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

ATTEMPTED SUICIDE IN C.RELTEN
HAM-A LOVE AFFAIR.

CHELTENHAM, Feb. 4.—considerable consterna-
tion was occasioned among a portion of the inhabi-
tants of High-street and its vicinity, in this town,
on the evening of Thursday, by a report that a
foreigner, a Swiss by birth, named Philibert de
Chastellain, had shot himself through some disap-
pointment in a love affair. This gentleman, who was
known as Baron de Chastellain, had during the
last month or five weeks been lodging at the Eight
Bells Commercial Hotel, Church-street, one of
the many thoroughfares leading into High-street.
He came to Cheltenham to pursue an acquaintance
he had formed with the daughter of Mr. Skeolan,
a photographic artist, who has an establisament
here, their intimacy having first sprung up in Man-
chester, where the baron is well known. Since his
arrival, it is reported that he has repeatedly seen
the object of his attachment, but whether with her
parents' consent is not stated. It is publicly known,
however, that they have been present together at
private parties, and in every respect he has evinced
for her a most desperate passion. Latterly it has
been noticed by the landlady of the hotel where the
baron was staying that he was at times much
depressed, and was seemingly full of trouble, and
exactly three weeks ago yesterday she was some-
what alarmed by his purchasing a pistol in the
town, which he showed to her on his return home.
With natural prudence and foresight she communi-
cated this circumstance to the Skeolans, and an
effort was made by Mr. Skeolan, jun., who was his
companion, to obtain the weapon from him, but
without success. Happening, however, one day to
meet Mr. Skeolan's servant-maid, the baron himself
voluntarily gave up the pistol to her, it being then
loaded, and by her it was conveyed to her young
mistress (Miss Skeolan), in whose possession it re-
mained until within a very short period of the
suicidal attempt. How it got back into the baron's
possession is not stated. Yesterday morning
he rose about nine o'clock, and at one dined
at the market ordinary at the hotel. Soon after
dinner he retired to his bedroom, as was understood,
ix order to prepare for his leaving Cheltenham,
which he had previously said he was about to do.
In the course the afternoon a message was
brought to him by Miss Skeolan's servant-maid,
and by her delivered to him in his bedroom ; but
she had scarcely quitted the hotel before the in-
mates were alarmed by the bell in the baron's
apartment ringing' violently. A domestic imme-
diately answered it, and was horrified to dis-
cover that the baron had shot himself in the
chest, a pistol being still on the bed. When
communicated with, he cried out, " I have
shot myself, but cannot die, Mary Jane," that
being Miss Skeolan's Christian name. Sur-
geons wore immediately sent for, and every pos-
sible assistance rendered. Upon the dressing.
table at the side of the bed were numerous letters
all packed up, and supposed to be of an amatory
nature; besides three which had just been written,
two being addressed to gentlemen in Paris and one
to Naples. They were sealed and had postage
stamps ready affixed for posting. There was, in
addition, also another letter, sealed, but not directed,
and also lying upon the table was a portrait of the
young lady with some of the hair attached. The
most unremitting medical attention had been
bestowed, but at present the condition of the baron
is almost hopeless. The pistol was charged with
shot, according to his own admission, and the
weapon was placed at the pit of the chest. It does
not seem, however, to have been in very close
proximity to the heart.

[ADVERTISEMENT.}— SIGHT AND HEARING.— SPEC-
TACLES.—POWERPUL TELESCOPES.—OPERA, RACE, AND
PERSPECTIVE GLOSSES.--Messrs. S. and B. Solomons,
opticians, 39, Albermarle-Street, Piccadilly. Observe—
opposite the York Hotel, W.—Opora, Race-course, Field,
and general Out-door Day and Night Perspective Glasses,
very small, for the waistcoat pocket, each containing 12 and
18 lenses, constructed of German glass. Will show dis-
tinctly a person to know them at two-and-a-half and three
miles, and an object from eight to ten miles distant. Her
Majesty's Coast Guards are making use of them as day and
night glasses in preference to all others ; they are also pre-
ferred for deer-stalking b sportsmen, gentlemen, and
gamekeepers. Telescopes 3i inches long, by which a per.
son may be clearly seen and known at 3i miles' and an
object at 12 to 14 miles' distance; and with an extra astro-
nomical eye-piece, Jupiter's moons, Saturn's rings, and
the double stars are distinctly seen. All the above can be
had of larger and all sizes, with increasing powers, and
are secured by her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent.
The Royal Exhibition, 1851, A valuable, newly-
invented, very small, powerful Waistcoat-pocket Glass,
the size of a walnut, by which a person can be seen
and known one and a half mile distant, They answer
every purpose on tilt: Race-course and at the Opera-
houses. Country scenery and ships are clearly seen
at four to six miles, They are invaluable for shooting,
deer-stalking, yachting, to sportsmen, gentlemen, game-
keepers, and tourists. Price 30s.—Speetaole Lenses of the
greatest transparent power. The great advantage derived
from this invention is, that vision becoming impaired is
preserved and strengthened, and very aged persons are
enabled to employ their sight at the most minute occupation
—can see with those lenses of a much less magnifying
power, and they do not require the frequent changes to tte
dangerous effects of further powerful assistance, Persons
can be suited at the most remote part gf the 'world by send-
ing one of the glasses out of their spectacles in a letter, and
stating the distance from the eyes they can read small print
with it, and those who have not made use of spectacles by
statnigthereage. Deafness.—NewDiscovery,—The Organic
Vibrator, an extraordinarily powerful small newly-invented
instrument for Deafness, entirely different from all others,
surpasses airv+, .g of the kind that has been, or probably
ever can be, produced. Being of the same colour as the
skin, is not perceptible, It enables deaf persons to hear
distinctly at 41Aral and at public assemblies ; the unplea-
sant Seagiaticui of singing noises in the ears is entirebr re •
moved, and it affords all the assistance that possibly could
be desired.-39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Observe—
apposite the York 119 tell W.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn, and Justices Williams, Crowder, and
Willes.)
JONES V. WILLIAMSON—FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

This was an actionto recover damages upon three
grounds—false imprisonment, malicious prosecu-
tion, and that the defendanthad improperly caused
the plaintiff's house to be searched. The case was
tried before Mr. Justice Crowder at Chester, when
his lordship ruled that there was no evidence upon
the last point, andthat as to the second the defendant
had reasonable and probable cause for what he did.
As to the false imprisonment, the defendant pleaded
in justification that shortly before the giving into
custody, a certain person, to the defendant unknown
greatly resembling the plaintiff, had feloniously
stolen from his office a cashbox and £lOB in money.
That the plaintiff was near the premises about the
time, and had an opportunity of committing the
felony. That a person resembling the plaintiff was
seen coming clandestinely from the premises, car-
rying with him something resembling a cashbox.
That the plaintiff, after the felony, was examined
and gave unsatisfactory and untrue answers. Upon
these grounds the defendant suspected the plaintiff
of the felony. At the trial evidence was called,
which proved most of the facts in this plea, but it
was not proved that the plaintiff had given untrue
and unsatisfactory answers. His lordship, how-
evearruled that the plea was not sufficiently proved.
It was now submitted that his lordship was wrong
in so doing, and further that the verdict for the
plaintiff was against the evidence upon the ques-
tion whether the defendant had given the plaintiff
in charge at all.
Mr. Morgan Lloyd appeared to show cause
against a rule for a new trial, and Mr. Welsley and
Mr. M'lntyre to support the rule.
The Lord Chief Justice said it appeared that the
question whether the plea was proved or not had
not been prominently brought before the learned
judge at the trial, because the defendant's counsel
was confident of a verdict upon the plea of
not guilty. In this way it had happened that there
had been a miscarriage, for there was no doubt that
the plea had been substantiully proved. There
must, therefore, be a new trial.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Prius—(Before Mr. Baron Channell

and Conimon Juries.)
TEMPANY V. HAKEWILL.-MAINTENANCE OF A
WIFE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover £7B 18s. 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 indebted.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Yates were counsel
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 a villa
at Battersea, and the defendant with her servants
went to lodge with him, after he had made in-
quiries as to the means of the defendant, who is a
private gentleman with an income of between
£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 furnished. 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 the
19th of July to the 15th of September, 1858.
Mrs. Hakewill was next called and examined.
She deposed—l was married in August, 1839, and
have had eight children by my husband. He
had left me destitute. When the plaintiff's claim
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 I

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 from 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 hare 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. Hii brother, Mr. Henry Leslie,
and Mr. Benham, 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 broiler
to treat me as he liked. My children were then
taken away. The shutters were shut any'., the doors
locked, so that my servant could not go for assist-
ance. After four hours all of Rs, children and all,
were turned out of the hole. 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 youngest 3 years of age. I do notknow
where they are. In 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 throuei Mr. Darrill, an attorney, of Wind.
sor, but he paid for )711y board and lodging there.
So long as he that I was comfortable. That
was all I caved for. I heard he was paying for my
lodging from money supplied by my husband. I
'Adt 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, arid 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 struck 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 ac-
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. SKEENE AND FREEMAN.
Lord Campbell delivered the judgment of himself
and of the Lord Chief Baron, Justices Wightman,
Wiles, and Hill, and Barons Brainwell, Watson,
and Channell, in this case. The prisoners, 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
took place before the Lord Chief Baron, when they
were convicted on the same evidence as that heard
before the magistrate. The case for the prosecution

having closed, the depositions were tendered in
evidence, but this was objected to by the Crown;
but the Lord Chief Baron admitted them, and re-
served the point whether they constituted a defence.
The learned Judges whose names are given above
were of opinion that the admission was right and
the conviction should be affirmed.
The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and
Justices Williams, Crowder, and Byles, differed,
being of opinion that the admissions made by the
prisoners were a disclosure which brought them
within the protecting clause of the statute,
The conviction was affirmed.