The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BBNCH.

(Sittings in Banco before Lord Campbell, Justices Cole-

ridge and Erlej
ARTICLES or THE PEACE AGAINST A CLERGYMAN.

Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., applied to exhibit articles of
peace against the Rev. Henry Curtis Cherry, by Emily,
his wife, on the ground of cruelty. It appeared from the
articles that were read by the officer of the court, that
the applicant was married to the Rev. Henry Curtis
Cheiry, rector of Burghfield Rectory, near Reading, on
the 23d of August, and that immediately after wards a
systematic course of annoyance and indignities was
adopted towards her by her husband and his relatives
in the presence of the servants. On the 28th September,
1855, resolved on leaving him, and did so with his
knowledge, taking up her residence at Reading. Whilst
at St. Giles' Church, Reading, on Sunday evening the
31st of August, 1856, after she "Dad left him, he came
there and conducted himself towards her in a very
unbecoming manner, dragging her by the arm to the
vestry after the service was over, saying that was
nothing to what he intended to do to her. On the
Sunday evening following, after he bad attended two
services at his own church, and administered the holy
communion, he came to Reading with his gardener, and
with the assistance of the police forcibly removed her on
the following morning from Reading to Burghfield
Rectory, in the course of which she was subjected to
rough treatment. On their arriving at the rectory
her husband directed her to go up stairs, for if not the
inspector of police would assist him to carry her up.
She was then taken up stairs, but afterwards escaped,
and had remained in concealment from that time to the
present. During her concealment, and about three
months after the above encounter, her husband's mother
sent a message to her through a friend that it would be
inexpedient for the applicant to go to Reading, because
the Rev. H. C. Cherry was in such an excited state
that if they met she thought something terrible would
ensue—if not murder. Ever since her escape she had
been in constant fear and alarm, and she was informed
that her husband was searching for her, and had
stated that he would bring her back to his house at any
cost. She had been compelled to live in conceal.
ment to prevent a repetition of the violence of the Bth
September, 1856. She had been informed, and believed,
that the Rev. H. C. Cherry (her husband) had for three
months past employed Field, the detective officer, to dis-
cover her abode, but hitherto without success. On the
16th Sept., 1857, she received the following letter from
her husband :

" For my wife Emily Cherry alone.
Enrghfield Rectory,
Reading, 16th Sept., 1857.
"MT DEAREST EMILY, —I have reason to know that
your sister not only withholds from you what she
knows isnow going on for your compulsory removal from
me, but that, unless it suits her purposes, you do not
receive nor see half the letters I forward to you
through her. Oh what an awful responsibility rests
upon her ! When will you be no longer deceived I
Can you doubt I can lay hold of you any
moment 1 Defy me, and by the living God
I name where you are and have been the last two days.
What did I marry you for ? To be separated from me ?
A man does not thus bind himself to be a woman's fool
(the last lines scored under three times). What power
have you to help yourself ? What have I not done to
prove my love for you, and what will I yet not do to
have you with me. Yoursilly nephew refers totbe abduc-
tion in September last. Why I will hare a dozen more, if
necessary, and then 'shill he perfectly justifiedin law. As
God is my witness, I'll have you with me ere many days,
why not then accept the terms I have proposed through
Mrs. Henry this day to you ? You are at liberty to tell
your silly adviser that I laugh at his nonsense, and
he knows he cannot help you. For God's sake be wise
at last and meet me. You will never repent that you
treated a living generous inflexible God and not man
fearing husband till death,

HENRY C. CINRILY,

Lord Campbell—ln that letter I don't find that the
husband threatens any bodily violence, but an apprehen-
sion of such on the part of the wife,
Mr. Huddlestone said the words of tho letter led the
applicant to believe she would be subjected to a repeti-
tion of the personal violence she was subjected to when
forcibly taken away from Reading.
Mr. Justice Coleridge—l don't find from the articles
read that at any time when the husband had the wife in
his power, and had an opportunity of inflicting violence
on her, that he has done so.

Mr. Justice Wightman —What is the personal injury
relied on t There !night be an abduction without per-
sonal injury.

Mr. Huddlestone—The renewal of the violence she
was subjected to at the time alluded to, when she suf-
fered very much for a fortnight, and was unable to dress
herself from the violence of her husband and the in-
spector of police.

Lord Campbell—l am not aware that a husband is
entitled to use violence, to seize the person of his
wife, and make her a prisoner, and bring her to the
marital bed, but apply to the proper quarter for a resti-
tution of conjugal rights. He cannot take the law in
his own hands, and by force make her a prisoner and
deprive her of her liberty. The threat of a repetition to
do what he has before done I think sufficient grounds
for the interference of the Court. I consider it personal
violence, and the lady ought to have the protection of
the Court.

Mr. Justice Coleridge—There is no justification in law
of a husband using violence to compel his wife to come
and live with him. A doubt exists in my mind in
reference to this case from the general un-
satisfactory state of the articles before the Court.
1 greater part of the information is founded
on statements of parties without stating their names,
which I think a most objectionable mode of swearing
them, because it is impossible to give them that contra-
diction that otherwise might be given. lam also much
struck with this fact that, at the time when the husband
had his wife in his power, he used no personal violence
towardsher, but onl; confined her to her chamber. I think
it going a great way to suppose that the lady has great
fear of her life from her husband's cruelty. I cannot
deny that there is
prima fasic cause of fear cf that
degree of personal violence that was used by the po-
liceman. That shows, however, that the husband was
seeking to proceed, as he thought, safely and under the
protection of the law. I, however, think she is en-
titled to protection.

Mr. Justice Wightman—l think the lady is entitled
to the protection of the Court, and I rely mainly for my
opinion on the passage in the letter to which the atten-
tion of the Court has been drawn, in which the husband
threatens in the strongest terms that he will compel her
to return home.

The protection asked for was granted, and an attach-
ment was ordered to issue.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

THE LONDON ♦ND HARWICH STEAM PACKET COMPANY.

To-day was appointed to settle tke list of contribu-
tories of this company, which is in course of being
wound up under the 19th and 20th Vic., C. 47.
Mr. Bayley appeared on behalf of Mr. Pennale, the
official liquidator, and a question arose as to the mode
in which the notices, &c., were to be served on the
shareholders sought to bo made contributories, there
being no directions in the act in that respect.
Mr. Harrison said that, in the absence of any rule
made by the court, he had suggested that the same
course should be adopted as where a company were
being
nndotuicpe thinCrhoaungeheryt and in that case, the
the post, directed to the last
servicekn
w wound
of
plane of residence, was sufficient.
mor.
Hughes,
from the office of Mr. Linklater, put in
an affidavit that all the letters had been posted, directed
to the addresses set forth in a list of contributions.
His Honour said that the list must be called over
alphabetically, and proof given that the notice had been
forwarded to the address on the registrar. Several names
were struck out for want of proof that the parties had
accepted the shares. He said the onus was on the part
1
of the company to prove the case, and that could not
be called upon to be examined on oath, as on a
bill of discovery to admit that he was a shareholder, but
if further evidence could be obtained fresh, notices could
be served.
An application was made for costs.
His Honour said it was unnecessary to discuss tbat
point, as there were no assets in the estate to pay any-
thing.
The list was then concluded.
TDB OENIIINE BREAD COMPANY.

To
p day appointed for hearing a petition for wind.
The case was called on at 11 o'clock, the hour ap-
inguathye affairs of the above company.
pointed, and a learned counsel appeared to oppose, but
as no one was present to support the petition, it was
dismissed with costs.

Mr. Roxburgh entered the Court at 12 o'clock, being
the time he considered was appointed, and pressed for
leave to re-advcrtize, and that his honour Nsould make
an order to re-hear the petition, as there was a stamp
for 10/. on the petition.

His Honour Feld that he Would be glad to relieve the
petitioner if ha could, but lie did not ;]en that he bad the
pover.
The petition therefore stood dismissed.

The mint in Paris is now busily employed in striking
off a large amount of coins.