The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-06 00:00:00

This was a suit by the wife for a judicial separa-
tion, o❑ the ground of her husband's adultery, and
there was no appearance by the respondent.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the petitioner was married to
the respondent, who was a farmer, formerly re-
siding at Littleborough, Nottingham, in 1842,
and they cohabited until January, 1855. In that
month the petitioner discovered that her husband
was carrying on an improper intercourse with a
female named Catley, and she went to her friends,
with whom she had since lived. It was also 'de-
posed that the respondent and the woman Catley
lived together as man and wife, without any at-
tempt at concealment, and that during the period
of their cohabitation the female in question gave
birth to a child, the paternity of which was not
denied by the respondent.
Sir C. Cresswell pronounced the decree for judi-
cial separation.

WOOLF V. WOOLF.
This was a suit instituted by Mrs. Hannah
Woolf for a dissolution of marriage with her hus-
band, on the ground of her husband's desertion and
adultery, to which there was no appearance.
Mr. M. Smith, QC., and Mr. Aspinall were
counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties, who are of the
Jewish persuasion, were married at the synagogue,
Liverpool, in January, 1853, the respondent being
a merchant, and the father of the petitioner, whose
name was Josephs, being also a merchant. They
cohabited until the Illay following the marriage,
when the respondent, who was in difficulties, went
to Australia, having promised his wife prior to his
departure that he would return to England in 12
months. A correspondence was kept up for about
two years; but then the respondent discontinued
answering the letters of his wife, and she had not
since heard from him. He had been in business at
Melbourne, where he kept an extensive refreshment
room, and was in the receipt of £l5 or £2O a-week,
and he was afterwards in business at Ballarat, but
ho had not contributed anything towards his wife's
support. It appeared also that he had been leading
a most dissolute life, and that he was at present
living in a state of adultery.
Decree nisi, with costs.
HARRIS V. HARRIS AND LAMBERT.

This was a suit instituted by the husband for a
dissolution of marriage on the ground of his wife's
adultery.
The respondent appeared, but put in no answer,
and the co-respondent did not enter an appearance.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Lewis, were
counsel for the petitioner.

From the statement of counsel it appeared that
the petitioner, who had been a wine-merchant, be-
came acquainted with the respondent at Vauxhall,
in the year 1849, and three weeks after they were
married, the petitioner at the time being only 21
years old. There was no issue of the marriage,
which proved a very unfortunate one ; and in
March, 1853, the petitioner, who had spent £4,000
of money which he had received from his relations,
determined to emigrate to Australia with a view to
improve his fortune. He returned to England
after some months' absence, without having suc-
ceeded in his object; and discovered that his wife,
who prior to the marriage had been living with a
gentleman who allowed her £lOO a-year, had been
guilty of the most profligate conduct from the time
of his departure until his return.
The Court reserved judgment, being of opinion
that there was some ground for suspecting collusion
between the parties, the respondent having received
a sovereign for attendance at the trial to be iden-
tified.