The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-11 00:00:00

were seldom permitted to be alone, but she con-
trived to impress him with the notion that she was
a sort of imprisoned heroine, that there was a con-
spiracy to make her marry some one against her
will, and in one way and another she inspired him
with the earnest desire to rescue her. They eloped
and were married at Gretna-green. They had not
been married 24 hours, when she revealed to the
plaintiff, with cries and tears, that she had been
subjected to outrages of the most extraordinary.
description. The consequence was that the plain-
tiff packed up his things at once, it having beea
agreed that they should not live together, and at
five a.m. he left the apartment, and was going down
stairs, when he heard shrieks and shrill laughter
and he saw his wife dancing about in her night-
clothes, and calling him to come back, for all she
had said was pire imagination. He went back,
and lived with her on and off for four or five years
a life of extreme wretchedness. Her conduct from
time to-time was monstrous and extraordinary. A
determination to live in idleness and filth was one of
her main characteristics. She would lie in bed for
weeks, and her linen got into such a state that it had
to be burned. The defendant was a medical man, who
in August, 1857, was living at Long Eaton, in
Nottinghamshire, and on the 10th of that month
he advertised that he should be glad to take care of
a lady of unsound mind. The plaintiff answered the
advertisement, and afterwards sent his wife to the
defendant, who, on the 17th September, reported
his opinion that she had a morbid perversion of na-
tural feelings, and a disposition to vice—that she
was incapable of thinking correctly, and that she
had absurd prejudices. The plaintiff had the greatest
difficulty in acquiring any information as to his
wife's habits, &e., before his acquaintance with her
commenced. He employed the defendant to make
inquiries, and to study her symptoms, principally
with the view of ascertaining her state of mind at
the time of marriage. Dr. Winslow was also con-
sulted about the case. Afterwards the plaintiff com-
menced a suit to annul the marriage, upon the
ground that his wife was not of sound mind, and
capable of making a contract at the time of marriage.
In December last the suit was ripe for trial, and on
the Bth the defendant promised the plaintiff that
he would attend the Divorce Court next day to give
evidence. The defendant, however, was not sub-
poenaed. On the day of trial the plaintiff was ex-
amined, but the defendant lid not make his appear-
ance then, nor on the following day. The conse-
quence of the defendant's non-attendance was that
the plaintiff's counsel had to withdraw from the
cause, and £6OO or £7OO was thrown away in law
costs.
The plaintiff was examined in support of the
statement, and in his cross-examination he said he
did not think it was his own evidence which had

destroyed his case. He had separated from his wife
several times. He had two children by her. He did
not think he cohabited with her as late as 1856.
She was now with her friends in Germany. Some
of his own friends believed that she was not mad.
He had heard his father express opinions both ways,
and his brother Henry had also done so.
Mr. Venning, the plaintiff's solicitor, was called,
and he produced a statement of the evidence which
the defendant was to give in the Divorce Court.
The defendant stated, among other things, that
the plaintiff's wife was with him from August,
1857, until March 17, 1858, and the first thing
that struck him was her his eyes because he
was rather awkward in assisting her on to her
horse. He told her that he had family prayer night
and morning, and she said it was all nonsense, and
that she had been brought up to believe that there
was no God. He sent the parson to talk to her and
soon afterwards found her chasing him round the
room with a pillow, and holding up her clothes to
enable her to follow him quickly. He (Mr. Demp-
sey) went in, and she hit him on the head with the
pillow for interfering. She afterwards played at
bagatelle, and asked the clergyman to place the
balls for her, but when he did so she hit him with
the cue. She was very filthy in her habits. She
spurted water down his (Mr. Dempsey's) back,
threw bread at him, and threatened to use a knife
to him. On one occasion he asked her to have a
shock from a galvanic battery, but she declined, and
on his placing it against her neck, but without com-
municating any shock, she stabbed him in the arm
with her scissors, and laughed at what she had done.
She on another occasion said the sides of her head
and her body were growing out, and would not be
convinced to the contrary, although her sense of
touch was appealed to.
Mr. Seijeant Pigott submitted that there was no
case to go to the jury-to prove that the defendant
had contracted to dispense with a subpoena.
His Lordship doubted whether the plaintiff had
made out any case, but he thought it best to
leave the matter to the jury, giving the defen-
dant leave to move. He apprehended that under
ordinary circumstances an action would not
lie on a promise to attend as a witness, because
there would be no good consideration. The ques-
tion here, however, was whether the attendance as
a witness was incorporated into the original em-
ployment.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—And upon the question of
damages there was no evidence thL.t the result
would have been different if the defendant had at
tended as a witness. It was absurd to think of
annulling the marriage under the circumstances.
The defendant was called, and he said there was
a balance of £77 due to him, and that the day be-
fore the trial he called on the plaintiff, and said h..;
must have £lO. or he would throw the matter up.
The plaintiff said he would not pay him then, but
would d,) so after the trial. Witness said he must
have it then, but he did not get it.
Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up, said that in
all his experience he had never known an action of
this kind before, but his opinion was that an action
would lie on a promise to attend as a witness if that
promise was made for good consideration.
The Jury, after a short absence from court, found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £5O.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Baron Martin
and a Common Jury.)
NEWCOME V. DAVIES.

This case arose out of Some betting transactions
in Bride-lane, Fleet-street. It was an action to re-
cover compensation in damages for an assault.
The plaintiff is a professional betting man fre-
quenting that locality, and described himself as a
gentleman residing at Twickenham. On the 4th
of May last he was in Bride-lane, when the de-
fendant asked him Defender's price for the Chester
Cup, plaintiff replied 20 to 1, and the defendant
handed him seven sovereigns as a bet at that price.
Defender was scratched, and it was not the practice
to return the money when a horse was scratched.
After the circumstance was known the defendant
asked the plaintiff for his money, when 'the latter
said it was not the practice to return money under
such circumstances; but he said he would do
what others did. The defendant followed
him about, and at last gave him a violent blow that
stunned him, and when he recovered he found
himself in the Punch Tavern with the landlady
washing his face. His eye was blackened, one of
his teeth was broken short off, and his jaw was
fractured. He was obliged to have a medical gen-
tleman, who attended him for some weeks. He had
paid his surgeon £6, and about £2O altogether, in-
cluding a new tooth. In his cross-examination the
plaintiff said he was at one time head clerk in the
Indian firm of Messrs. Mangles- He had been a
merchant himself and a member of Tattersall's. He
was not turned out of the latter place, but with-
drew in consequence of his losses.
The defendant admitted the assault under a mo-
ment of irritation at not getting his money back
from the plaintiff, and it was urged on his behalf
that it was not a case for heavy damages.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages, £3O.