The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-20 00:00:00

WILKINSON V. WILKINSON.

Dr. Twiss. Q.C., and Dr. Spinks were counsel
for the petitioner.
Mrs. Wilkinson prayed for a dissolution of her
Marriage with John Fenwick Wilkinson on the
ground of his adultery and cruelty. The marriage
took place in October, 1846, and the parties re-
sided at different times at Wicester, in Hereford-
shire, at Standerwick Court, in Somerset, at Ryde,
at Clifton, and in London. There were three
children of the marriage. Mrs. Wilkinson stated
that her husband had been extremely unkind to
her, and gave several instances of his violence. He
had thrown a glass at her, and had flung a china
candlestick at her head, missed her. When
they were at Ryde, in 1850, some friends came to
dinner, and after dinner :he went upstairs to her
own room. He followed her, and swore at her for
not going down into the drawing-room. She said
that she was unwell, and that she had retired be-
cause they had taken too much wine, and the con-
versation was not fit for a lady to hear. She cried
and went into hysterics. She was then near her
confinement. He flew into a rage, said that she
was making a noise in order that the people down-
stairs might think he was illusing her, and that he
would give her something to cry for, dragged her
across the room, and threw her on a box by the
fire, and held her down by her wrists for nearly an
hour, and then kicked her, called her a sulky
beast, and told her she might go to bed. The next
morning he asked her to forgive him, and she
went out in order that his unkindness might not
be known; In 1851 he infected her with a disease,
which he had contracted in consequence of his
profligate habits, and she went home to her family.
She was afterwards reconciled to him but• in
1852 he again treated her with cruelty, and she was
afraid he would murder her. Another separation '
took place, followed by another reconciliation. In
1856 he went to Ireland with the militia regiment
to which he belonged, and ot his return again eom-
municated the same disease to her. She left him,
but again returned to him, and in 1859 he was
guilty of the same misconduct. She then
finally withdrew from cohabitation. Her evidence
was corroborated by the medical men who had at
different times attended her, and by some of the ser-
vants who had lived with them. It-was also proved
that he had frequently committed adultery with
one of his servants.

The Judge Ordinary said that the respondent
had been guilty of abominable cruelty and profl
i-
gacy, and granted a decree nisi, with costs.

POLICE lATELLIGENCE.-April 19.

WESTMINSTER.—EIizabeth Brown, a girl
only 16 years of age, was charged on her own con-
fession with having thrown a male child, of which
she had been recently delivered, into the Thames.
Mr. Humphreys, an inspector of the B division,
said that the case was very extraordinary, and he
detailed the following circumstances;—At 10 o'clock
on Wednesday night Mrs. Baldwin, of 91, Little
Chapel-street, Westminster, came to the station
attached to this court, accompanied by the prisoner,
her servant, and said she considered it her duty to
make him acquainted with a very peculiar state-
ment which the girl had made to her. The accused
then repeated the statement, as follows :—That on
the 27th ult. she was with another girl, named
Mary Hopkins, when the latter was suddenly de-
livered in her presence of a child, which she imme-
diately entreated her to stab with a pair of scissors.
Prisoner refused, when the young woman Hopkins
dashed the child's head repeatedly against the post
of the bedstead until she killed it. Accused then
left the room, and, meeting with Hopkins again
on the Friday following, accompanied her to her
lodgings, where Hopkins wrapped the body of the
child in a cloth, and, taking the fire-shovel, they
proceeded to the ruins of the old houses in Victoria-
street, where they buried the body under an archway.
Inspector Humphreys immediately accompanied the
prisoner in quest of the girl Hopkins and the body of
the child, but several hours were occupied in vain,
neither being discovered. The girl (accused) was then
taken home by her mistress, when, in consequence of
a confession that she herself had been delivered of
the child she spoke of, and had thrown the child
into the Thames, she was given into custody on
Thursday evening, and detained.
Evidence having been given to the above effect,
and it having been stated that the accused had
been many years in the service of Mrs. Baldwin, her
mother having been for many years an inmate of a
lunatic asylum.
Dr. Pearse, of 10, Regent-street, Westminster,
gave evidence, from which it transpired that the
prisoner, on surgical examination, presented all the
appearances of a married woman, and that there
was nothing to indicate her having been recently
delivered of a child, or of ever having had a child.
In answer to questions from Mr. Arnold, Mrs.
Baldwin said that she never observed the slightest
appearance of aberration of intellect in the prisoner,
but believed sho was of perfectly sound mind. She
had not only positively assured her that she had
bten confined as stated, but declared that her hus-
band (Mr. Baldwin) was the father of the child.
Prisoner had been in the habit of undressing in her
presence, and slept with her children, but she had
never observed anything in her appearance to in-
duce a belief that she was either in the familyway
or had been confined.
Mr. Arnold remanded the prisoner for a week,
directing the police to make the most vigilant in-
quiries in their power.

WORSHIP-STREET.—George King, a stout-
built man, apparently a labourer, was charged with
the following strange assault :
Mr. Hugh O'Donnell, a house agent in Lamb's-
fields, was standing outside his house, superintend-
ing a glazier who was at work for him, when a man
who was an entire stranger to him came up, and
for no reason at all, unless out of wanton mischief,
slapped his face. The blow was not such as to
hurt hirci, but it was an insulting liberty to be re-
sented, and he was remcnstrating with the man
upon his conduct, when the prisoner, who was
partly drunk and wholly stupid, also came
up, and without the slightest offence or pro-
vocation on his part, struck him such a violent
blow on one of his eyes with his fist as to send him
staggering some distance, and a constable fortu-
nately making APPArttIICO itt 111913 nut, yhc

witness gave the prisoner into custody. The com-
plainant declared he had not insulted or annoyed
either man, and one was as much a stranger to
him as the other. The first man walked away
while he was being assaulted by the prisoner.
Mr. Knox said it was one of the strangest
cases that had ever come before him. and asked
the prisoner what motive he assigned for the
assault ; but, though the question was repeated, all
that could be obtained] from him was a careless
denial that he had struck the complainant at all.
A bricklayer named Yates, however, put the fact
beyond dispute, for, he not only ooufirmed O'Donnell
as to the nature of the blow, but also as to its seve-
rity, and Mr. Knox sentenced the prisoner to pay
the full penalty of £5, or in default to be sent for
two months to the House of Correction.