The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-07 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Dee. 6.

WESTMINSTER.—EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE
OF PERJURY.-Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Orridge, bar-
risters, accompanied by Mr. Towne, solicitor to the
Hon. Hugh Rowley, attended at this court to solicit
an adjournment for ten days of the hearing of the
charge of alleged perjury against his late wife, in
a suit for divorce, recently tried in the Court of
Probate, at Westminster.
Mr. Metcalfe, barrister, who was retained for the
lady, appeared, on the other side, to beg that the
summons might be heard on the day originally
fixed,
Mr. Sleigh said his worship would, no doubt, re-
member that he had attended before him a few days
ago, and procured a summons against the late Mrs.
Rowley, which was to be heard on the morrow
(Wednesday). He now appeared to apply for a
postponement of the hearing of that summons, upon
an affidavit made by Mr. Towne. His (the leaned
counsel's) reason for asking the adjournment was
this :—His worship might recollect he (Mr.
Sleigh) had intimated, when he appeared before
him, that Mr. and Mrs. Lambert could give very
material evidence on some of the allegations of
perjury. After the summons was granted Mr.
Towne had set about tracing the whereabouts
of these witnesses. He ascertained that they were
not in London, but it was not till yesterday that
he had been able to get any clue as to where
they were. Mr. Towne then found that they
were staying in Lincolnshire, and as they could
not appear on the morrow, he (the learned
counsel) thought it would be wasting his worship's
valuable time for the summons to be heard on the
day fixed without the most material evidence being
brought forward. He was at a loss to understand
why his friend (Mr. Metcalfe) should oppose an ad-
journment, as he believed he would. The allegations
of perjury could not be sustained unless corrobora-
tive testimony were brought forward, as at present
it was only oath against oath, the Hon. Mr. Rowley
against his late lady.
Mr. Metcalfe said he was instructed to ask his
worship to allow the charge brought by the hon.
gentleman against the late Mrs. Rowley to be in-
vestigated at the earliest possible moment. Mr.
Sleigh had urged nothing to call for an adjourn-
ment; Mr. Rowley was present, and was examined
upon oath when the summons was granted, and as
the hen, gentleman'* evidence must necessarily be
very long, as it Would gd principally to sustain the
allegations of perjury, he (the learne counsel) did
not think it probable tilt the Court would Zs,f, able
to hear any iurther testirmill Ott the first (3i:1111-
nations His client Was anxious at One° to know
what evidence the Itori. Hugh Rowley could pos-
sibly bring to contradict her, and if the summons
were allowed to stand over, her friends and the
public might think that she had been guilty of a
most heinous crime) that of wilful and deliberate
perjury, and it Was therefore Very material that the
world should at once know who was in the tight.
He (Mr. Metcalfe) was instructed to say that the
statement made upon Oath by the Hon. Mr. Rowley
at that court was utterly untrue, and the lady for
whom he (the learned gentleman) appeared was
ready at any moment to substantiate every word
she had sworn to in the Court of Probate. Mr,
Rowley was present when the marriage was
annulled ; he was actually present at the Divorce
Court looking through a curtain ; he heard all the
evidence which his wife produced; he dared not
Come forward himself ; he could not bring one
single witness to contradict the testimony
before the Court, and yet a fortnight after-
wards, he applied for and obtained a sum-
mons, calling upon his late wife to answer a
charge of alleged perjury, and now sought for a
postponement. He (Mr. Metcalfe) begged that
the case might be allowed to come on on the mor-
row, and then an adjournment might be granted.
The Hon. Hugh Rowley must be first called, and
go through a great quantity of evidence, and ac-
cording to the instructions he (the learned counsel)
held in his hand, he would be cross-examined at
considerable length. He did not therefore think a
postponement at all necessary.
Mr. Sleigh intimated that there were, but three

assignments of perjury, and he did not intend to •
examine his client to any great extent, so that, as
he said before, the Hon. Mr. Rowley's evidence
would not alone be sufficient to necessitate the case
coming on on the morrow, as it must be adjourned
for witnesses.
Mr. Metcalfe remarked, that in order to obtain
the divorce she shought, Mrs. Rowley was put upon
her oath, and being obliged to speak the whole truth
was compelled to state many things which she
would otherwise have concealed. The Hon. Hugh
Rowley had only selected three paltry charges, and
his late wife wished at once to show that everything
she had said was true. She did not want to have
this summons hanging over her head, the public
perhaps thinking meanwhile that, knowing she
had uttered falsehoods, she was afraid to come for-
ward.
Mr. Payn ter was of opinion the public must think,
, upon reading the account of the trial in the Divorce
Court, that she had been shamefully ill-used by her
husband. She, through her advocate, pledged her
oath to the truth of everything she had said in that
court, and the Hon. Mr. Rowley had before him
(the worthy magistrate) sworn that what she had
said was untrue. The lady and gentleman were
therefore on equal terms, and neither could suffer
, by the delay.
The'required adjournment was then granted.