The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-11 00:00:00

E S N,Eff{2l,4o D 0 N SA.TURDA-V EVEtkING, JULY 11,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord Campb(ll and
Common Juries.)
=SWELL V. TILLEY- CCM. CON.

MARLBOROUGH STREET.

Mr. Do3le and Mr. H. James were for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Clarke conducted the case for the defence.

From the opening statement of ceunsel, it appeared
that the plaintiff, John Hudswell, was a clerk and book-
keeper in the service of Messrs. Quarles, Harris, and
Co., wine-merchants for the city of London, in whose
employ he had been about 15 years. The defendant,
William Tilley, was a young man about the same age as
the plaintiff, and was in partnership with his father,
Tilley, sen., who carried on the business of a coach-
painter at Edmontcn. In November, 1818, the plain-
tiff became acquainted with Easily Cox, the daughter
of James Cox, a builder, residing at De Beauvoir-town,
Hackney, and two years afterwards he m-rried her.
They lived together happily for five or six years,
the issue of the marriage being a boy now six
years old, and the plaintiff had no rea on to suppose
that his wife conducted herself otherwise than in a proper
manner ; but it unfortunately happened that in the sum-
user of 1856 the plaintiff, who then lived at Homerton,
went to reside at Edmonton, and took a house next door
to that occupied by the defendant and his father. The
gardens of the two dwellings were merely eepargated by a
dwarf wall, and in consequence of this facility for ieter-
couree between the occupants of the two houses, the
plaintiff and defendant became intimately acquainted.
The younger Tilley became a visitor at the plaintiff's
hou-e, where he was well received by the plaintiff, and
after playing a game at draughts, he would return home
in the evening. The Plaintiff, who was away from home
during business hours, at length began to think that
there was too much familiarity in his presence between
his wife and the defendant, and he sought to discon-
tinue the intimacy which had hitherto existed between
her and Tilley. About Christmas, 1856, he had a sus-
picion that the conduct of his wife was not what it
ought to be, but it was merely a suspicion, and he re-
moved from Edmonton to Tottenham. Here they con-
tinued to live for some time, and the plaintiff was pained
to discover an alteration in the habits of his wife.
He began to fear that she was addicted to drinking, and
'in consequence of what he saw he asked his servant if
any persons were in the habit of visiting her, and he then
learnt f9r the first time some facts which would be laid
before the jury. A servant girl,
_named Hannah May-
nard, informed him that, while he 'was absent at busi-
ness, young Tilley was in the habit of visiting the house,
frequently arriving in the morning about ten o'clock,
dining with Mrs. Hudswell, and leaving at four in the
afternoon. He scarcely ever entered the house except
upon a signal given by Mrs. Hudswell—viz , pulling
down the upper sash of the parlour window, which was
to let him know that her husband had left, and that he
could gain admission. On these occasions the little boy
was often sent to the next house to play, and the fami-

liarities which then took place betwee❑ Tilley and the
plaintiff's wife left no doubt that the parties had been
guilty of an adulterous intercourse. The result of these
inquiries was that the plaintiff ceased to live with his
wife, and sent her back to her father. Additional facts
were afterwards brought to his knowledge, and he found
it necessary to come into that court nominally to recover
compensation in damages, but really with the view of
freeing himself from a connection which was no longer
honourable.

A number of witnesses were called, the principal of
which were the following :—Eliza Ituffey, domestic ser-
vant to the plaintiff. I recollect their removing from
Edmonton to Tottenham a week before Christmas, 1856.
I know Tilly the younger. He lived with his father and
mother at Edmonton. My master generally went to
business at nine o'clock in the morning, and returned at
six in the evening. After he left I have seen Tilley come
into the house. At Tottenham he came nearly every
day ; generally between ten and eleven in the morning.
Before he entered my mistress used to be at the window
on the first floor. Tilley then lived next door. I never
saw anything take place between them. I have seen
him sitting on her knee. This was in the front parlour.
I have seen him on her knee very often. His arms were
about her waist. I have also seen him kiss her more
than once. The bedroom was on the next floor to the
parlour. I was often sent out by my mistress to purchase
different articles. I recollect being sent out on one oc-
casion when Tilley was in the house, and on returning
in about half an hour I saw Tilley and my mistress
coming down stairs. I had been to the butcher's, about
a quarter of a mile from the house. The boy, who was
then five years old, went with me, and no one was in
the house except my mistress and Tilley. There was no
sitting-room on the first floor—they were all bedrooms.
Upon cross-examination the witness admitted that
she bad frequently seen the plaintiff and his wife quar-
relling, and that he had returned home morn than once
quite tipsy. Mrs. Hudswell once struck Mr. Hudswell
with the poker. •
Hannah Maynard —I have been in the service of
Mr. and Mrs. Hudswell. I have seen Tidy often in Mr.
Hudswell's room. He used to come as soon as toy master
left home—sometimes early in the morning. My age
is 15. When Tilley was in the room I was generally
sent into an empty house next door to play. I was told
to stop about an hour. On one occasion wben I was so
sent out I got through a gap in the garden and went into the
house. I saw my mistress and Tilley together in the
parlour. He had his arms around her waist, and she
was sitting on his knee. [The witness here described
what she saw in the parlour, which left no doubt that a
criminal intercourse had taken place between them.] 1
heard the defendant make some remarks to Mrs. Huds-
well, about the buttons being off his trowsers, and that
he could not get any person to sew them on. Mrs.
Hudswell replied if be would take them off she would
put them on. On the second Monday after I bad been
in the plaintiff's service Tilley came. On that occasion
be gave me a shilling, telling me not to say anything
about his visits.

This witness was subjected to a rigid cross-examina-
tion, but nothing of importance was elicited.
The case for the plaintiff being closed,
Mr. Clark addressed the jury fcr the defence. He
said he should fully calculate upon a verdict for his
client, as he felt from what the two witnesses, Reify and
Maynard, bad admitted on cross-examination, that
their testimony was utterly unworthy of belief.
Lord Campbell summed up, remarking that he thought
it was not a case calling for excessive damages.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Da-
mages 2001.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (This Day.

DESPERATE AFFRAY AMONG FRRNCIIMEN.—M. RO-
doll* a Frenchman, and also Wm. Marshall were
charged before Mr. Beadon with a most violent assault
on Theodore Gitalia. Mr. Lewis appeared for the pri-
soners, and M. Albert attended as interpreter.

The complainant stated that on Thursday evening he
was passing down Brewer-street, from his residence in
Queen-street, where be saw the prisoners, who were in
the company of two French females. He was almost
immediately assaulted by Marshall, who was assisted by
the other prisoner. He protected himself as well as he
could, upon which Marshall took out a knife which he
opened, observing at the time that he would open his
guts. Complainant retreated to a public house, where
the prisoner Marshall repeated the assault. He subse-
quently found his eye cut and was obliged to apply to a
surgeon to have it dressed.
In answer to Mr. Lewis, the complainant said that he
was a portrait painter, and that he formerly cohabited
with a female (one of the women who were in thecom
pany of the prisoner.) She had left him, and was now
under the protection of Marshall.

Mr. Lewis remarked that the cmplaioant first coin.
witted the assault by striking Marshall on the head with
a stick which was loaded. (He produced a sort of
revolver, and Marshall showed his head, which had on it
two severe blows.) He added that the sticlewas broken
by the violence of the blow.

A witness for the prisoner confirmed the statement of
Mr. Lewis, and said that when Marshall received the
blow which was iefitcted by the ccmplainant, who was
walking behind him, that he reeled against a shop win-
dow.
The prisoner was discharged.