The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-27 00:00:00

THE EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF

PERJU.RY.

ROWLEY V. THE LATE MRS. ROWLEY.
At the Westminster Police Court this day, the ad-
journed proceedings in this case were again proceeded with.
Mr. Sleigh, as formerly, appeared for the Hon: 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 wo quarrelled very much. I 'AR swear
I never forcibly held Mrs. Rowley down in a chair and held
my hand over her mouth to prevent her 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, 1851.
It was addressed to Mrs. Bishop, and was couched in very
strong language, mad it went on to state that tho 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 1854, not the time you
•
state.

Mr. Metcalfe—l never said the 14th.
Mr. Orridge—The date 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 with Mrs. Green as in June, 1854.
Witness—you know that is a mistake, and you are stat-
ing that which you know to be false.
Mr. Metcalfe—l must ask the Courtto direct the witness
to answer the questions, and not be so insulting.
Mr. Paynter—Mr. Rowley, I must 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. M.:tealfe—Referring to the 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 tho instrument down on your
wife's hand while she was playing.
Witness—Yes, I will.

Mr. Metcalfe—Do you deny that you shut tho 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 ?
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 lies.
Mr. Metcalfe.—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—Yes, 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 mether, 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. MetcalfeLDo you know that your late wife has had
to pawn her clothes when you left her without money.
Witness—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 1 Have you not pawned a mantle
belonging to her ?
Witness—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—l should like to see it, though I can tell
you at present I cannot recollect having done so.
Mr. Metcalfe hero read 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 he 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 lettrs. They are quite it
my 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 tht..most
silly, fulsome, and in some places irreverent and disgusting
expressions, and in one he said if hedid 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 noise 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 Implepen, tut 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 left 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.
nßoowwlaedyjowuirnll otccheuppryoreemdeinegsonstoidaerafubtluerotildnae, I. hope you will
rr. PS
Sleigh
—r—suDeohyiosuminyteinndtetnotpioron.duce furthery evidence;/
M
po/sseldr.tPo acynarrteyr—tiliisdopna'tinkfnuolwa
nhd
smceu;liry further.qyit isßportoh-
eann
evidence
ebnyc animosity,eca n nlybael inquiry. Both
prejudiciald. etr
ol s
pthaarttiehsayseee bmeentogibve in
the public. If
.the
hcaiashe
day
yd
abfectern
dleafytfreaftsherdtihaheastrotalf
scandal
mantdhale
Divorce Court, inw
were served up, the public would soon have forgottan 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 cases like the present T shall
pursue a very different course to that which I have adppted
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
greatest beauties, cut off, and it seems just as impossible to
me, if violent resistance was off red, how it could be cut off
at all. The charge about the money comes 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
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 he has given.
quite a different account of the matter. Under all the cir-
cumstances, I think the wisest course topurs ue is to let