The Sun.
London, England, 1863-01-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 28, 1863.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.
—4—

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir Cresswell Cresswell.)
DAVIES V. DAVIES AND HUGHES.
This was a suit instituted by the husband against his
wife for dissolution of marriage.
It appeared that the parties were married at St. George's,
Wolverhampton, in 1843, and they then Loth entered the
service of a gentleman named Preslaud, at Cosforth, in
Staffordshire. The marriage was a secret one, and it was
only on the occasion of a quarrel that the fact .as disclosed
to a person named Thomas Nicholls, a gardener, in the ser-
vice of the same gentleman. After the quarrel the husband
left Cosforth to seek other employment, and during his
absence the respondent became familiar with Hughes, who
succeeded her husband in his situation. They had been seen
" clipping and kissing" each other, but nothing further.
Mrs. Davies and Hughes afterwards left Cosforth, and the
next he saw of them was at Wolverhampton. When he
met Hughes he asked him how the " missus" was, meaning
Mrs. Davis, and he said she was very well. They were
then living at that place as husband and wife. A gentle-
man named Rosier, of Bedford-place, London, said the
petitioner had been in the service of his father for 16 or 17
years, and it was only lately that he had mentioned the
fact that he was married. He had holidays to go into the
country to see his friends, but he never asked for leave
of absence to visit his wife during the whole of the time he
had been in London.

The Judge Ordinary said it was a case requiring grave
consideration. As the matter at present stood, it seemed as
if the petitioner had voluntarily separated from his wife en
the understanding that he was going to try to better his situa.
tion. That took place nearly 20 years agc, and there was
nothing to show that during that time he made the slightest
effort to see his wife. Under all the circumstances he would
reserve his decision for the present.

MILNES V. MILNES AND EARP.
This was a suit also for dissolution of marriage instituted
by the husband.
The parties were married at Nottingham in 1856, and
lived happily for about four years. The separation took
place in 1860. Mrs. Davis, a person residing at Newnham-
terrace, Lambeth, said Mrs. Milnes, whom she knew as
Mrs. Earp, occupied apartments in her house for some
time with a person whom she thought was her husband.
On one occasion a gentleman named Jordan called
to serve a paper (the citation) on Mrs. Mlles, when she
took it. He also said he had one for Mr. Earp, when
Mrs. Milnes told him she would take him to
where he would see him. Mr. Jordan produced a photo-
graph of Mrs. Milnes, when she tookit out of his, hand and
broke it to pieces, stamped upon it on the floor, and said, if
her husband was there she would serve him the same. She
also said when the business (meaning the petition for di-
vorce) was over Earp and her intended to get married,
A question arose as to the identity of the person named
in the citation being Mrs. Milnes, but after some difficulty,
the fact was established to the satisfaction of his lordship
who granted a decree nisi.

HAVILAND V. HAVILAND.
This was a suit instituted by the wife for a dissolution o
marriage.

The parties were married in 1848 at Leamington, from
whence they proceeded to Yentnor. On coming to London
they went to live in Cambridge-square, Hyde-park. Mr.
Haviland was at this time a lieutenant in the 62d Regiment.
The separation took place in 1855, in consequence of Mrs.
Haviland discovering an improper intimacy between
her husband and Mrs. Desborough, who resided at Chelsea.
The petitioner, when she became aware of the circum-
stance, accused Captain Haviland of the fact; when he
packed up his trnnk, put a ring on her finger, and went
away. Mrs. Haviland went to Boulogne after this, but left
word that apartments would be prepared for him ; but he
never came, and from that day down to the present Mrs.
Haviland had never seen her husband.
Decree nisi with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ATTEMPTED MURDER BY .A. BROTHER.—James Smith,
alias Donovan, a determined looking young man, and who
appeared in the dock without coat or waistcoat, was charged
with feloniously cutting and wounding Catherine Hawkins,
his married sister, with a knife, with intent to do grievous
bodily harm.

The prosecutrix, a young woman, whose head was en-
veloped in bandages, said—l live at 24, Tower-street, and
am a married woman, but I am living apart from my hus-
band at present. I am staying with my mother. Yesterday
morning, about 8 o'clock, the prisoner, who is my brother,
came in and began ill-using my mother because she had a
shilling he wanted. He then began beating my mother,
and got her on the floor and jumped upon her. I begged
of the prisoner not to ill-use my mother, and seeing that
her mouth was bleeding I ran for assistance and called
" Police." As soon as I did so the prisoner ran away up
Tower-street. In about two hours he came back, I then
being in bed, when he said, " You—, I'll do for you for
trying to give me in charge this morning." He then seized
a knife off the table, and stabbed me in the temple with it.
I then called for the police, but before they came he ran
away a second time. I was covered with blood, and was
taken to the Charing-cross Hospital in a cab.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—You have your arm bandaged, did he cut
that also?

had burst in consequence of the wound on my head.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—How long was it before the constable
came ?

Prosecutrix—ln about ten minutes. I did not remain at
the hospital, but after my wound was dressed I went home.
When he came home again in the evening I got a constable
and gave him in charge. Once before he stabbed me.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—When ?

Prosecutrix—About a twelvemonth ago, in Shorts-gar-
dens. He then stabbed me in the shoulder. Ido not wish
to hurt him. I only want to be protected from him.
Mrs. Ann Donovan, a widow, living at 24, Tower-street,
said --The prisoner is my sin and the prosecutrix my
daughter. My eon works, and I wish him to be kept quiet
Mr. Tyrwhitt—What did he inflict the wound with ?

Witness—l was not in the room when he used the knife.
When he ill-used me I was intoxicated, and don't know
what he did, but I recollect that he knocked me down and
jumped upon me. Oh yes, I recollect that. I don't wish
to punish him, but I want him to "run loose," provided he
behaves himself. He quarrelled with me about a shilling.
William Walters, 143 F, said—At half-past eight yes-
terday evening, I was called to 24, Tower .street, and there
saw the prosecutrix, and she said that she had been stabbed
by her brother, the prisoner, and she gave him into custody.
The prisoner was at that time lying on the bed and the
prosecutrix had her head bandaged, and also her arm. I
took the prisoner to the station. This knife was brought
to the station by the constable who was called in in the
morning (a knife with blood in it was produced).
Mr. Tyrwhitt—You had better keep the knife just as it is.
Constable—The prisoner said that he was very drunk at
the time, and recollected nothing about it.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—l shall commit you for trial. I have no
doubt your sister and mother would like nothing to be done
with you out of kindness, but 1 am determined there shall
be.

Mr. Tyr whitt, after the depositions had been signed, -aid
—Prosecutrix, I would advise you to go to and remain at
the hospital, as there is evidently danger in the wound.
Prosecutrix—l would rather go home, sir.
The mother of the prisoner here fell down on the floor of
the court, having fainted, and was carried out by some of
the officers.

MARKETS—This Day.

THIRD EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, SEVEN O'CLOCK.

THE SPRING HANDICAPS.