The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-15 00:00:00

L ATV IIV T.ELLIGENCE.—May 14.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury

HATCH V. LEWIS AND LEWIS.

The jury retired at 20 minutes before 4 o'clock,
and came into court after an hour and a quarter's
deliberation, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
This announcement was received with great cheer-
ing, which subsided upon the damages being given
at 40s.

The verdict will not carry costs without a cert
ficate from the learned judge.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)
This .was a suit instituted to test the validity of
a will alleged to have been executed by Charles
Crowther, who had been a waiter at the Shake-
speare's Head Tavern, Lower Eaton-street, Pimlico.
The instrument was propounded by Emma
Crowther, the wife, and disputed by Charles
Crowther, the testator's son by a former marriage,
who pleaded that it was not his father's will—that
he had not signed it, and that it was not executed
in conformity with the provisions of the Wills Act.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks were counsel
for the plaintiff, end Dr. Phillimore, Q,C., and Dr.
Tristram, for the defendant.
In support of the defendant's case, it appeared
from the statement of counsel that she married the
testator in 1837, he being at the time a widower
with six children, who lived with them until they
grew up and were able to provide for themselves.
The testator was much attached to his wife, and in
1857, having become ill, he determined to make a will
bequeathing her the whole of his property, consisting
of £ll3 in money and household furniture. On
the 14th of November in that year he carried out
this intention, and signed the will in question,
which was in a printed form, and which was at-
tested by a Mrs. Jennings, an acquaintance of the
parties, and a female servant. The testator then
delivered the will to his wife, in whose possession
it remained until his death, which took place on
the 29th Nov., 1860.
Emma Crowther stated that she was the defend-
ant in this suit, and married the testator in May,
1837. They lived together at No. 1, St. Michael's-
terrace, St. Geoege's-road, Pimlico. Her husband
had three sons and three daughters at the time of
their marriage, and one of the former was dead.
The others were in a position to provide for them-
selves, and she supported herself by letting lodg-
ings. In the November of 1,857 her husband was
taken ill !i/niv p -
en She then did. lie then filled it
up, and it was duly signed and attested.
In cross-examination she said that her husband
was ill about a fortnight before his death, but she
did not infbrm the plaintiff, it being her husband,'.
wish thatepsijmosiihileneo s:thvs oai
iundltde
that
tt
waitersdh oe y
was
at
st haec
qSuhaai kn et
es pd e
witha re ' s
H ejaadi
the testator for several years, and p at sorads. i
before /113 Llcatli L. 1.2 Lain Wild, AA 1.20.4 ,1
property to his wife, as his daughters were married,
and his sons, who were able to do for themselves,
had got enough of money from him previously.
The attesting witnesses deposed to the execution
of the will, and to the testator being in perfectly
sound mind at the time, which closed the defend-
ant's case.
On the other side the following-evidence was ad-
duced :
Charles Crowther, the plaintiff, said that he was
employed by the Seuth-Eastern Railway Company
at Canterbury. He was in the habit of seeing his
father before his death, and was on good terms with
him. He received the information of his father's
death through an anonymous letter. He was in
his father's debt about £2O. It might have been
seven, eight, or nine years since he was at his
father's private residence, but he saw him fre-
quently at the Shakespeare's Head, and was very
friendly with him. He did not go to his father's
house because he and his stepmother were not on
good terms. Their differences commenced on the
very day of the marriage. (Laughter,) He and
his brothers had been accustomed to be waited on
at meals by a servant, and on the day of the mar-
riage his stepmother objected to supplying her
place, saying that she was " not going to tend a lot
of kids," (Laughter.) Neither the signature to
the attesting clause nor the writing in the body of
the will were in his father's handwriting. He be-
lieved they were written by his stepmother.
Mr. H. Crowther, brother to the last witness,
also denied that the writing was his father's, and
said that he had received money from his father to
the amount of £25. He could not form any opinion
as to whose handwriting his father's signature to
the will was written in. The last timehe saw him
write was in 1856. He lived on very good terms
with his stepmother. She was a good wife, and
his father was very fond of her.
Charles Moore, Quartermaster of the Westmin-
ster Rifle Corps, said he was acquainted with the
testator, and had seen him write. He believed no
part of the will was in his handwriting.
Some other evidence to the same effect was ad-
duced, but the jury found for the defendant, and
the Court decreed probate of the will, condemning
the plaintiff in costs.

xirencocx V. HITCHCOCK.
This was a suit instituted by the wife for judicial
separation on the ground of her husband's cruelty,
to which he pleaded denial.
It appeared from the opening statement of coun-
sel that the petitioner was a widow and barmaid at
the St. George public-house, Knightsbridge, where
she became acquainted with respondent, who was a
farmer, living at Northolt, near Harrow, Middle-
sex. They were married in September, 1855,
and afterwards removed to Northolt, where the
petitioner became very ill in consequence of the
dampness of the farm house where they were resid-
ing. This occurred about two months subsequent
to the marriage, and the alleged ill-treatment com-
menced, and was continued until 1859, when the
parties fimally separated. It appeared also that the
petitioner was convinced that her husband had been
guilty of adultery with a female named Edwards, as
well another woman, during the period of their co-
habitation, but as she was not in possession of legal
proof the charge was not placed on the record.
Ann Druco stated that she was acquainted with
Mrs. Hitchcock and was present at her second mar-
riage, but she did not know her name as a widow.
Mrs. Hitchcock, the petitioner, was then exa-
mined at considerable length. She said that she
had been introduced to the respondent when in the
service of Mr. Wallace, the proprietor of the St.
George
public-house, and her first husband had been
dead about three years at that time. She had no
property, but she was possessed of some furniture
at the time of her marriage. She was suffering very
severely from inflammation about two months after
her removal to Northelt, and then her husband
treated her with great cruelty. He refused to sup-
ply her with money,
and kept her chiefly on bacon,
notwithstanding the state of her health. Shortly
subsequent to the marriage a woman named Ed-
wards, the wife of a carter came to live in her hus-
tbservice. The witness here repeated someof
which the respondent was in the habit
of fiddrosing to her, Will Which were of the ceareecoarsestiai
the
hus-
band's
epithets

This case was resumed to-day.
Mr. Montagu Chambers continued his address to
the jury. He drew the attention to what the duties
of attorneys were, and proceeded to argue that these
had not been performed by Messrs. Lewis. His
learned friend, Sergeant Shee, knew well how to
evade the real question. He had endeavoured to
shift the responsibility from Messrs. Lewis to Mr.
Sergeant Ballantine, but the fact was
.that Mr.
Ballantine, when he decided not to call witnesses,
did so upon insufficient instructions. Mr. Lewis
had never examined the witnesses himself, he had
never briefed their evidence in the usual way.
Sergeant Ballantine had never heard of it, he knew
nothing about it. He decided, therefore, not to call
witnesses owing to Mr. Lewis's neglect in not as-
certaining and then informing Mr. Ballantine what
the evidence was that might be adduced. Had Mr.
Ballantine found in his brief the evidence of five
persons who would distinctly contradict the evi-
dence of Miss Plummer, as to her statement with
reference to what took place immediately after her
parents left her, he or any barrister in the world
would have called those witnesses, and Mr. Hatch
must have been acquitted. The learned gentleman
read portions of the evidence adduced at the trial,
and proceeded to contrast it with that which had
since been given, which directly contradicted it,
and which he contended, Mr. Lewis ought to have
been acquainted with. Miss Howe, Mary Reid,
the Miss Raphaels, and the cook had never been
examined by Mr. Lewis. Miss Howe and the
Raphaels would have sworn that they saw all that
occurred in the garden the first night the child
Eugenie came there, and could have contradicted
her. There was Mary Reid, who could have proved
the absence of any hole in the pocket of Mr.
Hatch's trousers, which Eugenie had sworn to
exist. Then there was Lucy Hatch. She would,
had she been questioned at all by Mr. Lewis, have
given him a clue to all the evidence of the other
five witnesses, who would have added their contra-
diction to the incredibility of the story, and Mr.
Hatch must have been acquitted. The learned gen-
tleman condemned the course pursued by Mr.
Sergeant Shee, who, having said it was no part of
his case to say Mr. Hatch was guilty, had in-
sinuated it. and concluded by an appeal to the
jury to weigh the facts carefully, to contrast the
evidence for the prosecution with that which might
have been given had Mr. Lewis used the most ordi-
nary diligence.
His Lordship then proceeded to sum up very
carefully and fully the whole of the evidence given
in the case.

(Before the Assistant-Judge )
Robert Green, 30, was convicted of the misde-
meanor of being found in the house of Mr. James
Barber, the Rose and Crown, Isleworth, with the
intent of committing a felony, at night, and was
sentenced to 12 months' hard labour.
Mr. Besley prosecuted, Mr. Cooper defended.
stiams-ey'svittiout snbes, And on being detected ho
ran down and escaped, and throw away a number
of keys. 'There were two others with him ; they
stood at the bar drinking pale ale and gin-and-
water while the prisoner stole up stairs to commit
the robbery.
William Langdon, 18, was found guilty of rob-
bing a lady of her purse while she was attending
as a witness in the Divorce and Probat
AeCloarugrat.relti,se
was detected by Police-constable Michael Giffard,
A,Churchyard.
ce
hwpyhraiors
prisoner,
npursueder,
it
t vcia
an
sd
pt
rooolk, 1) e
4 mw
ai
s one of a ganga St.
of pickpockets frequenting public places, and on
the 4th of March he was tried in this court for rob-
bing a lady at Tunbridge Chap], but was acquitted
on that occasion. lie had bten sentenced to 12
months' hard labour, and had, .t was stated, picked
pockets in. Westminster Abbey. One of his com-
panions had been sentenced to lye years' penal ser-
vitude, and his lordship said In could see no reason
to make any distinction in thir punishment, and
sentenced the prisoner to the Ike term.
Mr. Platt prosecuted, Mr. Ooper defended.
John Kersus, 28, and Alfcd Hamberger, 24,
were indicted for stealing a god watch, value £2O,
the property of a lady named ::ana Cox, from her
person.
Mr. C. Smith prosecuted. she prisoner Kersus
pleaded guilty. Hamberger \as not defended.
The prisoners, who were retrned convicts, each
having had four years' penal scvitude, stopped the
prosecutrix in Marylebone-roar and while asking
the way to Charing-cross, robbd her of her watch,
Hamberger desperately assauied police-constable
Pippen, 371 A, and on a prevba3 occasion he very
much illused the constable wle bok him.
The jury found Hamberger pity, and Sergeant
Potter, 2 D, and Lockyer, of thellouse of Correc-
tion, proved former conviction aginst them.
Ills Lordship sentenced Ilan: verger to seven,
and Kersus to five years' penal sevitude.
Charles Ward, 26, Mary Itt Clarke, 18, and
Elizabeth Davis, 18, were in'icted for stealing a
roll of alpaca, the property oirahn Hoskins Beale,
and also for stealing 26 yeas of print, the pro-
perty of Edward Frederick ('owe.
They pleadel guilty_
It appears that the prison's were watched for
some time in the Edgware-roi, by Sergeant Boden,
11 D, and he caught them irthe act of stealing a
parcel from a linendraper's :op door. The officer
took them, and at the static the female searcher
found underneath a crinoline'orn by Clarke, a roll
of print, stolen from Mr. C wee, Oxford-street;
they were taken by the consble for stealing from
Mr. Beale's. Clarke was kna'n.
The Court sentenced her t twelve months' hard
labour, and Ward and Davisach to six months.
Thomas Williams, 48, an Jane Williams, 35,
were indicted for stealing a ed and blanket from
furnished lodgings, 18 Oxfd street, IV hitechapel.
The woman was acquitted, to man found guilty.
Sergeant Copping, 3 K, sted to the Court that
the prisoner had been in the abit of swindling the
public by getting sham adveisements inserted in
provincial papers for lendingioney in the name of
" John Smith and Son," of Naker-strect, Oxford-
street. It was announced th money could be ad-
vanced in amounts from £sto £5,000, but, as a
preliminary condition, posta. stamps were to be
remitted, and in many instars parties sent them,
the victims being resident n only in all parts of
England, but even in IrelaneScotland, and Wales.
As the letters arrived at the dress in Baker street,
in which the stamps were closed, they were re-
directed to 181 Oxford-streelWhitechapel, where
the prisoner committed thcobbery he was now
convicted of.

He denied the truth of Coping's statement, but
the officer produced the lettc a2CI papers, and said
he had been convicted of keerg an illicit still, and
sentenced to three months i6eptember last.
The Court sentenced hiro six months' hard
labour.

Frances Harvey, 50, andarah Slade, were in-
dicted for stealing ni, e sits and other articles
value £lB, the propertpf Henry Maconshie
Lusigna, in his dwelling-hce ; and also for steal-
ing some spoons, the proper of Maria Foster, the
mistress of the younger priner.
The primers were mot and daughter, the