The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING-, FEBRUARY 17, 1865.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Beforo the Judge Ordinary and a Special Jury.)

: BANCROFT V. BANCROFT AND ROMNEY.

This was a suit entered by the husband for dissolution
on the ground of adultery, and the petitioner claimed
damages.
Mr. Overend, Q.C., said the petitioner was a stationer,
residing at Levorshulme, Manchester, and a widower at
the time he was married to the respondent, who was the
sister-in-law of Mr. Rumney. They lived happily together
for some time, until the petitioner discovered that his wife
had had a child about 13 years before, of which her aunt's
husband was the father, and that the child was still living
and reported to be the respondent's neice. The petitioner
became exasperated on having been deceived ;
quarrels ensued, which resulted in acts of per-
sonal violence by the petitioner, who was bound
over to keep the peace, and that resulted in a
separation. Antecedent to this Romney had been in the
constant habit of writing to respondent at her house dur-
ing the petitioner's absence, and on inquiries being insti-
tuted evidence was obtained which resulted in the present
suit. Previous to this the respondent filed a petition for a
judicial separation on the ground of cruelty, which the jury
found had been committed, but the Court did not decree
until the hearing of the husband's petition. The wife went
to live at the house of Mr. Walker, where Mr. Romney
constantly visited her, and beyond this it would be
proved that a Mrs. Pilkington saw her at her own
house before the separation with Mr. Romney, coming
downstairs, and Mrs. Bancroft said she had been showing
him where the water-closet was, which would, however,
be demonstrated to the jury as being unnecessary, as he
(Romney) had_ previously been all over the house, and,
besides, there was another closet downstairs to which
he could have gone. He had been in the con-
stant habit of going to the house at other times.
At another time, Mr. Pilkington, the foreman of the
petitioner's business at Back Piccadilly, saw Mr.
Romney in the back office with Mrs. Bancroft, and he had
his arms round her, and was kissing her, and at another
time he (Pilkington) saw them in a similar position, Mr.
Romney having one of his hands up the respondent's
clothes. The jury would draw their own inferences from
such facts if proved. There would, however, be a great
body of evidence as to other acts. A domestic servant
named Yates would be called, who was in the service of
Mr. Bancroft from May to July, 1863, and she would prove
that Mr. Romney constantly visited the house in Mr. Ban-
croft's absence, that he always asked for Mrs. Bancroft, that
they kissed each other and went into a private room where
they stayed some time ; that Mr. Romney used then to go
away, and Mrs. Bancroft shortly after used to go out and
said she was going to Mr. Bancroft's place of business, and
she used to be away all day and come home just before
Mr. Bancroft returned. The petitioner could not be
called to give evidence whether she visited him or not,
but the jury would draw their own conclusions from all
the circumstances, and say whether it was not
a reasonable inference that she frequently went to
meet Mr. Romney. On one occasion the servant
also spoke to her about being very much flushed, and Mrs.
Bancroft said that she always did when any one came to
see her unexpectedly. A cabman, named Longbottom,
would also be called, and it would be shown that in the
month of September Mr. Romney and Mrs. Bancroft hired
his cab, and directed him to drive down Plymouth-road.
His attention being called,he turned round and looked in the
cab, and if his statement were true there could be no doubt
that adultery was then committed. Beyond that the learned
counsel said he should call a Mrs. Smith, a brothel keeper,
Bowman-street, Charlton-upon-Medlock, and she would
prove that Mr. Romney and Mrs. Bancroft were in the
habit of coming to her house, and though Mrs. Smith's
calling might be open to observation, still her evidence
would be found quite straightforward, though as regarded
the identification when she was taken to Mr. Walker's
house to identify Mrs. Bancroft, where she was then living,
but when she got to the door Mrs. Bancroft ran away
the moment she saw her, and shut herself in a cupboard
for four hours, refusing to come out, saying that she knew
Mrs. Smith had only come to identify her, and at last was
got out of the house with a shawl completely over her
face, and the means of identification by Mrs. Smith was
therefore extremely limited. Still further, Mr. Walker
would be called, andhe would prove that Mr. R omney fre-
quently called to see Mrs. Bancroft while she was at his
(Mr. Walker's) house; and on one occasion after Mr.
Rumney had gone, he (Mr. Walker) found she was much
dejected, and having gone into her room on some pretext,
having suspicions, he saw the bed was very much
disordered, and when he asked Mrs. Bancroft how it
was she said Mr. Rumney had been up there, as she
wanted to show him a letter. It would be left to the
jury whether they had any doubt that something improper
had taken place. Mr. Walker told her that he was sorry
she had ever come there, and that he would rather have
given £lOO than that she should have done so. She cried
very much, and said she was ruined, and begged him not
to say anything against her. However, Mr. Walker did
tell Mr. Bancroft, and would repeat his statement before
the jury. Witnesses of the names of Mrs. Campbell, Mrs.
Latham, and Mrs. Slackwood also state that they had seen
Mrs. Bancroft and Mr. Rumney together, and they went
to the house of a Mrs. Gill, at 17, Baker-street,
a house of notoriety in Manchester, and no doubt could be
entertained of the purpose for which they went there. Mrs.
Gill would not give evidence or state anything for fear
she would injure the reputation of her house---(laughter)—
but the other witnesses would prove that the respondent
and co-respondent went there. A Mrs. Menders, a Mrs.
Woolby, and a little girl would also give evidence, and if
the facts were detailed as he (the learned counsel) had
faintly shadowed them forth, the petitioner would be en-
titled to a verdict, and such damages as the jury may
think fit.

Evidence was then called in support of this statement.
The case will last over two days.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE JONATHAN MATTHEWS.-THE MULLER TRIAL.

Earl
-street,
cab e proprietor,eam came
up f
for
rf
his6B
describedan d to-dayasa
s Paddington,
last examination and order of discharge. The accounts
filed show debts, £672 17s. 6d., and deficiency the same
amount, there being no assets of any kind. He places his
expenditure at £l5O per annum for the last ten years, and
states :—" I consider I am entitled, for my personal benefit,
to the rewards of £lOO offered by the Government, £lOO
offered by Robarts and Co., the bankers, and £lOO offered
by the North London Railway Company, for the discovery
and conviction of the murderer of the late Mr. Briggs in
July last. I gave information which led to such convic-
tion, and I do not consider such rewards should pass
to my assignees."
The case was not concluded when this report left, but an
adjournment was anticipated to settle various disputed
points, more especially as to the reward.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,—This Day.

MARLBOROMIII-STREET.

CONVICTION FOR SELLING SPIRITS WITHOUT A LICENSE-
-1,50 FlNE.—Blaze Rosetti, wine merchant, of No. 51, King-
street, Regent-street, was charged before Mr. Knox on a
warrant, by Inspector Bowles, of the C division, "for that
ho did, at a certain place, unlawfully sell certain spirits, to
wit, brandy and gin, without being licensed for that pur-
pose, at 51, King-street, St. James's."
A quantity of spirits found in the prisoner's house, and
taken possession of by the police, were produced in court.
Police-constable Charles Butcher, 137 C, said—Last
Sunday evening about 12 o'clock I went to the prisoner's
house,whero ho carries on the business of a wine merchant,
I had two other men with me, and we went in the front
parlour, and the prisoner came up from the kitchen. I
asked him if he sold wine, and he said he did. One of the
men within then called for a bottle of claret, for which he
paid Is., and the other asked for a bottle 'of port and paid
Is. 6d. for it. I then asked the prisoner if he sold brandy,
and he said he did, and that he had plenty of good cognac
and gin and wine at different prices. I said I would take
a bottle of brandy, and I purchased one, paying the pri-
soner 3s. 6d. for it, and one of the others purchased a bottle
of gin and paid for it.
Thos. Abel Hunt, of No. 33, Grosvenor-mews, one of the
men spoken of by the constable, said—l purchased a bottle
of gin of the prisoner and paid him for it.
Mr. James Morrish Osmond, division officer of Excise—
The place is licensed for the sale of wine but not spirits.
Inspector Bowles—Last night I apprehended the pri-
soner and found in a cupboard several bottles of brandy,
gin, and rum, several wine-glasses, and a number of bot-
tles of ale.

Mr. Knox—Are there any previous convictions against
the prisoner ?
Inspector Bowles—There are not, but he has long been
suspected of selling spirits, especially on Sunday
mornings.

Mr. Knox7Prisoner, do you wjsh to say anything ?

Prisoner—l am guilty.

Butcher—He has been carrying on the practice for years,
but in consequence of it being a private house it has been
difficult to get proof.
Mr. Knox—The prisoner is liable to be fined £2OO. The
police had stated that they believed the prisoner had been
carrying it on for years. I will not go to the full extent,
but shall fine him £5O, or three months

RUSSIA.

' 'bx,

(TELEGRAPHIC NEWS ASSOCIATION.)
ST. PETERSBURG, Feb. 16, 2 11 p.m.

The telegrams from Warsaw and elsewhere,
published in the English and French newspape rs,
announcing the administrative incorporation of 'the
kingdom of Poland with Russia, and the change 3 in
the officials in the Polish Government are entirely
unfounded.

Reprieve of Polioni•

-

We understand that Polioni, the Italian at present under
sentence of death in Newgate for the murder of Michael
Harrington on the 26th of December last, on Saffron-hill,
has been reprieved until Wednesday, the 22d March.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE,