The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-09 00:00:00

THE ABM Y.

The following are the officers and troops under
orders to proceed to Madras in the Tartar, 571 tons,
Captain F. Jean, as soon as that vessel shall be
reported ready to receive the reinforcements on
board at Gravesend
23d Light Infantry; I Captain Wm. Anderson,
,;,..it.mirohn J. Bailey, 29th
Regiment; Ensign N.
3d allace and Quarter-
master Robert battalion,Duncan,
m,Len74 60th Rifles ;
shal an nd dme re sn,
and Ensign Norman
together with 32 non-commissioned
of the Ist (King's) Dragoon Guards, from Canter-
bury; 20 men of the 12th (Prince of Wales's) RO3 al
Lancers, from Maidstone ; 11 men of the 69th'llig'•'
ment, from Fermoy ; and 17 men of the 74th
landers' from Aberdeen.
The following reinforcements will embark at
Gravesend to-day on board the Bloomer, 800 tons,

Captain C. F. Smith, for Kurrachee and Bombay,
viz. :-12 men of the 11th (the King's) Light Dra-
goons from Maidstone ; 32 men of the Bth Hussars,
and 32 men of the 17th Lancers, from Canterbury.;
32 men of the 56th Regt., from Colchester ; 20 men
of the 71st (Highland) Light Infantry, from Stir-
ling ; 16 men of the 89th Regiment and 14 men of
the 95th Regiment, from Cork, the whole of whom
proceed to Bombay. The following embark for
Kurrachee :-32 men of the 7th (Princess Royal's)
Dragoon Guards, and 16 men of the 98th Regiment,
from Canterbury ; 18 men of the 81st Regiment,
and 20 men of the 94th Regiment, from Chatham;
28 men of the 27th Enniskillens, and 12 men of the
87th Royal Irish Fusiliers, from Buttevant. Pre-
viously to the troops embarking, the vessel will be
inspected by the officers of the staff from Chatham
garrison, in order that every precaution may be
taken not to overcrowd the ship.

A detachment of non-commissioned officers and
gunners of the 13th battalion Royal Artillery, under
the command of Lieut. Strange, was yesterday or-
dered to be held in readiness at head-quarters;
Woolwich, to embark to-morrow for Bombay. Lieut.
James C. Travers: recently serving as adjutant
of the Ist battalion Royal Marine Light In-
fantry in China, yesterday arrived at Wool-
wich, having been appointed adjutant to that di-
vision. Captain Henry J. Tribe, Royal Marines,
has also arrived at head-quarters, Woolwich, from
China, suffering from the injurious effects of the
climate, and has been granted three months' leave
of absence to recruit his health. Captain William
B. T. Rider, late in command of the detachment of
Royal Marines serving on board her Majesty's screw
steam-ship Princess Royal, has returned to head-
quarters, Woolwich, invalided. Lieutenant 0. F. C.
Fraser, adjutant, Royal Marines, at Woolwich, and
Lientent Donellan, of the same division, have been
granted six weeks' leave of absence each.

rHE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 9, 1858.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 8.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)
EVANS V. EVANS AND ROBINSON.

Mr. Huddleston, Q. 0., Mr. Hawkins, and Mr.
Harrison were counsel for Mr. Evans, who prayed
for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of his
wife's adultery with Mr. Robinson ; Mr. Edwin
James, Q.C., and Mr. Deans, Q.C., fcr Mrs. Evans;
Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Hodson for Mr. Ro-
binson.

At the sitting of the Court Mr. Edwin James
called Charles Frederick Field, who said that he
was frequently employed by eminent solicitors in the
detection of fraud. On the 12th of January, 1854,
he was:engaged by Mr. Evans to watch Mrs. Evans,
for which he was to receive 15s. a-day and 6s. a-day
extra if he gave satisfaction. That meant if he de-
tected them, or if Mr. Evans was satisfied with his
exertions. He was to have 12s. a-day for travelling
expenses. His engagement was to expire upon the
detection of the parties, and if he did not detect
them was to continue for three to six months, but
he would probably have kept on until they were
detected. He watched Mrs. Evans at Cheltenham
from January to the 12th March. About 9 in the
evening of the 4th July he met Mr. Evans in Hyde-
park, and they went to Dr. Jones's, in Manchester-
square. Either Mr. Evans or Dr. Jones told him the
parties were detected. The entry in his diary was
that Mr. Evans told him, but he was not sure that
it was correct. It further appeared from the diary
that he watched the house in Bryanston-street on
the sth of July from about 2 to 4 o'clock, and saw
a tall young man, whom he afterwards discovered
to be Mr. Mylius, come out. He afterwards saw
Ellen Davis come out, but he did not see Mr.
Robinson. He then described the arrangements
he had made with King aid Grocott for the pur-
pose of detecting Mrs. Evans. He was not exa-
mined at the first Liverpool trial. He had entered
in his diary that the witnesses gave their evidence
in a most excellent manner, but the jury found a
verdict for the defendant, Mr. Robinson. He
was examined at the second trial ; the wit-
nesses again gave their evidence in an excellent
manner, and the jury found for the plaintiff, Mr.
Evans, with £5OO damages. He was not called at
Guildhall. Mr. Evans, he added, told him that
while Mrs. Evans was in the Edgeware-road he
had employed another retired detective, named
Griffin, to watch her movements. Field also said,
in answer to Mr. Huddleston, that he had been 25
years in the public service, had received a pension.
which he still enjoyed, and during that time never
had a report made against him nor a stain cast upon
his character. He denied that 6s. a day extra was
to be at all dependent upon his detection of Mrs.
Evans, and he gave an explanation of his acciden-
tal absence on the previous day when he was called,
but did not answer. He accounted for his not hav-
ing noticed Mr. Robinson come out of the house on
the afternoon of the sth of July by saying that in
sauntering up and down he frequently turned his
back upon it. He denied that he had in any way
improperly influenced any of the witnesses.
Dr. Deane and Mr. Huddleston having commented
on the evidence in behalf of their respective clients,
Mr. Baron Martin summed up. He said that the
questions they had to decide were, first, whether
Mrs. Evans had committed adultery with Mr. Ro-
binson in 1853 and 1854; and, secondly, whether
in March, 1851, Mr. Evans had wilfully deserted
his. wife without reasonable cause. The plea of
desertion was, he supposed, founded upon the 21st
section of the Divorce Act, which provided that the
Court should not be bound to pronounce a decree of
dissolution in a case where the petitioner had been
guilty of desertion. If, however, they thought that
adultery had been committed, they would probably
be also of opinion that Mr. Evans had ample cause
for refusing to live with his wife. The case was one
of considerable difficulty. This was the fourth time
that it had been submitted to a jury, and it was to
be hoped that it would now be finally decided.
There were four principal epochs in the case to
which they must direct their attention. The first was
the period previous to the marriage,. which was im-
portant; because, if they believed the evidence as to
the improper familiarities between the respondents
at that time, they would have less difficulty in com-
ing to a conclusion as to their conduct after the mar-
riage. If their intimacy
.had been as close as
was alleged before the marriage, it might occur to
the jury that its renewal after Mrs. Evans had
lived with her husband five months, and had re-
turned to her home dissatisfied with him, and after
Mr. Robinson had been separated from his wife,
was sufficient to explain what was said to have
subsequently occurred. The second important
period was the fortnight during which Mrs. Evans
lodged with the Phillipses in the Edgeware-road,
and. it was for them to say whether any inference
was to be drawn fromthc conduct of Mr. Robinson
in taking lodgings for a married woman of 29, pro-
viding himself with a latch-key, and paying fre-
quent visits to her not accompanied by his mother or
sister, although they lived within a, short distance.
The third part of the case depended on the evi-
dence of Munn, who spoke to a positive act of
adultery close to a wall at Cheltenham, and it was
for them to attach what weight they pleased to it.
The fourth period was that during which Mrs.
Evans was lodging in Bryanston-street, in 1854.
It was difficult to say what a man who believed
that his wife had committed adultery might or
might not do for the purpose of detecting her ; but
beyond a doubt he ought well to consider what he
was about before he employed such a person as
Field, for by so doing a very strong prejudice was
raised, and justly raised, against his case. Of all
the people in the world the people of England had
the greatest objection to a nything like a spy sys-
tem. To have men running after them wherever
they went and making notes of all their actions
was what they held in utter abhorrence. Every-
thing of the kind was held in the greatest detesta-
tion
in this country. At the same time they must
not reject the evidence of the persons employed by
Field as his spies, unless they were satisfied that it
was untrue. The most important witnesses who
contradicted it were the servant, Ellen Davis, and
the Rev. Mr. Mylius. The learned judge then
read over the whole of the evidence, and concluded
by telling the jury that the case was to be decided
entirely by their independent judgment.
The jury retired at a quarter after 6 o'clock, and,
after about a quarter of an hour's deliberation, found
that Mrs. Evans had committed the adultery
charged, and that Mr. Evans had not deserted her
without reasonable cause.
Verdict for the petitioner.

of his existence, had borne the highest possible
character for honour and integrity. Tl:is would
in the outset render it very improbable that
the prisoner should have been guilty of an
offence of this serious description, and althiugh,
where the evidence was clear and conclusive the
fact of the party accused having previously borne
a good character, ought not of course to have any
weight with a jury, yet in a case like the present,
in which he submitted there was, at all events,
very great doubt whether the prisoner entertained
any intention to defraud, such evidence was most
material, as tending to show the improbability
that he should have committed such an act. The
learned counsel then said that he :could not deny
that the prisoner had received ten shillings more
than he had paid for the wheels to the coachmaker,
but if the jury should be of opinion that he had no
intention to defraud, and that he considered he was
entitled to the additional amount as commission for
the trouble he had taken in reference to the pur-
chase, the jury would be justified in acquitting
him upon the present indictment.
The father-in-law of the prisoner, a gentleman
residing at Huntingfield, in Suffolk, Mr. Hatton,
the chief•constable of the eastern division of
Suffolk, Mr. Stanford, and several other gentle-
men living in that county, were called as witnesses
on the prisoner's behalf, and it appeared from their
evidence that he had formerly been extensively
engaged as a farmer at different places in the
county of Suffolk, and they stated that he had
always borne a high character for honour and
integrity.
Mr. Justice Wightman having summed up the
evidence, _ _ _

The jury deliberated for a considerable time in
the box, and then expressed a wish to retire. In
about three-quarters of an hour they returned into
court, and gave a verdict of guilty, but at the same
time strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy
on account of the good character he had received.
The learned judge, in passing sentence, said
that the jury had found the prisoner guilty
of :a very serious crime, and every one who
had heard the case must regret to see a per-
son who had formerly enjoyed so high a character
for honour and integrity standing convicted at the
bar of a criminal court of the offence of forgery.
It was of the last importance that the public should
be protected from the commission of frauds by per-
sons holding public situations, and although the
amount was small, and he had every disposition to
give effect to the recommendation of the jury, he
felt it impossible to pass over such an offence with
a light sentence, and his duty to the public com-
pelled him to order him to be imprisoned and kept
to hard labour for 12 months.

Mary Loft, 30, was charged with misdemeanour,
in having attempted to destroy her own life.
Mr. Russell was counsel for the prosecution.
It appeared that the prisoner was a married wo-
man, living with her husband at Sittingbourne,
and on the day named in the indictment she came
home very drunk, and went to her bedroom. Very
soon afterwards a noise was heard in the room and
upon the people in the house going in, they found
the prisoner with a clothes line tied round her neck
and attached to the bedpost, and she was black in
the face. She did. not appear, however, to have
made a very determined attempt to destroy herself,
and the suggestion appeared to be that in her
drunken condition she hardly knew what she was
about, and it appeared that she afterwards ex-
pressed regret at what had occurred.
The jury, under these circumstances, returned a
verdict of not guilty.