The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-07 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings at Nisi Prius—(Before Mr. Baron ( rc.annell
and Common Juries.)

TEMPANY V. HAKEWILL.-MAINTENANCE; OF A

WIFE.

• This was an action brought by the plahitiff to
recover ViB 13s. 6d., as the rent of apartments,
board and money paid to the account of the defen-
dant's wife, to which the plea was never hie tebted.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Yates were c.ounsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. O'Malley represented the
defendant.

The plaintiff-was hall-porter at' St. Martin's -hall,
and when he first saw the defendant's wife she was
living in, an apartment in Doctors'-commons, for
which. she paid ss. a week. He then took e: villa
at Battersea, and the defendant with her se..ryants
went to lodg*.with him, after lie had mane in-
quiries as to the. means of the defendant, whit) is a
private gentleman with an income of bet ween
£4,000 and £5,000 a year.
In his cross-examination the plaintiff stated. that
he paid £22 a year as rent for the villa, which was
taken in consequence of an arrangement between
him and Mrs. Hakewill. He charged her two
guineas and a half a week for the apartments, which
were furnishe-d; He was aware that she was sepa-
rated from her husband, and that she had been in
a lunatic asylum. She stayed at his house from tile
19th of July to the 15th of September, 1858.
Mrs. Hakewill was next called an examine d.
She deposed—l was married in August, 1839, aitd
have had eight children by my husband. T.-Ve
had left me destitute. When the plaintiff's slain
arose I had .just been turned off the parish of
Plumstead. • I was then in a frightful
state of starvation. In the first three months L
was with the: plaintiff I was in such a state that
his charge could not haVe been remunerative.
My husband- used to keep his carriage and pair..
He had two establishments all the year round.
He lived upon his means, though he was nominally
Secretary to the Hampstead Waterworks Company.
. I returned froin France on the 27th of Oct., 1851.
My eldest child was at Boulogne. My husband
then lived, in Harrington-square, and to pre-
vent exposure. on my return from France I con-
sented to go to him. I went there in a cab with
my children, a French governess, and an English
servant. He said, " What has brought you here ?"
, I said, " You know." He then said, " Oh, I ex-
pected it, and so I have prepared for it. I have
arranged with Henry," alluding to his brother,
" you must go where you came from, you cannot
stop here." I asked him to be advised by me, and
to let. me have a little conversation in the presence
of the attendants and the children. I was then
about to enter, but he pushed me rudely away.
Some of the children went to kiss his hand, but he
put it behind him. His brother, Mr. Henry Leslie,
and Mr. penham, his secretary, were with him.
My husband said we should not remain there, we
should be bundled out. He called to Mr. Benham
to fetch his brother to turn me and. the children out
of doors, and also to fetch the police. I put some
of the children; the' French governess, and the ser-
vant in the room against his consent, and then
went with him into the library. The children were
alarmed and came into the room. They were put
back, and I was locked in the room. I had not
then a single shilling. My husband told his brother
to treat me as he liked. My children were then
taken away. The shutters were shut and the doors
locked, so that my servant could not go for assist-
ance. After foUr hours all of us, children and all,
were turned out of the house. I was one mass of
bruises from the .treatment I received. Since Oct.,
1851, I have only had from £lOO to £2OO. While
in France I had remittances from my husband, but
not equal to my station. I have been informed by
tradesmen that my husband had paid their ac-
counts. I have obtained a decree for the restitution of
conjugal rights, but Mr. Hakewill has not restored
me to my proper position as his wife; My children
liVed with me till April, 1852, when my husband
obtained possession of them clandestinely. He told
-me he had done so as he thought it would drive me
Mad, and I should not be alive in six months.
He took them away he said
,because I had adver
tised for a concert to raise money. The eldest was
12 and the younge-st 3 years of age. I do notknow
where they are. Li-January, 1851, I passed by the
name of Nugent. That was by my proctor's ad-
vice. I have adopted literary pursuits to gain a
livelihood. In February, 1858, I obtained an order
for protection for a reversionary interest on which
I wished to raise money to prosecute a divorce, but
my husband prevented it.
Cross-examined—l have not registered the pro-
tection order. I told the magistrate I had not re-
ceived money. from my husband since 1851 except
Under compulsion. I have never received money
from or through Mr. Darrill, an attorney, of Wind.
sor, but he paid for my board and lodging there.
So long as he did that I was comfortale. That
was all I cared for,- I heard he was paying for my
lodging from money supplied by my husband. I
left Windsor in 1856. - I went to Christchurch to
endeavour to raise the means of going to America,
where I had an engagement offered to me on a first-
class American paper. I was paid, through Dr.
Sharpe, £lOO per annum. I lived with my husband,
in Welbeck-street, up to 1851. I had no quarrel
with him up to then—l mean no serious quarrel.
He had beaten me twice, and he said I had driven
him mad with my calmness. The ;first time was
in 1849, and the beating had an effect on the child
with which I was in the family way. The second
time was in the same year. - He, had treated me
with contumelious cruelty and gross neglect in
1847. I left Boulogne in the evening, and placed
a lighted candle in the window before I left. I
received £lO the night before I left. The children
were sent out in the morning. When I came from
Boulogne I was stttiek hundreds of- blows that
night. His brother exclaimed, " Say the word
Thomas, and I'll finish her," using an opprobrious
eXpression. They beat me for more than an hour
with: their hands, knees, and feet, and the skin was
rubbed off my side. I offered Mr. Hakewill to tie-
cept £3OO. The witness in her further cross-exami-
nation, gave evidence to show the treatment she had
received from her husband, and this closed the case
for the plaintiff, -
Mr. O'Malley then addressed the jury for the
defence, contending that the action was purely
speculation, and_ asserting that the lady, against
whose honour, however, there was no impeachment,
was out of her mind.

The further' hearing of the case was then ad-
journed to-this day.

COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.
(Before all the Judges.)
THE QUEEN V. SEEENE AND FREEMAN.
Lord Campbell delivered the judgment of himself
and of the Lord Chief Baron, Justices IVightman,
-Wiles, and Hill, and Barons Bramwell, Watson,
and Chasmicll, in this case. The prisonArs, having
been charged before the magistaate with the offence
for which they were afterwards tried under the 5
and 6 Vic., c. 39, were committed for trial. They
had been 'adjudged bankrupts in July, and had in
the court made a statement similar in effect to that
which appeared in the depositions. At the next
meeting of the Central Criminal Court an indict.
ment was preferred against them, and the trial
cplacenvi
convicted
before t
thheel;oalm.de eel
feiZeL' twhialltllhethate-dy
wtoeorke
case for the prosecution
before the magistrate, The

't, having closed, the
_depositions were tendered in
levidence; but this was objected to by the Crown;
1 ut the Lord thief Baron admitted them, and 're-
F,E,. rved the poinf whether they constituted a defence.
Th,l.learned Judges whose names are given above.,
wer e of opinion that the admission was right and
.ti .e conviction should be affirmed.
The Lcrd Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and
rt :Stices Williams, Crowder, and Byles, differed,
-.)e ing of opinion that the admissions made by the
prisoners were a disclosure which brought them
wit :hin the protecting clause of the statute.
r., '.'he conviction was affirmed.