The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-19 00:00:00

client has been unjustly dealt with. I will ask
him. Are you prepared to pay when called upon ?
Prosecutor—Yes, lam ; every farthing. I am
entitled to thousands when I arrive at 21, in janu-

ary next.

Combe—l am sorry that Mr. Pearson used
this finesse, but I do not think that any jury would
convict if they took a common-sense view of the
case. Here is a man carries on business, incurs debts,
and pleads infancy; and when one of his creditors
tries to get his own, he is to be prosecuted for
swindling. I cannot say whether he has not used
the best means to recover his property or the value.
Prosecutor—But I am entitled to thousands when
I come of age.
Mr. Combe—Then you had better have waited,
and not get goods in this manner. Ido not justify
Mr. Pearson, strictly speaking.
Prosecutor (in answer to Mr. Edwin)—My ac-
count against Mr. Row was for £l2 10s.

Mr. Edwin—That is the exact amount due by
you to my client.
Mr. Pearson—We supplied goods amounting to
£l2 10s. to the prosecutor in October at a month's
credit, with 21 per cent. discount.
Mr. Corn be—Then he ought to have paid you
last month ?
Mr. Pearson—Yes, sir.

Mr. Combe—l always think that when goods are
obtained by infants otherwise than as necessaries it
is a complete fraud. What does Mr. Wells say
about it ?

Mr. Wells—The custom of the trade is, that I can
extend the credit to four months by dropping the
discount.

Mr. Combe—When you incurred this debt did
they know you were an infant ?
Witness—l do not know. I never saw Mr. Pear-
son before. I gave the order to his traveller.
Mr. Combe—Did the traveller know that you
were an infant ?
Witness—l do not know. I did. not tell him
whether I was or not.
Mr. Combe—Then you concealed that fact ?
Mr. Binns—Are you not now dealing with some
of the first firms in. London, they knowing you to
be under age ?
Witnep—Yes ; I am supplied readily with hun-
dreds of pounds' worth of goods.
Mr. Edwin—Do you know Mr. Wallis ?
Witness—Yes.
What did he sue you for ?
Witness—l do not know exactly. I then pleaded
infancy.
Mr. Binns—All the parties will be paid in full,
your worship, in January nexi. But this is a case
of false pretences, and must be gone into.
Mr. Combelf I am satisfied in my own mind
that no jury will convict I shall dismiss the case.
Prosecutor (in answer to Mr. Edwin)—After the
first invoice was made out, goods to the amount of
£2 were had in addition ; and when I went to Mr.
Pearson's I receipted my invoice, when he put
down two sovereigns, which I put in my pocket.
Mr. Pearson then tendered his account for £l2 10s.,
and said that settled it. I said no, and gave the
sovereigns back, saying it was not a legal tender.
Mr. Combe—Then you made out two invoices ?
Witness—Yes, sir; the first for £l2 10s., in the
name of Row ; and when I was in Mr. Pearson's
house, and spoke about the additional goods for £2,
he aaid, make out another invoice in my name for
the whole amount. Consequently, I made out a second
invoice as desired, and tendered that. Then Mr.
Pearson handed me his account and two sovereigns.
Mr. Combe—Then there is an end to all the
fraud, as the first bill is null and void. Mr. Binns
has a perfect right to do all he can for his client, but
he must see what the case is now. Whatever false
pretence there was, was in the first instance, when
Mrs. Pearson obtained the goods in the name of
Row, but Mr. Wells goes to the house afterwards
knowing that £2 worth of goods had been added to
those first selected, and makes out a second invoice
for £l4 10a. in the name of Pearson. That sets
aside the first invoice, at the same time he does
that in the presence of both prisoners, well knowing
them to be man and wife.
Mr. Binns—But Mrs. Pearson, or Row, has not
purged herself from the criminal act of falsely ob-
taining the goods, amounting to £l2los. She must
do that, sir.
Mr. Combe—My opinion is that there was a sub-
sequent dealing by making out .the second invoice,
and that was an abandonment of the first. I shall
dismiss the case, and in doing so, must say that it
is one of the most unfair and unjust prosecutions I
ever heard of.
The defendants then left the court with a host
of friends.

THE HON. HUGH ROWLEY AND EIS

LATE WIFE.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF PERJURY.
[The following appeared in our late edition of Saturday.]
At the Westminster 'LPolice Court, on sSaturday,
the late wife of the Hon. Hugh Rowley appeared in
compliance with a summons granted on the application of
Mr. Rowley, calling upon her to answer to a charge of per-
jury alleged to have been committed by her in the recent
case in the Divorce Court, in which she sought and ob-
tained a decree granting a dissolution of marriage on the
ground of cruelty
Mr. Metcalfe appeared on behalf of the lady, and Mt.
Sleigh and Mr. Orridge for the Hon. Hugh Rowley.
Mr. Sleigh having stated the case for the Hon. Mr.
Rowley, which was to the effect that his client denied the
whole statements of his late wife with respect to the acts of
cruelty, said the first of these was, that the lady had sworn
that the hon. gentleman had never gfven her a farthing
since she was married to him ; the second was, that the
Hon. Hugh Rowley had cut his wife's hair off in the same
manner as he would shear a sheep ; and the third assign-
ment of perjury was, that the hon. gentleman had knocked
her down in a most brutal manner. The hon. gentleman
then called witnesses to prove his statement.
Mr. G. T. Billing, principal clerk to Sir C. Cresswell,
and crier of the Court of Probate, who said—l was present
at the court on the 24th of Nov. I was present at the trial
of Rowley v. Rowley. I remember its being heard. The
petitioner was Theresa Caroline Rowley, and the respon-
dent the Hon. Hugh Rowley. The petitioner, Theresa
Caroline Rowley, at present in court, was sworn by me,
and gave evidence in the suit.

The Hon. Hugh Rowley said—l reside at Leominster.
Lodge, Fulham. lam the complainant In this matter.
Lady Langford is my mother. I was married at Padding-
ton Church to Theresa Bishop in the month of November.
That marriage was dissolved by the Court of Divorce.
About ten days afterwards I went abroad. I was 18 when I
was married ; Mrs. Rowley was 2:5 years of age. We went
to Boulogne, and from thence to Paris. We stayed at the
Hotel Maurice. I think we stopped there about a week or
ten days. I treated my wife during that time as I thought
with kindness. I meant it to be so. I did treat
her with kindness, most distinctly. This was in February
She has sworn that I locked her up without fire or light
in a room for some time. I did do so, but it was at her
own request. It was in the sitting-room at the Hotel
Maurice, but as at all other places on the continent the do-
mestics held the keys, if Mrs. Rowley had wished to go
out she could have rung the bell and done so. When I
returned that evening I found a gentleman sitting with
Mrs. Rowley to whom I had a great objection. She said
she was annoyed that he came, but, as she very justly said,
how was sho to prevent it ? if a man came into her room she
could not turn him out, and the opportunity of saying
she was not at home was taken away. I said then, to save
you the trouble of saying you are not at home, I will lock
the door. I did do so, and left the key in the hall. As re-
gards firing, I have no doubt if she asked for firing it would
have been given if required. She never made any com-
plaint to me about my treatment. On the ;contrary, she
'appeared thankful for what I had done.
By the Magistrate—The person I objected to was an ac-
quaintance of my own.

Examination continued—From Paris we went to Calais.
I treated her with kindness there, although she swore I
struck her, and knocked her heid against a shutter. Such
a statement is utterly untrue. I never prevented her writ-
ing to her friends. She never expressed any wish to do so.
I never did so. From Calais we went to Brussels. We re-
mained there about 10 days. We visited the field of
Waterloo. I recollect something occurring with respect to
her bonnet. I was wearing a soft wide-a-wake. We were
in an open carriage. I cannot say we were quarrelling that
I remember. There was, however, some argument,
I believe, going on. As well as I recollect
two riders rode past, wearing hats similar to
that I had on, minus the feathers. I asked my wife to
let ins see how she would look in a hat like the one
I had on. I asked her to be kind enough to put my hat
on, which she point blank refused. I intended it more as
a joke than anything else, and put on her head a soft wide-
a. wake. There is no truth in the statement that I tore
her bonnet from off her head, and put my hat on her's,
covering her eyes. It was not done with violence or any
cruelty on my part. From Brussels wo went to Mayence,
up the Rhine, from thence to Frankfort by the rail. I
never struck her during the journey. I swear I did not
most decidedly.
By the Magistrate—The journey occupied about half-an-
hour.
Examination continued—l never struck, kicked, or of-
fered her any indignity in the carriage. We went to tho
Hotel Russel there. I recollect Mrs. Rowley was taken
unwell after we arrived. I don't recollect her asking for
water. I never, as she states, forced a spoonful of salts
down her throat on that occasion. I attended kindly to her
during her illness, and procured medical aid. He was a
foreigner. They sent for him from the hotel, so I feel
convinced he must have been a foreigner. From Strasbourg
we went to Paris. I never threw a light or heavy dressing
case at her while we were on our journey. I never pre-
vented her leaving the railway carriage, but I asked her
not to do so. She had a means of communicating with her
maid. I had provided every convenience for her at her
own request. From Paris we went to Boulogne. We
lodged at a hotel there. This was in March, 1852, but I