The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord Campbell and a
Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. BOBINSON.—PERJURY.

This was a criminal proceeding against a gentleman
of fortune, residing at Cheltenham, and a magistrate of
the borough, for perjury, in a suit in the Ecclesiastical
Court for adultery with Mrs. Evans, the wife of a gentl.-
man residing in Gloucester. The case of trim. con. was
lately tried at Liverpool.
Mr. Sergeant Byles, Mr. Huddlestone, Q.C., Mr.
Hawkins, and Mr. Harrison were counsel for the pro-
secution ; Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Edward James, Q.C.,
and Mr. Hodgson were counsel for the defendant.
The assignment of perjury amounted to this, that the
defendant had had improper intimacy with the prose-
cutor's wife both before and atter marriage. The
unfortunate lady, whose conduct would be the subject of
inquiry, was a Miss Carrington, daughter of a gentle:
man of that name, residing in Lansdowne-terrace,
Cheltenham, and occupying a respectable position in
society. The defendant was also a person of respecta-
bility, residing at the same place, and a magistrate of
the borough. The defendant was a married man, but
had separated from his wife, owing, as he alleged
to their incompatibility of temper, while
living at Cheltenham, the defendant became intimately
acquainted with the lady's family, which, however, was
abused by the defendant, who had been several times,
known to kiss her there, and take other alleged famili-
arity. The lady was afterwards married to Mr. Evans,
a gentleman of property, residing in Gloucestershire,
but shortly after separated when acts of adultery were
alleged to have taken place at various parts of the
country and in London. The case had been twice tried.
On the first trial the defendant obtained a verdict, but
on the second the ♦erdict was for Mr. Evans, damages
5001. A. difficulty attended the proof of the perjury,
because in the Ecclesiastical Court the evidence,
according to the learned counsel, was taken in a "little
dark room" in private and sworn to afterwards. On the
affidavits there made the prosecutor could not obtain a
divorce, and these proceedings were rendered necessary
for that object.
Mr. Sergeant Byles having stated an outline of the
case, was about to call the following witnesses, when
Lord Campbell expressed a wish that as the details of
the case must be entered into in a court of law, that
for the sake of public morals they would not be made

public.
Mr. Sergeant Bytes Bahl that he heard that wish
expressed before sowing into court.
Evidence was then given of the manner in which the
proceedings were conducted in the Arches' Court in
cases of adultery. _ _

The libel, alleging adultery, was put in and read, set-
ting forth the marriage, &c., of the prosecutor, and Mrs.
Evans' answer, denying the statements in the libel. The
libel allege,' the circumstances stated in the evidence of
the prosecutor.
_ _ _

The witness handed in a deposition by the defendant,
sworn to on the 10th January, 1846, before Dr. William
Robertson, surrogate, and repeated and acknowledged
by him before Dr. Blake, another surrogate.

-
Mr. J. H. Nichol), proctor in the Arches Court, was
present, and heard the defendant sworn by Dr. Robert-
son.

Mr. FoAl4lr, examiner in the above Court, examined
the dAendaut. He repeated it and signed it before Dr.

R ibertson.

Tile deposition was read at full length. In it he
denied havitg said at the club, at Cheltenham, in re-
ference to Evans' marriage with Miss Carrington,
" Evans iy a slippery fish, but I think I've hooked hint
at last." The deposition also stated that he had not
taken improper liberties with Mrs. Evans, either before
or after her marriage with the prosecutor.
Mary Griffiths, an elderly female, deponed—l am
housekeeper to Miss Maxwell, near Tewkesbury, and
have been in her service 41 years. I have known the
defendant 26 years. I have seen Mr. Evans in 1845
and 1846, the defendant was in the habit of visiting Miss
Maxwell. •

Sir F. Thesiger objected to the evidence. The mar.
risge did not take place till 1854.

Lord Campbell—Any familiarity at that time would
not be ground for a divorce.
Sir F. Thesiger said there were no specific allega-
tione in the Arches Court previous to the marriage,
consequently no assignment of perjury on them.
Lord Campbell admitted the evidence. The defendant
had denied any committal of adultery before or after
marriage.
Witness continued—Miss Maxwell resides three miles
from Tewkesbury, on the Worcester-road. In front of
the house by the side there are two large gardens sepa-
rated by a wall ; there are shrubs and trees about
the garden. In 1845 my bed-room commanded
a view of the garden. The defendant visited them
three times in the course of the year 1845. Miss Car.
rington was there on each occasion. She was brought
by the defendant, who introduced her to Miss Max-
well. She was accompanied on two occasions by her
sister, and the third time by her father. The defendant
brought the lady into the kitchen to have some
bread and butter, and after that they all went
into the garden. The defendant walked with Miss
Carrington. I watched them from the window, and I
saw him with his arm round her neck and waist. If
I had not known the defendant to have been a married
man, I should have thought them lovers. Mr. Carring-
ton and Miss Maxwell, I think, were in the house at
that time. They could not have been seen by the two
latter.

Cross-examined by Sir F. Thesiger—This is the first
time I have given evidence in the case. I first mentioned
it to Mias Maxwell in 1846, and she went out when
they wrote to say they were coming again, because she
would not receive them, disapproving of their conduct.
I also mentioned it to Mr. Evans in January, 1856.
My bedroom window commands the whole of the garden.
Sir F. Thesiger protested against the evidence. It
was not alleged in the Ecclesiastical Court, and he was
not prepared with evidence to meet it.
Lord Campbell said he ruled it was evidence.
Walter Scroinon—l was page to Mr. Carrington in
1846. The defendant visited them generally Irons 2to
half-past 2 o'clock. After he got into the hall he used
generally to whistle. I then showed him up
into the drawing-room. He used not to ask for any one
particularly. Re had seen Miss Carrington (Mrs. Evans
look over the bannister with her dress off.
(The case was proceeding when we went to press.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
RE B. W. A. SLEIGH.
To-day Was appointed for the last examination of
Burrows William Arthur Sleigh, who was described as
a newsvender of the Strand ; he was also connected with
the Telegraph newspaper.
The balance-sheet, prepared by Messrs. Cooper and
"[eerie, extending from the Bth March, 1855, to the Ist
Nev. last, shows debtor to creditor, 4,6291. ; profits,
3,6421.; creditor by doubtful debts, 501.; trade expenses,
1,819/. ; law costs, 944/. ; house expenses, 2,569/. ;
losses, 2,3641. ; deficiency, Bth March, 1855, 5231.
Amongst the losses, 900/, is set down on the sale of
the Army Dispatch, to Major Walker, for which judg-
ment was obtained against the bankrupt, and expenses
a
1001. at Boston.
t elections, 783/, at Greenwich, 201. at Midhurat, and

Mr. Norton applied that the bankrupt might pass.
Mr. Yonge, on behalf of Major Walker, said the
accounts did not go far enough back, and proposed to
examine the bankrupt relative to property, of which
there was no mention in the balance-sheet.
His Honour said the balance-sheet began at the date
of the books, but the bankrupt might be examined.
Col. Sleigh, examined, said he was bankrupt in 1850.
After obtaining his certificate, he went to the United
States. He was a colonel and Justice of the Peace in
Prince Edward's Island. re,
—a purchased property there
to the extent of 120,000 acres. He was to pay for it
at so much per annuli). He paid the first instal-
ment of 500/. He obtained the colonelcy of militia ;
being a retired officer in her Majesty's service. There
was, however, some difficulty in recognising his title, and
ultimately he transferred it to Captain Grey, of the 7th
Dragoon Guards, who went out to settle there. When
he was in America he ran a steamer to carry
the mail from New York to Quebec. The spe-
culation proved to be a bad one, and he incurred
considerable liabilities. The steamer was lost, and
he incurred considerable liabilities, but they had been
discharged as well as all his other liabilities in the
United States. He petitioned the court in July, 1856,
under the Debtor and Creditor Arrangement Act, and
obtained limited protection. He did not remember the
statement he made for obtaining prolonged protection.
Mr. Yonge read the statement, by which it appeared
be stated that he had liabilities in America.
Witness said he was under the impression at the time
that he had in respect of the steamer, but on writing
over he obtained receipts in full. In Febrhary, 1854, he
received 9001. from Major Walker for the purposes of
the British Army Dispatch. Between the parting with
the British Army Dispatch he was travelling about the
United Kingdom with his family. The 900/. was not
employed in starting the morning paper.
The case was proceeding, and likely to occupy a con-
, eiderable time.