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

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Dec. 10.

WESTMINSTER.—TIiE EXTRAORDINARY CABE
OF ADULTERY AND ROBBERY.--This case—Thos.
Pethers, of 19, Stanley-street, Brompton, v. Emile
Ponti—already detailed, was on Saturday brought
to a close by the magistrate giving the following
judgment, in which the leading facts if the case
will be found :
Mr. Arnold said that the prisoner Ponti was
charged with larceny under a rule of law which de-
clared that if a married woman eloped with an adur-
terer, the latter was guilty of stealing the articles
taken away froni the husband's house. The limit of
the rule of law had never been properly or tho-
roughly defined, and must depend upon the circum-
stances with which the case was surrounded. There
was such a unity of interest between husband and
wife that the wife could not, in the eye of the law,
steal the goods of her husband, and if she gave them
to an ordinary person, even if such person knew it
was not right to receive them, he could not be
deemed guilty of larceny. On the other hand,ithad
been ruled not only that if an adulterer eloped with
a man's wife, and took away property, he was guilty
of stealing, but that if the adultery was contem-
plated, although it had never taken place, the elope-.
'tient being prevented, he was alike criminal. It had
been laid down by an eminent legal authority, Mr.
Justice Coleridge, that it was not necessary that the
criminal purposes should be carried into effect to
constitute a larceny, as it was sufficient if there was
an intention to elope and live in adultery ; and the
same authOrity .held that it was a larceny to steal
her clothes, which werejust as much her husband's
property. as her own ; but he did not suppose that
Mr. Justice Coleridge could have meant that to ap-
ply to the clothes she was absolutely wearing at the
time of her elopement, but her Wardrobe generally.
In another case, heard before Lord Denman and Mr.
Baron Parke, the Queen v. Rosenberg, another rule
had been laid down—that the adulterer could not
be convicted of larceny if the goods which were the
subject of it were brought alone by his wife to the
lodgings, and placed by her in the room in which
the adultery was afterwards committed, merely
upon evidence of their having been found there.
After quoting more recent cases, he said he felt
that there was considerable 'difficulty to apply the
ordinary rules of law to this extraordinarily revolt-
ing case, one developing scenes of profligacy which
he hoped for the good of society were very un-
common. There were. two points on which he en-
tertained great doubt. Firstly, whether the prisoner
could legally be said to have committed adultery
with this woman, whatever the fact morally might
be ;' or, in other words, whether the prosecutor was
in a situation to proceed against the prisoner as an
adulterer ? and, secondly, whether the wife's wear-
ing apparel, Which was all, with the exception of
'a couple of towels that were carried away, could be
considered his property ? • The prosecutor was
steeped up to his lips in infamy, and he had not only
connived at her profligacy arid induced her to follow
it, but had 'lived on the wages of her prostitution.
He had married her as a prostitute, she had con-
tinued a prostitute, and under such circumstances
he much doubted whether the prosecutor could deal
with Ponti as an adulterer. If an action had been
brought in a superior court for erim. con. by the
husband, it could not, 'under such a state of things,
be sustained, nor could a divorce have' been ob-
tained had it been sought by the husband who was
conniving at and encouraging his wife's adultery ;
for although the husband had pretended that he
knew nothing of her doings, there could be no doubt,
from the whole- of the testimony, that he was a
party to it, and lived upon the wages of her infamy.
Such being the state of facts it would really seem
that the prisoner could not be dealt with as an adul-
terer in common law. Further, there were no
articles traced to his possession except her own
wearing apparel, and that was purchased by herself
or by her husband,. not from his purse; but from the'
wages of her prostitution; and was not the likely
sort of apparel to be worn by the wife of a shoe-
' maker, but that in which she was to ply her infa-
mous calling, and a wife's wearing apparel bought
by such means and for such a purpose, he could
hardly think could be called his property. He.
(the worthy magistrate) would not say .that a
woman of Mrs. Pether's (alias Mrs. Hill) -aban-
doned character was to be. believed in all she said ;
she had stood up in the witness-box to cover her-
self with shame and disgraces and .had unblush-
ingly proclaimed her own infamy, but parts of her
statement were borne out by the testimony of
other witnesses, while the assertion of her husband,
that he did not have the money she received for her
profligacy, was contradicted by various persons.
He (Mr. Arnold) believed that he did receive the
money, and that his real reason for objecting to the
visits of Ponti to his wife was, that he could not, or
did not pay as other men did. Ponti, in the course
of the case, had been proved to have stopped gen-
tlemen at the door of Mrs; Pothers' house, and told
them that she was a married woman—a circuit).-
stance which, in his criminality with her, he ap-
peared to have been perfectly regardless of him-
self; but in thus addressing the gentlemen, there
was no notion of morality on' his part; it was
merely that he wished to keep the wretched woman
to himself. There "was no direct evidence to shoW
that Ponti was a party to the elopement, If Mrs.
Pethers was to be -believed, she packed up her
thilga herself while he was away, and followed him
unexpectedly to his lodgings, and as there was not
sufficient evidence against the accused to send him
before :a jury. he was diZeharged.
The 'decision was followed by a burst of applause
• and' clapping of hands from A. very large auditory.
.. Ponti inquired what redress he, had for, the false
I mprisonment he 'had sustained:
Its,lr. Arinold refused to give him any advice.'

[AnvEtritSEmr.:lT.l=--ti,i,s's (Ilorninopathic Chemist)
Coco i.—This esteemed preparation is sold bythe prin-
cipal grocers at ls. 6d, p,er lb., in 11b., M., and
packets. Each packet is labelled " James Epps, Homcco.•
patla chemist, Loudon,"