The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE, March 8.

COJJRT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
:Before. Sir C. Cresswell, and a Common Jary.)

HARRIS V. EtABRIS AND BOND.

This. was a suit instituted by the husband, a civil
engineer and draughtsman, for a divorce on the
ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent,
to which denial of the adulfery and cruelty were
pleaded..
Mr. Brett, Q C., and Dr. Spinks were counsel
for -the petitioner ; and Dr. Wambey appeared for
the respondents.
From the evidence it appeared that the parties,
after cohabiting for some years, married, and lived
together for a considerable time, but had no chil-
dren. Until 1857 there was no imputation of mis-
conduct on the part of the respondent ; but in the
early part of that year the parties agreed to sepa-
rate
te husband stipulating to allow £1 ls. a
week. Up to this period they lived in London,
and the respondent attended to the business of a
Berlin wool shop, which her husband had opened
in the neighbourhood of Kentish Town. When
the deed of separation had been executed, the re-
spondent went to live at Lancaster, and there
became acquainted with a man named Bradley,
and, in company with him, took up her residence
at a public house situated in the moors of Lulea-
shire. Subsequently she formed an intimacy with
the co-respondent, who was a married man, but
separated from his wife, and they lived together in
a cottage in the neighbourhood for upwards of 12
months. It was suggested on the part of the re•
spondent that as there were two others lodging with
her in the cottage the co-respondent merely occu-
pied the same relation towards her, and witnesses
were called who deposed to the alleged cruelty by
the petitioner. It appeared also that the petitioner
accused his wife of intemperance, and of pawning
goods out of the shop to satisfy her unfortunate
propensity.
The jury found a verdict that the adultery alleged
had taken place, and that the petitioner was not
guilty of the cruelty pleaded, and
The Court pronounced a decree nisi with costs.

NEWTON V. NEWTON AND COOKE.
This was the petition of James Simeon Newton,
an estate agent, at Manchester, praying for a di-
vorce by reason of his wife's adultery with the co-
respondent, a commercial traveller, who also
resided in Manchester. The respondent did not
appear, but the co-respondent denied the adultery,
arid pleaded further that prior to the time when
-the alleged intercourse took place the respondent
had prostituted herself with other men, of which
the petitioner was cognisant and connived at, and
that he had treated her with great cruelty.
- Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and another learned gen-
tleman were counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.
Brett, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks for the co-respondent.
The evidence for the petitioner was to the effect
that he had married the respondent in 1855, and
that they cohabited till 1858, but bad no children.
In the April of the latter year the alleged criminal
intercourse commenced, and the respondent took a
small house in. Low'er Chatham-street, Shelford-
road, near Manchester, and subsequently in another
suburb, where she was visited by the co-respon-
dent. The evidence in support of the adultery
was conclusive, and one of the witnesses stated
that the respondent expthsed to her her preference
of Cooke to her husband. For the defence some
acts of great violence on the part of the petitioner
were deposed to.
The jury found a verdict for the petitioner, with
one farthing damages, and added that though he
had been guilty of acts of ill-treatment, his con-
duct was not of a character to force the respondent
into acts of adultery as was pleaded.
Dr. Phillimore applied for an immediate decree,
which the learned judge refused; and commented
on the brutal conduct of the petitioner, which had
I been proved in evidence.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT'--DURHAM, March 7.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
John Whitelock, a solicitor's clerk of respectable
appearance, was indicted for sending a threatening
letter to the Rev. John Armstrong of Hartlepool,
on the 22d of February last, threatening to accuse
him of a rape upon his servant girl, Margaret Red-
fearn, without reasonable or probable cause, with
intent to extort money. A second count, framed
on a subsequent statute, charged the prisoner with
the same offence, without the allegation that it was
" without reasonable and probable cause."
Mr. Campbell Foster and Mr. Blackwell ap-
peared for the prosecution; and Mr. Davison
defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the opening statement of the
learned counsel for the prosecution that the charges
in the indictment were framed on two statutes, one
of which was passed in the reign of George IV.,
and the other in the reign of her present Majesty,
which made it a felony for any person to write a
letter to another person charging him with a crime
punishable by transportation, with an intent to
extort money. The prisoner was a clerk in the em-
ployment of Messrs. Hodgson and Todd, solicitors,
of Hartlepool, and had for several years filled that
office. The prosecutor is the Rev. J. Armstrong, and
is minister to a Primitive Methodist congregation
at Hartlepool. His congregation numbered up-
wards of 1,000 inhabitants of Hartlepool and the
adjoining populous town of Middleborough. On the
22d of February he was on duty in his vestry
between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening, and while
there John Robinson, a member of the congrega-
tion, handed him a letter which had been put into
his hands by Margaret Redfearn. Prosecutor im-
mediately opened and read the letter, and was per-
fectly astonished with its contents. The letter was
dated the 22d of February, and was signed " James
Whitelock," and was as follows :
" Hartlepool, Feb. 22, 1361.
"Sir,—My whole nature has been almost irreparably
shaken by Margaret's recital of your cruel, dastardly, and
most filthy behaviour to her on a recent night. To think
of a rape having been committed by you, a minister of the
Gospel—(pshaw, a wolf in sheep's clothing)—upon a poor
girl who was so unfortunate as to enter your service, makes
the blood curdle within my veins. Such an awful occur-
rence shall not go unpunished, as you will shortly see, al-
though, before taking any further steps in the matter, I
shall give you time to offer any adequate monetary com-
pensation to the poor thing whose life-long prospects you
have so cruelly blighted.—ln haste, yours, &c.,
" JAMES WHITELOCK, Jun.
" Mr. Armstrong, Hartlepool."
The prosecutor having been sworn proved the
facts stated in the opening address of the learned
counsel for the prosecution, and then pledged
his oath that the statement contained in the letter
was wholly false and groundless. He had never
in his life taken any the slightest liberty with
Margaret Redfearn, or treated her in any way un-
becoming his pOsition in relation to her, The
prosecutor was closely cross-examined as to the
charges which had been made against him in the
letter. Ho denied positively that he had on the
sth of January, his wife being from home, gone into
his servant's bedroom and committed a rape upon
her, or that he had taken any liberty with her
whatever. He denied that he had on Friday night,
the 22d of February—the very night that he had
received the letter—attempted, after dinner, to re-
peat the offence by pulling Margaret Redfearn
back on the conch by the shoulders, when she
struggled and got away from him, his wife being
from home at the time. 1-.le wag then asked if he