The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 3, 1864

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF DIVORCE,
(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Common Jury.)
WRIGHT V. WRIGHT, BUNTING AND BIIICKNELL.
This was a petition presented by the husband, a butcher,
carrying on business in Clerkenwell, praying for a dissolu-
tion of the marriage on the ground of adultery committed
by the wife with the co-respondents.
The case, during its development, was one of great de-
pravity. The marriage took place in 1846, and the final
separation in 1851. Previous to the respondent leaving
her husband she used to frequent low places of entertain-
ment, and on which occasions she would remain from home
daring the night, and it was during this course of dissipation
that the particular acts mentioned in the petition were com-
mitted.
Robert Oxenham, Mrs. Sermon, and other witnesses hav-
ing been examined,
Mr. William Higgins, a coffeeheuse keeper at 60. Red
Crosa-street, said in Nov. 1855, a cabman brought a woman
to his house. She stayed all night as she was very drunk.
She kept sending the servant out for brandy. As she did
not get up the next morning at the usual time ono of the
servants went up, and, from what was told him, he went
into the room, and there found a number of deeds and
jewellery lying about the room. He considered it his duty
to read a portion of the documents, and after doing so, he
discovered the address of Mr. Wright, with whom he im-
mediately communicated. In a short time the petitioner
arrived, and he (witness), in company with Mr. Wright,
went up to the apartments. Petitioner asked the respon-
dent for his keys. At first she refused to give them up, bat
afterwards she threw thom on the ground. Mr. Wright
who seemed quite overcame, gathered up the papers and
left the house.
Mr. John Watson, clerk to the solicitor for the petitioner,
proved the handwriting of two letters written from Norfolk
as that of the respondent, Mrs. Wright.
For the defence some witnesses, relatives of the respon-
dent, gave evidence to prove cruelty on the part of the
petitioner, and also to prove adultery had previously been
committed by her with persons unknown.
Rebutting evidence was then called on the part of the
petitioner.
The foreman of the jury said his colleagues did not re-
quire to hoar a single word in reply. They had made up
their minis more than an hour ago.
On being asked by the officer of the court what their de-
cision was,
The foreman said they were of opinion that the respondent
had been guilty of the charges brought against her in the
petition.
Tht Judge Ordinary immediately issued a decree nisi,
with costs, against the co-respondent.
As the parties concerned in the cause were preparing to
leave the Court,
His lordship said he considered the answers to:the peti•
Lion filed in the cause was most disgraceful. In them the
respondent deliberately swore to every srecies of cruelty
as having been committed towards her, and yet not the
slightest effort had been made to sustain or prove one of
them. It was the most disgraceful proceeding that had
ever come within his knowledge and he would tee whether
he could not put a stop to it for the future.
Mr. Brewster (one of the counsel concerned in the de-
fence), said he hoped his lordship did not think he was
concerned in the matter, as ho had nothing to do with
those answers, neither had he seen them before they were
put on the file of court.
His Lordship did not impute any blame to the learned
gentleman; he was too well acquainted with the high
honour of all the gentlemen practising in the court to blame
any of them for such a state of things. To mark his feeling
in the matter, he should give orders that the costs of that
answer should not be allowed, and thus prevent them from
falling upon the husband.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Pane.)
IN RE PAYBODY.
This bankrupt was described as of Kettering, innkeeper,
and this was a meeting for last examination and release
from custody.
Mr. Camp opposed on behalf of Mr. Hecknott, hop mer-
chant, on the ground that the bankrupt had obtained hops
to the value of £52 4s on the representation that the inn and
brewhouse were his own property, but it was afterwards
ascertained that this was a misrepresentation. The bank-
rupt sold the hops a day or two after they were delivered,
and even afterwards petitioned this court. Ile had been
in prison for seven months. Mr. Camp urged that this was
a very gross cue of obtaining goods under false pre-
tences.
His Honour thought the bankrupt had been sufficiently
punished, and granted the release.
IN RE GROVER.
This bankrupt was described as a vocalist, of Fulham,
and this was a meeting for last examination and discharge.
Tho debts are £lsl—no assets.
There was no opposition, and tho order of discharge was
granted.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE ELLIS.
This bankrupt was described as of the M inaries, plumber
and glazier. The acer,unts by Messrs. Johnstone, Wintle,
and Co , show debts £1,193. do. holding security, £705.
Credit by do. good £l5O, property given up, £lll.
Mr. J. B. Sorrell, Mark-lane, appeared for the assignees,
and the order of discharge was granted.

RE lIARDISTY.
This bankrupt was a clerk in the offico of the Poor-law
Board, residing in Prospect-place, Wandsworth-road. His
debts are about £9OO. The assets, consisting of furniture,
had been assigned under a bill of sale, but have since been
recovered for the estate.
The case was adjourned for further investigation.
RE DANIELS AND DIARR.-lIEAVY FAILURES.
The bankrupts had carried on an extens ve business as
merchants, in Cannon-street, but both have incurred habil' •
tics to the extent of £3,1300. This woe a meeting for last
examination, but as the bankrupts did not surrender they
were proclaimed in the usual manner.
Mr. Cooper, of the firm of Johnstone, Cooper and Co., is
appointed manager of the estate.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Tbia Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
SINGULAR CHARGE OF ROBBEILY.—Itiary Wright, a
married woman about 50 years of age, was charged before
Mr. Barber, who sat for Mr. Ku( x, with stealing the sum
of £.l, 10s. from the person of Mr. Tomlin, cutler, of 9,
Market-street, Newport-market.
Mr. Tomlin, an elderly man, said—l have known the
prisoner for years, and her husband is a customer of mine.
As ehe called on me yesterday, I asked her whether she
would take a glass of anything. She said she would, and
I told her to fetch a quarters of rum, and we afterwards had
another. We then went to a publichouse and had some
more, and I left her there and went to a neighbour's. On
going home again I found the prisoner lying on a sofa.
In answer to Mr. Barker, the prosecutor said he charged
the prisoner because there was no one else to charge. Ile
had lain down alongside her and went to seep, and when
he awoke he missed his money. He was not quite sober.
The prisoner denied taking the money, and a constable
stated when she was searched at the station, only one
shilling and a penny piece were found upon) her.
Mr. Barker discharged the prisoner.
ROBBERY AT A TAVERN.—Stephen Wright, a labourer,
was charged before Mr. Barker with stealing a quantity of
plated forks and knives and spoons from the pantry of the
Cranbourn Tavern, Cranbourn-street.
The potman in the employ of Mr. Watson, the landlord
of the Cranbourne, having deposed to sewing the prisoner in
the pantry with the artioles of the value of £3 in his pos-
session, and Sergeant Gordon, 0 C, having proved taking
the prisoner into custody,
Mr. Barker asked the prisoner whaler he would plead
before him or go for trial.
The prisoner admitted his guilt, and was oommitted for
three months with hard labour,

...• •••••• .41,

THAMES.

DRUNK OR SOBER.—AriIAT ON TIIR BLACRIVALL
Rethway.— Henry Byford, a well-dressed man, was
brought before Mr. Partridge, charged with being noisy on
the Blackwell Railway, ttud esaeulting James Dewdney, a
signalman.
It appeared from the evidenoe that on the arrival of the
Woolwich train at the Shadwell station of the London and
Blackwell Railway at half-past four o'clock yesterday after-
noon, the prisoner was standing in the doorway and ob•
struoted the passengers who were passing out. He was
requested by a porter named James Floy 1 to pass on
down the platform, where he would be out of the way.
The prisoner used the most disgusting language to the
officer, and threatened him. The passengers leaving
the train were put to groat inconvenience, and as the
prisoner refused to doaist, James Dowdney. a signalman,
tuok him by the arm and led him down the stairs. The
prisoner turned round on the signalman on the stairs and
struck him. He also seized him by the throat and tore his
collar right away. A police constable was called, and the
prisoner was given into custody. All the witnesses said the
prisoner was the worse for liquor, and two of them said he
was neither drunk nor sober. Mr. Partridge asked the
constable, 498 K, if the prisoner was drunk or sober ? Ile
replied that ho was neither one or other.
Mr. Partridge could not understand such fine drawn dis-
tinctions. A man was said to be the worse for liquor, lout
not drunk, and two witnesses said that he was not drunk
and was not sober. A man must be ono thing or the other.
The I risoner said ho was making a little merry with some
sailors on the platform, and if he had :offended anyone ho
was sorry for it. He caught the signalman Dewdney, who
was pushing him down stairs, to save himself from tailing.
Dlr. Robert Wilding, of No. 23, Newgate-market, said
he was with the prisoner, and confirmed his statement up
to the period of being led away by the signalman. They
had been drinking a little wine.
Mr. Partridge said it was nit proved the prisoner was
drunk. The sooner the police constable Stapleton could
give a decided answer the better. He fined the prisoner
203. The money was paid.