The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-11 00:00:00

imade known. Ludwik Narbutt was the son of S.
Narbutt, the author of several esteemed works on
the history of Poland. He was born in 1831 at a
village in the province of Wilna, and was educated
at the Wilna high school, where he distinguished
himself so much that in the revolutionary year 1848
(when the Russian Government was constantly on
the watch for " manifestations" on the part of the
Poles) he was accused on some futile pretext of in-
subordination, and sentenced to receive 100 lashes,
which were inflicted upon him in presence of his
father. He was afterwards sent into the army, and
served as a private soldier in the Caucasus until the
Crimean war broke out, when his regiment was
sent towards Kars. At the siege of Kars he dis-
tinguished himself, was badly wounded, and, having
been recommended by Gen. Mouraveiff for promo-
tion, was raised to the rank,of lieutenant. The first
use Narbutt made of his commission was to resign
it. He retired to Ejszyski, his native village, in
Lithuania, and there married, and occupied him-
self quietly with the management and cultivation of
his estate until the beginning of the present year.
When, however, the forced recruitment led to the
desperate resistance out of which grew the present
war of independence (as the insurrection may now
be fairly designated), Narbutt left his country re-
treat and placed himself at the service of the Polish
National Government.
When Lithuania was called to arms. the first band
that took the field was under the command of Nar-
butt, and the first battle that was fought in Lithu-
ania was gained by Narbutt at the head of 60 men
against a Russian force of 300. A great deal of the
success which attended his subsequent operations,
carried on against greatly superior numbers, was
due to the assistance rendered to him by the peasants
of his district, who, during his residence among
them,had received numerous proofs of his generosity,
and of the deep interest he took in all that con-
cerned their welfare.

Narbutt had been about three months in the field
when the Russians, in accordance with the system
pursued by them towards all the Polish' chiefs as
soon as they have sufficiently distinguished them-
selves to become objects of European interest,
concentrated their troops around him, and pre-
pared to fall upon him with irresistible forces.
Before the attack was made, the Russian General
Timefieff is said to have put on the dress of a peasant,
and in that disguise to have approached Narbutt's
camp. Having completed his observations in com-
pany with another spy, he retired and prepared a
surprise, which was effected on the morning of the
sth of May. It is already known that during the
action which followed Narbutt was wounded in the
foot. It appears now that after his immediate at-
tendants had taken him up, and while they were
bearing him forwards, he was shot in the breast,
and thereupon exclaimed, " I am mortally wounded;
leave me, and save the detachment." The Russians
were now pressing closely round the dying chief, but
his supporters did not dream of abandoning him,
and remained with him until all of them were shot
down. Not one escaped with his life.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—June 10,

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
FORTH Y. FORTH. AND IVYLDE.

This was an undefended suit by the husband for a divorce,
en the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respon-
dent. The marriage was solemnised at Leeds in May,
1846, and there were four children issue of the marriage.
The petitioner was a clerk at the Leeds Iron Works, and
the co-respendent was a performer at the Leeds Theatre,
John Phensi, a tailor of Leeds, said he was acquainted
with Mr. and Mrs. Forth between 19 and 20 years, and
that he occasionally visited them after their marriage, and
the petitioner always treated his wife very kindly in his
presence. He remembered seeing Wylde and Mrs. Forth
in January of this year in the presence of Mr. Joshua
Whittaker. He also saw them at the theatre, but on that
occasion they were not together.
Sarah Ann Broadbent said she was a single woman, and
kept a lodging-house at Leeds. In the year 1861 a female
took lodgings at her house, who represented herself as a
widow. Some time after the co-respondent took lodgings
at her house. He and the female in question, who was the
respondent, were very intimate, and she saw Mrs. Forth
frequently come out of Wylde's bedroom, and she admitted
to witness that she slept with him the first night he came
to the house. She left the house, but returned some time
afterwards, and she was drunken in her habit s, and caused
quarrels in the house. When she left her house finally
she took lodgings at the house of a Mr. M'Kenzie.

Other witnesses were examined, who gave corroborative
evidence as to the familiarity of the respondent and co-
respondent.

Dr. Wambey was counsel for the petitioner.
The Court pronounced a decree nisi, with costs.
SWAINE V. SWAINE.

This was a petition of the wife for judicial separation by
reason of her husband's cruelty, to which there was no
defence.

Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.

Mary Ann Swaine, the petitioner, was examined. She
married the respondent at Birmingham, in March, 1859,
she being at the time a widow, in business as an eating-
house keeper. The respondent was an optician, but he did
not work at his business after their marriage. The respon-
dent was most violent in his conduct, and on one occasion
he attempted to throw a saucepan of boiling water over her.
She was compelled to leave him, but was induced to return
to him in consequence of his promises of amendment, which
he never kept. Amongst other acts of ill-treatment, he was
in the habit of spitting in her face, striking her, and one
day he seriously hurt her finger by twisting it violently,

This evidence was fully corroborated, and the Court
granted a judicial separation.

WILLOUGHBY T. WILLOUGHBY AND JOHNSON.

In this case the husband was the petitioner, and prayed
for a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with the
co-respondent, who was a steward to Lord Dillon, at
Ditchley.

Dr. Swabay appeared for the petitioner and Dr. Wambey
for the co-respondent. _

The petitioner was originally a clerk, and eventually a
manager of the bank at Dantree, and he and the co-
respondent had been on intimate terms, being members of
the same rifle corps. The marriage took place in January,
1856, and there were children. In the course of last year
the co-respondent was in the habit of calling on the respon-
dent during the absence of the petitioner, and some of the
witnesses spoke positively to having seen acts of familiarity
between them on some of these occasions. Ultimately the
respondent went to the residence of Johnson, at a cottage
at Ditchley.
The Court made the decree nisi, with costs.
CROSS V. CROSS.

This was a suit by the wife for judicial separation on the
ground of cruelty, and there was no defence.

Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.
The parties had been married several years, and had a
family of nine children. They resided at Manchester,
where the respondent kept a print shop. For some time
the husband was alleged to have treated his wife with
great cruelty, and on one occasion his conduct led to a
miscarriage. The petitioner stated that she had frequently
black eyes, and that sometimes her person was black and
blue all over from the effects of his violence.

The case was fully proved, and the Court granted the
judicial separation.

RICH V. RICH.

This also was a case of the wife's petition for judicial
separation by reason of her husband's adultery, and there
was no answer or appearance on the part of the respondent.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.
The respondent had formerly been a farmer at Wootton
Basset, and other parts of Wiltshire, and the marriage took
place as early as 1846. There were five children issue of
the marriage living, and the cohabitation continued until
March, 1862, when the respondent formed an adulterous
connection with a maid servant. It was proved that the
respondent visited the woman at Swindon and other places,
and was in the habit of remaining with her a considerable
time and occasionally the whole day.

Decree nisi, with costs.
EASTWOOD T. EASTWOOD AND SMITH.

This was the petition of the husband, a medical man, and
manager of a lunatic asylum in Gloucester, praying for a
divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-
respondent, a medical student. There was no defence.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married in 1856, and
cohabited at Sheffield and elsewhere. The respondent had
been a medical pupil at the petitioner's house, and availed
himself of that position to seduce the respondent, with
whom he afterwards lived openly at Jersey.
Decree nisi, with costa.
LADMORE V. LADMORE.

This was the petition of the wife, praying for a restitu-
tion of conjugal rights, to which the respondent replied,
denying that he had separated from conjugal cohabition
with his wife, and praying for judicial separation. He was
not, however, represented by counsel.
Mr. Searle was counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner was the daughter of a retired Custom-
house officer, and the respondent was in the employment of
his father, a shipwright and boat-builder in Liverpool. The
evidence of the petitioner was to the effect that the respon-
dent threatened her life with a poker, and turned her out of
his place, She had endeavoured to induce him to resume
cohabitation, but without success.
The learned Judge made a decree of monition to the re-
spondent to take his wife back.