The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-30 00:00:00

SHIELDS V. SHIELDS.

This was a petition presented by the wife, praying for
dissolution of her marriage, on the grounds of cruelty and
adultery.

Dr. Spinks, for the petitioner, said in this case the parties
previous to their marriage resided at Halifax. In a very
short time after marriage the respondent fell into very dis-
solute habits, and ultimately became so addicted to drink
that he entirely deserted his home of an evening and spent
his time in public-houses in company with disreputable
persons. Whenever he went home it was generally in the
early hours of the morning, and then he used to ill-treat his
wife in the most brutal manner. The other allegations in
the petition would also be satisfactorily proved.
Ann Shields, the petitioner, said after the marriage with
the respondent they went to reside at Wednesbury, at the
house of Mr. Shields' sister. He then commenced to fre-
quent public-houses, and on one occasion on her asking to
stay at home he struck her a blow on the head. He ob-
tained a situation at Birmingham, and seldom returned
home from business until morning, and then in a state of
intoxication, She again asked him to give up his disso-
lute course, but he only flew in a passion and beat her.
He took up a fire shovel one night and struck her with it.
On another occasion he seized her by her throat and said
he would make an end of her. She had seen him in com-
pany with women of bad character.

Evidence to substantiate the other allegations in the peti-
ion having been adduced,

The Judge Ordinary said it had been clearly proved that
the respondent had treated his wife with great brutality,
and he therefore thought she was entitled to the relief
prayed for.
Decree nisi granted.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Nlr. Comminioner Goulburn.)
IN RE MARSHALL.

This was an application for a release from custody.
Mr. E. Reed opposed—He said that the bankrupt was in
custody on a capias ; he was one of the partners of a firm
at St. John's, Newfoundland, and was indebted largely to
firms in Manchester and other places in England, and ho
was arrested on the capias when he was on the point of
leaving England. He (Mr. Reed) said that it had now
been well defined that the court had no power to interfere
in such a case, but the remedy was by application to the
Court of Common Law.

Mr, C. E, Lewis contended that the Court had juriadic-
ion to take bail.

His Honour said that after the expression of opinion by
the Lord Chancellor in the case of Colonel Waugh he
would not grant the license, even on bail, the Lord Chan-
cellor having expressed his doubt whether the Court had
jurisdiction to interfere with the common law rights of the
creditors. He (his Honour) would leave the bankrupt to
his remedy through the Courts of Common Law.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ROBBING FURNISHED LODGINGS--TWO CASES.—Char-
lotto Golden, a dressmaker, was charged before Mr. Knox
with stealing several articles from her ready-furnished
lodgings at the house of Mr. Cutting, 42, London-street,
Fitzroy-square..
_ _

The prisoner left her lodgings on Tuesdlty last, and after
she had gone several articles Were missed, and an envelope
found in the room containing, the duplicate relating to the
articles. Last night the prisoner was met by Mrs. Cutting
and given into custody.
Some of the articles having been produced by a pawn-
broker's assistant, Mr. Knox. remanded the prisoner.
Elizabeth Brown was also charged with stealing several
articles from her ready-furnished lodgings, at 25, Bucking-
ham-place, the property of Mr. W. Adderley, lodging-house
keeper.
She was remanded.

WESTMINSTER.
FRAUD AND FORGERY By
WORKING MAN: William
Hill, the gardener of Eccleston-square, was placed at the
bar, before Mr. Selfe, charged with fraudulently receiving
and converting £lO to his own use, and forging a receipt
for the same.

Mr. C. W. Curtis, of 68, Eceleston-square, a merchant,
Mr. Reginald Cust, barrister, conducted the prosecution.
stated that Eccleston-square enclosure or pleasure ground
was managed by a committee of the residents there, who
annually elected a chairman for the current year, and as
such received the money from the other residents for up-
holding the garden. and paid the necessary expenses. Pri •
soner was appointed gardener in June, 1859. He was paid
other accounts at the same time, which
) on Saturdays, by witness,
who wages
olso settled(l ss.
hie
were always entered in a book. Witness left town in July
for 3 months, and depUted Mr. Glover, of 6, Belgrave-road,
rady the current expenses.
In ordered to get some turf for
thehe Augustsqu collectora re andlaso tf
t thhee prmi
authorizedaoonneey; Awitaor, oPG
lover to pay him £lO for
it. Witness returned the latter end of September, and
found the prisoner had had the money.
Jane Anne Burt, the niece of Mr. Glover, said that on
the sth of September the prisoner came to her and said he
wanted £lO to pay for the turf, and she gave him that

amount.
A receipt for £lO was produced purporting to be signed
said that the pri-
soner Mr. William Howard for £lO paid for the turf.
sonMerr.hWilliamin the
Howa rd, of
habit
o Streatham,
dealing with him some time,
and had paid him several amounts. He had the turf in
question in September last, but he never paid for it at all.
T
by
witness, and was
not
r te
in
necheiip
his handwriting. produced
handwri etinws.s nHeveorhagindvseubsequently sent in a
bill to the committee.

A question of law now arose as to the precise offence
prisoner had committed, Mr. Howard having dealt with him
personally.
Atter a very long discussion between Mr. Selfe and Mr.
Cust, as to the particular mode in which the charge should
be shaped,
Ptisoner, who admitted his guilt, was remanded for a
week.