The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-11 00:00:00

TIM SUN, LONDON, WE EVER

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde and a Common Jury.
ALEXANDER V. ALEXANDER.

This was a suit by the wife for restitution of conjugal
rights, to which the respondent pleaded that he was un-
able to live with her in consequence of her intemperance
and filthy habits, that she behaved with cruelty towards
him, and that her general conduct was bad.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. Browne appeared for the petitioner,
and Mr. Francis for the respondent.
By the form of pleading the case of the respondent was
proceeded with first.
Mr. Alexander stated that ho was a tobacconist in busi-
ness at James-street, Brighton, and that he was married to
the petitioner in 1830. The week after the marriage they
had quarrels, and they lived most unhappily together. He
had become acquainted with her character before the mar-
riage, and offered her £5O to release him from his engage-
ment, but she refused, and threatened him with an
action for breach of promise.' They were members of the
Jewish persuasion, and be represented her conduct to the
chief rabbi, but it was without any effect. At last a deed
of separation was executed between them in 1857, but
notwithstanding the petitioner was in the habit of coming
to his house and causing a disturbance, the effect of which
was that his business fell off considerably.
In cross-examination the respondent said that he had
been in business sixteen years, and did not sot up with his

wife's money, for he had to support her before the mar-
riage. He denied that he ever used violence towards his
wife. He believed he was at present losing by his busi-
ness, and although he had several small houses in Brighton
they were mortgaged.
Elizabeth Wright said she had lived at different times in
the service of Mir. Alexander, and she went there first in
1855. They quarrelled whenever he mentioned the name
of a Mr. Seymour, and Mrs. Alexander would fly into a
violent passion. On one occasion she saw her throw the
things on the supper table at him, and on another she
would have struck him with a poker, but that he wrested
it from her. She Was a laundress and washed for both
parties, and could speak to the filthy habits of Mrs. Alex-
ander, and to the best of her belief she was drunken in
her habits.

Mary Ann Spencer, who had been a shopwontan of Mr.
Alexander after the separation, proved to the petitioner
having come to Mr. Alexander's and created a dis-
turbance.

Henry Davis, a neighbour, gave evidence to the same
effect, but added that the respondent was in the habit of
useing ironical and sarcastic language to his wife, such as
was calculated to irritate a woman.

Another witness was called to corroborate the evidence
as to the petitioner creating disturbances at her husband's,
which closed the petitioner's case.

For the defence the petitioner was called, and denied
lat her habits were those imputed to her, and said that if

on any occasion she struck him, it was in consequence of
his own violence. She went to the shop on one occasion,
accompanied by a gentleman named Jones, with a view to
effect a reconciliation with her husband, whose heart she
thought might bo softened by the fact of his mother having
just died. She also deposed to his general ill-treatment.
Witnesses were called who spoke to acts of violence on
the part of the respondent, and to his having on one occa-
sion thrown a pair of largo scales. She was not drunken
in her habits, nor filthy, although rather untidy.
The jury found a verdict for the petitioner, and the
Court decreed accordingly.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—.This Day.

OLD COURT.
(Before Chief Justice Cockburn.)
CIIARGE OF MURDER.

Patrick Harrington, 77, weaver, was indicted for the
wilful murder of Peter Mann.

It will be recollected, from the report of the cir-
cumstance which has already appeared in The Sun, that
deceased was the prisoner's son-in-law, and that he with
his wife were quarrelling in Rosemary-lane, Shoreditch,
when the prisoner interfered to protect his daughter, and
a regular fight took place. The disturbance was carried
on for some time, when the deceased called out "I'm
stabbed," and immediately fell to the ground. A surgeon
was sent for, but it was found that the wound had caused
death, and the prisoner was taken into custody and charged
with the murder.

The defence set up was, that in what he did the prisoner
only acted as a father would have done to protect his
daughter from outrage. Ho denied that he was the person
who inflicted the wound.

The jury, however, found him guilty, but recommended
him to mercy on account of his advanced age.
The learned Judge commented severely on the conduct
of the prisoner, and said, had it not been for the recom-
mendation of the jury, he would have passed a heavier
sentence than he now intended to do. His lordship then
sentenced the prisoner to 12 months' imprisonment.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
THE CAVENDISH INSTITUTION SWINDLE.
John Wych Smith and Adolph Wattez, two men about
30 years of age, were indicted with obtaining money from
a number of young women, on the representation th a
they were enabled to obtain situations for them.
The prisoners it appeared rented a shop, 14, Mortimer-
street, Regent-street, which they called the Cavendish
Institution, and the mode of business was to insert adver-
tisements in the morning newspapers, and religious publi-
cations, in such terms that numbers of young women who
were seeking situations were induced either to go or write
to the sham institution. All applicants were informed that it
was the rule of the institution that they shculd pay regis-
tration fee of 55., which was done in every case, and on
postage stamps being left for that purpose they would bo
communicated with. In a.day or two after the registra-
tion fee was paid, and the applicant received a letter to
apply at a given address, and they would find the services
of the registered applicant would be attended to. The
young women wore invariably sent to places a great dis-
tance from town, and on aniTing there they invariably
found the situation quite unsuitable for them, or that the
person requiring assistants had been suited for many weeks.
The whole plan was a perfect swindle, and a great many
respectable young women had been victimised.
The evidence was most complete, and before it was con-
cluded his lordship asked the jury whether they desired
the case to proceed. The evidence for the prosecution ap-
peared to be most convincing.
The jury said they had been unanimous on the matter
for some time.
The Recorder said that being so ho would take their

verdict.
The Foreman, in the most emphatic manner, said the
jury found both prisoners guilty, and that they all desired
him to recommend his lordship to pass upon the prisoners
the heaviest---
The Recorder interposed and said he could only listen
to recommendations when it was for the opposite of
what he presumed the jury now intended.
The Foreman said however the court would mark its
opinion of the scandalous conduct of the prisoners,
there were numbers of similar offences in the metropolis,
and it would be of the greatest benefit to a large
number of industrious and deserving persons that they
should be rooted out, and thus rid society of a
number of lazy, scheming individuals, who were con-
stantly preying on the necessities of others.
The counsel on behalf of Wattez said his client was
merely acting throughout as the servant of Smith.
The counsel for the prosecution said that was so, and
that he volunteered to give all the information he could
to forward the prosecution.
The Recorder said he did not think that such a cir-
cumstance was much to be considered when the fraud had
been discovered.
Mr. Metcalf said there was no doubt but that the original
concocter of the swindle was Smith.
The Recorder, in passing sentence, told Smith he had
been convicted of defrauding those who ought to have
secured his sympathy, and therefore he sentenced him
to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. With
respect to Wattez ho had allowed himself to be used as a
guilty instrument for him, and, therefore, he should sen-
tence him to six months imprisonment with hard labour: