The Westerly echo, & Pawcatuck advertiser. [volume] (Westerly, R.I.) 1854-1858, 1856-08-28

Kingston-Augusf Term.

| tIuuCus
Peleg Clark, Jr VS.. Joseph Carpon-
ter--conti nued.
G.. A. Larkin vs.. Jos. 7. Nichols
Action for assault on plaintiffs wife.
A previous reference proved, which en-
braced this assault, as we'll as all other
matters in controversy. Verdict for
defendant. Sheffield for plaintiff, e.
Hazard for defendant.
Stephen Hoxie, T. Treas. vs.. Robert
Hendry. discontinued.
Christopher S. Crandall VS.. Gideon
Ammons-Title to real estate in ques-
tion under deed from the Sachem, Thos.
Ninigrct. Two questions made-that
the deed did not cover the land, and
that the statute of possession did not
apply to Indian land. The Court charg-
ed the Jury that the statute did apply
to Indian lands, and the jury found also
that the deed covered it. 4. r. Potter
and Dixon for plaintiff, Ashley and A.
C. Green for defendant.
Hiscox & Pierce VS. Esbon Sanford
Motion for new trial. This case relates
to dispute as to the water rights of
the parties. Argued by Dixon and
Updike for plaintiffs 4: A. G. and r.
W. Greene for defendant. Taken for
advisement.
Jed. w Knight VS.. Jas. B. Thomp-
Plaintiff discontinued.
Abby Il. Tillinghast vs.. Mary Tilling-
hast. The Supreme Court had set off
certain land to plaintiff as her alimony
being divorced, and the husband, Stuke-
ly Tillinghast had conveyed it away to
his mother. The principle of law Of
general interest announced in this trial
was, that any conveyance by man, with
view to deprive his wife of alimony
out his estate in case she obtains O
divorce from him, is fraudulent and void
If the grantee be privy to this in
terest. Verdict for plaintiff. Dixon
and Updike for plaintiff, Blake for de-
fendant.
Thos. Ennis VS.. Stephen Burdick-
Flowage; discontinued.
Pierce Handel VS.. Stanley Webb
j Settled.
State VS.. Stukely Tillinghast--In-
dictment far assault on his wife. Mrs.
T. was residing with her mother, having
left her husbands place Of abode some
weeks previously, in the determination
of applying for divorce from him, tax.
ing with her her latest born intact, few
weeks only, but leaving with her ius-
band their three Oldest children. Under
these circumstances, Tillinghast, with
some eight of his friends and associates,
goes to the house of the mother OF Mrs.
I. where, Tillinghast seeing his wife at
an open window, said be had come after
the baby and must have it. The wife
replies that he has the three older child
rem, and she shall retain the infant, and
thereupon closes the window, her moth
er simultaneously closing and fastning,
by buttoning, the outer door of the
house. Tillinghast then, at the door,
demanded admission, aud on its refusal
lifts the latch and forces open the door !;
and then, either entering the house or
merely stepping over the threshold and
reaching in takes his wife by the arm,
leads or pulls her out of doors, with
her child in her arms lifts her into the
wagon, the child in its night clothes, the
wife bare headed, and drives TO the
house of his brother, about three fourths
of mile distant.
, Attorney General Hart contends that
these facts show an assault and battery
, on the part of all, Tillinghast illegally
touching the person of the assailed, the
others being present with the intent Of
: aiding in the enterprise if occasion
, arose.
Blake for defendants, maintains that
no violation of law is proved on the part
: of any one of his clients. A husband,
he conceded, has not, IN this State, a
right to inAict corporeal chastisement
t upon bis wife, whatever her offence be,
as he may upon his children; but has,
be contended, a right of dictation and
control as to the residence, the associa
tons, the visitines, &c. &C., of bis wife
, nd, as Necessary incident of this right,
, may lawfully use u IcasOnablo measure
Of physical force, to restrain, coerce and
persuade his better half to obey his COM
mands or conform to his wishes.
This defence the ATTORNEY G eneral