The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-01 00:00:00

THE StlN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 1, 1861.

relloiv-passengers, " God bless us ! Did Son see 1
that man go through the hole ? he must have been
crushed." I then went and saw the people who
were wounded, and did what I could to assist them.
I next proceeded to the carriage in which I had
travelled, but I could discover no one under it. I
went and told the officers of the company that a
gentleman bad fallen through that carriage. They
made many observations, but instituted no exami-
nation as to the fact. Some one standing near
said, " Oh ! that gentleman is all right ; we hale
seen him."

Dr. Wyld's examination being now concluded,
The Coroner said he had received an intimation
that the third passenger who was in the same car•
riage with the deceased was too ill to attend the in-
quiry that day.
A gentleman named Geach, who was travelling
at the time of the accident in the next compartment
of the carriage occupied by Dr. Baly, here stated
that it was totally impossible for that gentleman
to have made any attempt to get out, the catas-
trophe having occurred so quickly after the first
shock.

The Coroner—Such a notion has already been
sufficiently disproved; but even if it had been true,
it would have implied no reflection against the
deceased, who might naturally have been much
excited at such a moment.

A friend of Dr. Baly's who accompanied Air.
Bedford complained that the secretary of the com-
pany had written,: a letter to the Times, stating
that if the deceased had kept his seat he would not
have lost his life.

Captain Mangles (a director of the company)
said he was not aware of the publication of any
letter containing such words.
[The passage of Mr. Crombie's letter here referred
to is as follows :—" By this unfortunate accident
I am sorry to say one passenger has lost his life,
apparently from having attempted to get out of
the carriage before the train came to a stand, and
two others have sustained serious personal
injury."]
The inquiry having been formally adjourned till
this..day week the jury proceeded to view the scene
of the aecident,lof which and the fragments of the
carriages scattered over the embankments they
made a long and careful examination, in which they
were assistedby Colonel Yolland and Mr. Beattie,
of the South-Western Railway. There is nothing
to add to the description of this sad scene which
appeared in our columns of yesterday. The trace
of one carriage being off the line is very distinct
before the junction is reached, and at the points
there is evidence of a carriage having gone off on
the left side and got on the rails again. After
passing the points it would seem that nearly all
the carriages must have been off the rails, and at
the bridge they went over the embankment one
after the other. The flange of one of the right-
hand wheels of the tender has been forced back for
at least an inch or more over half the diameter of
the wheel ; but whether this was the cause or the
effect of the accident remains to be seen.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Jan, 31.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMO-

NIAL CAUSES.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
STURGE V. STURGE AND MELLIS.
Mr. Field appeared for the petitioner; Mr.
Karslake for the respondent; and Mr. Thrupp for
the co-respondent.

The case was part heard on Tuesday, and ad-
journeel for further evidence as to the charge of
adultery and as to identity. The petition was by a
husband, and both the co-respondent had filed
answers denying the adultery charged, pleading
condonation and connivance, and recriminating.
Evidence had been given of the marriage of Mr.
and Mrs. Sturge in February, 1832, and of their
subsequent cohabition at Bristol, where Mr. Sturge
carried on the business of a musical instrument
maker and mender. They had several children, of
whom one only survives. In June, 1858, the co-
respondent Mellis, who was described as a com-
positor, went to lodge with Mr. and Mrs. Sturge,
and remained with them until January, 1859.
Shortly after he went away Mrs. Sturge left her
husband's house, and had since lived with him as
his wife at Stonehouse.

Martha Thomas was one of the witnesses called
on behalf of the petitioner. She stated that she
was formerly a needlewoman ; that, in March,
1859, she was at work at Bristol, and, hearing that
Sturge was looking out for a person to take charge
of his shop, she applied for the situation, and he
engaged her at a salary of £l2 a year to assist in
the shop and take care of the child, a boy 11 years
of age. In October, 1859, two tipsy women came
to the shop, one of whom she believed was Mrs.
Sturge. The woman asked her whether she was
Mrs. Sturge. She replied that she was not, and
she should be very sorry to be Mrs. Sturge. She
used to sleep at the house of Mrs. Bryant, her sister,
who lived in Ratcliff-street. Sturge was then
living in Park-place, and she was in the habit of
going at eight in the morning to dress the boy, of
taking her breakfast there with Sturge, of having
her other meals there, and of staying till 10 or 11
at night.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Kars-
lake, who elicited from her that Sturge, after he
left Park-place, occupied lodgings, consisting only
of a bed-room and sitting-room, and that she was
in the habit of keeping her bonnet and a frock in
the bed-room, and of changing her frock there when
she had done har work. She positively denied
that she had ever been in or on the bed. She left
in October, 1859, and came to stay with an aunt
in London for about six weeks. She then returned
to Bristol on her own private business. She met
the little boy by accident in the Broadmead, and
went with him to see Sturge, who re-engaged her.
She had continued with him down to the present
time. He never called her Mrs. Sturge. He and
the little boy called her " Sarah Ann."
In re-examination, the witness said that she had
never had any improper intimacy with Mr. Sturge.
Mr. Karslake, for the respondent, called
Eliza Sturge, the petitioner's niece. She said
that Mrs. Sturge left her home in January, 1859.
She then went to look after Sturge's • house from
time to time, and to take care of the little boy.
There were a sitting-room and three bedrooms in
the house. One evening, about three weeks after
Mrs. Sturge left, Martha Thomas and another
woman went to the house, and had supper with
Sturge. He told her that Thomas was Sarah Ann
Dodsworth, from Plymouth. She left Thomas
there that night, and found her there when she
went back at 8 o'clock next morning. She saw she
was not required any longer, and went away.
'Whenever she went to the house afterwards she
saw Thomas there. Sturge moved from Park-
place to St. James's-churchyard. He occupied two
rooms—a bedroom and a sitting-room, communi-
cating by folding doors. About half-past 8 one
morning, when she called at the house, she saw
Thomas in the bed undressed. Sturge was getting
breakfast ready. She went into the bedroom.
Sturge called out to Thomas, " Come, old girl, it's
time to get up; breakfast is ready 1" She then
went away to her business. The little boy was
there in his night-dress. Sturge afterwards
moved to the Horse-fair, where he had two bed-
' rooms and a sitting-room. She saw Thomas
there. Thomas's gown and mantle were kept in
the bedroom. He next lived in the Arcade, and
Thomas remained with him. In October, 1859,
Mrs. Sturge went back to Bristol, and remained
about a week. Thomas then left Sturge's house.
After Mrs. Sturge left Bristol she went to Sturgo's
house in the Arcade. Sturge said he had given his
wife a sovereign and sent her off to Mellis, because
she could not make herself happy. He also showed
her his wife's linen which had come from the wash,
and said he was going to send it off to her. She
then went and looked after the house for a fort-
night. Sturge then said he expected "Sarah
Ann" back from London. A few days after
" Sarah Ann," or Thomas, came back. Sarah Ann
had remained with Sturge ever since.
In cross-examination the witness admitted she
was now on bad terms with Sturge.
Mr. Kerslake submitted that upon this evidence
the pleas of condonation and connivance had been
established. Even if it had not, there could be no
doubt that the counter charge of adultery had been
proved against the petitioner.
Mr. Field contended that the unsupported evi-
denee of one witness as to a conversation was not
sufficient to establish the charges of connivance and
condonation. As to the counter charge of adultery,
it was disproved by the evidence of Thomas. Con-
sidering the position in life of the parties, it could
not be presumed from the circumstances' she had
stated that an improper intimacy had been formed
between them, and the charge, therefore, rested
upon the evidence of Eliza Sturge. It was very
ind
en Sturge'se th
e improbable that she and her parents should have
continued upon intimate terms with Sturge if she
Courtbe d
olung theht n absenceot t o act
of
fa d seen 11corroborativehomasevi
upon that statement.
The Judge Ordinary said there was no doubt that
the charge of adultery against the respondent and
the co-respondent had been established. He next
had to consider whether the charge of adultery
against the petitioner had been established. His
lordship referred to the evidence of Thomas, and
observed that the course of events, as stated by her,
was very singular. The petitioner must have been
perfectly well aware that adultery with that young
woman was imputed to him, and he had certainly
behaved very unkindly to her in at g main to call
her sister, who might have given such strong con-
tirmation of her story if it was true. It was at least
suspicious that she should be early in the morning
and late at night in the house of a man who was!

iinoviti to be living apart from his wife. The world
was so very unaiaritahle that it would naturally
surmise that there was some proper connexion
between them. There was, therefore, no great im-
probability in the story told by Eliza Sturge. It
appeared that Sturge had communicated either to
'hiatus or to her sister that he was separated from
his wife, and that one of them had asked whether
the separation was mutual. lie was afraid it was
not uncommon among the humbler classes of this
country when a husband and wife parted by mutual
consent for each of them to think that he or she
was at libertyto take another husband or vi:fe, and
that others did not think much of going to live witii
one of them is that capacity. In this case Thomas
remained with the petitioner until his wife came
back; she then went to London, and as soon as the
wife went away again she returned to him. She
did not give by any means a satisfactory account of
the business which tcok her to London, or of her
reasons for returning to Bristol. Could any reason-
able man doubt, under these circumstances, that
the story told by Eliza Sturge was a true one ? It
had been argued that it was improbable that she
and her parents should have continued their inti-
macy with Sturge if they had discovered his inti-
macy with Thames. After the unhappy experience
he had had in this court, he saw no improbability
in such a state of things. It was in the common course
of events. One of the evils which might hereafter
result from the facility with which marriages were
dissolved was that, in a certain class of life, women
who committed adultery and afterwards married
the adulterer would be just as well received as if
they were perfectly pure. He was afraid that
women would becom3 more reckless in deserting
their husbands when they found that they were
received with facility into the society of the class
to which they belonged after they were married to
their paramours. lie alio thought that there was
evidence of connivame on the part of the husband.
On the two groundf, therefore, that the husband
had been guilty of connivance, and that he had
himself committed adultery, the petition must be
dismissed.

,ar-~,

present any special feature of public interest. The
three first-named prisoners were in the employ of
Messrs. Budd and Co., the copper merchants and
smelters of Castle Baynard-wharf, and had been
watched by a city police-constable named Gayler,
while carting some old ship metal from the docks
at:Rotherhithe, to stop at the house of M'Gregor,
in that neighbourhood, and there deposit some of
the metal which they had taken out of the cart.
The jury found them all guilty, and
The Court sentenced Jelf and Preece to nine
months' imprisonment, Percival to 12, and M`Gregor
to 16.

THIRD couRT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)

Edward Kinkin, Thomas Graham, and George
Williams, three well-dressed respectable-looking
youths, were indicted for a robbery with violence
on Daniel Bushell, and stealing from him a watch
of the value of £2l.
Mr. Blackburn prosecuted, and Mr. Cooper
defended. _ _

It appeared from the evidence that the prosecu-
tor, who is a hop merchant residin c, in the Wands-
wortii-road, was on the 20th of Becember last, at
about one o'clock, passing through Great Alie-
street, Goodinan'3-fields, when the prisoner Wit-
liams came up in froni of him and snatched his watch
from his pocket, and at the same time some one from
behind tried to trip him up. The prosecutor, how-
ever, kept from falling, and ran for a short dis-
tance after Williams, when the prisoner Graham
came up and hit him upon the face, and at the
same time a third man came up '.t his back and put
his knee between the prosecutor's legs and threw
him with violence to the ground, Graham at the
same time striking him again on the head,and they
then got away. All this was seen by several
persons who knew the prisoners, but no attempt
was made to stop them. Information having been
given to the police, Graham was taken into cus-
tody at Wilton's public house, Wellclose Square,
on the sth of January, for picking pockets, and
Williams on the 11th, and when spoken to about
the robbery he (Williams) said that all he knew of
the matter was, that the watch fetched £7 10s.
The third prisoner (Kinkin) was not taken until
some time after, and then under somewhat singu-
lar circumstances. Some one who was known to
the police had been at Wilton's Music Hall, Well-
close Square, where he met a girl, who took him
to a brothel in the neighbourhood, and introduced
him to the prisoner Kinkin, and they got into
conversation. Kinkin asked this person if he was
a thief, and told him that he (Kinkin) had been
down to Plymouth to keep out of the way, as he
had knocked down an old gentleman and robbed
him. This being communicated to the police he
also was taken, and they were all most positively
sworn to as the persons concerned in the outrage.
The Commissioner asked whether the concert
room in Wellclose Square was the resort of this
class of loose women.
An Inspector who was present said it was.
The Commissioner directed that the licensing
magistrates should be made acquainted with this
circumstance.

The Jury found the prisoners guilty.
The police said that Kiukin and Williams, both
of whom were not 18 years of age, had been
thieves, the former for ten, and the latter for six
years, and had been repeatedly convicted of daring
robberies, but Graluttn, although their associate
for some months, had not been tried.
The Commissioner, in passing sentence, told
them they had been convicted of a most atrocious
outrage, in robbing a gentleman, with violence,
as had been proved, in broad daylight, and in
a crowded street. With regard to Graham, as
he was not known to have been before convicted,
the sentence upon him would be that of four years'
penal servitude. -Williams it did not appear was so
unfavourably known to the police as the other
prisoner, and therefore he should make a difference
in his sentence, and ordered him to be kept in
penal scr.ritlyle for a term of six years.
Williams upon hearing this, and leaving the
dock, bawled out in a defiant tone, " If it was eight
you would not know where it is" (meaning the
watch). He was then removed from the dock.
The Commissioner then addressing a few words
to the remaining prisoner Kinkin, sentenced him
to be kept in penal servitude for the space of eight
years ; and he upon leaving the dock said, " I would
sooner be tied up at eight and cut down at nine,
before I would let them know where the watch is."
With these cases the business of the sessions was
brought to a doge. The next session commences
on Monday, February' 25.