The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-23 00:00:00

LAW IN2

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE QUEEN V. DANIEL BOYES--THE BEVERLEY

ELECTION.
The Attorney-General said—Since I moved the judg-
ment of the Court in this case yesterday, certain matters
have come to my knowledge as to the state of the record
which I think it my duty towards myself and the Court,
that I should mention before we proceed further. The nisi
prizes record and the roll are both in Court. The informa-
tion, which is in Court, and upon which the defendant was
tried and found guilty, on the second count, contains but
six counts; and I now find !that the criminal information
which is now in the Crown Office, and upon which the
trial took place, contains nine counts, the truth being that
the clerk in the office of the solicitor of the Treasury
having committed the error in the preparation of
the nisi prizes record. In strictness the record ought to
have contained every count contained in the criminal
information. In preparing that document, however, three
counts had been omitted by accident. That being the state
of things which has come to my knowledge since yesterday,
I have thought it right to mention the circumstance to the
Court. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that the
defendant has suffered no injustice. He was found guilty
on a specific count, which is before the Court, and all the
materials, unless the criminal information be considered a
part of them. The defendant having suffered no injury by
the omission referred to, I pray for judgment only on
one count, and that upon which he was found guilty, and,
if it be necessary, to set a mere technical difficulty right. I
am willing before judgment be given to enter a none
proseque with reference to the omitted counts in the nisi
prizes record.
Lord Chief Justice—lt is a seri•us question whether all

the proceedings are not a nullity. The defendant has not
been tried on a criminal information as he ought to have
been, and is prob ably liable to be tried upon them.
The Attorney-General—Not if I enter a nolle proseque.
It is entirely a technical error. The defendant will suffer
no hardship.
The Lord Chief Justice (to Mr. James)—What have you
to say on this point ?
Mr. Edward James, Q.C., said—My brief at the trial
contained nine counts, and I am surprised to find that the
record only contains six. lam not in a condition to say
anything upon the point now.
The matter was ordered to stand over until next term.

THE QUEEN V. WELLS-CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

The Attorney-General moved on behalf of Mr. G. H.
Whalley, M.P., for a rule calling upon Mr. Wells, the pub-
lisher of the Railway Times, to show cause why a criminal
information should not be filed against him for libels pub-
lished in that paper. It appeared from the statements of
the Attorney-General that Mr. Whalley had taken an active
part in the promotion of railway communication in Wales.
The libels complained of contained charges of jobbery and
manoeuvring, but they were rather charges by implication
than by actual statement. In one passage the alleged libel
stated that the principal people of Wales had retired from
the railway in consequence of Mr. Whalley's " propulsion"
into the chairmanship, and that things had gone so far that
none of the authorities of Euston-squ are, or the genty of
Wales, would have any business communications with Mr.
Whalley, except in the presence of a third party.
Their Lordships granted a rule nisi.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
MIISPRITT V. MUSPRATT.
This was a suit by the husband for dissolution of mar

itiage on the ground of the wife's adultery.
The Court had previously dsipensed with a co .respondent
in the suit.
The parties were in a respectable situation of life, and
were married in Marylebone in 1850, and cohabitated in
;est Derby, at the petitioner's house, in Flintebire, and
also in Paris. There were two children, one of whom died
in 1853. The petitioner went to Australia, where he re-
mained some time, and the wife went to live on the conti-
nent with her daughter. The petitioner became aware of
some circumstances which excited his suspicions as to his
wife's fidelity during his absence, and he instituted
inquiries for the purpose of discovering her residence. He
traced her to Havre, and there it was discovered she had
two children, a girl and a boy, and that she said the hus-
band could claim the daughter but not the boy, as he was

not its father.
Mrs. Moon, 10, Crescent-place, Kentish-town, said she
knew Mr. and Mrs. Muspratt after their marriage, and
that theyllived very happily t^gether.
Mary Scudder, a domestic servant, also gave s"milar
evidence. She also said she accompanied Smith to Havre,
and pointed out Mrs. Muspratt to Smith, the detective
officer.
William Smith said—l was formerly a detective officer
in the police force. I recollect in January being consulted
by the petitioner in this s .it. I afterwards went to the
Isle of Wight, and from thence to Friborg, in Germany,
I there found a lady answering to the Mrs. Muspratt I was
seeking. She suddenly quitted the place, and I followed
her to Havre on the 9th of March. I saw her there. I
have had Mrs. Muspratt pointed out to me by Scudder, at
Southampton, and it was the same lady I saw at Havre.
She then had two children with her, a girl and boy. I
sent for Mr. Muspratt, and, after his arrival, I went with
him to the lady's lodgings. I went in first, with the Com-
missioner of Police. The Commissioner commenced
reading a document he had received from the Prefect of
Paris, and after that I spoke to Mrs. Muspratt, and
said I had been sent to claim the charge of her daughter.
After some conversation Mrs. Muspratt said you have been
seeking her a long while, and I suppose you must have her,
but thank God you cannot have this one. While the gild
was clinging round her mother's neck she said "Thank God
my boy is provided for ; he has a prevision, and will never
starve." After Mr. Muspratt quitted the room, she asked
me if I was seeking the father of the chit.' I said I was
not, and that I did not know him, to which she
replied that I should not learn anything about
him from her. I know I have done wrong, and
all I can say is that Mr. Muspratt is not
the father of the boy, and I will not tell you who is. The
documents put into my hand, to the best of my belief, are
in the handwriting of Mrs. Muspratt.
Julia Bougwoie—l was formerly in the service of Mrs.
Muspratt, in March, 1854. She was then living in Hesse
Darmstadt. I was with her six years and a half. Mrs.
Muspratt told me, after she returned from Southsea, that
she had been on familiar terms with Mr. Griffin, and
that she was afraid she was in the family way. We
then went to Germany, where she gave birth to a male
child on the Ist February, 1859.
The marriage having been proved,
The learned Judge said he did not think there had been
any wilful neglect on the part of the husband, and there-
fore he should grant a rule nisi.
Mr. Liddell said that he found that there had been a
mistake in the petition, the respondent's name being
• Frances, not " Fanny."
The Judge Ordinary—That will involve you in more
difficulty. The rule nisi is for the dissolution of marriage
between Frances Muspratt and the petitioner. It says no-
thing about " Fanny " Muspratt.
Mr. Liddell thought he might be allowed to amend the
petitio n.
t h e Judge
circumstance
Ordinary—you
youha
have just
do
mentioned.so.
The Judge Ordinary—No, you cannot do that.
Mr. Liddell—Then I will take the rule nisi.
Isay
about the nothing

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Wheeler.)
THE LADY WHO WOULDN'T COME VP STAIRS-BIER

V. BROWN.
This was an action brought by a lady, who, when the
case was called, left the court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Mr. Buchanan—l appear for the defendant.
A voice—Plaintiff says she will pay you a visit another
day. She has gone down stairs. (Great laughter.)
His Honour—Oh, if she is in hearing call her.
Mr. Brown (one of the bailiffs) went out, and soon re-
turning, said, " She is on the stairs and wont come up.
(Laughter.)
His Honour—Oh, persuade her.
Mr. Buchanan (to defendant)—Will you pay the hearing
foe and apply for costs ?
At this moment the lady entered an appearance, saying,
" I've not paid the hearing fee." (Laughter.) I went
down stairs to look after a witness.
Mr. Osgood (registrar)—Then the case will be struck
out.
Plaintiff—Precisely. I shall dofer proceeding till an-
other day. (Great laughter.)
Defendant—Oh, that wont do.
Plaintiff—Ah, but it must do.
Mr. Osgood—You will have to take out another sum-
mons. _ _

Plaintiff (affably)—Oh, of course--(laughter)—during
which the parties retired.

ROBBING AN EMPLOYER.—Joseph Hall, in the employ
of Mr. Fred. Marshall, pork butcher, 2, Market-row, Ox-
ford-market, as a confidential servant, was charged with
stealing meat from his master.
_ _

...
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and wished the case dealt
with by the magistrate.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said robbing masters by servants must be
dealt with severely, and committed the prisoner for three
months with hard labour.

It is stated that the report of Messrs. Harding,
Pullein, and Co., the accountants employed by the com-
mittee of depositors to investigate the affairs of the Bank of
Deposit, will be issued to the public on Monday next.
SHOCKING MURDER NEAR CARLISLE.— CARLISLE,
FRIDAY NIGHT.—To-day an old woman, the keeper of a
crossing on the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway, a mile
from Carlisle, was found murdered and her house robbed.
The murderer had apparently felled her with a stone, and
then hacked her with a billhook,