The Sun.
London, England, 1860-12-15 00:00:00

LAW IN 7EL I,l','ENCE—Dec. 14.

thoughts of proceeding on his autumn journey.
The plaintiff afterwards took 60 or 70 acres of land
at Walberton, in Sussex, and went down there to
reside. The company had employed detectives to
watch the plaintifeß movements both in London
and at Walberton. The plaintiff, in his eVidente,
described at length his symptoms, and the annoy-
ance which he had suffered in consequence of having
been watched, Medical evidence was given that
the watching had aggravated the plaintiff's ail-
ments, and that the result of the injury would pro-
bably be that he would not be able to pante his
business of a commercial traveller again. The
earlier symptoms had shown that there was injury
to the kidneys, and two of the medical men thought
that an abscess was forming in one of the deep-
seated muscles of the back.

Another circumstance in the ease was that the
plaintiff had been insured in the Accidental Insur-
ance Company for £l,OOO in the event of death,
and .E 5 a week during total incapacity to do any-
thing. The company had paid him £5 a week for
31 weeks, and afterwards compromised his claim
by giving him £lOO more.
Mr. Bovill addressed the jury, and made a num-
ber of statements with the view of showing that the
plaintiff had exaggerated his symptoms. He also
complained that Mr. Solly had not been allowed
Ito examine the plaintiff last evening so as to form
a better opinion as to his state of health at that
moment.

Mr. Quain said the application for examination
was not made until seven o'clock last night, when
some of the parties had left his solicitor's office, and
the attendance of Mr. Holford could not be pro-
cured. The plaintiff was, however, now ready to
undergo examination, and indeed both he and his
solicitor had courted it throughout.
The plaintiff accordingly went into his lordship's
private room, and was examined by Mr. Solly and
Mr. Adams, in the presence of Mr. Smee.
On the return of the parties, Mr. Bovill proposed
that Mr. Solly should at once go into the witness
box, and without any previous communication with
anybody connected with the cause, state what his
opinion now was.
Mr. Solly was sworn and stated that he had not
seen the plaintiff from the 19th of March until he
appeared in the box yesterday. When he examined
him in March he was not satisfied with the state-
ment made to him ; but he was much struck with
the altered appearance of the plaintiff yesterday,
and therefore he desired to examine him. The
examination which he had just made had convinced
him that the plaintiff had suffered a very severe
injury, and one which he was not prepared from
his first examination to find. The opinion he now
held was not derived from any statement made to
him, but from physical examination. There was a
decided alteration in the structure of the muscles
of the back. When he saw the plaintiff in March
he had a calm pulse, and there was not any appear-
ance of serious injury then; but now there was no
question about it.
The jury, after a few remarks from his lordship,
retired to consider the amount of damages, and
after an absence of half an hour, they gave a verdict
for the plaintiff for £2,000.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES,
(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Special Jury.)

WINSTONE V. WINSTONE.

This was a petition by Thomas Winstone for a
dissolution of marriage on the ground of the adul-
tery of his wife, Henrietta Winstone, with John
Godfrey Dyne. The respondent and the co-re-
spondent denied the charge of adultery, and the
respondent further charged the petitioner with
cruelty.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Dr. Spinks appeared
for the petitioner; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr.
Mathews for the respondent.
Mr. Winstone was a coal and wine merchant, and
he was married to the respondent, whose maiden
name was Marshall, in May, 1836. They lived
together in different lodgings at the west end of
London until 1847, but had no children. Several
persons who had visited and had been on intimate
terms with them, were called, and stated that Mr.
Winstone always behaved kindly to his wife, and
that they appeared to be on very good terms. Some
of the servants who had been in their employment
gave evidence to a similar effect. One gentleman,
however, Mr. Lacy, had heard him complain of his
wife's extravagance, and also her familiarity with
Mr. Dyne. On the 25th of March, 1847, she
quitted his house, leaving, as her husband repre-
sented, the following note :

" As you have given mo leave to go out of the house
while whitewashing and cleaning is going forward, I have
taken you at your word, for I do not feel equal to bear with
such discomfort.—Yours, &c.
" HENRIETTA. WINSTONE."
As Mrs.Winstone did not return, negotiations were
entered into, the result of which was that a deed
ofseparation was executed in August, 1847, by which
Mr. Winstone covenanted to allow her £5O a-year.
It was at first proposed that a brother of Mrs. Win-
stone should be appointed her trustee under the
settlement ; but he was unable to accept the trust,
and at the last moment Mr. Dyne's name was
inserted. Mr. Dyne kept a school at Turnham-
green. He was a friend of the Winstones; he had
been separated from his wife shortly befo:e 1847,
and Mr. Winstone was Mrs. Dyne's trustee under
their deed of separation. A few weeks after Mrs.
Winstone left her husband's house she went to live
with Mr. Dyne as his housekeeper, and remained
in his house for about three years. The adultery
was alleged to have been committed during this
period. Several witnesses were called to prove
that Mr. Dyne and Mrs. Winstone appeared to be
on very familiar terms, but the principal evidence
in support of the charge was given by two servants,
Mary Gosler, the cook, and Jane Gough, the house-
maid. They stated thatlMr. Dyneiand Mrs. Win-
stone occupied adjoining bedrooms, which had sepa-
rate entrance doors, but which also had a door of
communication between them, that Mr. Dyne had
been in Mrs. Winstone's bedroom when she was
partially dressed, that she had been once seen in his
bedroom in her night dress, and that they had taken
spirits and water together in the bedroom before
going to bed, and that when the cook went and
knocked at his door one morning she heard Mrs,
Winstone's voice, which sounded as if she was just
waking out of her sleep. Jane Gough also had put
a piece of paper b,neath the door of communication
between the two rooms to find out wriether it was
opened, and it was removed by Mr. Dyne. In 1850
or 1851 a quarrel appeared to have taken place
between Mr. Dyne and Mrs. Winstone, for she left
him and took lodgings opposite, and he gave orders
to the servants not to admit her into the house. In
a few weeks, however, she returned and continued
to live there until the following year. There was
then a seconrt quarrel, and Mrs. Winstone finally
left. Mr. Dyne soon afterwards became involved in
difficulties, broke up his establishment, and *rent
away. Mrs. Winstone has since made an application
to her husband for an increased allowance, and upon
his refusal to grant it presented a petition for a
judicial separation, on the ground of his cruelty.
The case was tried in this court, and Mr. Win-
stone obtained a verdict to the effect that he had
not been guilty of cruelty, and that she had been
guilty of adultery.
It was contended, on behalf of the respondent,
that the evidence given in support of the charge of
adultery was not sufficiently satisfactory to warrant
the jury in finding that the respondent had been
guilty. One witness was called who had lived as
wardrobe-keeper with Mr. Dyne in 1848 and 1849.
This lady, Mrs. Maguire, said that ehe had never
witnessed any undue familiarity between Mr. Dyne
and Mrs. Winstone. In sunpart of the charge of
cruelty Mrs. Anthony, the sister of Mrs. Winstone,
was examined. Mrs. Anthony stated that she had
visited at her sister's house, and had heard Mr.
Winstone use bad lsnguage and threaten to push
her out of the room. Mr. Clayton and Mr. De
Morgan, two medical men who had attended Mrs.
Winstone, were also called to prove that she had for
some years been suffering from the disease of cancer
in the breast, and was still in a dangerous state. It
was in consequence of this malady, as the learned
counsel for the respondent suggested, that she had
been compelled to make an effort to obtain an in-
creased allowance from her husband.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, befurd Lord
Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.
AYLING V. THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COM-
PANY.— COLLISIGN ON THE LINE AND INJURY
TO THE PASSENGERS—DAMAGES £2,000.
This was an action to recover damages for injuries
sustained upon the defendants' line.
Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Quain, and another learned
gentleman appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Bovill and Mr. Field were for the defendants.
The plaintiff, Mr. Charles Parker Ayling, was a
gentleman 36 years of age, and he had been in the
employ of Messrs. Holdsworth, manufacturers of
damask, carrying on business at Bradford and Hali-
fax. He had been in the service of this firm six
years, his salary commencing at £l6O a year, and
rising to £275. He had also been promised in the
ensuing year to have his salary raised to £3OO. He
was allowed a guinea a day for travelling expenses.
On the morning of the 13th February last he started
by railway from London to go to Margate, and
travelled by second class. At half-past four they
arrived at Grove Ferry Station, when the train
was shifted on to the up line, and while proceeding
along the up line towards Ramsgate the train came
into collision with an engine, which was standing
on the up line. The plaintiff was thrown violently
forward to the opposite side of the carriage, and
the rim of his hat came against another passenger's
chin and cut it severely. The plaintiff's sensation
was that of having had a violent twisting at the
lower part of the back. The plaintiff went on to
Ramsgate, where he slept, and he believed he was
not seriously hurt, but in the morning he was
alarmed to see that blood had passed with his urine.
For two days, however, he remained at Ramsgate
and the neighbourhood, endeavouring to do his
business, but on the third day he felt unable to
continue his work, and he come up to town and
consulted his medical man, Mr. Holford, of Haver-
stock-bill. He also wrote to the railway company,
and on the 18th February Mr. Adams, the eminent
surgeon, was sent by the, company to examine him.
Mr. Adams agreed with the treatment adopted
by Mr. Holford. On the 25th of February the
plaintiff made an effort to resume his business, but
without success, and Mr. Holford presci ibed per-
feet rest. On the 16th of March Mr. Solly saw
the plaintiff on behalf of the company, and he also
had an interview with Mr. Holford. Mr. Solly
seemed to think that the plaintiff exaggerated his
symptoms,ende
avatar to shake it off. Mr. Holford, in defe-
renceespecially woo-
high position
to the occupied by Mr. Solly,
in two or three at
a
plaintiff to at.: a matter of this kind, advised the
more active course of life, but
longer. Mr.
rayus he found it impossible to per-
severe,
and
dford called in Dr. Reynolds,
of Grosvenor-street
Mr. Smee, surgeon of the
Accidental Insurance Company, in which the plain-
tiff was insured, frequently 3'
that perfect!!tw him. These two
gentlemen agreed with Mr Holford
rest was necessary. On the 23d of
W p
laintiff
A ril the
went to
orthing and underwent a course of hot
until
f,le t-
water
4th of June, when
he returned
to town,
anxious, if possible, to go his autumn journey. His
tBa baths. He remained in this town
employers had kept him on until this time,but
had intimated that they must appoint some
other person to go the autumn journey the
plaintiff could not do so.
Soon after the plaintiff
if
considerable relapse,
came to town he suffered a
and on the 26th Mr. Adams again saw him. Mr,
was called in, and he
Paget, of Harewood-place,
advised that the plaintiff ehould give lip all

His Lordship summed up, and
The jury found that Mrs. Winstone had been
guilty of adultery, and that Mr. Winstone had not
been guilty of cruelty.
His Lordship granted a decree nisi with costs
against the co-respondent.
____

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY tVENING, DECEMBER 15, .12".

house. She further stated that Mrs. bolby asked
her to remain in the bad; that she refused ; that
Hewitt got out of bed and beat her severely; and
that she then dressed herself and went home to her
hUsband.
The leattibci 6oiin§et 'dF the &I-reOOOA dross-
etttmined Mrs. lJrry with the view of sho*ing that
she was intoxicated on the night in question, but
she positively denied the charge. He also called a
man named Smith, who stated that on the 3d of
November he eras with the co-respondent at a
publichouse called the Golden Arnis froth half-past

11 till 12 o'clock at night, when the house was
closed. It was contended that this statement of
Mrs. Urry's was so improbable that it ought not to
be credited. •

The Judge Ordinary, in summing up, observed
that it was a very obscure story.
The jury found that the co-respondent had been
guilty of adultery with Mrs. Dolby.
The learned Judge observed that they had found
adultery upon very slender evidence, and his Lord-
ship declined to make the decree at once.

let him eat," and where it has been laid down
from the Bench that it is not necessary a man
should live, the emptying of these hives of idleness
will hardly need any defenee When we hear of a
tm,-..dred fellows doing nothing whatever, but sub-
sisting on the alms which they demand from the
pocati.Oft tiEtin of eternal misery, we have no hesitaa
tion in 6bitiug dcsv;itt the house of prayer fora den
of thieves. As the titispei does not give us the
smallest encouragement to eiiVeet tteaven by idle •
ness and prayer, we hold the monastic klatetll, as it
exists in Italy, and as it has existed in all EtgeSi not
the lest!: Mark of an anti-Chris ian character. We
except, of course, the g feat holies that combined
learclng, emniciyiftent;, or severe per-
sonal labour Rath their devition. These *etc respect,
even if sometimes our pity prevail over every either
feeling. What we do not respect or pity, except
as we pity vice, is a mere series of devotional exer-
cises. When we hear of men in the prime of life,
with their passions strong on them, and stronger
from idleness, occupying themselves in a daily and
nightly round of services, we know very well what
most of them will be in the absence of restraint
aye, in the secrecy of their own minds. They will be
bad men. Their service will be a mockery, their
prayers will come from lying lips, their oblations
will be vain, and they will have no more power
of interceding for their fellow-sinners than
any son of honest or dishonest toil. We know too
well the sort of character produced in this country
by a religious profession upon a " fat" heart, a
sluggish temperament, and an empty mind. Hap-
pily our clergymen are generally men of high
education, in good society, with absorbing, if not
always spiritual pursuits, and surrounded by good
objects and wholesome influences; not the least
those of the domestic hearth. Here and there we
have in the lower ranks of the clergy the type of
the foreign or the medirevel Monk. It is the man
with the small round of duties, the prayers he is
paid for, and which he will double or treble for
twice or thrice the pay. Without position, without
mental occupation, without one pure interest or vivi-
fying ray of light in his soul, with craving appetite
and a wandering eye, he must come to the bad, and
it is only a question of time when his spiritual
bankruptcy is revealed to the day. Happily we
can have but few such men, as British society is
intolerant of idleness, and certainly is not disposed
to spare clergymen, But there are men enough of
this sort to show what a Monk pay become under
favouring circumstances, and what he does gene-
rally become where monasticism has long had its
way. We are not charging all Monks with sensu-
ality, for in truth a mere dreamy, idle, good-for-
nothingness is the prevailing character of the
Italianorders. They do not work, and many almost
seem to comply with the apostolic condition of not
eating either. But even a half-starved but con-
tented idleness is a curse to a country, and an in-
fraction of nature's first and greatest law. An
Italian, as well as an Englishman, must do some-
thing if he is to keep out of harm's way.—Times.