The Express.
London, England, 1861-02-23 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

LAMBETH.

Mr. Henry Loral:, a young German, was charged with
violently breaking into the dwelling-house of Mrs. Pears.,
a widow, in Warnford.road, Peckham.
The complainant said that the prisoner and his wife had
been lodgers in her house, but their bill for board and
lodging having amounted to over 501., she served him with
notice that she could not afford to keep them any longer.
At that time the prisoner proceeded to Hull, where be re-
mained about three months, and on bis return some days
ago he insisted on his coming to live again at her house, but
she refused to admit him, his object being to live upon his
wife, a perfect lady, and entitled to considerable property.
On the night before, he came to the house with another
man, and demanded admittance, and when refused, both
commenced to break in a door with a hammer. His wife,
dreading the consequences of his getting to her room, called
out for assistance, when a constable came, sad took the
prisoner into custody. The damage done was 9s.
The prisoner, in reply to the charge, said that when pro-
ceeding to Hull his wife accompanied him to the steamer,
and they parted the best possible friends, his wife kissing
him at the time, but on his return he could get no account
from the complainant of her or him child, when it was quite
evident she knew where they were. He found out that
they were at Mrs. Peon's. He spoke to a policeman as to
what he should do, and was told by him that he had a
right to go where his wife and child were, and therefore he
thought he should be justified in forcing his way into the
house.

The wife, a tall and showily dressed young woman, here
mid that on the evening before she had been compelled to
seek the protection of Mr. Sells, the magistrate at the
Thames Police, for protection against the violence of her
husband in that district, and a summons was granted to her
sod appointed for hearing on Monday next. Her husband,
she said, had been in the habit of treating her with great
cruelty, and it was her intention to take proceediogs against
him in the Divorce Court for a judicial separation, on the
ground of cruelty.
In reply to the questions of the magistrate, she said she
first met the prisoner at parties, and that their marriage
was rather a hasty one.
The prisoner said that if such had been the case, it had
been urged on by his wife herself and her friends.
The wife denied this, and further said that when they
were married her husband was a merchant and bad offices
in Austinfriars, but soon after be was arrested for debt and
lost his business. He subsequently took offices in Fen-
churchotreet, but was unable to get on.
The prisoner said the cause of his failure wee a dishonest
partner, and his not being able to get into business again
was owing to his not being able to get money that had been
promised to him. He should not annoy his wife, he said,
tf she bad, as she should have done, gone to live with her
sister or some relation, and not with strangers.
The wife repeated her determinatiou not to live with
him again. She said her uncle was Lord Chief Justice of
Scotland, her cousin a distinguished barrister in the Temple,
and she had, therefore, the beet legal advice as to the pro-
ceedings she meant to adopt.
The prisoner was ordered to pay 9e., the amount of the
damage, and also to find hail for his good conduct towards
his wife for one month.