The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1864.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde and a Special Jury.)
MASTERS V. MASTERS, THE QUEEN'S PROCTOR INTER-

YEN ING.

The Solicitor-General, with whom was Dr. Spinks, ap-
peared on the part of the Queen's Proctor. He said this
was one of those cases which showed the advantage of the
Queen's Proctor being allowed to intervene to prevent the
court being imposed upon by collusion between the parties
coming to this court. It appeared that Mrs Masters in
1832 was married to Mr Masters, and they cohabited for
some time. The petitioner prayed the court for a divorce
on the ground of adultery and cruelty, to which the re-
spondent pleaded that she committed adultery with a
gentleman named Osborne, who W 729 in business in the
City, The jury found for the petitioner, and the court pro-
nounced a decree nisi. In the meantime information had
been received by the Queen's Proctor which induced
him to intervene to prevent the claim being made
absolute. It was necessary to state that the respondent•
notwithstanding the plea he had placed on the record, did
not attempt to substantiate the charge against his wife.
Mrs Osborne instituted a suit against her husband for dis-
solution of marriage, and she alleged with a female whom
she could not identify, but who subsequently was discovered
to be Mrs Martin, who was living in open adultery with
Mr Osborne at No. 7, Priory, Kilburn. Mrs Masters had
denied on oath this statement, which was founded on the
evidence of disinterested and respectable witnesses.

Mr Goodcop, the landlord of the house, and two female
witnesses were examined, who clearly proved that Mr Os-
borne and Mre Masters were living together as man and
wife.
There was no defence.

The learned judge, in summing up, said that there could
be no doubt that in this case there was a most gross impo-
sition attempted to be practised on the court, which in all
probabability was not the first nor would it ba the last. He
hoped the Solicitor-General would not allow the matter to
rest here, but adopt some proceedings in this case against
the parties who had endeavoured in such a flagrant manner
to deceive the Court. He could not deal with them, as they
were not before the Court.

The jury immediately found that Mrs Masters had com-
mitted adultery with Mr Osborne, which was the only issue
submitted to them.

The learned judge then reversed the decree nisi.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

TIIAMES.

A DANGEROUS LARK IN THE IIAYrIELD.—A well
dressed man aged 24, and described in the police sheet as
Charles Chatu, of No. SO, High-street, Whitechapel, boot
and shoemaker, but who called himself Charles Chatu
Barrett, of 25, Globe-road, Mile-End, on being asked by
Mr Paget for his name and address, was charged with
attempting to steal a silver watch from the peraon of
Samuel Higham.

Mr Maynard, clerk to Mr Beard, solicitor, defended the
prisoner.
The prosecutor said he was a merchant's clerk, in the
service of Messrs. Werr and Co., of 28, Threadneedle.
street, and residing at No. 1, Edward-street, St. Peter's-
road, Mile-End, Last night at half-past 12 o'clock he
went into the Hayfield public-house, opposite Charrington's
brewery in the Mile-End-road. A friend with whom he
had been spending the evening was with him. He was
standing before the bar, chatting and drinking, when the
prisoner, who was standing close to him, took his watch
from his pocket. He told the prisoner to leave the watch
alone, and said " That is mine." The prisoner said it was
only a silver one. He repeatedly asked the prisoner to put
back the watch, and he refused to do so. He called a polioe
constable and gave the prisoner into custody. The prisoner
was a perfect stranger to him. The chain of the watch was
not broken.

In cross-examination by Mr Maynard the prosecutor said
he was quite sober. The prisoner did not say "This is
only a silver watch. Why not wear a gold one like this ?'
He did ask the prisoner to make an apology for taking the
watch, and as he refused to do so he gave him into custody.
The prisoner was a perfect stranger to him. He did not
exchange any chaff (ridicule) with him.
Thomas Phillips, a polies constable, 471 A, stated that he
was passing by the Hayfield at one o'clock this morning,
and the prisoner was given into his custody. He found
upon him £1 19s fid and a gold watch. He also took from
the prisoner the duplicates relating to three other watches.
One of them was pawned at Liverpool for £5.
In cross-examination by Mr Maynard, the constable said
the prisoner had been drinking, but knew what he was
about. The prisoner first gave the name of Chatu, of High-
street, Whitechapel, and afterwards Barrett, 25, Globe-
road, Mile-end. Ho went to Globe-road, and found the
prisoner did live there.
Mr Maynard said the prisoner was a very respectable
tradesman in partnership with another, and his name was
Charles Chatu Barrett, although he only gave the name of
Chatu at first. The prisoner was in the Hayfield drinking,
and took the watch for a lark.

Mr Paget—A very dangerous lark in the hayfield.

Mr Maynard—l can assure you, Sir, it was done out of
a drunken frolic. It was foolish, certainly, but I can assure
you, Sir, it was only a foolish frolic,
Mr Paget—A gold watch was found on him, and he has
the duplicates of three others in his possession.

Mr Maynard—They are his own watches, Sir. He can
account for them very satisfactorily.

Mr Paget remanded the prisoner for a week.
Mr Maynard tendered bail for the prisoner..
Mr Paget—Any two well known respectable tradesmen
I will accept as bail ; no others.
The prisoner was then locked up.

THE MURDER OF MR. BRIGGS.

STAFFORD, SATURDAY MORNING.

Sir Richard Mayne's officer, on arriving at' Staf-
ford, said the foreigner in custody on suspicion of
being the murderer much resembled Muller, but
that the means of identification were on the way to
America.