The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-27 00:00:00

rnE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 27, 1860.

and ever and anon threatened to ingulf the crew. I
Still she pursued her cautious way to the land, and
after a brief period of extreme danger, in which
wave after wave struck the boat with threatening
violence, land was reached, numbers of men rushed
into the water, and amid hearty and heartfelt
cheers the gallant captain and his brave crew, and
the grateful rescued mariners, received the warm
congratulations of the delighted crowd, whose ap-
preciation of their exertions, and of the energy,
caution, and skill of Capt. Tudor, gave expression
in loud acclamations.—Northern Ensign.

are saluted with serenades. There is poor chance for any
public performer like myself to do great business, the theatre
of the hustings being the one at which the most attraction
is offered. Yet I have no reason to complain. Opera has
been tried, but to no effect; and tragedy has but few vota-
ries; yet for the past five weeks I have had a house crowded
nightly to my entertainment in Concert Hall, and in this
my sixth week am still doing a good business.
I close in Philadelphia next Saturday, and go on to Bal-
timore, in Maryland. By Christmas I expect to be in Wash.
ington—just when Congress is sitting. I shall then, in all
probability, see much that is amusing, and have occasion to
make a few notes which will be of interest to your readers,
although I am very well aware that American politics are
not the most absorbing topic to a reader on the other side of
the Atlantic , and that partly because he knows so little of
America generally he feels but slight interest in things
American. The visit of the Prince of Wales, however,
' will go far to make a knowledge of this country more re-
quired by Englishmen, and I hope induce many of Queen
Victoria's subjects to come over and see for themselves that
which Brother Jonathan has to show them.—For the pre-
sent, allow me to remain, yours very truly,
JOHN HENRY ANDERSON,
Wizard of the North.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE—Nov. 26.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMO.
NIAL CAUSES.
(Before the Judge Ordinary, Mr. Justice Wight-
man, and Mr. Justice Williams.)
SHEDDEN AND SHEDDEN T. PATRICK AND PATRICK
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
The hearing of this petition for a declaration of
legitimacy was resumed.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Couch appeared for
the petitioners ; Mr. Rolt, Q.C., Mr. Bovill, Q.C.,
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Powell for the respon-
dents ; and Mr. Bourke for the Attorney-General.
On Saturday some copies of deeds were tendered
in evidence on the part of the respondents for the
purpose of proving thestatement of Mr. Rolt, that
in 1797 a deed was executed by which certain land
was conveyed to the mother of the elder petitioner
under the name of Ann Wilson ; that upon her
marriage with Vincent in 1799 the land was set-
tled to separate use under the name of Ann Shed-
den ; and that in 1801, after her marriage with
Vincent, she disposed of it under the name of Ann
Vincent. The original deeds were not produced.
Their Lordships this morning held that they were
not at liberty to receive secondary evidence of them
in the absence of sufficient proot that search had
been made for the originals, and that they could
not be found.
The case of the respondents was then closed, and
a few letters were given in evidence in reply on the
part of the petitioners.
Mr. Rolt, in summing up, pointed out that the
body of the letter written by Mrs. Vincent to Mr.
Patrick was in a different handwriting from the
signature, which was evidently that of an un-
educated person. ire submitted that the respon-
dents had produced three distinct pieces of evi-
dence, each of which was conclusive against
the petitioners' case, first that of the let-
ters, especially the deathbed letters of Wil-
liam Shedden • secondly, the conduct of the elder
petitioner and his statements in the suit of 1848,
when all the facts were known to him ; and thirdly,
the parole evidence of habit and repute, which
completely answered the burlesque evidence on
that point relied on by the petitioners. Mr. Bolt,
in conclusion, said that Mr. Patrick was well aware
that there were persons of strong sympathies and
weak understandings who would still be willing,
notwithstanding the evidence given in the course
of this case, to listen to an idle tale cleverly told,
But he hoped that, if their lordships' judgment
should be for the respondents, the persons who, as
they were told, had given their assistance to the
petitioners, would bear in mind that there was
something due even to an adversary, and that the
gratification of their sympathies, although it
might be sport to them, might be ruin to the health
and fortune of an aged and honourable man.
Mr. Bourke regretted the unavoidable absence
of the Attorney-General, who had intended to ad-
dress the Court, and said that cases under the
Legitimacy Declaration Act might be divided into
three classes :-Ist. Where the only parties were
the petitioner on one side, and the Attorney-
General on the other, and where it would be the
duty of those who represented the Crown carefully
to investigate the claim and the evidence adduced
to support it. 2dly. Where there were two appa-
rently hostile parties, yet it might be the duty of
the Attorney-General to interfere on the ground
that the proceedings were of a collusive character.
And, 3dly. The Crown might interpose in cases
where it might have a separate and distinct interest
in supporting or opposing the claim. He did not
think that the Attorney-General was called upon to
interfere in this case upon any of the above
grounds. The petition contained two prayers—one
that the petitioner should be declared legitimate;
the other that he should be declared a natural-born
British subject. The last was a question of Jeer-
sonal status distinct from that of a capacity tb in-
herit or the right of succession. If his parents
were not married he owed no allegiance as a duty
incident to his birth. He was then flius nullius,
and the retrospective character of the law of Scot-
land could not alter his status. If his parents were
married, was he a natural-born British subject ?
His father was undoubtedly so at his birth, and
there was no evidence that he was ever deprived of
that natural allegiance, which could not be for-
feited or dissolved except under special circum-
stances. The petitioner, therefore, being the son
of a natural-born subject, would, under the statutes
of Ann, George 11., and George 111., be a British
subject himself. The treaties of 1783 and 1794 did
not affect the status of the petitioner's father. There-
fore, the whole case came to this :—lf his parents
were not married at his birth, he was not, and if his
parents were married at that time, he was a natu-
ral-born British subject. But that was the exact
question between the petitioner and the parties
cited. The evidence was before the court. He did
not think it expedient, on the part of the Crown, to
interfere between the parties, and, as the Attorney-
General was desirous that this question should be
settled as soon as possible, he would only add that
if the court considered the evidence sufficient to
establish the first marriage, there was no objection
on the part of the Crown to the petitioner being de-
clared a natural-born British subject.
Mr. Collier replied upon the whole case. He
complained of the vehemence with which Mr. Rolt
had attacked the petitioner, and said he should en-
deavour not to follow the learned counsel's exam-
ple, although he should be obliged to deal some-
what harshly with Mr. Patrick. He submitted
that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case
in favour of a marriage between William Shedden
and Ann Wilson prior to his birth. As to the let-
ter of the 12th of November, 1798, he was in-
structed by Miss Shedden to say that if she had
believed it to be genuine she would never have
prosecuted this claim, and that if it was genuine
there was an end of their case. But, on the other
hand, it almost, if not entirely destroyed the re-
spondent's case. He contended that the evidence
of habit and repute of a prior marriage was remark-
ably strong, considering that 60 years had elapsed
since the death of the parties, that lapse of time
being the misfortune of the petitioner and the fault
of Mr. Patrick. It was not until 1849 tbat any
evidence came into the hands of the petitioner
that his mother had ever claimed to be his father's
wife prior to the deathbed marriage, and he
then, for the first time, saw the affidavits which
had been sent by Mrs. Vincent to England with
the certificate of the second marriage. The
suppression of this evidence by Mr. Patrick
in the first suit, although it appeared from his own
letters that it had come into his hands some time
before, showed that the first suit was collusive. He
then commented upon the evidence of habit and
repute, and dwelt upon the improbability that a
merchant of high standing, a man of mark, as Mr.
Shedden was admitted to have been, should have
lived openly for years with a woman of notoriously
bad character. Barr's statement that she was one
of the most abandoned women he ever knew was
inconsistent with all the rest of the evidence and
with the admitted facts. New York was then a
small town with not more than 30,000 inhabitants,
the lines of demarcation between different classes
were less strongly marked than at present ; it was
a matter of history that there was a great deal of
the old Puritanical spirit in American so-
ciety at the end of the last century, and it was
utterly incredible that William Shedden should
have lived an openly profligate life for years, and
yet that none of the persons who remembered him
should know anything about it. Unless the re-
spectable witnesses, Mr. Arden, Mr. Ogden, Mr.
Vermilye, and others had committed deliberate
perjury without any possible motive, it was clearly
proved that Mr. and Mrs. Shedden were reputed
to have been respectable married people and to
have occupied a highly honourable position. This
evidence was confirmed by that of Miss Jean Shed-
den, whose recollection was distinct and appeared
to be accurate. The only witnesses on the other
side were Neilson and Barr. Neilson's evidence
amounted only to this, that he did not meet Mr.
hedden much in society, and that he looked on
him as a bachelor. Barr s evidence was so strong
that it was incredible, for it was impossible that a
woman of such an infamous character as hell had
ascribed to Ann Wilson should have lived with Mr.
Shedden without public scandal and censure, of
which there was not the slightest proof. The
deathbed marriage was not inconsistent with the
prior marriage. Many persons thought that mar-
riage ought properly to be regarded as a religious
ceremony, and when he was in his last illness Mr.

Shedden might have felt a conscientious scruple '
on the point, or he might have desired to
render his marriage more easy of proof. By
tho will Mr. Shedden did not dispose of his
estates in Scotlard, and it was therefore most pro-
bable that he thought they would descend to his
eldest son as his heir, and that he had no notion
that his legitimacy would be disputed. He ,left his
widow some slaves and plate and furniture, besides
the 400 dollars a-year, and treated her in every re-
spect as his wife. The learned counsel then referred
to the letters of John Patrick, of New York, and
submitted that they led to the inference that during
the last illness of William Shedden John Patrick
conceived the idea of putting his own family into
possession of the Scotch estates. With regard to
the letter of the 12th of Nov., 1798, he pointed out,
the improbability of such a letter having been
written by a person in extremis the very day before
he died, and of the two copies called a duplicate
and triplicate having been sent to Scotland by the
same vessel. The correspondence between William
Patrick and Hugh Crawfurd proved that the suit
and the appeal of 1802 were fraudulently and col-
lusively instituted and prosecuted for the purpose
of depriving the heir of his property, and prevent-
ing him from claiming it at any future time.
The Court adjourned before the learned counsel
had concluded his reply.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, Nov. 26.

Joseph Locke, a young man, surrendered to take
his trial for misdemeanour, in having committed an
indecent assault upon a young girl named Eliza-
beth Webb.

Mr. Sleigh conducted the prosecution, under the
instruction of the City Solicitor ; Mr. Metcalfe and
Mr. F. H. Lewis were counsel for the defence.
This case occupied the Court for several hours.
The Recorder having summed up, the jury re-
tired at 4 o'clock to consider their verdict. They
returned into Court at a quarter past 5 o'clock, and
found the defendant not guilty.
There was some applause among the audience
when the verdict was returned, but it was promptly
repressed, and the Recorder threatened to commit
any person who was guilty of such indecent con-
duct in a court of justice.
The defendant was ordered to be immediately
discharged.
Robert Ernest Graham, 35, a gentlemanly-looking
young man, described as a clerk, was placed at the
bar to plead to a great number of indictments charg-
ing him with stealing watches and other articles
of jewelry, the property of Samuel Lewis Nathan,
his master. The prisoner was also charged upon
other indictments, with obtaining various articles
of jewelry from diderent persons by false pretences.
The circumstances connected with these charges
have appeared very fully within the last few days
in the Guildhall police report, and it will be re-
membered that the total value of the property al-
leged to have been stolen by the prisoner was esti-
mated at nearly £2,000.
The prisoner, when called upon, pleaded "Guilty"

to the whole of the indictments- which charged
him with stealing the property of his master, and
" Not Guilty" to the other charges.
Mr. F. H. Lewis, who was instructed for the
prosecution, applied to the Court to defer passing
sentence for the present. He said that a great
many pawnbrokers who had possession of large
quantities of valuable ;property were not then in
attendance, and it was necessary that they should
be so, that an order might be made upon them to
deliver up the property that was in their hands.
He said that he also wished for an opportunity of
considering whether it was advisable to proceed
upon any of the other charges to which the prisoner
had pleaded " Not Guilty.
The Recorder acceded to the application.
Edward Collins, 24, a private in the Royal Ar-
tillery, pleaded " Guilty" to a charge of wilfully
and maliciously setting fire to a stack of hay, the
property of Samuel Russell.
The Recorder, in passing sentence, said that the
prisoner, after having committed the offence, went
and gave himself up immediately, and said that his
object was to be sent out of the country, in order
to get out of the service in which he was employed.
He would, however, be very much mistaken, for
the practice of the Court in such cases was not to
send the offender out of the country, but to pass
upon him a long and severe sentence of imprison-
ment, and he would find the condition in which he

would be placed much worse than that of any
honest service in which he would be employed.
He then sentenced the prisoner to be kept in penal
servitude for 10 years.
William Johnson, 49, and George Burdett, 27,
pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary in the
dwellinghouse of Robert dainford, with intent to
steal.

Sergeant Lockyer informed the Court that John-
son had been known as a thief for 20 years, and he
had been repeatedly convicted of burglary. He
was tried for that offence at the last session, but

acquitted, and the moment he obtained his liberty
he committed the burglary to which he had now
pleaded guilty. The other prisoner, Burdett, was
not known.

The Recorder sentenced Johnson to six years'
penal servitude, and Burdett to nine months' hard
labour.

POLIO INTELLIGENCE—Nov. 26.

MANSION HOUSE.—Mary Webb, about 25
years of age, a domestic servant, was charged before
the Lord Mayor with robbing her master, Mr. Thos.
Jones, a partner in a firm of hosiers, at 171, Fen-
church-street.

The complainant said he lived in the house over
the shop of the firm of which he was a member, and
the prisoner had been in his service eight months.
He had lately missed articles from the stock in the
shop, and money from the till. The prisoner had
access to the shop, but it was no part of her duty
to be there. On Sunday, on his return home about
one o'clock in the day, his wife made a communica•
tion to him, which induced him to go upstairs to
the prisoner's bedroom. The prisoner had been sent
to church, and had not then returned. He saw a
cambric handkerchief nearly new lying on her dress-
ing table, and the circumstance exciting suspicion,
he wail ed until she returned, when he asked her to
follow him upstairs to her room, which she did.
Then he informed her that his suspicions had been
raised by the fact of missing articles from the stock,
and he should like to see the contents of her box.
At firEt she objected on the ground that it was
Sunday, but at length opened the box in the pre-
sence of him and his wife. The result of a search
was the dLeovery of six pairs of best kid gloves, ten
cambric handkerchiefs, a quantity of flannel made up
into petticoats, anoth.r pair of gloves, and a great
quantity of new linen, a 1; which he had reason to
believe were taken from the stt:C.k of the firm. He
called a policeman and gave her into custody. The
prisoner, in angiwer to questions put by /1211, said,
with respect to the six pairs of gloves, first 1:;_lat
she had bought them, and then, declaring she
would tell the truth, that she took them from the
stock in the shop that day fortnight. The hand-
kerchiefs she said she had bought at a sale in
Whitechapel of a draper's stock, but on being
shown a trade-mark of complainant's firm on one
of them she made no reply, and did not attempt to
account for her possession of the flannel or linen.
The complainant added that she had been very
kindly treated while in his service, and having
reason to suspect that she had robbed bim to a
greater extent, he asked that she should be re-
manded, to enable him to make some necessary in-
quiries. _ _ _

- The Court at once complied with the request.
Thomas Saker, a dissipated-looking man, living
at 15, Skinner-street, Bishopsgate, having the ap-
pearance of an artisan, was charged with a serious
assault upon his wife.

The complainant is 70 years of age, and the pri-
soner 44, and they had been married about three
years. She was a tidily-dressed and respectable
peron, though poor, and was described by several
of her neighbours, who accompanied her to the
court, as a hard-working woman, notwithstanding
her advanced age. According to her own state-
ment the prisoner, who was a man of dissipated
character, had been drinking on Sunday week and
on the three following days. On Thursday he went
to work, and on Saturday returned home drunk,
when, provoking a quarrel with her, he seized a
poker, broke almost everything in the house, threw
her down, and then struck her a very violent blow
on the arm with it. He had, she said, so ferocious
a look that she fled the place, believing her life
was in danger, remembering also that on the pre-
vious Monday he had threatened "to do for her."
Often before had she been obliged to leave the house
in the dead of night to seek in the neighbours'
houses protection from his violence, or to walk the
streets. She added that by her own industry she
had kept him and herself since their marriage,
until at length he had brought her to a state of
beggary. Her story was borne out by some of her
neighbours.
The prisoner did not deny the charge, but ex-
pressed his regret, and sought to extenuate his
conduct by saying he was very tipsy at the time
and did not know what he was doing.
The Lord Mayor characterised the assault as a
very brutal one, for which a mere expression of
sorrow was not sufficient to atone, and sentenced
him to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for
three calendar months.

GUILDHALL.—Lewis Robert Poole, of the
bankrupt firm of Poole and Bryan, boot and shoe
manufacturers, of Northampton and New Oxford-
street ; Mr. James Cooke, a tanner and currier, of

Walsall; Mr. Roger Dawson, a solicitor, of North-
ampton ; Thomas Chapman, an innkeeper ; George
Billingham, a furniture broker, of Nort,,ainpton ;
and Free Brick Walter Ventris, clerk to Messrs.
Quilter, Ball, and Co., the accountants, were fur-
ther examined relative to the charge of conspiring
together to defraud the creditors of the bankrupts,
and, with the exception of Mr. Dawson, with hav-
ing committed wilful and corrupt perjury in the
Court of Bankruptcy.
After a long examination of witnesses, the de-
fendants were remanded until Friday, the same hail
being accepted for all the accused who have
hitherto been alloin ed to put in bail. Ventris and
Poole remained in custody.

BOW-STREET.—William Ballan, aged 15, late
errandboy to Mr. Day, of the Strand, trunkmaker,
was charged «ith embezzling a sum of £lO, being
the change of a cheque on the Union Bank, with
which his master had sent him to the Temple-bar
branch of that establishment, where he has an
account.

On the 16th inst. the prosecutor handed the
cheque to the prisoner, with instructions to take it
to the bank and get £lO worth of silver. He did
so, but instead of returning to his master, he ab-
sconded, and no more was heard of him till Sunday
last, when Roger Dillon, a policeman of the M
division, 162, being on duty in Duke street, London-
bridge, was called to a coffeeshop in that street to
take him in custody for stealing ss. from another
boy.
He offered no defence, and was committed for
trial. •

SOUTHWARK.— BRUTAL ASSAULT ON AN
AGED WIFE BY HER HUSBAND AND HIS PARA-
MOUR.—EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—William Daley,
a smart-looking old man, a tailor, and Catherine
Wilcox, a widow about 20 years his junior, were
charged with committing assaults upon Harriet
Daley, a very aged female, under the following cir-
cumstances : _

The complainant, who exhibited a severe bruise
on the left eye, and another on the chin, said she
had been married to the male prisoner 30 years, but
for some years past he had ill-used her, and kept her
almost in a state of starvation, while ho and the
female prisoner enjoyed themselves. They all lived
in one room, and she was not allowed to touch any-
thing. On Saturday night while at supper the
female prisoner struck her, and then her husband
actually held her down while she beat her over
the head, and caused the bruises on her eye. On
Sunday, while they were out, and had locked every-
thing in the shape of food up, she searched about
the room and found a few stale potatoes and a small
piece of fat, which she cut up and put in a frying-
pan. While she was cooking them her husband
came home, and, after making use of disgusting
language, he took the fryingpan from the fire and
threw the food away. He then knocked her down,
causing the bruise on her chin. She got out of the
house as soon as she could, and proceeded to the
police-station, when an officer returned with her
and took the prisoners into custody.
Mr. Burcham—l recollect you. You came to
this court a few weeks ago with your husband, and
then it was shown that he lived with this young
woman in the same room with you, and you were
forced into the coalhole to sleep.
Witness—Yes, sir, that is true. We all sleep and
live in one room, and the female prisoner sits on the
board with him while I am iilused and starved.

Mr. Burcham—How many beds have you in the
room ?

Witness—Three, sir. Their beds are on one side
of the room and mine is up in a corner. I dare not
say anything; if I do they beat me.
Mr. Burcham—l suppose, then, you are jealous
of the female prisoner ?
Witness—Oh, no, sir ; not I. I want to get
away from them, but I cannot without his allowing
me something to maintain me.
Mr. Burcham—How long have you lived in this
frightful manner
Witness—Oh, a long time, sir.
Mr. Burcham—Then I think you have acted
wrong in doing so. The conduct of your husband
and his paramour is disgraceful.
The female prisoner here denied that anything
wrong was carried on. She was a poor widow, and
worked for Mr. Daley, and he allowed her to sleep
in the same room, but she did not sleep with him.
Mr. Burcham—You are a disgusting woman, but
that has nothing to do with the charge before me.
What have you to say for knocking this poor old
woman about ?
Female prisoner—She called me names, and then
I only pushed her, and then she fell down and hurt
herself.

Male prisoner—That is true ; I never touched
her.

Mr. Burcham—She says you held her down
while your paramour hit her, and on Sunday you
attacked her again because the poor creature was
preparing a little food. You are a brutal and dis-
gusting old man.
The complainant here informed his worship that
two years ago they knocked her about so that her
left arm was broken.

Inspector Reed stated that he understood that
the complainant was entitled to considerable pro-
perty in Chancery, and that the prisoners ill-treated
her and neglected her, in such a manner as to make
it appear that she was insane, so that the man
could put in a claim on the property.
The male prisoner declared that he wanted to
have nothing to do with his wife's property. She
was a dirty, drunken beast, and he wished she was
away from him.
Mr. Burcham told the prisoners that he had no
doubt as to their brutal violence towards the old
woman, who appeared to have suffered much, both
in mind and body. He should, therefore, commit
them both under the Aggravated Assaults Act,
and sentenced the man to two months' and the
female to one month's hard labour.