The Sun.
London, England, 1859-09-09 00:00:00

TTIEIS.r.TN,, LONDON_ FRIDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 9. 1850.

conducted. by Mr. Sleigh, and the defendant was
also represented by counsel—Mr. C. Robertson
Griffiths. _ .

Mr. Sleigh said he would now complete the case as
regarded the charge preferred by Messrs. Osler.
Mr. Mure, her 31ajesty's Consul at New Orleans,
deposed that in June of this year he was divorced
from his then wife, the lady spoken of as Mrs.
Mure, on the ground of her adultery with the Hon.
George Augustus Chichester, the co-respondent in
that suit.

Mr. Griffiths objected to this evidence.
Mr. Sleigh said that Mr. Chichester was a co-de-
fendant in the present case, and would be charged
with the defendant if he could be taken.

Mr. Henry decided on admitting the evidence.
Mr. Mure further deposed that he had not resided
with-his late wife (whose maiden name was Lucy
Virginia Ellen Oliver) since Nov., 1857. Did not
know defendant, and had never authorised him to
buy goods in his name. The letters produced were
in her handwriting.
Inspector Pether found the letters in question in
defendant's pocketbook.
The letters were read. They were addressed to
the defendant, and contained instructions as to the
mode of forwarding goods, for which she had en-
closed orders. They also alluded to a person spoken
of as " George," first as residing with her in the
Chaussr-e d'An tin, and afterwards as being expected
to return from Chantilly, his absence being the
reason for a delay in writing to defendant.
Thomas Carter, a porter at Messrs.Osler's deposed
that he packed up the chandelier, &c., mentioned at
the last examination, and booked it at a shipping-
office in the Regent-circus, Piccadilly. It was ad-
dressed to " L. V. E. Mure, Esq., 45, Rue de la Ma-
deleine, Piaris."

Mr. Sleigh applied for a committal in this case,
and for a remand in that in which Messrs. Shool-
bred and Co. were prosecutors.
Mr. Griffiths would prefer that both cases should
be completed before he addressed the Court.
Mr. Henry thought this would be the better

course.
Mr. Sleigh would in that case endeavour to com-
plete both.
Inspector Whicher \\as then examined as to a
conversation he had with the defendant on the 12th
of March. He asked defendant what he had done
with the goods supplied by Messrs. Shoolbred. He
said he had sent the silks to Mrs. Mure, at Paris,
and had given up the carpets and damask to a man
named Morgan, who called for them. He did not
know who Morgan was, or where he lived. Wit-
ness asked why he gave up the goods to a stranger.
He rep)ied, " Because I had a written authority
from Mrs. Mure to do so."
Mr. Morris Newton, solicitor, deposed that he
was acquainted with the family of Miss Oliver, at
one time Mrs. Mure, and had seen her in Novem-
ber at Paris. He had also seen her and Mr. Chi-
chester at Dieppe.
Mr. Sleigh—Were they living together as man
and wife ?
Witness—l don't know.
Mr. Griffiths—Are you aware that they are now
husband and wife ?
Witness—l am not aware.
The former evidence was read over, and at the
request of Mr. Griffiths, the books of Messrs.
Shoolbred wei e produced and examined.
Mr. Sleigh then applied for the committal of the
prisoner on both charges.
Mr. Griffiths, however, required time to produce
evidence, which he said would enable defendant to
give an abundant answer to every imputation
against him.
The case was ultimately adjourned, the prisoner's
bail being extended.