The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-17 00:00:00

-~J

(fir c-- , - .-e- -.. '-
2

,----

111
.4\o ••••.%4.1,
Av. • 11l #
itn+
4'04. /to
• -- - 4
, 64*- ~‘ - 4 44' '14611\
'"41117•
..2400t 8, , 14° . - `.1;) *
~,,, OTT. • ' _

PRICE 41). STAMPED, SD.

elamation has been issued not only throughout the

places frequented by Europeans, but inn manner
which shows that it is intended that it should be
observed. It informs the people " that the Middle
Kingdom and the two Kingdoms (Great Britain
and France), having concluded negotiations at
Tien-sin, are now actually at peace; that the high
Mandarins of the Fayuen Committee had bowed
reverentially to the Imperial will, and, peace being
happily established with the outside countries,
there is no more occasion for fighting; that the
braves are prohibited from again appearing at Can-
ton ; and any one wounding a foreigner will be
liable to severe punishment.' Not only the Manda-
rins, but the people, are urged " to seize any villains
who may maltreat foreigners," and they are pro-
mised that "if such villains be killed in the affray
no investigation shall take place." Persons who
after this Proclamation pretend to be braves shall
be treated as vagabonds and villains. The Manda-
rins are directed to return to their respective
yamuns, and all the people to their peaceful voca-
tions. " Chinese and men of the outside countries
are hereafter to be as one family, and must enjoy
perpetual peace." When we add that Mr. Reed and
the British authorities are working harmoniously
have
aetpuiltaotme itsheed
Ea
nl let
ihs eh
publici n for mtahtai ot na
affairs
h thereou r
together upon the subject of the tariff we believe
letters bring us from China, and we may continue
we
o cho na \g'
are proceeding so prosperously and promise to ter-
minate so speedily.—Times.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 16.

COURT OP PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

Before the Judge Ordinary and a Special Jury.)

CHERRY V. CHERRY.

Mr. Deane, Q.C., Mr. Forsyth, Q.C., and Mr.
Maude were counsel for the petitioner, the Rev.
Henry Curtis Cherry, who prayed for a restitution
of conjugal rights ; Mr. Iluddleston, Q.C., 1)r.
Robertson, and Mr. Coleridge for the respondent,
who alleged that she had not absented herself from
her husband withnnt lawful ouNe, and that he had
treated her with cruelty.
The case for the respondent having been con-
cluded yesterday, the case of Mr. Cherry was now
laid before the court. It was contended on his
behalf that the differences between himself and
wife, although they no doubt proved a certain
incompatibility of temper, were not sufficient
ground. for a separation, and that the charges of
Mrs. Cherry were vague and exaggerated.
Several witnesses were examined in support of
Mr. Cherry's statement, but before the case was
clOsed,
The jury interposed and said it was useless to
give his lordship any further trouble, as they were
satisfied that Mr.
_Cherry had not been guilty of
cruelty to his wife, and that she might go back and
live with him with perfect safety.
Sir C. Cresswell expressed his entire concur-
rence in that view. He had come to the same eon•
elusion last night.
Verdict for the petitioner.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—YonK, Dec. 15.
(Before Mr. Baron Watson.)
Charles Lister, 31, was indicted for administer.
ing:to Catherine Hankey Ellis, a certain noxious
drug with intent to procure abortion.
Mr. Shaw: prosecuted, and Mr. Blanshard de-
fended, the prisoner.
The prosccutrix, C. H. Ellis, who, owing to
weakness, was provided with a chair, stated in evi-
dence that she was the daughter of a butcher in
Dewsbury, was about 25 years old, and with her
sisters carried on the business of milliners at her
father's house. The prisoner, a neighbouring chemist
and druggist, had paid his addresses to her for
three or four years with the consent of the prose-
cutrix's parents before Christmas, 1857, about
which time an improper intercourse first took place
between her and the prisoner, which continued till
about May following. Somewhere about the latter
end of March, 1857, feeling unwell, she consulted
Dr. Hinchliffe, a practitioner at Dewsbury. As she
passed the prisoner's shop she told him where she
had been, and that the doctor had said she was in
the family way. She then said, " Prisoner told
me to take no notice of what the doctor had said,
who knew nothing. I had only a little cold, and
he would bring me something to set me all right."
The following night he brought a small bottle of
liquid which I was to take off at once, which I did.
It only relaxed me a little. A day or two
after he brought me another bottle, to be taken
as before. It made me vomit. The prisoner
called afterwards and asked if I had taken it
and inquired about the effect. I told him. He said
he expected it would make me skit He came again
and saw me in the workroom, and gave me a bottle
of liquid and some powders. The bottle was to be
taken in two doses, and the powder in the middle
of the following Sunday when my sisters were at
church. I did not take it, however, then, but on the
Thursday morning, On the Thursday night I was
taken ill. I was stiff, sickly, and vomited severely.
I continued ill from the effects of the dose till the
middle of the next day. Prisoner came to see me
when I told him how ill I had been. He said, you
needn't call in a doctor, you'll be better. Before I
took the medicine he said that if was I poorly I had
no need to call in a doctor, because I should be all
right. Afterwards, about the beginning of May or
at the end of April, he came into our workroom,
and I went out with him into the passage, thinking
he had something for me. Here he gave me a bottle
of liquid and three powders. The liquid 1 was to
take in one dose, and the powders every half-hour.
I took one of the powders and a little of the liquid,
which made me very ill, and I could not take any
more. I tried a second powder, but could not take
it, and was sickly and shivering. One day in June
the prisoner asked me to go with him to Calms-
wood, near Dewsbury. I went. When there be
gave me three glasses of a bottle of liquid which he
took out there. He then took sly hand and said,
"Let's have a run down the field; it'll take the sick-
ness off." I ran down the field as well as I could. I
felt sick, and told the prisoner so. I kept the me-
dicine on my stomach for about three hours. I told
prisoner in the yard of our house, " I shall be ob-
liged to vomit." He said, " Yes, you will, I
have given you as much as would make 20 women
miscarry." I said, " Then it is as Dr. Hinchcliffe
told me. lam in the family way ?" I wouldn't
take any more at his hands. He then left me.
I locked up all the medicine which he had last
given me, and which I had not taken. I locked it
up in my box in my bedroom, keeping the key. A
day or two afterwards he called at our house. I
spoke to him at our room door, close by the pas-
sage. He asked me, if I had any of the medicine
left, to give it him back. I said I could not get it,
as my sister was in the room. He said if I told
what he had given me it would transport him. The
next day at dinner my father asked me for the key
of my box. I gave it him. He went upstairs, and
came down with the bottles and paper of powder
which the prisoner had given me. I was confined
of a full-groWn child on the 4th of Nov. 1857, and
have ever since been in bad health. I was a strong
healthy girl before I took the medicines the pri-
soner gave me.
On cross-examination this witness said, one one
occasion, when the prisoner gave her the medi-
cines, she complained of not feeling well, and
thought she had a cold, and he said the medicines
would cure her cold. When he told her he had
given sufficient medicine to make 20 women mis-
carry it was the first time she was aware he had
given her medicine to procure a miscarriage. They
were perfectly good friends to that time. The pri-
soner afterwards left Dewsbury.
William Ellis, the father of the prosecutrix,
stated that in consequence of something he had
heard his daughter say to the prisoner he got the
key of her box, and took from it some bottles
and powders, which he delivered to Dr. Hinchliffe,
who examined them in his presence, and he after-
wards gave them to the police superintendent.
The prosecutor's sister was called, who corrobo-
rated her evidence.
Dr. Hinchliffe proved that he was the medical
attendant of the family, and was consulted by the
prosecutrix in the spring of 1857.. In July the
prosecutrix's father brought him some bottles and
powders, which he examined. In one of the bottles
he found oil of savin mixed with spirits of wine ;
another bottle contained black draught. The pow-
ders were ergot of rye. The effect of oil of savin
on pregnant women was to produce inflammation
of the stomach, bowels, and kidneys, and in conse-
quence produced purging, and perhaps miscarriage.
It was popularly believed to cause miscarriage.
Ergot of rye often caused vomiting, and would not
stay on the stomach, andwasusedto expedite labour.
He did not think ergot of rye would produce any
effect on a pregnant woman unless she was already
in labour. It would increasd the effect of savin.
Savin in the latter months of gestation would have
a tendency to produce miscarriage. It had no
specific effect on the uterus. Five or siz drops of