The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-20 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—May 19•

HAMMERSMITH.—SINGULAR APPLICATION
FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A PROTECTION ORDER.—
A ROMANTIC STORY.—Mr. Martin, the Solicitor,
attended before Mr. Dayman, pursuant to arrange-
ment, for the purpose of producing evidence for
the discharge of a protection order, granted a shott
time ago to a female named Mary Richards, who
declared upon oath that her husband had deserted
her.
Mr. Butler appeared in support of the order, and
the proceedings seemed to excite considerable
interest.
The wife had represented that she was living 1n
the Moscow-road, Bayswater, and was married to
John Richards on the 4th July, 1831, but the mar-
riage was never consummated. After the ceremony
was performed her husband left her, under
th,
pretence of preparing a home for her reception, but
she never saw him again until 1837, and then only
for a short time, when he wanted to obtain her pro-
perty.. lie then left her, and she never saw or heard
of him again until a fe \S'eeks ago, when she
believed he had returned'from Australia. She then
asked for his worship's order to protect her earn-

ings and property since he had deserted her, and
one was immediately granted.
Mr. Dayman inquired if the wife was present.
Mr. Butler said she was not, as she was too ill to
attend.

Mr. Martin said he should call evidence to show
that the wife had deserted her husband, and not
that he had deserted her. In that case his worship
would discharge the order, as the act specified that
the husband must desert the wife for protection to
be granted.
John Richards, a respectably-attired elderly man,
was then sworn, and deposed that he now resided
in Lisson-grove, and was out of business. On the
4th of July, 1831, he was married to Miss Mary
Brown, who was the daughter of his mother's exe-
cutor. He was on good terms with the father, and
they were married without his knowledge, although
the mother knew of it. He spent the day with his
wife, and they arranged that she should live with
her father until the differences were made up. He
and his brother carried on the business of a grocer
in Upper Baker-street, and on the day of his mar-
riage he returned home, and his wife went to her
home. They were to carry on the business until
his youngest brother was of age, and then the
property was to be divided. His wife came to see
him several times in Upper Baker-street, and
that continued for 18 months or two years. The
marriage was consummated, and they were on happy
terms with each other. At the end of that time,
the visits of his wife ceased, and upon making
inquiries he found that she had gone into the coun-
try with her mother, but he was unable to find out
the whereabouts. In 1837, her father died, and he
again made inquiries, and discovered that they were
living in Northamptonshire. He went down and
saw his wife, and afterwards returned to London.
His wife came up about a month afterwards, and
he executed a deed, whereby the property of her
father, who died intestate, was conveyed to her
own use. They saw each other repeatedly while
the deed was being executed, and after it was signed
they lived with each other as man and wife, in
Hans-place, Chelsea, for more than a month. In
consequence of the importunities of the mother that
her daughter should live with her they removed to
Marshall-street, London-road, where they lived
together for several weeks. From there they went
to Camden-town, and lived together for about three
weeks. At the end of that time his wife was in-
duced to go into the country and live with her
mother, as she was ill. He visited his wife in the
country, and in October, 1840, she came to London,
and lived with her mother in St. Petersburg-place,
Bayswater. At that time his wife came to him, and
said her mother was dissatisfied with the deed he
had executed, and wished him to execute another.
The property consisted of two houses in St. Peters-
burg-place, and she wished one to be conveyed to
her and one to his wife. He consented to execute
the second deed, and it was also arranged that
he should live with his wife and her mother in
one house and that they should let the other. On
the 20th of October he went with his wife to the
solicitor's, where they met the mother, and the
deed was accordingly executed. Both ladies then
said they wanted to go out shopping, and told
him to meet them in the evening at St. Peters-
burg-place. He went accordingly, and asked for
his wife, but was told by a woman that she had
gone out, and perhaps he would never see her
again. He. made inquiries of the trustee to the
deed, living in the Moscow-road, and he told him
he knew nothing about her. He made long and
anxious inquiries after his wife, but he never could
succeed in obtaining any information of her. In
1852 he sailed to Melbourne, and he returned to
this country on the 12th of April. last. He then
heard that his wife had married a man named
Smith, and was living somewhere in Lancashire.
He called at the house of the trustee, but he told
him be knew nothing about her. The next thing
he heard was reading in the newspapers that his
wife had obtained a protection order, and was living
in the Moscow-road, which was at the house of the
trustee.

Mr. Butler contended that the husband had
committed an act of desertion by contracting a
second marriage.
The husband denied that he ever contracted a
scond marriage.
Mr. Butler said he was able toyrove that he con-
tracted a second marriage within sixteen months
of the first, and that it came to the knowledge of
his wife in 1840, who refused to live with her hus-
band after that time.

Mr. Martin said, if they went into that question
lie should proue a second marriage of the wife, and
he believed that the second husband was then in
court.

Mr. Dayman said he could not take a second
marriage as an act of desertion, that would be a
question for a divorce. it was a very curious affair
altogether, and he could not understand the execu-
tion of the second deed. There was complete
mystery between 1840 to 1859, but sufficient had
been shown that before that time the wife had
withdrawn herself from the society of her hus-
band. He therefore should grant the application,
and give an order of discharge.

WORSHIP-STREET. SERIOUS CHARGE OF
ASSAULT.—A person of gentlemanly exterior and
address, describing himself as a "lawyer," at Hare-
court, Temple, and giving the manifestly fictitious
name of John Brown, was charged before Mr.
Hammill, with violently assaulting Henry Sole,
and Harriet Holland, a married Woman.
Inspector Webster, N division, put in a certifi-
cate from Dr. Coward, the divisional surgeon,
stating that Harriet Holland was suffering from a
severe wound on the head, and her husband pro-
duced one of a later date, from Mr. Wright, of
Clapton-square, describing the injury as " danger-
ous," and the sufferer unable to leave her bed.
The following evidence was taken:—
Henry Sole said—l am a labourer, and shortly
after 12 o'clock last night was returning home
along the Hackney-road, having, in company with
my 'if° and others, just previously left the Horns
Tavern, opposite Shoreditch Church, when we met
the defendant and two more gentlemen, arm-in-
arm. My brother and sister were in advance of
us, and I noticed the gentlemen push against them
intentionally, and so forcibly that they were forced
nearly into the road. The next person they offended
was a young man of our party,walking alone; and
as in turn they. met myself and wife, they forted
up against her At a similar manner, thereby caus-
ing her to stumble and nearly drop the baby from
her arms. Defendant was nearest to her, and I
asked—What did you do that for ? Instantly
he struck me with a cricket-bat he carried in a
green baize bag, upon the mouth, causing it to
bleed profusely. I fell, arid was stunned for a
brief time. I
,have an indistinct recollection
of grappling some man as I lay, and afterwards
charged that man with the assault, but almost
instantly perceived my error, and identified the de-
fendant as my assailant. He was then flourishing
the bat about, and struck my sister down like a
bullock. The police arrived, and at the station de-
fendant said he had had a lesson from " Harry
Orme," and could " pot" a lot of such as us.
Mr. Hammill—Can you swear to defendant as
being the per Son who struck you ?
Complainant—I can. There was a lamp near us.
I think that he was a little in liquor.
William Holland, husband of the injured woman,
stated that he was a "dancer," and had just left
an " engagement," when this outrage was com-
mitted. He described the annoyance and assault's
in nearly similar terms, adding, " My wife begged
me to go to the assistance of her brother, and a.s•l
hastened up I distinctly perceived defendant knock
him down with his bat. I tried to seize it, but he
made a blow at Mrs. Sole, which missed her and
fell on the shutters of a shop. My own wife at
that moment came up, and he struck her with the
bat across the face. She fell senseless. Defendant
ran away. I called " Police," and he was brought
back, I think almost immediately, with, the bat still
in his hand.
Mr. Hammill—Were the blows apparently dealt
at the females, or were they struck by defendant
flourishing the bat about indiscriminately?
Witness—Certainly they were • not accidental,
but clearly, intended for them.
James Bray, another witness, having also cor-
roborated the assaults,

Hopper, 358 N, spoke to hearing the disturbance
and receivinc, charge of defendant. The woman
spoken of as being unable to attend, he said, was
first taken to Robert-street Station in a cab, and
subsequently removed ,to her residence: De-
fendant told him he had been knocked down, and
defended himself with the bat. Under the , ap-
prehension of being nearly murdered, he was
obliged to strike for his life, but he did not say
with what.

The witness Holland here mentioned to the ma-
gistrate that he had, while at the court, received
information of his wife being much worse than
when he left her that morning. She wag unable
to swallow anything.
Mr. Hamlin expressed his regret, and advised
the husband to hasten home.
Tho defendant, who had cross-examined the wit-
nesses with considerable acumen, in order to show
that he had acted only on the defensive, assured
the magistrate that the blow on the woman was
quite unintentional, and he deeply regretted the
injury so inflicted.
Hammill having notified his intention to
send the case for trial, no witnesses were called
for the defence, although it was understood they
were without the court, and subsequently
Mr. T. Beard made a strenuous appeal for the
defendant to be admitted to bail, which could be
offered to any amount, and observed' that by. the
express desire of Mr. Brown, Dr. Wordsworth had

visited the injured woman, and returned a certifi-
cate of her not being in immediate danger.
Mr. Hammill, however, positively refused to ac-
cede to the request, at this stage of the case, how-
ever he might feel disposed on the next hearing,
and the prisoner stands remanded for any further
evidence that can be adduced.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

BIRMINGHAM-MAY 19.

The show of wheat was very large, and the demand
small, at about is peg qr. higher than the preceding week,
but 2s under the value of Monday. There was not much
barley on offer, and little business passing. Oats in limited
supply. Beans were scarce, and made late prices. White
peas held for la to 2s higher.