The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-15 00:00:00

COURT OF DIVORCE.

:Before the Right Hon. Sir J. P. Wilde and a Special

Jury.)
WHITE V. WHITE AND FIELD.

Mr. Sergeant Tindal Atkinson having last night- elo-
quently addressed the Court on behalf of the co-respon-
dent, this morning Sir R. Collier proceeded to sum up the
case on behalf of the respondent. The court was densely
thronged, although the topics upon. which the learned coun-
sel spoke were frequently of a most disgusting character.
Ile stigmatised the whole of the evidence on behalf of
the petitioner as the testimony of witnesses who had
been picked up from every quarter, and whose evidence
had been obtained by means of bribery. He also dwelt
with great severity upon the condwt of General White
in instructing his courts to vilify, in the manner he
had done, the character of his wife. It ap-
peared to him most monstrous that Gen. White
should have stated that his wife " was hankering
after men, and always had a dark man looking after her,"
and had not produced one tit tae of evidence to prove it. No
doubt this Court, since it had been constituted, had done a
great good to many, yet, if such charges as these were able
to be brought, on such flinisy evidence as the pre-

ent, it would become a curse and nu aborniva-
ion. The learned counsel then proceeded to review

the whole of the evidence which has already appeared in
these columns. lie said that the jury would perceive that
he had to dual with three kinds of evidence : the first was
the immaterial evidence, the second the false evidence,
and the third the evidence partly false and partly true, and
this was the most difficult evidence to deal with.
He thought that he had satisfactorily proved
that it had in every instance been refuted or amply
explained, and he should recommend any person
whowished to get rid of his wife after returning from India
tc come and take advice from General White. (Laughter.)
There was not a scintilla of probability in the mass of evi
deuce which had been adduced with reference to the at-
tendance of Dr. Field upon Mrs. White, and the allegation
that it was only the means of adulterous intercouse. The
learned counsel concluded with an eloquent appeal to the
jury on behalf of his client.
Dr. Spinks, Q.C., then oommenced his reply.

POLICE INTELLIGELICE,j—rhis Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN DOCTORS.— J ohn
Angus, a young man, living in Smith's-court, Windmill-
street, and who was charged a few days ago with violently
assaulting Randoll Payne, a bricklayer, living in Queen's
Head-court, Windmill-street, was brcught before Mr. Knox.
The evidence of the prosecutor on the previous exami-
nation was to the effect that being much annoyed by a
number of boys at night in the court ho lived in, he went
out and requested them to go away. They refused to do
so, and he then took hold of one boy and pushed him to
get him away, when the prisoner came and struck him two
violent blows on the head with something he had in his
hand, inflicting two severe wounds.
The prisoner stated that he saw the prosecutor ill-using
his brother, and he struck hint to make him desist, but ho
had not anything in his hand at the time.
The prosecutor said he was certain the prisoner had
something sharp in his hand, and handed to the magistrate
a certificate signed by Mr. Harris, surgeon of Windmill-
street, to the effect that the prosecutor had received two
incised wounds on the temple and face, which might have
been instantly fatal.
Mr. Knox remanded the prisoner so that Mr. Harris
might attend.
On the case being now resumed Mr. Harris was not in
attendance. _

Dr. Peter Charles Duncan, of No. 46, Great Marl-
borough-street, said that be examined prosecutor's head
about 48 hours after the assault, and he found two wounds.
The wounds were contused wounds, such as would be
caused by blows with the fist, and wore certainly not in-
deed wounds. It was impossible that they could have
been inflicted with an instrument.
Mr. Knox said that after hearing Dr. Duncan he did not
believe that the prisoner had used anything but his fists,
but the prisoner had struck harder than he should have
done. lie should deal with the case as one of common
assault, and fine the prisoner £5 or a month.