The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-08 00:00:00

LA IV INTELLIGENUE—(IIas Day).

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUN-
CIL—(THIS DAY).
Present—The Archbishop of York, Sir John Coleridge,
the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, and tho Lord Justice
Turner.

THE REV. MR. BONWELL V. THE LORD BISHOP OP LONDON.

This long-pending and celebrated case came before the
judges of the Privy Council on appeal by the Rev. James
Bonwell, incumbent of St. Philip, Stepney, against the
judgment and sentence of deprivation pronounced by Dr.
Lushington, Dean of Arches, for conduct unbecoming a
clergyman, and calculated to bring scandal on the Church
in connection with his intimacy with Miss Elizabeth Yoreth,
and her giving birth to an illegitimate child in the school.
room attached to the church, in the month of July or
August, 1859.

The Rev. Mr. Bonwell appeared in person and conducted
his own case unaided by counsel. The Queen's Advocate,
Sir John Harding and Dr. Tristram appeared for the
Bishop of London.

Mr. Bonwell, in opening the appeal, said before going
into the facts and ground of his appeal, he had to com-
plain of the reports that had appeared in the newspapers,
and which had been calculated to create great prejudice in
the case in connecting him with the burial of the child in
a secret manner in the Tower Hamlets Cemetery by Mr.
Ayes, the undertaker. The fact was that he knew nothing
of the fact until he saw the statement in the newspapers,
that the child had been placed in the coffin and buried with
an aged female. The fact was the Bishop of London re-
ceived an anonymous letter on the subject, which was
placed in the hands of two detectives, who called upon him
and he gave them all the information he knew, which led to
an order of the Secretary of State for the disinterment of the
body, and an inquiry into the cause of death instituted, and at
which inquiry no mention was made of him (Mt. Bonwell).
After some further remarks he proceeded with the main
grounds of his appeal, and concluded his address by sub-
mitting to the committee that he was justified in contend-
ing that the proceedings against him were irregular, and
therefore illegal, and ought to be set aside and his appeal
I allowed.

The case was pro ceeding when we went to press.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)
RADFORD V. RADFORD.

This was a petition of Francis Radford, a builder of No.
3, Camden-villas, Camden-town, praying for a judicial
separation from his wife on the ground of adultery. The
respondent denied the allegations of the petitioner, recri-
minated the charge of cruelty, and also pleaded condonation.
Mr. llawkins, Q.C., Dr. Tristram, and Mr. Inderwick
were for the petitioner ; and Mr. Sergeant Shoe and Dr.
Spinks for the respondent. _ _ .

From the opening statement of counsel, it appeared that
the parties lived at Camden-town and Westlsourne-grove
for several years, and there were four children issue of the
marriage. According to his statement the conduct of the
respondent was very violent during the whole time, but at
her request he forgave her, and they resumed cohabitation
until their•final separation.
Mr. Radford, the petitioner, said that the marriage took
place at St. Pancras, on the 24th of August, 1845. He
started in business for himself about seven years ago, and
prior to that year he had been in partnership with his bro-
ther. His wife's language to him was most violent and
abusive, and she was in the habit of spitting at him, and on
one occasion she lacked him up in his bed-room. She ab-
stracted some of his manuscripts. Kept a diary, and the
memoranda produced were in his handwriting. One day
while he was at dinner she gave him a violent blow on the
head. On another occasion her conduct was so violent that
he refused to sup with her. He remembered in the year
1855 her rushing down stairs in her night dress and her
scratching his face and pulling his hair. She had also on
another night kicked him in bed and pulled off the bed
clothes. In the early part of January, 1855, she requested
him to forgive her, and he consented to do so. In the
February of 1856, she jumped eut of bed and pulled
him by the hair. She used to go to where his brother lived
under the impression that he was there and pull the
window and doors down as well as everything else which
she could lay her hands on. She had said that there were
thieves in the family, and there would soon be a murderer,
and he understood she said she would murder him. On
the same occasion she said that she would not put up with
such a - scoundrel as he was. In August, 1859, he re-
membered her being very abusive, and his desiring her to
leave the room, and planing his hand on her shoulder, he
insisted on her going out of the room. She then seized him
by the hair, which she.pulled violently. He did not recol-
lect whether he slept with her that night. The next morn-
ing he felt very unwell, and found that she had pulled a
quantity of hair out of- his head. She continued this vio-
lence until the 7th of April, 1860, when he ordered her out
of the house, and she said she would not go. He did not
sleep with her subsequently. He denied most positively
that he had ever given her a black eye or struck her with a
broom. In the year 1857 he was laid up with congestion
of the brain, which he was satisfied was produced by her
violence. When provoked by her he admitted that he had
called her a strumpet, but he did not use that term in the
sense of any imputation on his wife's character. On those
occasions when he slept apart from his wife it was in con-
, sequence of some previous violence on her part.
Several witnesses were called, who deposed to the peti-
tioner's kindness towards his wife, and to her violence.

POLICE INT.ELLIGENCE.—(This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF ANNOYING A TRADES-
MAN.—Mrs. Sarah Humphreys, a well-dressed female,
who gave the address 11, St. Martin's-court, was charged
with annoying Mr. Henry Wilson, bonnet-maker, of 20,
Ryder's-court, under the following circumstances :
Mr. Wilson said that, some few days ago, the defendant
brought a bonnet to his shop, and wanted the materials it
was made of put on another shape, and the shape to be
white. It was found impossible to do that, and the
aefendant objected to the bonnet when it was
finished. Being informed that she was coming to
the shop on Saturday evening to create a disturbance
he removed the bonnet from the window. She, however,
came, got a crowd of 200 persons round his shop, and made
a rush at the stock in the window, knosking everything
about, and he was then obliged to give her into custody.
If you (said Mr. Wilson) will only look at the bonnet you
will see it's properly made, if your worship is any judge of
bonnets. (Laughter.)
Mr. Tyrwhitt—l am not a judge of bonnets, and don't
want to see it. (Laughter.) It is I suppose made in 'the
true Parisian style.

The prosecutor here exhibited the bonnet amidst laughter.
Mr. Tyrwhitt--I think the best thing the defendant can do
is to pay for the bonnet, put it on, and walk away.
The defendant here put on the bonnet amidst loud
laughter.

Mrs. Humphreys, at last agreeing to pay for the bonnet,
did so and left the court, though evidently far from being
satisfied.