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

SECONDARIES COURT.
SINGULAR CASE OP ♦ HUSBAND'S LIA.BILITTe-PICKBSS

V. EVISoN ♦ND Wlri.
(Before Mr. Potter and a Jury.)
This was an action to recover £l5 ; £l2 money lent to
defendant's wife before marriage, and interest.

Mr. F. Kent, of 18 Queen-street, Cheapside, appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Philbrick for the defendants.
Plaintiff's sister-in-law (Amelia Pickess) said she was in
Whitecross Prison with the female defendant (then known
as Lucy Rawlings). Witness came out on the 19th Nov.,
and was induced by Lucy Rawlings to borrow from Caroline
Pickoss, the plaintiff, the £l2 for three days, for which
Rawlings agreed to pay £3 as interest. Mrs. Rawlings re-
quired the money to enable her to obtain her release from
prison.

Cross-examined—Did not owe Mrs. Evison any money.
The money now sought to be recovered was obtained from
plaintiff. Never had a £l5 bill to get discounted. Lucy
Rawlings showed one to witness, who never had it in her
possession.
Caroline Pickess deposed that she lent the money.

Mr. Philbrick said this suit was an afterthought on the
part of Amelia Pickess, who was now being sued for £93
odd, monies borrowed from and due to Mrs. Evison.
Mrs. Evison said that the £l5 now sought to be recovered
WAS simply the result of a £l5 bill, for which Amelia
Pickess had obtained £l2—L3 being interest. The bill
had been paid.

Mrs. Evison was submitted to a very stringent cross-
examination by Mr. Kent, and admitted that she had
assumed names other than Lucy Rawlings. These !lames
were Lucy Broad and Lucy Edes. They were fictitious.
She had been given into custody and committed for trial,
but was discharged, as the prosecutor did not appear at
the sessions.

Mr. Philbrick contended that the antecedents of the
client might have been very bright, but contended that
there was no harm in changing names.
Mr. Kent urged that this was an undefended cause.
He strongly adverted to the manner in which Mrs. Evison
had contradicted herself on many points. He forcibly
insisted that that lady had proved herself unworthy of
credence ; and, that from her style in the boi, the jury
would judge what reliance could be placed on her word.
The learned Secondary having summed up, the jury at
once found for plaintiff, and the learned Secondary certified
for costs.

POLICE INTELLIGEECE-( MIS Dill.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Aar APFABITICB CHARMED WITH OBTAINING GOODS
DT FALSI PRETENCES.—Edward Sheldon, apprentice to
Mr. Wm. Bobby, tailor, of 36, Kinnerton-street, Belgrave-
square, was charged with obtaining some black doeskin
cloth from Messrs. Wilson and Co., drapers, 350, Oxford-
street.

Wm. Berryman, an assistant to Messrs. Wilson, said
that on the previous evening the prisoner called and asked
for 41 yards of black doeskin, at 6s. 6d. a yard, saying it
was for Mr. Bobby, tailor, of Kinnerton-street, and that
he was an apprentice to him. He asked him if he had an
order, and he replied "No." Mr. Bobby being a customer,
he cut the cloth off, and then went up stairs to Mr. Camp-
bell, who, having been at Mr. Bobby's on the Monday be-
fore, ascertained then that the prisoner had left his master
without leave. He (witness) was then ordered, with another
young man, to take the prisoner back to Mr. Bobby, who
gave the prisoner in charge.

Mr. Bobby said the prisoner had boon his apprentice five
years, but left 'without permission. He never authorised
him to obtain the cloth, usually sending his orders by post.
Hill, 126 E, said the prisoner told him that he did not
get the cloth, but only tried to do so," and that, if he had
succeeded, he should have pledged it and gone off to Ports-
mouth.

Mr. Tyrwhitt said it was a case he could not deal with ;
he must go for trial, but he should remand him for a few
days.