The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING; MARCH 11, 1861.

wich for the departure of Lieut.-Col. N. 0. S. Tur-
ner's No. 10 battery, 4th Brigade, Royal Artillery,
under orders to proceed to Hilsea ; the dismounted
portion to leave Woolwich by rail on the 13th inst.,
and the mounted portion to march thence this day.
According to present regulations, announced on
Saturday at Woolwich, the headquarters of Nos. 7
and 8 batteries, 3d brigade, Garrison Artillery, will
not leave Plymouth until further orders. In conse-
quence of the Himalaya being disabled for the ser-
vice, the Meg:era will carry out the removal of the
Ist brigade from Woolwich to Gibraltar, as origi-
nally arranged.

TILE ADMIRALTY AND THE RORSE

GUARDS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

STR,—Althoagh the mismanagement of the Board
of Admiralty needs no additional proofs at this mo-
ment, yet I cannot, under the circumstances of the
case, delay the exposure of a recent transaction on
their part, which I am sure every one will charae-
terise as an act of gross meanness and injustice. In
the spring of last year a sailor named Wm. Sent,
who lost his arm at the attack on the Peiho Forts,
returned to England and joined this corps. Accord-
ing to the invariable custom of both branches of the
service, he received a pension of ls. per diem, which,
however (contrary to the rules of the Horse Guards,
who do not expect a man to recover his arm after
its amputation), was to continue for one year only,
after which time he was to appear before a Board,
and if then he was pronounced more or less able to
assist himself than at present, the pension would
be definitively reduced or increased.

This period arrived on Friday, when, in company
with two other commissioners, Hammond and
Haines, both of whom had lost a limb in China
under similar circumstances, Sent presented him-
self before the authorities, expecting naturally
that his temporary pension of ls. would be
confirmed for life. You may imagine his con-
sternation, as well as that of his comrades,
when they were told that their rate of pension
was to be reduced 25 per cent.—viz., to 9d. per
diem. Thinking their statement must have been
founded in error, I called at Somerset-house this
afternoon, and ascertained its entire correctness. I
can certify that, although the three men in question
are in a better state of health than they were a year
since, it is not from any miraculous restoration of
their lost legs and arms, but it is owing, under
Providence, to their own good conduct and indus-
try. Is it fair, not to say politic, that what has
been hitherto an invariable rule and understanding
in the naval as well as military service should be
j broken through without any reason ?
I cannot believe, however, that the matter will
be allowed to rest as it is, and I trust that some of
those members of Parliament who are so busy in
urging the claims of naval officers for an extension
of pay, will not hesitate to demand the restitution
of what I maintain is, both by prescriptive right
and usage, the property of these wounded
men ; and, further, that the responsibility of
this shabby transaction shall be affixed to
some individual. The whole system of pensions
for wounds requires some arrangement; that which
exists at the present moment is perfectly unintel-
ligible. There are men in the corps who belonged
to the late East India Company's service receiving
ls. 3d. per diem for the loss of an arm where her
Majesty's troops receive ls. only, and as some of the j
former (but none in this corps, as the receipt of
charity from any source is forbidden) are paid 6d.
additional from the Indian Relief Fund, they are
actually receiving more than double the amount
the present authorities of the Admiralty afford her
Majesty's sailors.—l remain, Sir, your obedient
servant, E. W.
Barracks of the Corps of Commissionaires,
March 9.

THE VOLUNTEER MOVEMENT.

LAW INTBLLIGPNCB, March 9.

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell, and a Common Jury.)
SHABOT V. SHABOT.
This was a suit instituted by the wife for a di-
vorce or: the ground of her husband's adultery,
cruelty, and desertion, to which the respondent
pleaded denial.

Dr. Phillimore, Q C., and Dr. Spinks appeared
for the petitioner ; and Mr. M'lntyre for the re-
spondent.

From the evidence for the petitioner, it appeared
that the parties were married in October, 1847,and
cohabited until the December following, since
which time they had lived separately. The adul-
tery was alleged to have taken place shortly after
the marriage with a female who was the tenant of
one of respondent's houses, and a married woman.
The discovery of this illicit intercourse led to
quarrels between petitioner and her husband, and
to a systematic course of ill-treatment on his part,
which consisted of knocking her down, giving her
black eyes, kneeling on her stomach, and other acts
of a similar character. This violence attained to
such a height that a separation took place. The
respondent then went to live with a woman named
Anthir, at Rye. This fact coming to the know-
' ledge of the petitioner, she went to Rye and
knocked at the house where she had been informed
he was residing. She was accompanied by a
friend, who, on opening the door, asked if Mrs.
Shabot was at home, to which the respondent re-
plied in the affirmative. The petitioner then pre-
sented herself and said " That is not true, for I am
your lawful wife," upon which the respondent
knocked her down and closed the door in her face.
In the cross-examination of the petitioner it was
elicited that on one occasion of alleged ill-usage,
shortly subsequent to the marriage,she had flung
the teakettle and a chair at her husband, and that
the respondent summoned her before a police court,
when she was fined £3 for the assault. It was
further extracted from the petitioner that a year
after the mac riage a deed of separation was exe-
cuted between her and the respondent, and that he
had since allowed her £l9 10s. a-year.
For the defence the respondent was examined,
and denied most postively that any impropriety
took place between him and the female tenant, as
deposed by the petitioner. He admitted having
pushed the petitioner down on the occasion of her
calling at his place at Rye. He denied any antece•
dent act of violence towards her. He added that her
conduct towards him during their brief period of
cohabitation was of a nature calculated to en-
danger his life. On the occasion of the slightest
dispute between them every available domestic
utensil was thrown at him by the petitioner.
In his cross-examination he admitted that he
had written a letter to the petitioner after their
separation in the following terms :
" MY DEAR WIFE,—I ask, as a small token,
some gift from you in remembrance of one I have
left behind, who is dearer to me than all the world
besides. The same gift will be held by me when
far away as the most precious token. I hope you
will not refuse.—Your affectionate husband,

" JAMES SHABOT."
The respondent did not admit having written this
letter nntil its production, and added that he had
forgotten the circumstance.

Sir C. Cresswell summed up, and with his usual
ability commented upon the salient points of the
evidence, and

The jury returned a verdict for the petitioner on
all the issues.

Sir C. Cresswell then granted the decree nisi
with costs, against the respondent.

BROWN V. BROWN AND BEDSON.

The suit, was instituted by the husband, a lawyer's
clerk, to obtain a dissolution of marriage, on the
ground of 'his wife's adultery with the co-respon-
dent, to which there was no defence.

Dr. Spinks and Mr. Welsby were counsel for the
petitioner. _ _ _

From the evidence it appeared that the parties
were married in 1846, and they cohabited until
1853, when Mr. Brown took a house in the neigh-
bourhood of Red Lion square, which he let out in
lodgings. The co-respondent took apartments in
his house, and the alleged immoral intimacy took
place between the parties. Mrs. Brown ultimately
left her husband in 1856, and cohabited with the
co-respondent in Turnstile, where he had opened
an eating-house.
The facts were fully proved, and
The jury found a verdict for the petitioner on
all the issues.

The learned Judge granted a decree nisi.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—WORCESTER, MARCH 9.
(Before Mr. Justice Wilde.)
DEFRAUDING A BANKRUPT'S CREDITORS.
John Humphries was charged with stealing sun-
dry dessert, dinner, and tea services, decanters, and
other goods, the property of the assignees of Joseph
Clarke, of Kidderminster, a bankrupt.
Mr. Powell conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Ken ealey the defence.
The bankrupt, who was a tanner, was involved
in the great leather failures of last summer. He
failed for about £66,000, and there were about
£13,000 of assets, but of these a large proportion
had been clandestinely made away with, and for
which parties have already been convicted at Wor-
cester Assizes. The prisoner was charged with hav-
ing stolen the articles named in the indictment.
Evidence was given to prove that thearticles alleged
to have been stolen, together with 20 sovereigns,
were found in the prisoner's house, about nine miles
from Kidderminster. The defence was that the
articles had all been given by the bankrupt Clarke
(who died soon after his bankruptcy) to the sister
of the prisoner, who had been living with him as
his housekeeper for six years,
Miss Humphries was called as a witness, and she
swore that the articles had been given to her last
summer by Clarke, and that she was about to be
married to him when he got into difficulties.
Under these circumstances the judge directed a
verdict of acquittal.
Samuel Humphries, charged with stealing other
goods belonging to the bankrupt Clarke, was also
acquitted.
CRUEL TREATMENT OF A LUNATIC. Samuel
Vick, Joseph Lacey, and James Thomas were
charged with unlawfully and maliciously inflicting
upon one Patrick M'Kenna grievous bodily harm,
at Powiek, on the 3d ultimo.
Mr. Richards prosecuted, Mr. Powell defended
Lacey and Thomas.
This was a shocking case. The unfprtunate man
M'Kenna was an inmate of the Worcestershire
Lunatic Asylum at Powick, near Malvern, and on
the 3d of February he had become a little refractory
and refused to put on his necktie. Vick was the
principal keeper in the particular part of the asy-
lum in which the man was confined, and he appears
to have lost his usual self-control, and to have used
M'Kenna in a most violent and brutal manner. He
had thrown him with great violence on the floor,
and on the ground kicked him on the breast and
ribs, bursting in his breast bone and breaking seve-
ral of his ribs, besides tearing the flesh under his
arm.
Dr. Sherlock, the medical superintendent at the
asylum, described the extreme violence to which
the unfortunate lunatic had been subjected, and
stated that for some time he was in extreme danger;
but he hoped no fatal results would now follow.
The fact of the cruel treatment of the man by
Vick was proved by two other of the inmates of the
asylum, who were considered competent to give
evidence.
One of these witnesses (Joseph Newman) deposed
that he saw Vick trying to put M'IC enna's necker-
chief on, that he resisted, and Vick then struck him
on the breast with his fist. The two other priso-
ners then came in and they threw him down and
kicked him.
Another inmate of the asylum, named Gillett,
corroborated the evidence, and both the unfortu-
nates (who were brought utfrom the asylum) gave
their evidence in a very sat..;:actory manner.
The jury acquitted Lacey and Thomas, and found
Vick Guilty. He was sentenced to a year's impri-
sonment.
William Underhill, George Cook, and Jesse
Rollason were found guilty of the manslaughter of
William Parsons, at Halesowen, in a fight. It
appeared to be a fair stand up fight. Three weeks'
imprisonment.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—NOTTINGHAM, March 9.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.)
NEEDUAM Y. TAYLOR-ACTION FOR BREACH OF
PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Flower were for the
plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr, Mere-
weathf r for the defendant.

Plaintiff, Zillah Needham, is the daughter of poor
but respectable people at Leverton, and now 24
years of age. The defendant is 40, and an opulent
farmer. Zillah used to go out dressmaking at the
different farm-houses, and in 1858 Taylor, who had
lived in the same village of Leverton, became th•
accepted suitor of Zillah, and upon his wish plain-
tiff ceased to go out dressmaking, as he said he c.id
not wish her to do so, as she was about to become
his wife. They went to church and chapel together,
when he used tosee her home. He mostly came on
Saturday and Sunday nights, and they were then
left together. Taylor gave notice to a tenant to
quit one of his houses, as he wanted it himself, and
on being jocularly asked " Who is it to be ?—Zillah,
I suppose," he said, " Aye, I reckon so." He married
in April, 1860, a widow of the name of Wood, whose
husband died the January preceding.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages £lOO.