The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 20, 1864.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(This Day.)

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Common Jury.)
OSBORNE V. OSBORNE AND MARTELLI.
In this case the petitioner, Charles Stanley Osborne,
prayed for the dissolution of his marriage on the ground of
his wife's adultery. There was no appearance for the co-
respondent, but the respondent pleaded denial, cruelty, and
desertion.
The respondent was a Frenchwoman, and the petitioner,
who was a young man at the time of his first acquaintance
with her, wai then a civil engineer. Ho became in-
fatuated with the respondent, and some time after,
in the year 1846, they were married at St. James's
Church, Piccadilly. Soon after the marriage the
respondent represented to her husband that sho
wished to go to Paris to recover some family documents.
She accordingly left, and on her return she and her hus-
band went to Scotland, but again she wished to return to
France, to which proposition Mr. Osborne consented. The
practico of going abroad was continued every year
until 1850, when they mutually separated, the petitioner
allowing her £1.50 per annum. Circumstances
ultimately came to petitioner's knowledge, a hich induced
him to institute the present proceedings. During her resi-
dence in Paris the respondent lived at apartments in the
Passage Saulniere, where she was visited by the co-respon-
dent, who, it appeared was connectel with the French

press.
Mrs. Ann Wynne, sister of the petitioner, and wife to
Colonel Wynne, of the Royal Engineers, said she saw the
parties in 1848 when they were on a visit to her sister, Mrs.
Scott Russell. They appeared to be on vary good terms.
Atter that the respondent was in the habit of paying visits
to Paris. Petitioner's conduct to his wife was very kind.
She always appeared the master. She used to say " Charley
shall do this" or "Charley shall do that." Petitioner
always did as she wished. (Laughter.) Oa one occasion
there was a quarrel between them which was so violent that
she feared the police would. come into the house. While
she was walking one day in the garden respondent told her
that on one occasion a person in whose house she had
lodged asked her to "see the major" during the absence
of her husband,
Ilypolyte Bondenot, a concierge, or porter, said that he
had care of the house No. 20, Passage Sauineire. He went
there in 18.59. The respondent, who represented herself
as a widow, lived there previously, and remained for nine
months afterwards. Sho left in June, P 362. She
occupied part of a front room on the third
story. He knew M. Alexis Martelli, who used to visit
the respondent. The rooms were en state, and there was
only one bedroom and ono b:d. The apartments were
rented in the name of the respondent, but Mr. Martilli paid
the rent.
Elizabeth Fennell said she was employed at 20, Broadloy-
terrace as charwoman. She recollected Mdme. Charles (the
respondent) coming there with a gentleman in 1862. She
represented the person as her husband, and they resided in
the house for about a fortnight. They occupied the same
apartment, and took their meals together during the whole
time they stayed at the house.
Mr. Wright, a solicitor, was cited to prove the state the
parties lived in prior to their separation. He said the only
thing she ever hoard her complain of was that her husband
used to keep the dinner waiting for hours. Vim never
heard her complain of the desertion of her husband.
Mr. Kerslake, for the respondent, said he should put a
totally different complexion on the case. He should show
that Mr. Osborne frequently ordered his wife to go to Paris.
That he positively drove her from his house in London, in
order that he might live unmolested with a mistress,
The case is not expected to conclude to-day,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

EXTENSIVE SILK ROBBERY.—Robert Henry Bardsley,
assistant in the employ of Messrs. Marshall and Sselgrove,
silk mercers, Oxford .street, was charged with stealing a
large quantity of silk, of the value of £lOO, the property
of
his employers.
Mr. Lewis, jun., prosecuted, and Mr, E. Lewis, of Great
Marlborough-street, defended.
It appears that the prisoner took a room .at 51, King-
street, Regent• street, where ho was in the habit of leaving
silk on his way to and from the City. Information was then
given to Inspector Draper, and he succeeded in taking the
prisoner into custody and recovering property of the value
of £4OO.
The prisoner, who has only been in Messrs. Marshall and
Snelgrove:s employ ten months, was remanded.
Mr. Marshall asked that the silk might be given up to
him ; but Mr. Knox said ho could make no order at present.