The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-22 00:00:00

pay the rent of the house she was living in,
but to go and s4e the landlord, and 'tell him that
he would get the money when her husband came home.
The writer went on to advise the lady to keep enough to
pay for a chatelain for herself,:and keep £1:11°r him when
ho came back.

Witness—l went to Dawlish after my return to Eng-
land, and I was there served with a writ at the suit ofMiss
Rosa Bishop, for the sum of £250, which I 'had borrowed
for two years at S per cent., and a bonus of £so—no bad
transaction on her part. (Laughter.) I will swear I never
asked my wife to come up from Dawlish.
Mr. Metcalfe here read a letter written by Mr. Rowley
without date, inviting his wife from Dawlish, and telling her
what train to come by.
Witness —That !utter refers to another cireumsiabee.

Mr. Paynter—Did you write to your wife after you re-
ceived information that she was packing up leer things to
come to London ?
Witness—No.

Mr. Paynter—This letter must have been- written on
Saturday, and on looking at the almanac the invitation
corresponds with the day. on which Mrs. Rowley came to
London.

Witness-My wife came to London from Dawlish by rail-
way. She came in tho guard's van, but I Lod not aware
that she was compelled to do so from want Of means. I
swear it could not have been so, as she kept in:a bag, which
she called her bank, a considerable sum of monoy.
Mr. Metcalfe hero read another letter from Mr. Rowley
in May, 1854, written in the most affectionate terms to his
wife.

Mr. Poynter—Both parties appear to have written in the
same strain.

Mr. Metcalfe—At the time you wrote that letter, were
you acquainted with Mrs. Green ?

Wittiess—l was not. I was not acquainted with Mrs.
Green until the latter end of 18.5.1.
Mr. Metcalfe here put in an album containing an entry
that it was the gift from him to Mrs. Green in 1854.
Mr. Rowley—That date must be a mistake. I should
like to know how you got this book.
Mr. Metcalfe—Never mind. It came from the executors
of Mr.l. Green.

Mr. Rwley—l think I shall be able to prove a con-
spiracy betwean the executors and my late wife. In answer
to further questions, he said—l first became' acquainted
with Mrs. Green in 1855, and lived with her as man and
wife. I continued to do so for some times but it was not
until Mrs. 'Rowley loft mo.
Mr. Paynter—l:object to this evidence, as it tends to
prove adultery. All they had to deal with was perjury.
Mr. Metcalfe—No doubt, but there is a charge that Mr.
Rowley left his wife without money, and although he is an
" honourable " by courtesy he ought to be dealt with just
as an ordinary person.
Mr. Rowley here handed to the magistrate a letter he
had received from his wife after she had left him.
Mr. Paynter having read the letter,
Mr. Metcalfe claimed to have it read.
Mr. Sleigh objected.
Mr. Metcalfe—l am:entitled to object to the magistrate's
reading a letter if lam not to sec it.

Mr.Paynter—l have a right to. read the letter in ques-
tion. If lam called upon to commit Mrs. Rowley for trial,
I am entitled to see every document, and decide whether it
is evidence. I decide that this letter is not evidence.
Cross-examination continued—l remember writing, but I
never said, "I was in g6od keeping, and yon had better
go and do the wane." When Mrs. Rowley was stay-
ing with Mr. Gye I charged her with being
unfaithful to me, and on one occasion, while sleeping with
rue, Mrs. Rowley expressed her regret at the loss of her
baby, and when I said, " What baby ?" she said she had
had a miscarriage while at Mr. Gye's.
The wi,tness was then examined as to what took place in
1856, when he was in Constantinople, at which time the
learned counsel said he was instructed that Mr. Rowley left
his wife in a starving condition.
The magistrate interfered, and informed Mr. Metcalfe
that he Must keep within the rules of evidence.
Mr. Metcalfe complained of the tone in which he had been
treated by the magistrate, and said he was rejoiced that in
the next step of, the inquiry he should have a jury to deal
wth, and not the opinion of a single individual. It was
not at all likely that he could finish his cross-examination
that day.

The iriagistrate said that being so, it would be better if
they then adjourned.
It was then arranged that the case should be further
heard en Tuesday next.