materially, and on
one occasion he made her walk a quarter of a mile through the
snow. The cause of his ill-treatment was the arrangement
he had been forced to make relative to leer money.
Sometime subsequently he had recourse to further violence,
having dragged her out of a room and pulled her by her
hair. While they were staying at Cheltenham, she asked
him for £4O or £5O, and he gave her a cheque for the latter
amount. She forwarded it to Captain Hodges to have it
cashed, but in the meantime the respondent wrote to his
bankers desiring them not to pay it, and it was returned to
her dishonoured. In 1856 they went on the Continent for
the benefit of her health, and while at Brussels some
trivial dispute occurred between them at a shop
in the town relative to the price of an article
they were purchasing. On that occasion he
dragged her out of the shop, pushed her along the street
until they reached their residence, when he locked her up
in a room. On their arrival at Nice he locked her in a dark
apartment, and she was released from her confinement by
a lady in the house, being at the time in a state of great
agitation and distress. He also intercepted letters addressed
to her from her family. On their return to England she
gave birth to a child, but the respondent's conduct was un-
altered. They resided for some time at Beverley, in York-
shire, but the respondent never introduced her into society;
and on one occasion he brought a person connected with the
turf home to dinner, whose, conversation was so coarse
that she was compelled to leave the table. He left
her at her mother's for a considerable period, during which
he absented himself for weeks. At Brighton he walked
about with a female, and did not notice her when they met
in the streets. The petitioner then detailed various acts of
a similar character until 1858, when he so misconducted
himself that she determined to leave him, and went to her
sister's.