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

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Dec. 10.

WESTMINSTER.—THE EXTRAORDINARY CASE
OF ADULTERY AND ROBIIERY.—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 of 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 adul=
terer, the latte'r. Was guilty of
,stealing the articles
taken away from the husbands 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 pet son knew it.
was not right to receive them, be 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 wite, and took away property, he was guilty
of stealing, but that if the adultery was coutcm-
' plated, although it had never taken place, the elope-
ment 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 were just 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 ahSOlutelY wearing at the
, time of her elopement, but her wardrobe generally.
1 In another case, heardbefore Lord Denman and Mr.
1 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 eases, 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 and 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 trim. 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 encouragidg 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. lle
(the worthy magistrate) would not say that a
woman of Mrs. Tether'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 disgrace, and had unblush-
ingly proclaimed her own infamy, but parts of her
statement were borne oat 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; Tethers' house, and told
them that she was a married woman—a circum-
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.
Petters was to be -believed, she packed up her
things herself while he was away, and followed him
unexpectedly to his lodgings, and as there was net
sufficient evidence against the accused to send him
before a jury, he was discharged. '
and clapping
.1
Ardecisionpirnii n:guoliodr
et I:rd%he' afawsunstfdeloadslti
foti.r.ose.
ovdi
ngercile,a_sbesylhi:lamer
ybhumai :ad' sit,,fpaooedif.
aN:tuilpcideepi.ltfaoaurl
yss applause
imprisonment he had sustained.

[ADVERTISEMENT.)—Errs's (Homoeopathic Chemist)
COCOA.—This esteemed preparation is sold by the prin-
cipal grocers at ls. 6d., par lb., in lib., lib., and
packets. Mich packet is labelled " James Epps, Homo;:o •
pathic chemist, Lonslo4!"._