The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-19 00:00:00

-1
NEWSPAPE,
4e,fro 7
ice:
•
•
rt
+o;v.
•
•
. ,
•.,
*Attl
.41' • •' ' jo'
1 Emma Richards in the company of ama a •44'•
o•ta
. QUI • 314
worth, and I watched them till they reac.
4 • . m
~•• •-• . •;: 1 Ia: - I Dover-road. The ma_ n carried bundle under 11 S
rv-1 1- • • - _
..-ArmSk - ,
4
• .
III" .4* N. .
I '4 -
; - '1.2
-40 A, 1a; vv) • -
‘.t .
•••

arm. They took a cab and rode to Finsbury square,
where they got out, and they then walked in the
direction of Hoxton. Emma Richards took the
bundle, and Knight, the detective officer, and I
continued to follow them until they reached Beau_
mont's house, No. 109, Bridport•place, New
North•road. Beaumont keeps a kind of leaving.
shop, with parcels on the shelf with tickets
on them, like a pawnbroker's shop. Goods
consisting of dresses, &c., are exposed in the
window for sale. Upon arriving there, the
man whom I had previously seen with Emma
Richards left her outside while he went in. The
private door was then opened from the inside, and
Emma Richards entered with the bundle. Knight
and I followed her, and I found Beaumont behind
the door. When I reached the parlour door, which
is close to the stairs, I saw Knight with Emma
Richards and the man. I looked for the bundle
and found it on the kitchen stairs, wrapped in the
shawl I produce. I left this in charge of a cabman
who was waiting for me. Emma Richards then
wanted some water, and the man went down stairs
to fetch it. I followed him into the kitchen and
spoke to him. I then went up stairs to look for
him, and found that he had escaped over the back
wall, as I suppose.
By the Lord Mayor—Emma Richards was taken
to the station•house by Knight, on whose return
we searched Beaumont's house. The bundle I
allude to contained 181 silk handkerchiefs.

PRICE 4D. STAMPED, SD,

reasons the plaintiff had dismissed himself from the
defendant's employment. To that the plaintiff re-
plied that he had remained in Ireland, and had
started on the second expedition, first, because he
was not recalled, and the defendant knew :Cry
well where to write to him; and, secondly, because
his engagement was "to give an account of the
laying of the cable," and he therefore pleaded his
contract would not have been completed unless he
had done so. As to his undertakin& with the
Nnies, that he was compelled to enter into by an
arrangement with the company; while, lastly, as
to his supplying the defendant with " manifold" re-
ports, he had never agreed to do anything else,
unless time allowed of it. But, moreover, the
defendant had accepted the contributions of the
plaintiff on three or four occasions subsequent to
the 17th of July, and had inserted them in his
papers as from " our own correspondent." How-
ever against that the defendant attempted to show
that all such; notices had been copied into the
Herald from the Express newspaper, and argued
further, that the fact of the proprietors of the
Daily News having published, the plaintiff's
letters in their evening paper, the Express, showed
plainly that the plaintiff's contract did not pre-
clude publication, in the first instance, in the
evening papers. That position was met by the
plaintiff's proving that the proprietors of the Daily
News did not publish, in the first instance, a single
report in the Express previous to the publication of
the 17th of Sept.; and that was only done when it
was found that the plaintiff's contract with the
Daily News had been repeatedly broken by the de-
fendant's publishing the reports as they reached
him in the Eveniny Herald, but supposing the de-
fendant was beholden for the reports to the Express
why had he inserted- them in the Herald as from
" our own correspondent 9" Lastly, the plaintiff
claimed a week's salary for the period intervening
between hit wrongful dismissal by the defendant
and his absorption on the staff of the Daily News
at a salary more thaia dmible what he received from
the defendant. The plaintiff had received a sum of
£l5 10s. from the Tinies for his report of the suc-
cessful laying of the cable, although it had appeared
in the Evening _Herald of the previous evening.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, £244,
which was the, full amount claimed, minus the £l5
10s. received from the Times.

I Mr. Lewis (for the prisoner Beaumont)—Did
Beaumont tell you that the man had called to see a
lodger of his named Mack?
Witness---Yes; but he first of all said that this
man had been in the house an hour. The man was
sitting by the side of the fireplace in the parlour,
there being present at the time Emma Richards,
Beaumont and his wife, and Knight the officer.
That was after Emma Richards had been taken
into custody. Beaumont was asked who the man
was. He replied " Oh, he has been here this hour ;
he is waiting for one of my lodgers named Mack."
After the man had made his escape Beaumont said
that he knew nothing at all about the man, bid
that Mack lodged there, and that he expected him
there by 11 o'clock. We waited till between 12
and 1 o'clock last night, but no Mr. Mack came. I
went there again this morning between 10 and
11 o'clock, and I ascertained that be had not been
there. The witness then produced, at Mr. Lewis's
request, one of Mack's cards, bearing Beaumont's
address. Beaumont was taken into custody by
Knight.

Knight (the detective officer) was next ex-
amined for the prosecution. He said,—l acconf-
partied Legg yesterday, and watched the prisoner,
Emma Richards, and saw her carry into the
private entrance of Beaumont's house the bundle
of silk handkerchiefs produced. After she had been
admitted I pushed the door with all my force, and
it was either closed, or somebody was holding it
very hard. I forced it open and found Emma
Richards, there being somebody behind the door,
but who I do not know. I overtook Emma Richards
just as she got inside the parlour door, and she im-
mediately called out as loud as she could, "We are
all lagged. Oh ! dear'!" and dropped on the floor.
Just as I got in the door I saw something which I
believe to be the bundle thrown down the kitchen
stairs. My impression is, that it was not thrown
down by Emma Richards, but by the person in tho
passage. I told Legg to go down after the bundle.
A man was sitting in an easy chair in the parlour,
but whether that was the same man that we had
seen in the house with Emma Richards or not I
calm:lt:tell. I said to Beaumont, who at that moment
came into the parlour, "Is that the man who had
just come in with this woman ?" He replied, " Oh,
dear no, he has been here a long time, from half an
hour to an hour, waiting for our lodger." I asked
him where the mane was who came in with her ?

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

- - - -
:Before the Judge-Ordinary and Common Juries.)

BRITTAIN V. BRITTAIN AND CAMP.

This was a petition by a husband for a dissolution
of marriage, on the ground of his wife's adultery.
The respondent and the co-respondent pleaded a
denial of the adultery-.
Mr. Wordsworth, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Pigott, and
Mr. Turner were counsel for the petitioner • Mr.
Lilley, Mr. Laxton, and Mr. Martin for the re-
spondent. The co-respondent appeared in person.
The petitioner was formerly a cabinetmaker,
but has now retired from business, and resides at
Waltham-cross. He married the respondent in
1840, he being then about 25 and she about 19
years of age. They have one child, who is between
15 and 16. The act of adultery alleged in the pe-
tition was distinctly proved by a servant named
Judd, who stated that she had witnessed it one
evening in Feb., 1857. She told her master what
she had seen about three months afterwards, and he
immediately separated from the respondent. The
co-respondent is a journeyman carpenter, a married
man with a family, who lives near the petitioner's
house.

He replied that he did not know ; that he did not
see any man come in along with her. Emma
Richards then complained of being faint and asked.
for some water. The man said he would fetch a
drop of water, and Legg followed him down. The
man, however, did not return. I left Legg in charge
of Beaumont's house, and took Emma Richards to
Bow-lane station, where she was charged with hav-
ing received the property produced, knowing that
it had been stolen from the premises of the prose-
cutor. When the charge was entered the, inspector
on duty asked her if she wished to give any expla-
nation with respect to the property; she then
turned to me and said, "I can't say any more
than what you know about it. You know where
I fetched it from, and who gave it to me." I
said, "I most certainly did not, and that had I
observed any one bring it to her I should have
taken him into custody." She said, " I think
you saw the person give it to me." I repeated to
her that I did not, and that the first I saw of her
with the man and the parcel was at the time she
was crossing the New Kent-road. She told me
that she did not know the name of the man who
had given her the parcel. I then asked her
whether she would give the name of the person to
whose house she was going to take it, and she said

Among the witnesses called by the petitioner was
his son by the respondent.
No evidence was given on behalf of the respon-
dent, but the witness Judd was cross-examined at
considerable length for the purpose of impeaching
her credit, and it was suggested that the jury ought
not to convict the respondents of the serious offence
of adultery upon her unsupported testimony.
The jury found that the respondent and the co-
respondent had committed adultery.
His Lordship, after the verdict was delivered,
recalled the witness Judd, and put some questions
to her with reference to another person with whom
Mrs. Brittain was alleged in the petition to have
committed adultery.
The case was then adjourned until the sitting of
the full Court.

that she did riot knowthe-name, but was to take it
to a draper's shop at Holton. I then returned,
and saw Beaumont and his wife, and told them that
Emma Richards had stated to me that she was to
bring the goods to their place. Beaumont said he
had never seen either the man or woman in his life

till that day. I said " Don't you know that man
at all who was here when we came ?" Mrs. Beau-
mont replied, " We know nothing about him, sir.
He had not actually sat down when you got into
the house." I said, "Mr. Beaumont, you told me
that that man had been in the house more than half
an hour or an hour." He replied, " No, he had
only just comp in and sat down when you got in."
I then searched his place, and found some new
tablecovers, and a good deal of other property,
some of which I brought away, although none of it
relates to this charge. I then took him into custody
on the charge of receiving 40 pieces of silk hand-
kerchiefs, and told him that in all probability there
would be other charges against him.
Mr. Lewis said he was in possession of the re-
ceipts relating to the other property to which
Knight had referred.
Legg, the officer; was then recalled, and said,
that ie man he had seen in Beaumont's parlour
was the man he had previously seen in the cab with
Erma Richards.
Knight, cross-examined by Mr. Lewis, said,—As
ssotaoinrsaasnd broughtlentered the h
the
housepaice , Legg
not much hmeukc
hi t eel ent
fusion or noise prevailed, for Beaumont, his wife,
and the man stood still, while Legg and I ques-
tioned them. Beaumont and his wife offered us
ehgagel rca ; n
every facility to search the house.
Emma Richards—Did I not tell you that I was
to take the parcel to the first linendraper's shoyr. onthe right ?
Knight—You did not. You said you were to
take it to a linendraper's shop in Holton, the name
A silk
ir
part
of Vt ahr
ps sr eoupre
rty w identifiedhich thhaed
of which you did not know. •
as
4boeepnieseteo sleouf
his premises on the night of the burglary.
Mr. Wont.ner said this was the whole of the evi-
dence he intended to offer on the present occasion.
The Lord Mayor —The
e pmoners will be re-
manded for a week. •
Mr. Lewis said his client had been taken into

custody under the misapprehension that he was the
person who had been dealing with the property.
The man who had called at Beaumont's house with
Emma Richards went there for the purpose of
seeing a lodger named Mack.
The Lord Mayor remanded the prisoners for a
week, refusing the application of Mr. Lewis to
accept bail for Beaumont's appearance.

GUILDHALL.—Henry Cass, a young man of
highly respectable connexions, was charged with
obtaining goods by means of forged orders.,
Four charges were proceeded with against the
prisoner, in two of which it appeared he had ob-
tained goods of Messrs. Cook, Sons, awl Co., of St.
Paul's-churchyard, to the amounts of £2 16s. 3d.
and £3 10s. Ild., and in the other two cases the
goods were obtained of Messrs. Caldecott and Co.,
of Cheapside, to the amounts of £3 10s. 11d. and
£1 17s. 2d. The prisoner pleaded guilty to
tho
first two charges, not guilty to the third, -and said
he should reserve his defenes to the fourth.
The prisoner was committed for trial on the four
charges.

1 namedhl l r yR- li ga
Drury-lane, BOW-STREET.—Two men,and
a
Wilson, the former of whom described himself as a
painter, and the latter as a printer, were charged
with attempting to steal a quantity of gas-fittings
from an unoccupied house, 193,
also with committing a burglary at the White Hart
public-house, 191, Drury-lane.
The prisoners said they were
employed to take
down and- remove the gas-fittings by a man who
said he had taken the shop. He told them not to
remove the things before sip o'clock, when they
were to take them to the corner of New Oxford-
street, where he would meet them.
The lessee of the
salesman in Le premises, Mr. Gauntlet; a meat
branches, which aa enhall-market, identified the
he valued at £B, thoughthe damage
done would amount to much mere.
The prisoners were committed for trial.

LAMBETll.—Robert Newman, a pipemaker,
who has been in custody since the end of July last,
on a charge of committing a murderous assault on
his wife, by striking her on the head with a small
hatchet or chopper, was re-examined, and com-
mitted for trial en the charge of awfuult with iPtP/4t
to murder.