The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-10 00:00:00

THE SUN', LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 10, 1866.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde and a Common Jury.)
WALTON V. WATSON* AND OASTLER.

This was a suit by a husband who is the proprie-
tor of the Unicorn public-house at Worcester, for a
dissolution of his marriage, on the ground of his
wife's adultery with the co-respondent, and there
was no defence.

From the statement of counsel it appeared that
the parties were married in 1854, and that the
petitioner was 29 and the respondent about 18 at
that time. They lived happily together, but the
petitioner unfortunately introduced the co-respon-
dent, who then held the position of manager of gas
works at Worcester, to his private house. There
was no doubt that the illicit intimacy was in
existence in 1859, although there was reason to
believe it commenced earlier, and continued until
the spring of 1861. The parties were seen fre-
quently walking together, and were actually
detected in an improper situation, but the husband
did not discover the wife's misconduct until May,
1864, when a box was left for her at the
Unicorn. She was then on a visit at Hereford, and
he opened it thinking it might contain some things
she would wish to have for warded to her, when he
found a letter from Oastler to Mrs. Walton, and
upwards of 200 letters from her addressed to
Oastler. These letters left no doubt as to the
criminality of the parties, and from a passage in
one of them it appeared that the respondent
was endeavouring to procure abortion, she being
pregnant of a child, of which eke considered the co-
respondent the father.

John Hughes said that he had known the peti,
tioner for ten years, and that he was very kind and
affectionate to his wife. He identified the letter
produced as being in Oastler's handwiting. He
was with the petitioner when he made the discovery
of hiswife's misconduct, and he was deeply affected.
Two witnesses were called to prove the adultery,
and the letters found in the box were proved to be
in the handwriting of Mrs. Walter. It was also
proved that letters had been passing between the
parties for years.

Mr. Rea, a solicitor, of Worcester, proved to
having seen the co-respondent at an inn in Worces-
ter in May, 1864. He told him that Mr. Walton
had discovered the illicit intercourse between him
and his wife, and that it had been going on for
years. He admitted the fact, and said it was un-
fortunate the discovery had been made just as the
connection was about to terminate. (Laughter.)
Oastler had £270 a year and a house and coal free,
but at present he was confined in Wakefield Gaol,
having been sentenced to five years' penal servitude
for defrauding his employers. He considered that
he was a man who could always gain a good live-
lihood.

The learned Judge, having summed up, the jury
immediately found a verdict for the petitioner, with
£l,OOO damages.

Decree nisi, with costs against the co-respondent.

PAYTON V. PAYTON AND CLEGG.

This was the petition of the husband, a cabinet-
carver, for a dissolution of marriage on the ground
of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, a boot
and shoe manufacturer, in Ilolywell-street, Strand,
and damages were laid at £5OO. The case was
undefended.

Dr. Swabey was counsel for the petitioner.

It appeared that the parties were married in
January, 1854, and that there were two children
issue of the marriage. It was proved that the co-
respondent was in extensive business, and had
houses in different parts of the metropolis.
Thejury assessed the damages at £4OO, and the
Court pronounced the decree nisi with costs.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
NASH V. PINK.

This was an action to recover £2O, the value of
a quantity of fish supplied to the defendant, Mrs.
Pink, a shopkeeper, of Surrey.
His Honour asked an attorney who appeared
for the defendant what was the answer to this case?

The attorney said that, as the Court must per-
ceive, Mrs. Pink was a widow. The goods had
not really been supplied to her, but to her late
husband, who was alive at the time when they were
delivered.

Plaintiff's representative observed that, although
this might be the case, still the widow who was now
sued:had possession of her late husband's effects.

His Honour asked if she had taken out letters of
administration. Defendant's attorney said she had
not as there was nothing to administer.
Mrs. Pink deposed that her late husband died very
badly off, not leaving sufficient to pay his funeral
expenses.

His Honour considered that there was consider-
able difficulty about the case. It was clear that
the goods had not been supplied to defendant upon
her own account, but to her late husband during
her lifetime. That being so, it was open to the
plaintiff to sue defendant, as she had not taken out
letters of administration as executrix de son tort,
but as she lived in Surrey such a proceeding would
clearly deprive this court of all jurisdiction. He
thought, under the circumstances, that it would be
better for the plaintiff to abandon the present pro-
ceedings, putting up with the first loss, rather than
incur further expenses. As the case stood plaintiff
must be now nonsuited.

variably put the date on the stamps. The receipt in the
ledger is not my writing.

Mr. Knox—l think the practice of putting the date on
the stamps would be of great use, as it would prevent old
stamps being re-used.

Henry Dawson, 301 A, having proved taking the pri-
soner into custody, when he said ho was going to Messrs.
Kempton's the next day,
Mr. Knox remanded the prisoner, who seemed in a very
dejected state, and said he had no questions to ask.
It is believed that. the prisoner's defalcations amount to
about £3OO.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS—March 9.
(Before Mr. Payne.)

Isaac Maskell, 20, labourer, and Charles Roberts,

20, boot closer, were placed in the dock, indicted
for stealing six table-cloths and other articles, the
property of William Beresford, and the said Chas.
Roberts for assaulting Joseph Shaw, a police-con-
stable, in the execution of his duty, whereby his leg
was broken.

Messrs. Cooper and Brook prosecuted (in-
structed by the Treasury) ; the prisoners were un-
defended. Mr. Inspector Dafter, S division,
watched the case on behalf of the police authorities
of Scotland-yard.
By the evidence it will be seen that this was a
savage and unprovoked assault.

Joseph Shaw, 78 Y, who appeared in court upon
crutches, and whose leg was covered with surgical
bandages, said—On Monday evening, the sth ult.,
at a quarter-past 7, he saw the prisoners in Suffolk-
street, Old St. Pancras-road, accompanied by ano-
ther, each carrying a bundle of clothes. A quan-
tity of wet linen was stolen from the back garden of
the prosecutor's house. He took hold of Roberts,
and asked him what he had got there, and he said,
" Only what I picked up." Witness said he should
take him to the station and be satisfied that it was
true. The prisoner Roberts then turned round and
threw his arms around him, and a scuffle ensued,
and they both fell. He threw both his legs round
his, and they fell again, and witness's leg coming
in contact with the kerb, his leg was broken. Wit-
ness struggled to his feet 'again, seized the prisoner,
and they got across the road to the other side of the
pavement, where they fell once more. The prisoner
then commenced striking witness on the face, but the
latter having hold of him by the collar his arm was
in the way, and the blows fell upon his chest and
arm. Witness called loudly for help to some
persons passing, but they took no notice and went
on, and he was compelled to let the prisoner go.
After a while several constables came up and wit-
ness was taken to the hospital, where he remained
about three weeks. The prisoner Roberts then got
away, and he gave the bundle he had taken from
him to a man.

James Harrison, 12, Ashley-street, King's-cross,
greengrocer, said he saw the prisoner struggling
with the prisoner Roberts, and received from the
constable a bundle of wet linen. He did not assist
the constable, because he held the bundle. (Sensa-
tion.) If he had put that down some one might
have run away with it.

Mr. Payne condemned this witness for not assist-
ing the constable. He thought he should disallow
him his expenses.

Sergeant Older, 16 Y, said he apprehended the
prisoner Maskell, and told him that he was charged
with stealing linen and assaulting a constable. He
said he did not assault the constable ; he had been
to the station once before for the linen, and was
not identified. When placed in a cell he shouted
out " Charlie, they've got me in." The other pri-
soner answered, " What for ?" and he said " For
that snow (linen)." Roberts asked him where he
had " planted " it, and he said " Through the arch
near Ben Caunt's."

Several witnesses were examined, who proved
that the prisoner Maskell had been dealing with
some of the linen, and that the property belonged
to the prosecutor.

Dr: Langmore, of University Hospital, proved
that the injuries the constable had received were of
a serious nature.

The jury immediately found the priSoner guilty.
William M‘ Math, 36 Y, said he was present at
the Middlesex Sessions in November, 1863, when
the prisoner Roberts was tried and convicted of
felony. lie produced a certificate of the conviction.
Other convictions for felony having been proved
against the prisoners,

Mr. Payne said it was a Lad offence and sentenced
the prisoner Maskell to be imprisoned and kept to
hard labour for two years, and addressing the other
prisoner Roberts said he had not only stolen this
property, but made it worse by the brutal violence
he had used to the constable who was only doing
his duty, and when charged with the offence he had
the impudence to say that he had not got strength
enough to break his leg, but wished that he had.
The sentence on him was that he be kept in penal
servitude for seven years. It was a great disgrace
to the neighbourhood that such an offence should
be committed in the broad highway and no one
should assist the constable.

Mr. Brook said it was a fact that in that neigh-
bourhood no one would assist the police.
Mr. Payne said
the grand jury had recommended
the constable to receive a reward from the court ;
he should like to know whether the commissioners
would allow him to receive one.

Mr. Inspector Dafter said he believed they would.
Mr. Payne then.
ordered the constable to receive
a reward of £5, for which he seemed very grateful.
The prisoners, who seemed astonished at the sen-
tence, were then removed.

Times,
THE PRESIDENT'S VETO. - The New York
discussing the President's veto of the
Freedmen's Bureau Bill, says that in the veto
power lies one of the President's highest con-
stitutional prerogatives. When exercised upon a
measure such as this—a measure affecting not only
the fortunes of a race, but the political rights of
eleven States, and the social and industrial condi-
tion of one half of the country, the grounds for it
deserve the most serious and unprejudiced thought.
When, in addition to these considerations, the
measure vetoed is one that received the almost una-
nimous assent of the representatives of the poli-
tical party which elected the President, and to which
he must look for continued support, it may be taken
for granted that his action was neither hasty nor
without the weightiest reasons. The latter he has
set forth in his measure at length ; and it will be
universally admitted that they are of such a cha-
racter as to justify the appreciation of them which
has already been shown by the Senate. What was
the object of the Freedmen's Bureau, and what the
proper purpose of the bill? Simply to assure the
emancipated slaves in the possession of those funda-
mental rights which accrued to them by the fact of
emancipation. So far as, in the President's opinion,
the bill went beyond this, or attempted to effect it
by means that were unconstitutional, or that would
be practically ineffective, or that would work
damage to other public interests, he was bound to
refuse it his sanction, regardless of party interest ;
but at the same time he takes pains, in the opening
of his Veto Message, to express his agreement with
Congress in the fundamental object proposed by the
bill, viz., to secure to the freedmen the full enjoy-
ment of their freedom and their property, and their
entire independence and equality in making con-
tracts for their labour. With this essential unanimity
of purpose, on the part of Congress and the Exesu-
tive, our contemporary does not see that it would
be absolutely impossible to frame a measure upon
which both parties should agree. it is our belief
that this will yet be done, and that the silly exulta-
tion of the faction which sees in the veto the es-
tablishment of an irreparable breach between the
President and the Union party, will be followed by
a disappointment as pitiful as any they have pre-
viously had.

FRONTIER THIEVES. The Montreal Gazette of
the 22d Feb. states that on the previous day the
Montreal police received the following telegram from one
of their number stationed at Stanbridge, a Canadian vil-
lage near St. Armand, Ilissisquoi, within seven or eight
miles of the American line :—" Attack made last night and
attempt to rob Stanbridge bank. Assailants beaten off
after exchange of shots. One of the assailants and one of
the bank clerks wounded. Assailants escaped into United
States." The police had before received intimation that
a Fenian "raid" in this direction might be expected from
the neighbourhood of St. Alban's, Vermont.

LONDON GAZETTE—Last Eveung.
BUCKINGHAM PALACE, Miuten J.

,-- - -
His Royal Highness the Prince Alfred has been pleased
to appoint Col. the Hon. Augustus Liddell as treasurer,
and the Hon. Eliot Yorke and Lieut. A. B. Haig, of the
Royal Engineers,asequenles, to his royal highness.