The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-21 00:00:00

MIDDLE_EX SESISIOXS.LDec. 20.

(Before the Assistant-Judge.)
William Strongthorn, 22, and Henry Mathews,
40, carman, were indicted for stealing four decan-
ters, value 12s 6d, and other articles, the property
of Geo. P. Bone and Co.' the masters of Mathews.
Mr. Metcalfe was for the prosecution; Mr. Sleigh
defended Mathews ; and Mr. F. H. Lewis appeared
for Strongthorn, who by his advice pleaded guilty.
The prosecutors are glass dealers, and had a ware-
house in Charlotte-mews, Tottenham-court-road,
and the prisoners were detected in the act of remov-
ing property therefrom ; and from the fact of their
detection being the result of suspicion, it was in-
ferred that the same thing had been carried on for
some time.
The jury found Mathews guilty, and the learned
Judge sentenced him to 12 months and Strongthorn
to 6 months' hard labour.
In the case of the Queen v. Farina, which had
been several times adjourned, against Pietro Farina
for indecent conduct in the Regent's-park in the
presence of females, the defendant had absconded,
and was, it was believed, now in Madrid.
Mr. Sleigh, on the part of the Associate Institute
for the Protection of Women, applied to the court
for the costs and the discharge of the recognisances
of the witnesses for the prosecution, as there was
no chance whatever of the defendant being taken
or surrendering.
The court made the order.
John Braisher, 27, was indicted for feloniously
receiving a gold watch and chain, value £l5, the
property of Thomas Berry.
Mr. Sleigh prosecuted. The prisoner was de-
fended by Mr. Ribton.
This case occupied the attention of the court the
greater portion of the day, but its nature may be
given in a few sentences. The prosecutor kept a
public-house called the Great Western, in Hamp-
ton-street, Harrow-road, and in March last he had

in his service a boy, who was persuaded by the
prisoner, who used to frequent the house, to rob his
master. The cash-box was the first thing he sug-
gested, but as that was not obtainable, the prisoner
told him to get hirn anything he could, and he
would reward him. The boy unfortunately yielded
to this solicitation, and stole his master's watch and
chain from his bed-room, giving them to the pri-
soner, who compensated him with a shilling. Lately
information was obtained by Sergeant Potter, 348
A, a detective attached to the 1) division reserve,
which led him to find the ho y, who was then in a
respectable situation, and hid maintained an honest
character; and when he asked about the watch he
burst into tears and told all about it—how he got
it, who had it, and what he got for the theft. In
consequence the prisoner was apprehended, and
evidence was adduced corroborative of the boy's
statements. Of 'course he was the principal witness
against the prisoner on his trial to-day, and the
defence mainly relied upon by the learned counsel
for the prisoner was that there was not that amount
of corroboration which alone would justify a jury in
convicting a prisoner upon the evidence of an ac-
complice. After a most careful summing up by the
learned judge, the jury retired, and, a considerable
time having elapsed, came into court and pro-
nounced the prisoner guilty. A former conviction
for felony was then proved against him. The
Assistant-Judge said the prisonek had been ably
defended, and everything had been sifted which
could tell in his favour. He felt bound, however,
to say, not only that he concurred in the verdict,
but that he thought no twelve reasonable men could
have arrived at any, other conclusion ; and the
verdict had only been given after careful and de-
liberate consideration

Sergeantrotter said he could produce four other
boys. whom the prisoner had tutored to thieve for
his benefit.

The AssistantiJudgesaid it would be an idle and
useless waste of words to dwell upon the enormity
of the 'prisoner's conduct, and the sentence upon
him was that he be/kept in penal servitude for 1.5
years.

His lor4ship said 'that comment having been made
as to the officer Potter, he wished to say, publicly,
that his conduct had been that of an active, zealous,
and praiseworthy officer. The prosecution had
been a most useful one, and had rerulted in a most
dangerous person being removed from society —a
person who had induced innocent children to commit
crime for his benefit.
Charlotte Hobbs, convicted of shoplifting, on the
prosecution of the Society for the Prosecution of

Shoplifters, was brought up for judgment, and
three former convictions were proved against her.
She was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour.
Mr. Orridge was for the prosecution.

(Before Mr. Creasy.)
•
James Calvert, 40, and William Chopping, 27,
labourers, were indicted for stealing 1 cwt. 3
qrs. of sugar, valve 505., the property of Thomas
Morrison Fairelough, the employer of Wm. Chop.
ping. Calvert pleaded guilty.
Mr. Poland prosecuted ; Chopping was unde-
fended.

Frederick L. Grace said he was clerk te Mr. Fair-
clough, carman, of No. 10, Christian-street, St.
George's, and' knew both the prisoners, who had
been employed by him, but Calvert was discharged
about six months ago. The other prisoner had been
in his employ for a year and a half up to Saturday,
the 10th inst. On that day Chopping went with a
waggon and three horses for 60 bags of sugar to the
London Docks. Witness was down in the neigh-
bourhood of the docks, and saw the van at the cor-
ner of a street with apparently no one attending to
it. Observing the tarpaulin tied down over the
front of the van, he turned it up a little and looked
under it, when he saw the legs of a man. He waited
about 10 minutes, when Chopping came up, and
being asked what made him so long, he said he had
only just come from the docks. The witness then
observed a bag of sugar under the tarpaulin diffe-
rent in appearance to the others, which excited his
suspicions, and accordingly he took a cab and fol-
lowed the waggon until he met with a policeman.
The policeman got into the waggon, where he found
Calvert concealed under the tarpaulia, and a knife
(produced) lying beside him. It was then found
that four bags had been cut, sugar abstracted from
each, and placed in the bag which had been noticed
as differing in appearance from the rest. Both pri-
soners were taken into custody.
John Fry, police-constable, 320 K, proved taking
the prisoners into custody, and that when he saw
Calvert in the waggon his hands were covered with
sugar, and a bag of sugar cut open was close by.
While searching him at the station-house he threw
away a packing-needle threaded with twine.
The prisoner was found guilt►, and, with his com-
panion, sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months
and hard labour.

William Grove, 43, baker, was indicted for steal-
ing a barrow and 70 loaves of bread, value £B, the
property of George Murray. He was also indicted
for stealing a basket, a bladder of lard, 211 b. of
flour, and a sack, the property of Alexader Boag.
He was further indicted for stealing a truck, a
basket, and 18 loaves of bread, value £2 165., the
property of James Marshall.
The prisoner is a baker, living at Kew, and in
each case it appeared that as soon as a baker's man
left his truck for the purpose of delivering bread at
the house of a customer the prisoner took advantage
of his absence and went off with the truck and con-
tents, making the best use of his time to wheel it
away. In the first case it was ascertained that the
truck had been sold to a marine store-dealer at
Brentford, and 30 of the stolen loaves were found in
the prisoner's bakehouse. He was convicted.
Mr. Creasy sentenced the prisoner to imprison-
ment and hard labour for six months.
An old woman, 70 years of age, named Mary
Chipperfield, was indicted for fraudulently obtain-
ing from Richard Thomas Tubbs, assistant overseer
of the parish of St. Marylebone, parochial relief,
by the false pretence that she was destitute and
was entitled to such relief, when, in fact, she was not
destitute, having at the time £4O of her own money
in a savings bank. She pleaded that she was guilty
but not with a guilty knowledge, and Mr. Creasy
directed a plea of not guilty to be entered for her.
Mr. Metcalfe said he was instructed by the parish
authorities of Marylebone to prosecute this woman
for a fraud upon the ratepayers in obtaining relief
as a destitute person, when she had means of her
own at command ; but they had no wish to press
for any punishment, the real object beimg to teach
her and others who carried on these practices, not
only in Marylebone, but in other parishes, that
they were liable to punishment for obtaining relief
by false pretences as to their destitute condition.
The prisoner, by her plea, admitted the act, but
seemed to think, as no doubt others did, that there
was no harm in it. It was necessary that they
should be taught that there was, as the money the
ratepayers had to pay was intended for the really
destitute and poor ' • and to meet the claims of those
they had quite calls enough from the collector.
The evidence having been given, by which it was
proved that the prisoner had received money and
bread as relief for a considerable period, by repre-
senting that she was destitute and distressed, while
she had this money in the bank,
The jury found. her guilty, but strongly recom-
mtnded her to meriy.
Mr. Metcalfe said he was instructed to say that
the parish officers did not wish anything to be done
with this old woman, more than that she should be
held by, a recognisance to appear for judgment
should it be found necessary to bring her up. It
would be a warning to others.
Mr. Creasy said the prisoner had been convicted
of an offence for which sho was liable to a severe
punishment; but as the jury had recommended her
to mercy, and the parish officers had kindly sug-
gested that they would be satisfied that she should
enter into a recognisance merely, he had no wish
to take any other course than that—especially
con-
sidering the prisoner's years. But, at the
sparne
time,itwas a very mischievous fraud upon the
ratepayers, who were heavily taxed to support the
really poor and destitute ; and they must be pro-
tected from such imposition. The parish had done
only its duty in directing this prosecution ; but,
after what had been suggested, he should direct
the prisoner to be discharged, after entering into a
recognisance to appear if required.
Jeremiah Connell, 20, was found guilty of vio-
lently assaulting William Edwards and John Canter,
two metropolitan police-constables, in the execution
of their duty.

The prisoner had been convicted six or seven
times of similar assaults, and seemed to take a glory
in kicking any policeman who interfered to prevent
his creating disturbances, or fighting in the streets.
The assault now in question was committed in
Crawford-street, near a public-house where he had
been immoderately drinking.
The learned Judge sentenced him to 10 months'
hard labour.

Mr. Cooper prosecuted by direction of the court,
not, as is usual, instructed by the Treasury, through
the commissioners of Police. Mr. Poland defended
the prisoner._

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Dec. 20.

SOUTHWARK.—Benjamin Pollock, a respect-
able-looking young man, 18 years of age, was
brought before Mr. Burcham charged with being
concerned with others not in custody in stealing
boots and shoes, valued at upwards of £2OO, the
property of his employers, Messrs. Butteworth and
Co., wholesale boot and shoe merchants, Great
Dover-road, Borough. One cf the parties mainly
concerned in this extensive robbery represented
himself to be Inspector Bent, of the A division, and
a detective officer.

Mr. William Lowe, one of the firm, stated that
the prisoner up to Saturday last was in their em-
ploy as warehouseman. On Sunday morning ho
received such information as led him to suspect that
they had been extensively robbed through the
agency of the prisoner and another party. In con.
sequence of that he called tho prisoner, and asked
him what he had been doing, as he understood he
had robbed the firm ? "Without any inducement
being held out to him, the prisoner then said he had
robbed the firm to a great extent. He also said
that on Sunday he was walking along the London-
road when a man accosted him, and said he was In-
spector Bent, a detective officer, and that he knew
he had robbed his employers. They went into a
coffee-house, and then the so-called detective told
him he must take him into custody. The prisoner
begged of him to accompany him to his sister's,
in the Southwark-bridge-road, before he did so,
and they went there. After signing a paper,
they went to Mr. Traun's, a boot and
shoemaker, at No. 11, Albion-street, Bother-
hithe, a man who brought manufactured goods
to the firm, for which he was paid according to
quality and quantity. The so-called detective then
made a fuss, and a large quantity of goods belonging
to the firm was brought from under the floor, andr
he (prisoner) was sent for a cab. The goods were
put into the c.,b, and the " detective" drove off. The
prisoner then produced a letter he had received that
morning from the detective, ot.which the following
is a copy :

" “. Scotland -yard, Dec. 19, 1859.
To Benjamin Pollock.—l have taken a favourable view
of your case, ani you can safely continue in your present
situation, as I shall keep all a secret. If you don't continue-
in your situation, I must take you into custody. Whatever
you do, keep your own counsel. I have written to Aubrey,
and he is safe.—Tours,•
• " WILLIAM BENT, Detective Officer."
"Arr. I3urcham—ls there such an officer in the
detective force ?
Inspector Reid, M division—There is not,
The,,only officer of that name attached to the A
division is Mr. Inspector Bent, an officer specially
employed by the South-Westcrn Railway Company.
Mr. Bent is in court.

Inspector Bent here stepped forward and said—
The letter produced is not in my handwriting. My
name is Thomas Bent.
Mr. Burcham—Have you any brother or relatiVe
in the force ?
Inspector Bent—l have not, sir. About four years
ago there was an inspector named William Bent at
Scotland-yard, 'but he is now superintendent of
police at Carlisle.
Mr. Lowel in continuation of hiseyhlenee,

said that the prisoner further told him that two
months ago Traun gave him half-a-drown to-rob his
employ'e.rs. He brought in small goods, and he
(prisoner) passed them for large goods of greater
value.

Mr. Burcham—What sort of a situation did the
prisoner hold then ?
Mr. Lowe said that he was one of the warehouse-
men, whose duty it was to receive goods from the
makers, and pass their invoices to be paid.
Mr. Burcham—Then that is obtaining money
under false pretences.
Mr. Lowe observed that the cashier paid Traun
whatever was ordered by the prisoner. The latter
admitted that Traun also gave him a gold watch.
Mr. I3urcham—What did he give him that for ?
Mr. Lowe supposed for the purpose of plunder-
ing the firm. The watch was pledged shortly after-
wards by the prisoner.
Mr. Burcham inquired how long the prisoner
had been in their service ?
Witness replied that he had been with them
about two years ago, but he left of his own accord.
He returned again in the month of August last.
Traun then worked for them, and he must have
immediately commenced robbing them. The prisoner
had a few hours ago admitted that he and a lad
named Aubrey (also in their employ) went to
Traun's house in Albion-street, Rotherhithe, and
conversed with him about their getting him goods.
It was arranged that ho was to bring to the ware-
house on the following day small goods, and the
prisoner was to pass them as large goods. That
was carried out, and before Traun left Aubrey filled
his bans with new goods from their stock.
Mr.Burcham asked whether Aubrey was in their
employ at the present time ?
Mr. Lowe replied that he was not. He left on
the sth November.
Mr. Burcham asked whether he had been to
Traun's house ?
Mr. Low-o said that the prisoner volunteered to
take them there, and when they got to the house,
i'raun had absconded. They searched the house,
but all they could find was four pairs of boots.
Traun's wife was there, and two workmen, but
they could give no information. The floors had
been pulled up where the stolen property had been
secreted, which the so-called detective carried away.
Mr. Burcham asked whether there was any evi-
dence of that ?
Mr. Lowe replied, only what the prisoner had
admitted. He told witness that he saw the floor
raised up, and the property removed by the detec-
tive, who said to him, " Pollock, I can trust you
now. Go and fetch a cab and I shall take the pro-
perty to the station-house." The prisoner fetched
a cab, which was loaded with the property, and the
detective and Traun drove off.
Mr. Burcham asked when that occurred.
Mr. Lowe said that was on Sunday evening at
five o'clock. The prisoner had further admitted to
him that during the last two months he had re-
ceived £3 a week from Traun. He now asked his
worship for a remand, to enable him to produce
further important evidence.
Mr. Burcham asked the prisoner whether he had
anything to say why he should not be remanded ?
He replied that ho had nothing to say, only that
the statement he had made to Mr. Lowe was
correct.

Mr. Burcham accordingly remanded him until
Wednesday next.

LAMBETH.—Henry Jackson, a well-dressed
youth, who refused to give his address or any ac-
count of himself, was placed at the bar before Mr.
Elliott, on a charge of attempting to steal the gold
watch arta appendages of Mr. Frederick Lillywhite,
the well-known cricketer.
Lillywhite, who had been just brought from the
cell where he had been locked up for some hours on
a charge of drunkenness and wilfully damaging a
cab, said that about six o'clock on that morning he
was at the King and Queen public-house, High-
street, Newington, and while standing before the
bar the prisoner made a snatch at his watch and
drew it from his pocket, but the chain being a
strong one, he did not succeed in getting it. He
instantly bolted out of the house, followed by him
(witness), and after a sharp run he succeeded in
getting hold of the prisoner by the comforter, but
that slipping off he got away again, and was ulti-
mately stopped.
Police-constable 53 L said that about twenty
minutes to six on that morning he saw the prisoner
running as fast as he could, followed by the prose„
cutor, and on stopping him he was surrounded 14 a
number of his companions, who he had no doubt
would have attempted a rescue had it not been for
the presence of other constables.
The prisoner denied the charge, brat refused to
give any account of himself, and wAs remanded to
Monday next.
-Mr. Lillywhito was next charged with being
drunk, and wilfully doing damage to a hackney
cab.
From the testimony of Mr. Westrup, the owner
of the cab, and °the.: witnesses, it appeared that,
after leaving the police-station where he had
charged the st prisoner, he (Lillywhite) proceeded
towards his residence, 15, Kennington-oval, but on
reaching the cab•stand at Kennington-cross he
jumped on the box of one of the vehicles and drove
off towards Westminster-bridge at a furious rate.
After three hours absence lie returned with the
horse in a state of lather and the cab a good deal
shattered.

Mr. Westrup was unable, in the absence of his
coachmaker, to state the amount of the damage,
and the case was ultimately adjourned to Monday,
Lillywhite entering into his own recognisances to
appear on that day.

THE INSOLVENCY OF MR. STOC-
UELER.-L'XTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS.

•
The case of Joachim Hayward Stocqueler, editor
of the United Service Gazette and "author,
lecturer, and teacher," of Notting-hill, Middlesex,
again came before Mr. Espinasse, at the Maid-
stone Insolvent Court, yesterday. 'Air. Eicke, sen.,
• as on the previous occasion, attended to oppose in
behalf of himself and son.
Mr. Goodwin (who attended for Mr. Morgan, the
insolvent's attorney) said Mr. Stocqueler had ap-
peared to surrender, but he understood that a dis-
charge had been received from the debt of the
detaining creditor (a Mr. Mr; J. Richardson.)
Mr. Newham (the under-governor of the gaol)
said that was the case, the discharge haling ar-
rived on the 18th inst.
Mr. Eicke—Will- your Honour permit me to see
the discharge ?
The Judge-_I cannot help you in that matter.
Eieke--I believe your Honour is a county
magistrate.
The Judge._ ghat can Ido in that capacity ?
Mr. Eicke--I wish to give the insolvent into
custody on a charge of forgery. I hope your Honour
will detain him in order that that charge may be
inquired into.
The Judge—Very well ; I shall be quite ready to
hear the case, if my attendance is required as a
magistrate of this division.
Mr. Eicke—l should wish the insolvent to be
kept in custody until I have the opportunity of
giving evidence as to the forgery. This might
have been expected after your indtilgence to him.
Mr. Hughes (Mr. Morgan's clerk—aloud)—lf
you take my advice, Mr. Stocqueler, you'll go.
(A laugh.)
Mr. Stocqueler was quickly making
when his exit

Mr. Ticke exclaimed—The prisoner is going,
your honour. By the advice of his attorney, ho has
run away. (Laughter.) I give him in charge.
The Judge (to the officer) Stop the insolvent; he
is not discharged from his bail yet.
Mr. Stocqueler accordingly resumed his former
position._

The Judge—You must take your own course,
Mr. Eicke ; if you give him in charge for felony, I
am quite ready to hear the charge, but I can make
no order in the matter.

Mr. Eicke—But I apprehend your Honour has
lot let discharged him from his bail.
Theludge—The governor will not take him, I
suppose, now a discharge has come down.
Mr. Goodwin—Mr. Eicke could have adopted
this course before had he thought fit.
Mr. Stocqueler was again hurriedly leaving the
court. upon which Mr: Eicke a second time called
out, " I give him in charge."
His Honour—You must give him in custody in
the regular way. Is there a constable in court ?
No one answering, Mr. Eicke quickly followed
Mr. Stocqueler, who, however, was already out of
sight.
On returning Mr. Eicke appealed to his Honour
as to whether he considered the insolvent had made
a proper surrender under the Act.
His honour—The gaoler won't receive him.
Mr. Eicice—The question is whether you consider
him to be discharged from his recognis4lnces: Under
the; 32d Section of the Ist and 2d Victoria, cap. 110,
he is bound to " surrender," but when you desired
him to do so he ran away. (Laughter.)
The Judge—l recollect several instal-
es
the detaining creditor sent down a instances in
whichldh the insolvent never appeared in court
at all.
discharge,
Mr. Eieke—Will your lionour give mean tunitoppor-
y- of trying the question in a superior court ?
The Judge—You can take what course you please
—you do not require my permission. I can only
say that I have no power to detain him, he having
been discharged at the suit of the detainino- cre-
ditor. If the gaoler won't take him, 'what power
Mr. I to do so ?
Mr. Eicke—Will your Honour then appoint me
assignee ?
The Jude--If you ' 4 t-
W 1544 ue appointed, you

must make the application in London. I can
make no order.
The proceedings then terminated.

THE HON. HUGH RoWLE,Y AND HIS
LATE WIFE.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF PERJURY.
[The following appeared in our third edition of last
evening.]
At the Westminster Police Court, yesterday, the
late wife of the Hon. Hugh Rowley again appeared in
compliance with a summons granted on the application of
Mr. Rowley, calling upon her to answer to a charge of per-
jury alleged to have been committed by her in the recent
case in the Divorce Court, in which she sought and ob-
tained a decree granting a dissolution of marriage on the
ground of cruelty.
Mr. Metcalfe appeared on behalf of the lady, and Mr.
Sleigh and Mr. Orridge for the Hon. Hugh Rowley.
The Hon. Hugh Rowley was then called, and further
examined by Mr. Orridge. He said—speaking of the
journey from Frankfort to Mayenco—l never threatened
Mrs. Rowley, during the journey by railway, with personal
violence. I never pinched her ; it is utterly untrue to say
I did. I never kicked her or struck her at all during the
journey. I never, while we were at Boulogne, where the
heir was alleged to have been cut, threw a loaf of bread at
Mrs. Rowley. During 1853 I think Mrs. Rowley was
staying with Lady Langford. I cannot be sure of the date.
1 never used personal violence towards her. It was after
our visit to Ryde that we went to Ireland. It was in
1863. We went to Dublin, and from there to Dun-
dalk. I loft Mrs. Rowley for three days with
her sister, while I went to the latter place.
I returned, and then took her with me to Dundalk. When
I took her there she was free to go out, as my brother offi-
•cers can testify.
Mr. Metcalfe—You had betternot mention them, without
you mean to call them.
Witness—l mean to do so. I never beat my wife at Dun-
dalk. It is utterly false to say I prohibited her going out
while we were at Dundalk. She told me she was constantly
annoyed by Col. Smythe making love to her. She said she
was much displeased:with him, as hewas such a gay old man.
There was no court-martial held on my conduct, or any
such thing as a sham one. I wish to explain. Miss
Rosa Bishop, my wife's sister, came over to stop with us
in Ireland. She used to walk with one or two officers of
my regiment. Mr. Julius Sartoris was one of the gentle-
men who used to walk with her perpetually. In conse-
quence of something that occurred I became aware that
my wife had stated that I had been in the habit of boating
her. I was afterwards called up to a room in which there
were 10 or 12 officers, and Captain Heaviside was sitting
at the head of them. Captain Heaviside said, " Rowley,
we hear that you have been beating your wife." I told him
it was untrue, and said if he did not believe it he had bettor
see Mrs. Rowley ; he did so, and Mrs. Rowley denied it.
Magistrate—Were you present when she did ?
Witness—No ; Captain Heaviside told me she had denied
it. I then remonstrated with Miss Rosa Bishop for the
rumours about my beating my wife, and she left our house
the next morning. The letter put into my hand is in Mrs.
Rowley's handwriting. [The letter was here read (with-
out date) ; it was from Mrs. Rowley to Lady Langford, and
having informed her ladyship of "several unimportant
items, went on to allude to a circumstance which " Dear
Zooy " would explain.] I did not leave tho army
in consequence of anything arising out of that
so-called court-martial. I left in consequence of pecuniary
difficulties. From Ireland I Went to Rottingdean, and
from thence to the continent. Mrs. Rowley joined mo at
Brussels, I never ill-treated or beat Mrs. Rowley. I swear
I did not most decidedly. At Brussels we stayed at the
Hotel Bellevue, and we also took a house and kept our
own servants. Mrs. Rowley had the, same maid-servant
with her the whole of the time we were in Brussels. I
never confined her to her room, I never prevented her
communicating with her maiei or her friends in London.
I state most distinctly that never dictated the letters Mrs.
Rowley wrote from Bras*, els. On our return from Brussels
wo went to my mother's house, and from there to Torquay.
My servant had left, but Mrs. Rowley had the same maid.
We stopped at Torquay about six weeks, and from there we
went to Dawlieh. While we were at either of those places
I never bes.t or locked her up. I never prevented Mrs.
Rowley Meriting to her friends, although she has stated that
I did tee. At Dawlish I had borrowed a sum of money of
one of her sisters, Miss Mary Ann Bishop, now Mrs. Turner,
a"ad I was served with a writ for that money. I had bor-
rowed that money before I became of age. It was to be
paid out of my money in the Court of Chancery. I came
to London to attend to the writ, and was there informed that
Mrs. Rowley was packing up the whole of her things to
come to London. I went to the railway station, and there
I found that she had come London from thence in the
guard's van with her maid. I asked her why she had come
to town, and she said she had had an invitation from her
mother. I said, "How jolly for you." I asked if she had
brought up my things ; she said yes, at the same time
showing me a very small portmanteau. I asked her to call
at Lady Langford's and take tea; she reluctantly consented,
and I there unpacked the portmanteau, and found she had
left half my things behind.
By the Magistrate--I heard from a person at Dawlish
that my wife was coming to London. That was in 1855.
Witness—While we were at Dawlish we were in lodg-
ings. There was no reason for her coming to London. I
did not leave her without money. Wo lodged at Beech
House.

Mr. Metcalfe—Bo kind enough to fix the time when
you came from Dawlish to Sloane-street.
Witness—l can't say. I know it was cold weather. Mrs.
Rowley was at 69, Sloane-street twice, but I was there only
once I read the writ I have alluded to there, and I accused
my wife of giving the information where I was to be found.
Mrs. Rowley told me her mother had invited her, but—
Mr. Metcalf—We must have the mother if you want to
know that.
Witness—When I went to Mrs. Bishop's, the servant
said, " Lor I Mr. Rowley," and my wife said " hush." I did
not, while my wife was living in Upper Berkeley-street,
push her down, when she struck her head against the fen-
der. I most distinctly say such a statement is untrue. She
was sitting at the piano playing, when I remarked, " You
are playing false," in an angry tone. An altercation arose.
Mrs. Rowley flow into a violent passion and struck
me with something on the arm. I cannot say whether it
was a pistol, but I perfectly recollect her saying, " i wish the
pistol was loaded that I might shoot you, you brute."
She then went into one of her violent fits, and fell—l don't
know where. Captain Lambert was sitting near tho fen-
der, and I know he had to walk two or three steps to pick
her up, so I can't see how she could have struck her head
against the fonder.
Mr. Sleigh—Don't argue ; only answer the question.
Witness—During the whole of the timo I was awa
mother y from
my wife she received money—my money—from my

Lady Langford.
Mr. Orridge—Do you know that she received the money ?
Mr. Metcalfe—Lady Langford will be the beat person to

speak to that.
A receipt for £3O from Mrs. Rowley, through her solici-
tor, was then put in and read.
Witness—l never, during the quarrel I have just spoken
about, once touched or pushed her in the slightest manner.
"A short time after this Mrs. Rowley cause to me at my
lodgings, 42, Clarges-street. She used to stop two or three
hours. I used to take her out to theatres. 1 used to take
her home, remain at her lodgings all night, and then re-
turn to Clarges-street. In May, 18.56, a deed of separation

was talked of.
A letter, dated May 22, was here read from Mrs. Rowley,
declining the offer of £l,OOO as the terms of separation.
Witness—l had nothing to do with drawing up the deed
of separation. It was drawn up by a solicitor, and I certainly
named the sum of £l,OOO, but Mrs. Rowley refused any-
thing under £3,000. During the whole time I was living
with Mrs. Rowley, I state most decidedly I never beat
or ill-treated 'her in any way. I supplied her with money,
through my mother, Lady Langford. After we agreed to
separate in 1850, I paid no more money. I know £1,400
was paid to the trustees of Mrs. Rowley of money belong-
ing to me in January, 185 g.
Mr. Metcalfe—The money she had a right to by an
arrangement before the marriage, in consequence of your
being a minor when the wedding took place. You tried
all you could to prevent it. Tho money was in Chancery,
and you resorted to law proceedings to prevent her getting
it. Mrs. Rowley got the £1,400, but you had had £2,000
of hers, which you spent; so after all, she only got £1,400
for her £2,000.
Mr. Orridge (to witness)—ls it true that you were pre-
sent in the Court of Probate, peeping through a curtain
while the proceedings relative to the petition of Mrs. Row-
ley for a dissolution of marriage were going on ?
Witness—No, certainly not. I arrived at Westminster-
hall a quarter of an hour before the decree was made in the
Divoroo Court. I told Mr. Gustard I wanted to go in as I
had heard the nature of the charges made that day by Mrs.
Rowley. I wanted to go in and deny them. Mr. Gustard
advised me not to do so, as he said there would be a scene
in court, as Mrs. Rowley would throw herself into hysterics,
and then there would be no divorce. I went into the court
certainly for a short time, but I did not remain peeping
through a curtain.
Mr. Metcalfe—l wish my learned friend would fix upon
the letters he intends to use in this case, and then lot me
have them, as it would most certainly shorten my cross-
examination if I knew upon which of those letters ho re-
lied

Mr. Orridgo—lt has already been intimated that the
letters can be read by the learned gentleman who appears
for Mrs. Rowley.
Mr. Metcalfe—Yes, quite so ; but I should like to have
the originals in my possession for a short time.
Mr. Orridge—We will furnish you with copies.
Mr. Metcalfe—l think my request for the letters ought
not to be refused, the more so as ono of the reporters had
some of them in his possession to copy. There is a consi-
derable number, and it will take up a great deal of time to
do as my learned friend proposes.
Mr. Paynter—lt is very wrong that letters, after they
have been made evidence, should be handed over to a re-
porter, It is irregular, and I request it way not occur

• again. The letters certainly cannot bo all copied by to-

morrow.
Mr. Rowloy—l cannot attend to-morrow.
Mr. [silei,:sh—We had better, then, say Thursday for p-
lug cu with the case.
The further hearing of the summons was then adjourned
till Thursday, by which day Mr. Metcalfo, the counsel for
Mrs. Rowley, will be furnished with copies of the letters.
The Court was crowded to excess during the whole of the
proceedings.
•