The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-04 00:00:00

Lath Intelligence.

HOUSE OF LORI/S.—YESTERDAY.
I sea's DIVORCE.
In this caw,when it was before their lordship on the 18th
of 3lareh last, the further hearing of the second reading of
the hilt was adjourned for the production of further evi
dente. The facts, which were fully reported in the Daily
Sties of 19th March, were shortly as follows .—The peti-
tioner is Edward Jones, and he seeks to be divorced from
Elisabeth, his wife, on the ground of her adultery. The peti-
tioner was formerly • commercial traveller residing at
Taunton, in Somersetsbire, but is now living in Clark-
street, Lristol. In 1829 lie was married to his present
wife, thee Elisabeth Wyllie, and up to the year 1840 their
marriage was a happy one, and they had • family of eight
children. In 1840 they removed to Bristol, and Mr.
.101100.11 vocation as a commercial traveller caused him to
be much from home, and it was during his absence that
the adultery complained of was committed. In that year
he became acquainted with a Mr. D Hill Ward, a
person who was living independently on his means, and
who became a lodger in the house of Mr. Jones. It was
alleged, that during the time Mr. Ward was an inmate of
the house. frequent acts :of adultery with Mrs. Jones took
plate. The petitioner had no knowledge or suspicion of
such a thing until 1841, when Mrs. Jones became addicted
to immoderate drinking, and that to such an extent as to
cause mental aberration, and for 'tome months she was eon-
fined in Dr. Coes asylum, at Bristol, from which, however,
she was discharged. It was stated that she was now
living in the neighbourhood of the Regent's I'ark
in open adultery. It was stated that the petitioner
was in • condition to prove acts of adultery on the part
of Mrs. Jones, n2t only with Mr. Ward, but with several
other prone in the absence of her husband, besides
conduct of the grossest obscenitT. In 1815 proceedings
were instituted in the Consistonal Court of Bristol for •
divorce a mews et thoro, which were not concluded till
1817, in consequence of certain responsive allegations on
I the part of Mrs. Jones, charging her husband with cruelty
and adultery, but which the court declared not proved, and
pronounced for the divorce. An action at law was brought
against Mr. Ward in 1847, but, in consequence of Mr.
Jones's tains becoming so embarrassed as to terminate in
his bankruptcy, it was not brought to trial, but ended in •
judgment as in case of a nonsuit. Mr. Ward had lent Mr.
Jones a sum of 5001., and mutual releases had been exe-
cuted between them in settlement of Mr. Jones's claims. It

- -
was stated that the petitioner had been unab!o to come be-
fore their lordships sooner than he had on account of his
being unable to bear the expense; nor could be have done
so at all, but far its having been recently ascertais•l that •
pentium r could coma futon" the house in forma pauperis.
On the former bearing evidence was given which went to
show numerous cases of the strongest end almost incontro-
vertible suspicion of acts of adultery on the part of Mrs.
Jones, and the most direct proof was given of the grossest
indecency and immoral language and behaviour. The
hearing was then adjourned in consequence of the absence
of the attesting witnesses to certain documents.
The case was now resumed, and the attesting witnesses
being present, deposed to the execution of mutual releases
between Mr. Jones and Mr. Ward, and also to the execu-
tion of a deed by Mrs. J.mes after the separation a menu
et thoro, iry which she divided certain property to which
she had become entitled into thirds, one of which was ap-
portioned to her husband, another to her children, and the
other reserved to herself.

Mr. Jacob Strickland, attorney, of Bristol, stated that he
had known Mr. Jones, the petitioner, for 25 years. In
July, 1818, his pecuniary circumstances were very bad, and
he became bankrupt. Ile had been very poor ever since.
Witness believed the proceedings at law against Mr. Ward
had been abandoned in consequence of the conduct of Mr.
Jones's then attorney, Mr. tisriby. la the proceedings
in the Consistorial Court the judge Dr. Phillimore, ap-
peared to think there was reason to believe that liartoy,
the attorney, had been intimate with Jones's wife. Wit-
ness did not snow whether Hsrtby advised the compromise
of the action. Witness did not act as attorney to Jones
during the progress of the action and during the suit to
obtain a divorce " a mensa et there " although he gave him
advice. Ile knew Jones owed Ward 5001. er 8001., and he
knew of the mutual release between Jones and Ward, but
on after it had taken place.
Coline Close stated that she went to live as servant to
Mr. Jones, in College green, Bristol, in 1841. Mr. Jones
was frequently absent from home for a considerable time.
Remembered Mr. Ward's living in Mr. Jones's house at
that time. Remembered once seeing Mrs. Jones sitting on
Mr. Ward's knee and kissing him. It was in the drawing-
room of Mrs. Jones's own house. It was in the day-time.
Mr. Jones was in Bristol at the time, but not in the house.
Witness saw him that day in Bristol. Mr. Ward generally
occupied the drawing-room. Witness never saw Mr.
Ward take liberties with Mrs. Jones in the presence of
her husband. Mrs. Jones always conducted herself before
her husband like a prudent woman. Witness recollected a
gentleman coming to the house and Mrs. Jones's meeting
him. She called him "My dear," took him round the
leek, and kissed him. She was generally a prudent woman,
but at times, from drinking, she was not fit company
fur anyone. Witness heard Mn. Jones refuse to take a
=
of
anything in the presence of her husband. After she
the gentleman they went into the dining-room' after
which witness tried the door, having occasion to go into the
room, and found it locked. Did not recollect whether this
wee before or after the occurrence with Mr. Ward. After
Mn. Jones was removed to the Lunatic Asylum, witness
aemmunieated what she knew to Mr. Jones, but not before.
Mr. Jonas always treated his wife with the greatest kind-
ness. Mr. Jones was not much in the habit of walking out
with his wife, but Mr. Ward was. Those walks were ge-
nerally in the daytime. Mrs. Jones of ten came in quite In-
'imitated with the other servant, Eliza. The whole three,
lb. Ward, Mrs. Jones, and the servant, would come in in-
Insicated. Did not ever see Mr. Jones go out with Mrs. Jones
and Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward was living at Mr. Jones's when
witness entered his service. Witness after she left Mr.
Ames went to Cardiff to live. While there the gentleman
whom Mrs. Jones kissed in the pangs came there and
asked witness not to give evidence against Mrs. Jones.
This being the whole of the evidence,
The Lord Chancellor said that before finally disposing of
the second reading, he should move that the evidence be
pedant. He felt bound to say that the septet in which the
matter now stood was a very doubtful one, and he did not
think that it would be consistent with the interests of
society for their lordships to accede to thin bill. There
could be no doubt that there was something like a compro-
mise between the adulterer and the petitioner. Besides it
was stated that the conduct of the wife was always decent
la the presence of her husband, but in his absence was
each as would disgrace the commonest strumpet in the
streets. Could their lordships possibly believe that the
husband could for years be unaware of her disgusting and
disgraceful conduct, and believed her to be a virtuous and
well-conducted woman, while she was in fact everything
that was depraved and abandoned ? Again an action at law
had been brought by the petitioner which was suffered to
lapse, the costs foregone, and a debt of the husband to the
sifted adulterer released, while the only explanation that
wan given of all this was the poverty of the husband. He
should not advise their lordships at once to say not content
to the second reading, but his impression was most unfa-
vourable to the petitioner.
Lord St. Leonard's said that this was a difficult and most
saspicious cue. It appeared that Mr. Jones suffered Mr.
Ward, a single man, to live in his house during his absence,
when he must have been aware that his wife was addicted
te intoxication • and leaving her thee without a sufficient
the akiiet inevitable consequence ensued. It was
Mil ant timildagnmolmovy notes given by Jones to Ward
bah Imo tliesoyel; that might be so; but it was clear
*at all the while this was going on Jones had been from
Mae to time borrowing sums et money from Ward, which
lathe end reached 4001. . • and it was probable that that was
&reason why the husband was not very careful of his wife,
sad did not Wok very sh irp after Ward. The action at law
ended in judgment as in case of a non-suit, by which Jones
hid to pay the cats; instead of the question being tried
Anther he was to receive damages and costs or not. Than
ASO WO • compromise for the discharge of Jones's debt to
Went, is consideration of a release to him of all liability
be damages ; and then as regarded the lapse of time before
this petition was presented, the only reason given was that
Jones was in bad pecuniary circumstances. It appeared
that in 18-19 Mrs. Jones became entitled to some property,
and that subsequent to the divorce " a menu et there,"
she executed a deed by which it was agreed that one-
third should be given to Mr. Jones, one-third to the chil-
dren, and the other third remain the property of Mrs. Jones;
and there was a covenant in the deed that she should not
only give a release of all her rights under her marriage-
settlement, but also that she should join in every act neces-
sary to obtain a divorce " a vinculo matrimonii." lie (Lord
St. Leonard's) was of opinion that it was altogether a case of
concert among the parties, and be thought it would be ex-
ceedingly difficult to persuade their lordships to consent to
the second reading of the bill.
The matter was then further adjourned, and the evidence
ordered to be printed.

BAIL COURT.-YESTERDAY.
81111,04 IN 14000.- BM= YL JUITICE COLLLID3Z.
THE QU.EIN V. GREHONT.-(11.10 WAILKANTO.

sassed Ringleader, which be enticed for the Grand Open
Rank Heap Steeplechase, of which race, the defendants were
stvwaras i that, as such stewards, it was the defendant:
duty to use due and proper care, in and about the said
race, and to decide which horse was first. That although,
on the 23rd February, 1843, the plsintiff's horse started fair, ,I
ran along the coarse, and arrived first at the winning pmt,1
yet, through the gross and wrongful negiigenee of the de-
fendants, in not appointing a proper person to decide which
horse was first, the said horse of the plaintiff was not ad-
judged first, and the plaintiff did not receive the stakes.
To this declaration there was a general demurrer, and the
question raised for the consideration of the court was, whe-
ther the circumstances stated in the declaration were suffi-
cient to render the stewards liable in this action.

The court intimated an opinion that the declaration, in
its present form, would not do; but leave was given to the
plaintiff's counsel to amend it.

COURT OF

r....YESTERDAY.

Bums Ma. Comussontia FONULANIAVE.
IN al BARBEIL-A CHISELS! CILIDITOIL-Ex

NARY SCRNR IN Cot HT.
The bankrupt was a grocer and tea-dealer, in Bishops-
gate-street. This wu the meeting for the choice of
assignees. His debts are about 1,6001. The only peculiarity
in the cue was the appearance of Chinaman, who had been
employed be the bankrupt as a ehopmau, and who claimed
payment of 381., as an arrear of wages. He gave his name
Chun•Ahmen, and was attended by a countryman of his
own, who, having a tolerable knowledge cf English, acted
as interpreter. Some difficulty presented itself as to the
mode of swearing the witness; and as the court could not
learn that he properly understood the obligation of an oath,
this formality was dispensed with, and he was questioned
as to the nature of his claim. It appeared that he had been
about two years in the service of the bankrupt ; he is be.
lievcd to be one of the crew who came over in the Chinese
Junk. The claim of 381. was for a year's service. lie
expected to be paid in full; but on its being ex-
plained to him that he could only receive three
months' wages in full, and most prove and take
a dividend for the remainder, he fell into a violent pas-
sion, and ultimately rushed out of court, threatening to
bang himself if his claim were not at once discharged in
full. His friend the interpreter strove to calm him, but in
vain. After a short absence, he again marched into the
court, and created some alarm by his wild gesticulations.
He addressed himself to the solicitor under the bankruptcy
in a menacing manner; he was again offered the three
months' salary in full, but persisted in rejecting it, and
ultimately left the court, making peatomimic motions with
his hand acres his throat to indicate his determination.
His Mend ran after him, apparently for the purpose of
taking care of him. All the parties soon alter left the
court. It was stated that this Chinaman is the same who
figured at the Exhibition as a Chinese mandarin, and who,
on the opening, was honoured with a place near Ler
Majesty.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.-YESTERDAY.
BIM! Mi. BOJWIT ADAMS, ASIIITAAT ICIIOI AT CLAIKTNITI
TRANSPORTATION OP ♦ MARINE STORE KEEPER.

John Hines, 54, a marine store dealer, was indicted for
having feloniously received two pewter pots, the property
of William Bißinger, well knowing them to be stolen.
The prosecutor was a beer-shop keeper in Philip-street,
St. George's-in-the-East, and the pots were stolen by four
boys—deplorable looking objects—three of whom were exa-
mined as witnesses. From their evidence it appeared that
they took the pots—a pint and a half pint one—to the pri-
soner's shop, in Ilosemary-lane, and sold them to him at the
respective prices of 3d. and lid. The pri-over before they
left the shop took up a chopper and broke up the pots and
melted them in an iron pot. The pewter pots had the pro•
secutor's name marked upon them, and the iron pot which
the police found at the prisoner's shop, and which the boys
identified as that in which the stolen property was melted,
appeared to have been used to some extent in the process.
The Assistant Judge put it to the jury whether they were
satisfied with the evidence of tke boys—if they were they
must find the prisoner guilty.
The jury immediately found the prisoner Guilty.
The Assistant Judge said the court would nut be doing
it. duty to the public if it did not in the strongest possible
manner mark its sense of the very serious crime of which
the prisoner Lad been found guilty. The jury could not he
thought, have given any other verdict according to their
oaths, and for the sake of example to other marine store
dealers—and he hoped every one in the metropolis would
know the result of this ease—tke sentence of the court
was that the prisoner be transported for fourteen yean.
The three bays, who were examined as witnesses, were
committed fur stealing the pats, but the indictment was
not preferred and they were discharged.
John Taylor, 42, was indicted for having unlawfully as-
saulted and beaten Jane and James Taylor, his children.
Mr. Metcalfe appeared for the prosecution, at the instance
of the parochial authorities of St. Pancras.
This prosecution was taken up by the parish authorities,
in consequence of the defendant having turned his two
children out of doors, and severely Neaten them with a
leather strap. About two years ago the defendant's wife
died, and a Mrs. Ellis went to live with him. lie was a
collector for a person at Maidenhead, and lived in Milford-
place, St. Pancras, and the children whose names were in
the indictment were aged respectively 10 and 8 years. It
appeared that on the 10th of April they went to an elder
sister, who had been turned out of doors by the de-
fendant, and was then living in Eden-street, and complained
that their father had beaten them, and turned them out.
She took them back, but they were turned out again, and
the boy had then nothing on but his shirt and trowsererand
hie useo we. bleeding. As length they were taken to the
workhouse, as the defendant refused to take them in, and
at that time both were bruised. They were fetched from
the workhouse, and slept at the defendant's house that
night, bat they were turned out again next morning after
being beaten, and the elder sister took them again to the
workhouse. These beatings were with a leathern strap
about two feet long and an inch wide, and believing them
to have been excessive and improper, the parish authorities
instituted these proceedings.
In cross-examination, the boy stated that his father never
best him but once before, and that since his mother had
died, he had been well treated, well fed, and well clothed,
he had had pocket-money given him, his father had taken
him out and bought him cakes and fruit. The defendant
had beaten him and his sister, because, as he said, they had
stolen 41. from him, and he beat them on the previous oc-
casion because, he said, they had stolen St. It was not true
that they had stolen it, but their father said they had.
Mr. Birnie, for the defence, urged upon the jury that the
defendant had not made an improper use of that discretion
which was given to a father for the due correction of hie
children ; and that the beating which he bad given these
children, under the provocation of believing they had stolen
his money, was not beyond proper limits, hut, on the con-
trary, just such correction as a father, under such circum-
stances, might be expected to adminster.
The Assistant Judge, in summing up, said every father
had a right to administer proper correction to his children ;
and the only question the jury had to decide was, whether
there had been any excess in this instance. They were not
to measure such matters with too great a nicety, but at the
same time they must see that a parent did not use cruelty
instead of proper chastisement.
The jury found the defendant Guilty, under mitigating
circumstances ; and the court, concurring with the jury,
sentenced him to 3 weeks' imprisonment, Ina having been in
prison 3 weeks already.
The Assistant Judge said the conduct of Mr. Birchmore,
the officer of the parish, in the case, was very commendable.
It was a prosecution taken up in the cause of humanity,
and the ease was a fit one to be prosecuted.
The costs were allowed.

Mr. Lush showed cause against a rule calling upon
Charles Blundsdell Gregory to show by what authority l'c
exercised the office of town councillor of the borough of
Marlborough. The affidavits upon which the rule had been
obtained stated that the defendant had neither resided in
the borough nor been rated to the poor of the borough a
sufficient time previous to his being elected town councillor.
It was now shown that to had resided in the borough, and
that he had been rated to the poor under the name of
Charles Gregory, which was the name of his father, who
had transferred his house and business to Gregory, the son,
before the time when it was necessary for him to Income a
householder in order to he put on the burgess list, which
would entitle him to become a candidate for the office of
town councillor. The affidavit of the overseer of the parish
said that Charles Blunodeel Gregory was intended to be
rated, and that if the overseer had been aware that his
name had been Charles Blansdell Gregory it would have
beau so written when he was rated ; but, not being aware
of that fact, it bad hems given as Charles Gregory only.
Mr. Fortescue appeared in support of the rule, and con-
tended that the name would rule the decision.

Mr. Justice Coleridge, in giving judgment,said
he was of
opinion that Charles BlMudell Gregory was really the person
intended to be rated, and he therefore discharged the rule
with cats.—Bale discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YESTERDAT.
Srmnog la Bern.—litroas Cum, Jcnrrcs 'yawl,. Ma. Jr/nCe
CLINDWIIIy Ye. itRICE WILLIAM', AND MI. 'MICE TALMLiD.
!WS' V. WEST AND 011till8.—ACTION AOAINSI IDE
STEWARDS OF A STEEPLECHASE.

This was ndentarrer to a declaratior, which dated as the
and of action that the plaiatiff was the owner of a horse

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 4, 1853.