The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
HARPHAM V. HARPHAM.

This was a petition of the husband fora dissolution of
marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-
respondent and some other man unknown. Both defen-
dants traversed the allegation of adultery, and the respon-
dent further pleaded cruelty. .
From the evidence for the petitioner, it appeared that the
parties were married at Ashford, in Kent, in Sept., 1853.
The petitioner was a perfumer and hair dresser, and the
respondent, whose maiden name was Wilkinson, was in
the same station of life. There was no issue of the mar-
riage, but the parties lived happily together until 1855,
when the respondent contracted habits of intemperance,
and sometimes became so violent that she had to be re-
moved from the shop. In 1861 she became acquainted
with the co-respondent, who was a married man, and they
lived together at York-road, Lambeth, where they opened
a tobacconist's shop. They had since been cohabiting else-
where. With reference to the charge of cruelty, letters
were read from the respondent to her husband, in which
she spoke in grateful terms of her affectionate treatment,
and admitted that she was not justified in deserting him. It
was not denied that he had refused to take her back.

Evidence was then called to disprove the charge of adul-
tery, and to show that the petitioner did not supply his
wife with necessaries, which her delicate state of health
required.

The learned judge decided that the adultery was proved,
and that the evidence of cruelty was not entitled to cre-
dence.

Decree nisi, with costs against the co-respondent.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-8 TREE T.
ROBBERY BY A SOLDIER.—John Freeman and James
Costello, the former a private of the Grenadier Guards, and
the latter a costermonger, were charged—Freeman with
stealing a watch and chain, and Costello with receiving the
same with a guilty knowledge.
The evidence of Wm. Sysless, waiter at the Alhambra
Palace, Leicester-square, went to show that on the previous
afternoon he saw Freeman and a tipsy man go into the
taproom of the Crown public-house, Green-street, Leices-
ter-square. Observing something rather suspicious in
Freeman's conduct, he looked through the glass-door and
saw Freeman feeling the tipsy man about the waistcoat.
Subsequently he followed Freeman, who left the house
alone, to Trafalgar-square, and gave him in charge on sus-
picion of robbing the tipsy man. Freeman was then taken
back to the public-house, where he passed a watch and
chain to the other prisoner, Costello, who had followed the
soldier back to the house with a crowd of others.

John Richards, staying at the " Sailors' Home," Well-
street, Wellclose-square, identified the watch and chain as
his property. He met the soldier yesterday, and had drink
with him, and got drunk.

Riscorla, 69 E, proved seeing Freeman pass something to
Costello. Costello then walked away, but was taken back
to the house, when the watch and chain were found in his
possession. He saw the soldier give them to him.

M'Cabe, 313 A, proved finding the property on Costello,
who said the soldier must have put it into his pocket.
Inspector Draper said that at the station Freeman
owned the handkerchief in which the watch and chain
were wrapped.

Freeman denied the roberry, but Costello admitted re
ceiving the articles from Freeman.
Mr. Knox committed them both fur trial.

THE ROAD MURDER.

TRIAL OF CONSTANCE KENT.—SENTENCE OF
DEATH PASSED.
A summary of the following appeared in The Sun of yes-
terday :

SALISBURY, Friday.
The trial of Constance Emilie Kent, charged on her own
confession with the murder of her half-brother, Francis
Saville Kent, at Road House, in this county, on the 30th
June, 1860, took place in the Assize Court here to-day,
before Mr. Justice Willes. It being known that the ac-
commodation for the public in the Assize Court was very
limited, there was not so great a crush at the doors, on
_ their being opened, as he had anticipated. The Court,
however, was in a fearfully crowded state ; but the police
arrangements were as effectual as they could be under the
circumstances. It was rumoured about in legal circles last
night that the prisoner intended to persist in her plea of
guilty ;" that every effort had been made to induce her to
retract it, but in vain; and that her counsel had even
favoured this course, in the expectation that the sentence of
death, which would inevitably follow, would not be carried
into effect. This rumour, it will be seen, proved to be well
founded, and the proceedings of the trial were consequently
very brief.
By half-past eight o'clock the court was filled. Shortly
before nine his lordship arrived and took his seat upon the
bench. The prisoner had previously been brought to the
Court-house by a private cab, and not in the common prison
van. On being brought up from the cells into the dock she
was addressed by her attorney, Mr. Rodway, who appealed
to her for the last time to alter her determination to retract
her plea, and to plead not guilty. She, however, remained
_firm, rind then advanced to the front of the dock and raised
her veil, which had been previously drawn over her face,
and, clasping her gloved hands before her, stood facing the
judge. She was attired, as on her examination at Trow-
bridge, in deep mourning. Every eye was fixed upon her
as she stood awaiting the commenoement of the proceed-
ings. Miss Grenne, the lady superior of the Brighton
Hospital, and the Rev. A. Wagner, incumbent of St. John's,
Brighton, sat on the bench appropriated to the witnesses,
almost immediately behind the dock. Gough, the nurse-
maid, and some other witnesses were not brought into court
at all. Mr. Kent, the prisoner's father, was in Salisbury,
but was not present at the trial. It is said that the pri-
soner's brother, who, it will be remembered, ran away from
home in company with his sister, was also in Salisbury.
The counsel who appeared for the prosecution were Mr.
Kerslake, Q.C., and Mr. Lopes ; for the defence Mr. Cole-
ridge, Q.C., Mr. Edlin, and Mr. Ravenhill.
The Clerk of the Arraigns, addressing the prisoner, said
—Constance Emilie Kent, the indictment charges you with
the wilful murder of Francis Saville 'Kent—are you guilty
or not guilty ?
The prisoner replied in a voice almost inaudible--Guilty.
His Lordship, after a short pause, addressing the pri-
soner, said—Are you, as you are charged, guilty of having
lfly,
bhe
, t,
understood to reply, " Yes"
The Judge—l must repeat, you are charged with having
wilfully, maliciously, and with malice, killed and murdered
wiulrore
The prisoner was and of malice, killed and murdered
your
your brother—are you guilty or not guilty ?
The prisoner, almost inaudibly, replied, "Guilty."
Justice Wiles (after a short pause)—The verdict must
be recorded.

say, and she wished him
God, and as a person
oaflone was guilty of the
Mr. Coleridge then rose, andin a verylow voice addressed
, who had so long
his lordship. lie said that, acting on her behalf and by
Ithvoehrsoadyvi raieltcusteowdl
eist
uh
heru,
lsoyhy
r, e
nidoes sot ibur
the
, dpt
rhheiasmte
us to
hoeo e
were wholly and
smuuffredreerd,
saunedb thattoiu
rhi
oeur s fatherandev adnsdu
soptihe
ieorus s ,
altogether innocent. Next she desired him to say that she
was not driven to the act by any unkind treatmen
thattatho tmie,
and that she had there received nothing bmutatheet part,e mhosotrgteanndoerf
gavelove. b
iHme
a hoped
melancholy he m i might
pleasureadd,
ton
bh
ei s owna
this statement on her behalf, because from his heart he be-
lieved it to be true.

Tho learned Queen's counsel then resumed his seat, and
the judge directed the officer of the court to call upon the
prisoner in the usual form.

The Clerk of the Ariaigns, addressing the prisoner, said
—Constance Emilie Kent, you have confessed yourself
guilty of the crime of the murder of Francis Saville Kent ;
what have you to say why the sentence of death should
not be passed on you according to law ?
The prisoner remained mute, and silence haying been
proclaimed while the sentence of death was passed,
His lordship put on the black cap, and in a voice low
and broken by emotion, addressed the prisoner to the fol-
lowing effect :—Constance Emilie Kent, you have pleaded
guilty to an indictment charging you with the wilful mur-
der of your brother, Francis Saville Kent, on the 30th of
June, 1860. It is my duty (here the learned judge was
much affected) to receive that plea which you have deli-

This was a suit by the wife for a dissolution of her mar-
riage with her husband, John Ilarphain, a saddler in busi-
ness at Alford, in Lincolnshire, on the ground of adultery
and cruelty.

Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner, and the
respondent made no defence. It appeared that the peti-
tioner was the daughter of a farmer who formerly lived at
Farlsthorpe, in Lincolnshire, and that the marriage was
solemnised on the 10th May, 1849. The parties then
removed to Alford, where they lived happily for about 18
months. The respondent contracted habits of intemperance
at that time, and then commenced his ill-treatment of the
petitioner, whom he was in the habit of assaulting vio-
lently, and she had frequently had black eyes and other
injuries in consequence. His conduct became so bad that
in 1853 she was obliged to leave him, and returned to her
father, with whom she remained until November, 1854,
when she was induced to resume cohabitation with the
respondent, in consequence of his stating that he had be-
come a" teetotaller," and had joined the Wesleyan body.
For some time ho continued sober, but shortly relapsed
into his old habits of drunkenness and cruelty to the peti-
tioner. On one occasion he came home intoxicated, and
threw a knife at the petitioner ; afterwards he threatened
to strangle her. In 1856 she again returned to her friends,
and her father dying in 1862 she had since lived with her
brother at Alford. The respondent made overtures to the
petitioner to come back to him, promising amendment, but
she refused. The brother of the petitioner made some in-
quiries relative to the conduct of the respondent, and dis-
covered that he had been leading a most profligate life
since his wife was obliged to leave him. The last act of
impropriety on his part which was ascertained took place
late in 1864.
Decree nisi, with costs.
GORE V. GORE AND MARSH.