The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-26 00:00:00

The marriage having been proved,
Mrs. Marian Fletcher, the mother of the petitioner, said
—I knew the respondent in the spring of the year before
his marriage with my daughter. He was a gentleman of
independent means, and resided at Bloomfield Lodge, Not-
ting-hill. I and my daughter had visited there before the
marriage. After the wedding my daughter and her hus-
band commenced a tour. They went to Cheltenham,
Leamington, St. Leonard's, and Brighton, from
thence they returned to town, and 'went to reside
at Mr. Payne's, in Conduit-street. They were absent
I should think about a month. I received a letter from
Brighton to meet my daughter and Mr. Barker Bennett at
Bloomfield Lodge with luggage. .1 went there, but was
refused admittance by the housekeeper, Mrs. North, and
the luggage was turned from the door. I then went to the
hotel and met my daughter, Mr. Bennett and my daughter
went to reside at Bloomfield Lodge, and remained there
until September, when they went to reside in St, George's-
square, Pimlico, and resided there until the autumn in the
following year, 1857, when Mr. Bennett sold off the furni-
ture, left the place, and went to Liverpool on a visit to his
friends at Manchester and Liverpool. At the Christmas of that
year I invited Mr. Bennett and my daughter to spend the
holidays with me at Upton Park. My daughter came, but
Mr. Bennett did not come until February, and then he made
the excuse that he could not leave his son, we believing at
that time that it was a child by a former wife. Mr. Ben-
nett's manner was strange and rambling, and made no allu-
sion as to his wife's future residence, in fact we could get
no satisfactory answer from him ; and, after being there
about half an hour, he left, merely bowing. He did not
shake hands with me or my daughter, and we did not see
him again until I went, in 1860, with my daughter, from
something we had heard, to Paris, :and there saw Mr.
Bennett and his son at a boarding-house. We spoke to
him, but he merely replied, "You are on the wrong scent in
expecting to find the woman I was living with in London
in September, 1862." I and my daughterlmet him at the
Spa at Scarborough. My daughter did not speak to him,
but he spoke to me, and said he had no desire to disguise
the manner he was living. In July last Mr. Bennett came
to my house in Welbeck-street, and behaved in a very low
and vulgar manner, and said if ho did not have money to
speni, and that if I did not give him £5OO he would have
my life. His conduct was very violent and his language
coarse. I ordered him to leave the house, and I did not see
him again until I saw him at the police court, where he was
bound over by Mr. Arnold to keep the peace.
By the Judge—When Mr. Bennett came to my house in
February, 1858, he gave no reason whatever for his con-
duct, or what he was going to do for his wife.
Mr. Alfred Collinson, surgeon, of Notting-hill, proved
attending a lady in her confinement in 1860, at 310, Mary-
lebene-road ; a Mrs. North appeared to be the housekeeper.
He saw a gentleman, whom he supposed was the father ;
when he called on him he gave the name of Bennett, the
lady's name he understood was Berkeley. The petitioner
was not the lady he attended.
Several witnesses were called to prove the respondent had
been living with another lady at Hampton-wick, and other
places.

Mrs. Bennett, the petitioner, was called to prove the pleu
of desertion. She said—l first became acquainted with the
respondent in 1856, in which year I was married to him.
We went to Cheltenham for a week after the ceremony, and
from there to St. Leonard's. When we came to London we
went to Bloomfield Lodge, and stayed there about a month.
I found no one in the house but a gardener, and I then
went to live in St. George's-square, and from thence I went
to my mother's house at Slough for the Christmas holidays.
1 travelled alone.

By the Judge—The only excuse he gave for not aoming
to Upton Park at Christmas was that ho was engaged at
home with his son, and that he would not have me at home
with the boy. He only remained an hour, and when I
askedhim where he was going, he said to London, and that
I must remain with my mother. He gave me no address,
and the only letter 1 ever had was one enclosing a £5
note for the payment of a small bill. At the time
I married him I believed Mr. Bennett to be a
widower. The reason I did not reside with him
in London was because he always refused to allow me to
come where his boy was. I then became fearful that his
first wife might be alive. He wrote a number of letters
aboat the mother of his son, but they invariably contradicted
each other. I recollect the address of one of the letters was
Marylebone-toad. He told me in one of the communi-
cations that he positively would not have me under the
same roof as his child. He absented himself until
February in the following year, when he came down to
Slough, and after stopping about half an hour, he left with-
out taking the slightest notice about ,my returning home
I never saw my husband again until I saw him in Paris
and Scarborough.
The court granted a decree nisi with costa.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
RE W. L. T. TOLLEMACHE.

This was a. meeting for choice of a new assignee under
the estate (of this bankrupt, generally known as Lord
Huntingtower. The bankruptcy took place as fat back as
1846. The new choice became necessary in consequence of
the death of the assignee originally appointed. Lord Hunt-
ingtower was present, and appeared to take great interest in
the proceedings.

Mr. Cunningham said that the meeting had become ne-
cessary in consequence of the death of the:former assignee,
and he also stated that there was a prospect of a dividend
shortly. „

His Honour—" Shortly I" That is a word of somewhat
doubtful signification in this court.
Mr. Chidley tendered a proof on behalf of Mr. M‘Ritchie
for a sum of £1,208. It appeared that be had paid £BOO
to the holder of an acceptance of Lord Huntingtower for
£l,OOO in the expectation of realising £2OO in the shape of
dit.count, but was disappointed, and had to bring an action
and recovered judgment for £1,028, for which sum he now
claimed to prove.
His Honour was of opinion that the judgment must be
received before the proof could be admitted, but a claim
might be entered to be expunged, unless turned into
proof within six months from the present date.
;There was no discussion on the choice.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
. (Bawl) Mr. Kerr.)
THE SCHOOLMASTER AND THE STRAWBERRIES AND

CREAM.---MOSES V. WILLES.

This was an action to recover a small amount for goods
supplied, plaintiff being a fruiterer of Gracechurch•street,
and defendant a schoolmaster of lielvetion.
Mr. Gammun, for the plaintiff, said he believed that the
only item in dispute was that relating to certain straw-
berries and cream for which plaintiff charged 15s. Defen-
dant said it was a gift, but that would be denied.
Plaintiff was called, and said that in July last defendant
and Mrs, Willes had strawberries and cream to the extent