The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-10 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex, before Mr.
Justice Willes and a Common Jury.)
THOMAS V. ALLIE,-A DISTINGUISHED FOREIGNER'S
HASTY MARRIAGE.

This was an action to recover £23 10s. 7d., a
balance of £3O odd, said to be due for board and
lodging. The defendant denied his liability, and
also pladed a set off.

Mc. 11. T. Cole appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Griffiths for the de-
fendant.

Mr. H. T. Cole, in opening the case, said
that the plaintiff, Mrs. Thomas, kept a small
shop in Upper York-street, Bryanston-square ;
and the defendant, Nah Abutt Allie, was an
East Indian gentleman, who formed one of the
suite of the Prince of Oude when he was in this
country. It would appear that some time in Nov.
last the defendant became acquainted with a niece
of Mrs. Thomas, and that after a very short
acquaintance he married that lady. In truth, he
became acquainted with her on Sunday and married
her on the following Tuesday morning. (Laughter.)
After the marriage the defendant and his wife re-
mained for the best part of a month in the house
of Mrs. Thomas, the plaintiff, who supplied the
wedding breakfast, and breakfasts, dinners-, and
suppers for the remainder of the time that they
were there. Many people beside the defendant
and his wife partook of these meals, for the de
fendant appeared to be very hospitable. He, how-
ever, now declined to pay for his hospitality. He,
in fact, was about to go to Paris, when proceedings
were taken to recover this debt, and he was arrested
on the ground that he was about to leave the coun-
try, and held to bail to answer the claim.
Mr. Thomas—l am the plaintiff, and lam a widow.
My niece lodged with me for some months. She
told me she was married to a Mr. Lowden. I saw
the defendant for the first time on a Saturday night
in November. He said he would not leave until
he had my niece, and he married her on Tuesday.
(A laugh.) I supplied the wedding breakfast and
also board for the defendant and his wife for a
fortnight. My niece paid me money on several
occasions. I applied to the defendant for money,
and he said he would let me have some as soon as
the Prince of Oude came from Paris. On another
occasion I asked him for money, and he said his
wife had ruined him for life. (A laugh.) The
defendant, in addition to paying, said he would
make me a present of £2O for the trouble he had
given me.
Cross-examined—l cannot say how many nieces
I have. The defendant was first brought to my
house by a person of not very good character, Mrs.
Bell. (A laugh.) I told my niece I would not
allow the defendant to come there, for he was a
disgrace to my house, on account of his colour. (A
laugh.) Mrs. Bell only stayed with defendant 20
minutes. This was on Saturday. On Sunday he
came again, and on Monday I went with him to
get the marriage licence. I did not object to his
colour then, if my niece fancied him. (A laugh.)
It was better for her to be married than to live as
she had done. I had found out that she was not
married six -weeks before. I know my niece had a
good deal of money from the defendant. She had
£250 in eight weeks. She had £5 on the Sunday
evening. I swear I did not have money given me
for various items- charged in the bill. At the wed-
_gadnei n(tdahgteiwbar
.ruoegeahfTk)fhhieefirt tbhreortehwe
rse r. e tThhr eeereo
were
me
rye nli2eteiel'esrseis
satlet
or
s.
an d festivities
attracted eo continued t
greatinu e d
efroorw a fortnight
round
my
shop, which is a chandler's shop.
John s op.
John Sadler Harper—I am a rent anddebt collec-
tor. I collect the plaintiff's debts and make out her
books. On the wedding evening I was introduced to
the defendant. About the sth or Gth of November
I asked defendant for money for Mrs. Thomas.

shop.

His wife said they were expecting money from
the Prince of Oude, and when they got it would
let the plaintiff have some. In December, I
was told the defendant had pledged his watch.
The defendant about that time complained to me of
his wife's ill-treatment. His face was scratched,
and his lips much swollen. He said he wanted to
clear the house of the furniture, and of his wife's
relations. I advised him not to be too hasty. The
defendant wanted to be rid of his wife and of her
relations. Mrs. Allie also complained of the de-
fendant's violence. A solicitor was called in, who
tried to arrange matters, but the defendant said
" No," he would have nothing more to do with Mrs.
Allie. On the 22d of December Mrs. Allie said,
" If you are determined to sell the futniture, pay
aunty ;" and the defendant said he would pay her,
and make her a handsome present for her kindness.
I saw the defendant afterwards, because he had left
his wife in the house without a bit of furniture.
He said he had only 10s. a week from the Prince,
and would allow her 2s. 6d. a week. I said that was
very strange, for he had said he had £3 or £4
a week, and kept a carriage. In reference to his
debts, the defendant said, "My wife pay every-
body. Igo to Paris, and they not find me." (A
laugh.)
Cross-examined--The defendant executed an ab-
solute bill of sale of his furniture to me. It was
not worth £2OO or £3OO. It was sold, and realised
£79. I got for myself £5 15s. 6d. The defendant's
solicitors wrote to me to pay over the money to
them. The defendant had previously lived with a
Miss Mason. I was to pay the defendant's debts
out of the proceeds of the furniture.
Mrs. Elliker—On December 22, the plaintiff, my
aunt, asked defendant for money, and he said he
would pay aunt as soon as the things were sold. He
said his wife had ruined him for life, but aunt should
be paid. My aunt's house is near Stingo-lane.
Mr. Hawkins said that he had no doubt that a
fortnight's experience of matrimony in the neigh-
bourhood of Stingo-lane must have given the de-
fendant a very curious notion of English society.
(A laugh.) He would show the jury that this was
one of the most infamous attempts they had ever
heard of to rob this unfortunate gentleman (the de-
fendant) of every shilling he possessed in the world.
Some of the items of the bill showed how it had been
made out. Day after day there was dinner for
nine, supper for ten ; gin, brandy, and 3s. for apolice-
man to keep order at the door. (A laugh.) The
defendant must have thought that he had found very
kind relations—(a laugh)—and as to Mrs. Thomas,
when she had secured the distinguished foreigner
for her niece, she no doubt thought she would
become Princess Thomas, or, perhaps, a begum.
(Laughter.) The bill of sale to Harper recited that
there had been differences between the defendant
and his wife, and that Harper had had trouble in
trying to arrange them, and had made himself
liable to pay certain debts of the defendant. There
followed an absolute bill of sale of everything in
the world possessed by the defendant, and the
amount of debts to be paid by Harper was stated
at only £2B, no mention being made of the plain-
tiff's debt, whilst by auction the goods realised £79.
They had got all the defendant's money. By the
bill of sale Harper had got all his furniture on the
31st December, and on Saturday night, the Ist
January he was arrested, so that he was obliged to
be 48 hours in confinement before he could
be released on bail. He submitted that the whole
affair from beginning to end was a most disgraceful
transaction, and that the plaintiff had no right to
recover.
Nah Abutt Allie, who wore a green velvet head-
dress, ornamented with gold, and who was sworn
on the Koran, said—The first time I went to the
plaintiff's house was on
in the
on Tuesday I
married. I gave my wife £lOB the fortnight. I
lived in the plaintiff's apartment, and I spent £lOB
there myself. Anything I wanted my wife paid
for. Sometimes my wife gave money to the plain-
tiff. The plaintiff never applied to me for money,
or said anything about money being due to her.
When I left the plaintiff's I went to live in Dor-
chester-place. The plaintiff came to dinner there
several times, but never said anything about any
debt. • At Dorchester-place differences arose be-
tween me and my wife. The plaintiff said, " You
are unhappy." I *said, "I am happy." She said,
" You don't know; I know. You had better
not live with her ; she will kill you." I
said, " What am I to do ?" and she said, " Sell
all the furniture, and leave her." Harper came,
and said, " Lock up her clothes and never speak to
her again." I said, " Very well." Plaintiff said,
" You come to my house and I will go to your wife."
I said, " Very well." Plaintiff stopped there.
Plaintiff told me to go to Mr. Keene, an attorney,
to get the bill of sale.
Cross-examined—My solicitors have received the
balance of the £79, £5l. It is the custom of the
East to live merrily for a time after marriage.
Mr. Justice Willes—But it takes place at the
bride's house, before she is taken home by her
husband.
Witnssl—.l.ly wife spent a de9l of money. There
was a bridal wreath, £4lss. ; dress, £3lss ; brooch,
£3. ;£1 10s. to people outside the door—(a laugh)
—police and music, 7s. 6d. ; silk robe, £5 17s. ;
wedding bonnet £3 10s.—(a laugh)—black dress,
£7 ; head-dress, £2 12s. 6d.—(a laugh)--cab to
Marylebone Theatre, 10s. ; box,.. £1 9s. ; eight
bottles of very superior brandy, £B.—(a laugh)—a
shirt for the wedding, 10s. ; dinner service £4105.,
&c. My wife was elegantly dressed. I never said
I would pay plaintiff her bill. When the bill of
sale was made, Harper said—" I never rob you ; I
do the best for you."
Mrs. Allie—On the Sunday before my marriage
I told my aunt all about it. She wished me to stay
with her until we took a house. We remained in
two rooms, one of which I occupied before my mar-
riage. I always paid for what was had in. On the
wedding day I gave aunt £5. I gave her a sove-
reign for a pair of fowls, a leg of mutton, and vege-
tables, Part of the £5 was for borrowed money.
We sent for wine, beer, &e., ourselves, and paid for
them. The day after the wedding I gave aunt £1
and lent her £2. I frequently lent her £2 and £3
at a time. Before we left I asked my aunt if we
owed her anything, and she said " No." In the
three weeks I was in her. house I spent £lOB, most
of it for eating and drinking. Most of the things
bought for me were bought afterwards. One item in
the plaintiff's bill was for sandwiches, but they
were cut off our own meat. My aunt dined and
supped with us at Dorchester-place, but she never
asked us for money.
Cross-examined—Previous to my marriage with
the defendant I had not been living as a married
woman.
Mr. Cole—Had you been living with Mr. Lowden ?
Witness hesitated.

Mr. Justice Willes—You may answer that or not,
as you like.
Witness—Mr. Lowden used to visit me, but I
did not pass as his wife. My sisters addressed
letters to me as Mrs. Lowden.

Mr. Justice Willes said this matter need not be
pursued. The plaintiff had said that witness had
passed as Mrs. Lowden, and no question in contra-
diction was asked of the witness. It might there-
fore be assumed,

Witness—l gave aunt money every day I was
there. The amount of the items of money I gave
aunt amount to £23 10s., the claim in this action
being £23 10s. 7d. It was not made up to cover
the claim. We quarrelled soon after our marriage.
I did not scratch my husband. He bit his lip him-
self. I did not strike him, but I did push him. In
addition to the £lOB I spent at aunt's, I spent at
our own place £l5O. This was all in about three
weeks. The things were taken out of the house the
day before Christmas-day.
Mr. Cole—Have you seen Mr. Lowden since
Witness--Nof and if I had, I am not here to an-
swer such questions. I have not seen Mr. Lowden
since my marriage.
Mr. Justice Wines—You are not bound to answer
these questions.

Witness--No, I've told him, but he will ask them.
Air. Justice Willes—She has answered the ques-
tion, but such questions had better not be put.
Re-exnmined---I am now reconciled to my hus-
band.

Mr. Susan Lewis—l am Mrs. Allie's sister. I
lived with her for three months before her mar-
riage- I saw my sister give aunt money on several
occasions. I several times fetched money from my
sister for my aunt. I myself fetched almost all the
things that were used in the house, and my sister
gave me the money. As to the rooms, my aunt
said she had only one room she could oblige with,
but that they should have willingly. I never heard
my aunt ask for money. My sister paid aunt for
various bills, and then my sister asked if there was
anything else due. Aunt said, "Not a sixpence."
Mrs. Mary Maxin—l am sister to Mrs. Allie. I
was at the wedding, and stayed at my sister's for a
fornight after. I saw my sister give aunt £1 to
get the wedding dinner, and on various other occa-
sions I saw her give aunt money.
John Coote, a lad--I am Mrs. Allie's brother. I
was at the wedding. I fetched all the drink from
two different public-houses. Mrs. Allie gave the
money. Mrs. Allie gave the money for a cab to go
and fetch some luggage.
Mr. Griffiths—There is a charge in the plaintiff's
bill for this cab of 2s. 6d.

Witness—l have paid with Mrs. Allic's money
c)r various things from the plaintiff's chandlers

Cross-examined—l fetched from the public-house
brandy, rum, gin, and stout.
Mr. Griffiths then summed up the defendant's case,
and Mr. Cole replied.
Mr. Justice Willes called the attention of the

jury to the principal facts, and left it to them to
say, upon the eyidence, whether they thought that

the defendant owed the plaintiff anything ; and, if
so, how much.

The jury, after considering the matter for a few
minutes, found a verdict for the defendant.
A number of people in court attempted to applaud
the result, but were at once checked.

CROOKE V. CAUNT AND WIFE.-WANTED A
PLAINTIFF.

This case came before the court during the sit-
tings in Term, and was reported in The Sun at the
time. It was an action to recover damages from
Ben Caunt, the pugilist, for an assault said to
have been committed by Mrs. Caunt in turning
the plaintiff out of the Coach and Horses, in
St. Martin's-lane. On the other hand, the evi-
dence was that Mrs. Caunt had not assaulted the
plaintiff at all ; that he was drunk and offensive,
and that the potman persuaded him to go, and in a
friendly manner led him out and bid him good
night. It was suggested that the plaintiff had sub-
sequently fallen and hurt himself. The jury were
unable to agree upon this conflicting testimony,
and were ultimately discharged without a verdict.
The case was again in the paper for trial to-day,
and was called on in its turn.

Mr. Skinner, Q.C., however, applied for a post-
ponement, and produced an affidavit of the plain-
tiff's solicitor, in which it was stated that he had
not seen the plaintiff since the 31st January, nor
could he obtain any tidings of him. The deponent
expressed his belief that the plaintiff was kept out
of the way by force, and so prevented from attend-
ing this honourable court. He had used every effort
to find him, and among other things he had adver-
tised for him—(a laugh)—but without success. He
believed, however, if the trial were postponed that
he should be able to find him. There was also an
affidavit of the plaintiff's landlord, who stated that
on the morning of the Ist of February, the plaintiff
left home for the purpose of being shaved and having
a bath, and had not been heard of since.

Mr. Justice Wiles said this was only a question
of costs.

Mr. Sergeant Parry—But surely the defendant
might have an opportunity of answering these
affidavits.

Mr. Justice Willes said he had heard enough to
satisfy him that it was better for all parties that
the case should be, adjourned, for the defendant of
course would not like this kind of imputation to lie
on him. In making the case a remanet, he would
do it upon the condition that the plaintiff should
pay the costs, unless before the first day of next
term he produced before a judge at chambers mate-
rials upon which he should be induced to make a
different order.

Mr. Sergeant Parry—This is purely an attorney's
application ; he wants a plaintiff and cannot find
him, evenlthough he advertises for him. (A laugh.)
The case was accordingly made a remanet until
the sittings in term.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Feb. 9.

(Before Mr. Pashley, Q.C., Assistant-Judge, and
Mr. Hanbury, M.P., at Clerkenwell.)
Charles Goerke surrendered to take his trial
upon an indictment in which he was charged with
having stolen a quantity of parasol sticks, the pro-
perty of Simon Solomon.
The prisoner worked for the prosecutor in Wood-
street, Spitalfields, his business being that of a
parasol-stick maker, and he sold a quantity of
sticks to Mr. Pope, of Willow-walk. They were
identified as the prosecutor's property, and Mr.
Pope was in the first instance charged with the
offence, but he at onceaccounted for his possession,
and the prisoner was apprehended. The defence
was that the sticks were the prisoner's own, but the
jury was satisfied, upon the evidence of the prose-
cutor and the witnesses, as to the identity, and
found the prisoner guilty. He was sentenced to
eight months' hard labour.
Mr. Metcalfe, instructed by Mr. Beard, prose-
cuted ; Mr. Tindal Atkinson, instructed by Mr.
Wakeling, defended.
Three women, named Julia Barry, Honora Barry,
and Susan Hitchcock, were indicted for unlawfully
assaulting and beating William Mackey, a green-
grocer. The prosecutor was with his horse and
cart in White Hart-place, Poplar, and accidentally
broke a clothes line, when the three prisoners at-
tacked him like furies, and beat him with bricks,
although he had previously offered to make good
the damage. They were found guilty and sentenced
to six months hard labour each.
Mr. Gent prosecuted. Mr. Metcalfe and Mr.
Barry were for the prisoners.
Ellen Beltz, 23, cook at the Cadogan Hotel,
Sloane-street, was convicted of assaulting William
Meadows, the under-waiter, at the same establish-
ment, and wounding him in the left arm with a
knife, during a quarrel about a door being kept shut,
The prosecutor, a youth of 16, said he wished her
to be pardoned, as he knew she did not mean to
hurt him in her heart.
She was sentenced by the Court to six weeks
hard labour.
Mr. Lanford pi ()beim tetl, and Mr. Barry de-
fended the prisoner.
(Before Mr. Payne.)
Elizabeth T rewby, described in the calendar as
Trenby, 20, was indicted for receiving a gold chain,
value £3 10s., the property of Amelia Bartrup.
The prisoner incited a little girl to rob her grand-
mother of the chain, which she received, to raise
the means, as she alleged, of burying her sister.
The grandmother lived at No. 5, Culford-road, De
Beauvoir-town. The prisoner was found guilty,
and the court sentenced him to six months' hard
labour. Mr. Cooper prosecuted.
George Wilson, 30, was found guilty of stealing
a cab, the property of Alfred Budd. The defence
was that the prisoner was authorised to sell the
cab, but unfortunately lost the money. A question
arose as to the power of the court to order summary
restitution of the cab to the owner, -the cab not
being in custody of the police but in the possession
of the person who bought it. Mr. Payne, after con-
sulting the Assistant-Judge, made the order for
restitution. The prisoner, who was a known offender
was sentenced to two years' hard labour. Mr..or-
ridge prosecuted.
Jeremiah Donovan was indicted for stealing a
cash-box containing £92 in gold, £l6 in silver,
I 0 U's representing £5O, seven foreign coins, &c.,
the property and money of William Ricketts. He
was also charged with receiving.
The prisoner, it will be remembered, was tried
last session, at Westminster, when the jury was
discharged without a verdict, they being unable to
agree. The prosecutor was a tea-dealer in Road-
side, Whitechapel, and a lad named Weeks, who
was in his service, stole the cash-box, and he was
admitted as Queen's evidence. The testimony of a
good many witnesses went to establish prisoner's
complicity in the transaction, and the lad swore he
gave the box to him. Additional corroborative
evidence was now adduced.
Mr. Ribton defended the prisoner on the former
trial, Mr. F. H. Lewis was his counsel on the pre-
sent occasion ; Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted.
The lad Weeks was sentenced to six months' hard
labour on the previous day. The prisoner Donovan
was now found guilty, and Mr. Payne, having ob-
served that the prisoner, in his opinion, not being
more guilty than Weeks, ought not to have more
punishment, though had he incited him to commit
the offence, of which there was no evidence, he would
have been sentenced to penal servitude, directed
that he should undergo six months hard labour.