The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-28 00:00:00

TEE EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF
PERJURY.

ROWLEY V. THE LATE MRS: ROWLEY.

[A portion of the following appeared in our third edition
of last night :---]

At the Westminster Police Court yesterday, the ad-
journed proceedings in this case were again proceeded with.
Mr. Sleigh, as formerly, appeared for the lion: Mr.
Rowley, and Mr. Metcalfe for the late Mrs. Rowley.

Mr. Sleigh said since the last examination a number of
letters had been found, and he thought it, would be but fair

to his learned friend (Mr. Metcalfe) if they were now read.
Mr. Metcalfe objected. He had been tied down to the
strict rule of evidence, and he should pursue the same line
of conduct.
The letters were not read.

Mr. Rowley, in cross -examination, said—l have been for
the last five weeks at my mother's residence, at Leinster-
lodge. I have, I know, been denied as living there, but it
was not by my instructions. I took Mrs. Rowley to Lady
Langford. She had with her my jewels, not hers, and an
Indian shawl, for which I had given £250.
Mr. Metcalfe—Out of her money ?
Witness—Oh, no ; out of my own.
Mr. Metcalfe—You had £2,000 with her.
Witness—And she has had £7,000 of mine for it.

Mr. Metcalfe—l shouldlike to know where it came from.
Witness—l'll tell you if you like. While we were at
Lady Langford's we quarrelled very much. I will swear
I never forcibly held Mrs. Rowley down in a chair and held
my hand over her mouth to prevent hor screaming.
Mr. Metcalfe—Be careful; you have written a letter on
the subject.

Witness—l swear that I never put my hand over her
mouth and held her down in a chair, whatever I may have
written.

Mr. Metcalfe—l will read your letter.
Mr. Rowley—You can do so. I once had a serious
quarrel with her because she took up a knife to stab my
mother.

The letter was then read; it was dated December, 1854.
It was addressed to Mrs. Bishop, and was couched in very
strong language, and it went on to state that the writer
once held his wife down in a chair to prevent her doing
something very dreadful.
Witness—l should think stabbing my mother was some-
thing dreadful.
Mr. Metcalfe—The letter was written in December.
Although it was written in such endearing terms, you
were then on terms of intimacy with Mrs. Green.

Witness—ln the latter end of 1851, not the time you
state.

Mr. Metcalfe—l never said the 14th.
Mr. Orridgo—The Mate is important from the circum-
stance that the intimacy of Mrs. Green is sworn to as then

commencing.
Mr. Metcalfe—l prefer the written testimony of Mr.
Rowley to anything you can say. I produced a book at
the last examination in which Mr. Rowley dated his inti-
macy wit's Mrs. Green as in June, 1854.
Waness—You know that is a mistake, and you are stat-
in that which you know to be false.
Mr. Metcalfe—l must ask the Court to direct the witness
to answer the questions, and not be so insulting.
Mr. Paynter—Mr. Rowley, I mist impress upon you the
necessity of refraining from using offensive expressions to-
wards Mrs. Rowley, and to answer the questions of the
learned counsel.

Mr. Metcalfe—Referring to tho circumstances at Ber-
keley-street—Will you swear that when you stated in your
last examination that you shut the pianoforte down you
did not slam the front of the instrument down on your
wife's hand while she was playing.
Witness—Yes, I will.
Mr. Metcalfe—Do you deny that you shut the instru-
ment down ?

Witness—Oh, no. I certainly shut it down.
Mr. Metcalfe—When. your wife fell on the floor did you
refuse to pick her up r
Witness—l dare say I did. Its very likely.
Mr. Metcalfe—Now referring to the proceedings at the
Divorce Court.
Witness—l deny as you have stated that I was peeping
through the curtain when the petition for divorce was
being heard.
Mr. Metcalfe—l shall be able to prove that you did so by
witnesses.
Witnesses—Very likely—your witnesses can tell Hee.
Mr. Metoalfe.—l now propose to read some letters writ-
ten by Mrs. Rowley to her mother, complaining of the con-
duct of Mr. Rowley.
Mr. Orridge—l object to such being done. The proper
place for the production of the letters was the Divorce
Court.

Mr. Metcalfe (holding out a letter, and addressing the
witness) said—ls that letter in your wife's hand-writing ?
Mr. Rowley--...y„, it is. But it might have been writ-
ten yesterday, as there is no doubt.
The letter, however, was not read.
In answer to further questions, the witness said, I am
not on good terms with any other member of my family but
my mother, Lady Langford. I will swear I never ill-used
Mrs. Green. Upon my oath I did not. I never injured
the arm of a servant of mine. I swear I did not. 1
once objected to a servant washing where my guns
were being cleaned, as it would injure them. There
was something of a scuffle about throwing away
the tub of water. I believe the doctor was sent
for, but it was all humbug, and he said so.
I can't say why the girl had the doctor. I don't recollect
a milliner named Henderson. I was arrested for the money
Mrs. Rowley's marriage shawl cost, but the debt was paid
in half-an-hour. I pledged jewels to do so. The greater
part belonged to me, not to Mrs. Rowley. I cannot say
that I have not called my wife an infernal brute within a
week after my marriage. I may have said " God d—n and
curse you to her." I recollect her d—g me.
Mr. Metcalfe—Did you ever call your wife a b— bitch ?
Witness—l might have done so. I dare say I did. I
have called her a good many names, and with reason.
Mr. Metcalfe—Did you not, in Westminster Hall, tell
this gentleman sitting beside me (Mr. Burton) that if your
wife gave evidence against you, you would blast her cha-
racter ?
Witness—Never.
Mr. Metcalfe—Never !
Witness—Yes, never.
Mr. Metcalfe—Do you know that your late wife has had
to pawn her clothes when you left her without money.
Witneas--No, I don't. My mother used to give her
money: I have pawned certain jewels and other articles at
Mr. Vincent's, in Pimlico. I never pawned any clothes
belonging to Mrs. Rowley.
Mr. Metcalfe—What I Have you not pawned a mantle
belonging to her?
IVitness—Never.
Mr. Metcalfe—Not a seal-skin mantle? Why I have a
letter in which mention is made of your having done so,
and we can produce the cloak.
Mr. Rowley—I should like to see it, though I can tell
you at present I cannot recollect having done so.
Mr. Metcalfe here road the letter referred to, but it was
not allowed in evidence.
The learned gentleman then said he proposed to read to
the witness several letters written by Mr. Rowley, and also
letters in answer from Mrs. Rowley, and said he did so in
order to show, from the tone of the letters written by Mr.
Rowley, that complaints of previous cruelty existed, as he
implored his dear Titty to forgive him, and he would be-
have for the future in the most tender manner to his own
dear little Titty. In one of the letters he made a sketch of
one of her legs, and went on to say ho hoped her legs were
quite well, and that she would not show them so much
when she was on the pier at Boulogne.
Mr. Rowley—l wrote those letters. They are quite in
ray style. The sketch of the leg, I presume, is a good one.
Mrs. Rowley had very nice ones.
Mr. Metcalfe then read some other letters written by Mr.
Rowley, dated in 1852 and 1853. They contained the most
silly, fulsome, and in some places irreverent and disgusting
expressions, and in one he said if he did not act more kindly
to his Titty he hoped God would blight him.
Mr. Rowley—l did act more kindly, and I was not
blighted. Do I look as if I was ? (Laughter.) While I
was in Edinburgh I passed under the name of "Mr. Rogers"
and Capt. Green. While I was living with Mrs. Greene
she passed as Mrs. Rowley. My mother visited the house.
I was known there as Mr. Henry Rowley. Mrs. Green
died at Implopen, but I think the less said about that the
better. I did not detain her jewels. I never was charged
with doing so by the executors.
Mr. Sleigh—l object to this, as it has nothing to do with
the present charge.
Mr. Metcalfe—Then I will proceed with another part of
my case.
Cross-examination proceeded—l can't say there was not
a bill owing when I loft the Hotel de Boston. I know I
never pleaded infancy, or that my mother pleaded coverture
to escape payment.
'I his closed the cross-examination.
Mr. Sleigh—As the re-examination of the Hon. Mr.
Rowley will occupy some considerable time, I hope you will
now adjourn the proceedings to a future day.
Mr. Paynter—Doyou intend to produce further evidence;?
Mr. Sleigh—Such is my intention.
Mr. Payntor—l don't know how much further it is pro-
Posed to carry this painful and unseemly inquiry. Both
parties seem to be animated by animosity, and the details
that have been given in evidence can only be prejudicial to
the public. If the case had been left after tho trial in the
Divorce Court, ini,vhich day after day fresh dishes of scandal
were served up, the public would soon have forgotten Mr.
and Mrs. Rowley, and had I known the length to which it
was proposed to carry the case, I never would have granted
the summons. In future oases like the pe esent I shall
Pursue a very different course to that which I have adopted
in this. Three assignments of perjury are set out. Now,
looking to the cruelty stated to have taken place at Paris, I
don't think the locking the lady up, as has been stated,
at Maurice's, can be properly called cruelty, but I
think it was very great cruelty on the part
of Mr. Rowley :ten days after marriage to go out to
supper and the opera and leave his wife alone in a strange
hotel. With respect to the forcing a teaspoon of salt into
the lady's mouth, and the throwing a dressing- case at her
there, according to the evidence, had been a quarrel, and I
am inclined to think there must have been some exaggera-
tion somewhere. I also think it very unlikely that a lady
would quietly sit still and patiently submit to have her
hair, which a woman most properly considers one of her
sr
greatest beauties, cut off, and it seems just as impossible to
me, if violent resistance was off red, how it could be cut oil'
at all. The charge about the money cemes to nothing, and
1 cannot see why it is brought. Mr. Rowley says he
was in Westminster-hall a portion of the time the case was
proceeding, and he ought to have denied it there ; but, in-
stead of doing that, he turns round, when the lady's
mouth is closed by being made a defendant, and charges
her with perjury. When Mr. Rowley says his wife
come up from Dulwich without his knowledge, but it is
clear so far from his not knowing of the circumstance that
she came up in consequence of a letter he himself wrote, in
which he gave directians to her how to proceed. His
memory seems to have so deserted him that lie has given
quite a diiferent account of the matter. Under all the cir-
emnstances, I think the wisest course to pursue is to let
the proceedings end as they stand at present. Mr. Rowley has
had the opportunity of denying many of the statemente
made against him, and both parties ought to agree to let by-
gones be bygones. I don't wish him at the present