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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF DIVORCE,
(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Common Jury.)

WRIGHT V. WRIGHT, BUNTING AND BRICKNELL.
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. Preuious to the respondent leaving
her husband she used to frequent low places of entertain-
ment, and on which occasions she would remain from home
during the nighr, and it was during this course of dissipation
that the particular acts mentioned in the petition were cow-

milted.
Robert Oxenham, Mrs. Sermon, and other witnesses hav-
ing been examined,
Mr. William Higgins, a coffoeheuse keeper at 60. Red
Cross•street, said in Nov. 18.55, 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, ho went
into the room, and there found a number of deeds and
jewellery lying about the room. lie considered it hie duty
to read a portion of the documents, and after doing so, he
discovered the address of Mr. Wright, with whom ho 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 them on the ground. Mr. Wright
who seemed quite overcame, gathered up the papers and
left the house.
Mr. John Watson, clerk to tho 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 hear a single word in reply. They had made up
their minds 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.
The Judge Ordinary immediately issued a decree nisi,
with costs, against the corespondent.
As the parties concerned in the cause were preparing to
leave the Court,
His lordship said ho considered the answers to,the peti•
tion filed in the cause was most disgraceful. In them the
respondent deliberately swore to every species of cruelty
as having been committed towards her, end yot not tho
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 see whether
he could not put a stop to it for the future.
Mr. Brewster (one of the counsel concerned in the de-
fence), said ho hoped his lordship did not think he was
concerned in the matter, as he had nothing to do with
those answers, neither had he seen them before they were
put on the file of court.
Hie 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, ho should give orders that the costs of that
answer should not be allowed, and thus prevent them from
fulling upon the husband.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr, Commisaioner Fane.)
IN RE PAYRODY.

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. Hocknott, hop mer-
chant, on the ground that the bankrupt had obtained hops
to the value of £G2 4a 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. He had been
in prison for seven months. Mr. Camp urged that this was
a very gross case 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.
The debts are £ls4—no assets.
There was no opposition, and tho order of discharge was
granted.

(Before Mr. Commissioner liolroyd.)
IN SE ELLIS.

This bankrupt was described as of the 14 inorieP, plumber
and glazier. The accounts by Messrs. Johnstone, Wintle,
and Co , show debts £1,193, do. holding security, £70.5.
Credit by do. good £l5O, property given up, £lll.
Mr. J. 13. Sorrell, Mark-ltme, appeared for the assignees,
and the order of discharge was granted.

RE H RDISTY.
This bankrupt was a clerk in the (Ace of the Poor-law
Board, residing in Prospect-place, Wandeworth-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 ease was adjourned for further investigation.
RE DANIELS AND MARR.-lIEAVY FAILURES.
The bankrupts had carried on an exteni've business as
merchants, in Cannon-street, but bath have incurred liabili •
ties to the extent of £3,1100. This wAs a meeting for last
examination, but as the bankrupts did not surrender they
woe proclaimed in the usual manner.
Mr. Cooper, of the firm of Johnstone, Cooper and Co., is
appointed manager of the estate.