The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-01-17 00:00:00

OUR FOREIGN TRADE.

Tables relating to the foreign trade of 1884 as
compared with 1883 has been published. They show
that there has been a very heavy falling-off in imports,
the total value of the imports for 1884 being nearly
£36.000,000 less than for 1883. The diminution in
the imports of corn of different descriptions accounts
for more than .£19,000,000 of this amount, and the
diminution in the value of the sugar imported for
more than £5,000,000 of the remainder. The decline
in the value of these imports is of course principally
due to the extremely low prices to which
these articles fell during last year, a fall that
has already thrown a large number of sugar
estates out of cultivation, and is believed to have
considerably reduced the area under wheat. The ex-
ports also show a decline of some seven millions:The
principal decline has been in the exports of cotton,
which have fallen in value £4,313,000, and iron and
steel articles, which show a decline to the extent of
£4,102,000. The decline in the value of cotton ex-
ported is largely due to a decline in prices, the falling
off in quantity being only about 2,1 per cent. It
cannot be said that these figures are very cheering;
but they show less contraction of business than the
returns of France and Germany. There is general
commercial depression, and though England has had
her share of it she has more than held her own as
compared with other nation*.

SINGULAR. CASE OF MATRIMONIAL
DIFFERENCES,

At the Marylebone Police-court, London on Mon"
day, George Griffith, of 200, Stanhope - street,
Euston-road, appeared on a summons fbr assaulting
Laurette Susannah Griffith, his wife, on January 4.
Mr. S. B. Abrahams, solicitor, appeared for the
defence. The complainant said she lived at 19,
Upper Baker-street, Regent's-park, and was not
living with the defendant, who was her husband.
Last Sunday week the defendant dined with her, and
in the evening she went to church. On returning
she found that he was intoxicated, and at his request
she made him some tea. He then called her an
offensive name, and threw his tea into the fender.
Ile again used abusive, language, and threw peri-
winkle shells into her face. She protested against his
conduct, and he spat in her face, and then she lost her
temper and threw the shells on to the floor. Ho said
"I mean to ill-treat you as much as I like, and when
my recogAsances are out I will wipe off the old score.
I I either care for you nor Mr. Cooke (the magis-
trate), and I will pay Mr. Cooke when I meet him."
He made use of other expressions, and in the end
tlitT.w her against the wall, causing her great pain.
By the Magistrate: She had brought the defendant
to this court twine before, and he was ordered to find
sureties for his good behaviour. On the last occasion
it was agreed that they should separate, and a deed
was drawn up which she signed, but he refused to do
so. Cross-examined by Mr. Abrahams: The com-
plainant denied entreating the defendant to come back
to her after they bad separated. Mr. Abrahams:
Are you prepared to sign the deed of separation now
if your husband will agree to do so? The Com-
plainant: I am, and should only be too glad
to do so. Cross-examination continued: It was
true a gentleman came up to her on the Sunday
iu question, and inquired what was the matter, but
she refused to inform him. Her husband had not had
reason to complain of her in regard to her behaviour
with certaia gentlemen, or as to her insobriety. The
defendant had been staying at her house for the past
fortnight, as he was suffering from gout and wanted
her to nurse him. Mr. Abrahams, for the defence,
gave an absolute denial to accusations made by the
complainant. How was a man to defend himself, he
asked, against a clever and artful woman? She had
coaxed him to return to her and he had yielded, and
when he spoke of goin&away again as her conduct was
unbearable, she trumped up this case against him. His
client was most anxious to separate from the com-
plainant. Mr. Cooke (interrupting) remarked that
that was not the fact. On a previous occasion the
defendant absolutely and persistently refused to sign
a deed of separation. mt. Abrahams said that if that
was so he was incorrectly instructed, and he should
simply ask the magistrate to hesitate before convict-
ing. He suggested an adjournment. Mr. Cooke said
he should adjourn the case, and if a properly executed
deed between the parties was placed before him he
should probably call upon the defendant to find sure-
ties, but if there was no deed he should most likely
send the case for trial.