The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-17 00:00:00

THE DIVORCE COURT.

A return has been issued from the House of Com-
mons of the amount and chart-der of the business
transacted in the Divorce Court since its commence-
ment to the 30th July, 1861. The act came into
operation on the 11th Jan., 1858. In little more
than three years and a half it appears that there
have been 781 petitions for dissolution of marriage,
248 petitions for judicial separation, 43 for restitu-
tion of conjugal rights, 16 for nullity of marriage,
and 100 applications by wives for the protec-
tion of their earnings from their husbands who
have deserted them. There have also been
eight petitions under the Legitimacy Decla-
ratory Act, making altogether, within four, 1,200
cases, If the dates when the alleged acts of adul-
tery were committed are examined, it seems that,
out of 781 petitions for dissolution of marriage, the
causes of offence which gave rise to the petitions
that took place antecedent to the passing of the act
were 437, and since the passing of the act 344.
This, however, is hardly a fair criterion, because
the vast majority of petitions that were filed in
1858 arose out of misconduct committed in former
years, or, at all events, before August, 1857. But
if the petitions for dissolution of marriage for the
year ending 30th July, 1861, are examined, a very
different result is shown. Out of 177 petitions for
dissolution of marriage, only 51 arose out of occur-
rences previous to the passing of the act, whilst
126 arose from misconduct since the passing of the
act ; in other words, the difference was 71.2 per
cent, as against 28,2 per cent. ; thus showingpretty
clearly that though the old sores and accumulations
have nearly been cleared off, the number of petitions
still keep up to what they have hitherto been. The
same thing is observed in the cases for judicial
separation, and far restitution of conjugal rights.
The court, up to July 30, 1861, had disposed of 445
cases for dissolution of marriage, in 416 of which
dissolution had been granted, and in 29 had been
refused. Out of the whole 445 cases for dissolution
tried, 315 or 70.8 per cent., were undefended. The
total number of causes remaining for hearing—that
is, set down for trial at the commencement of the
last long vacation—was 74. But by the long list
published at the commencement of Hilary Term of
the present year, it seems that this number had
since then materially increased. On the 11th of
January, for instance, when the court commenced
its sitting for this year, there were 105 causes in
the printed list, and this though the court had been
sitting almost daily from the early part of Novem-
ber to Christmas.

FATAL CASE OF STABBING IN CAM-

BRIDGE.

Much commotion was caused throughout Cam-
bridge on Friday, by the report that a man had
been murdered on the East-read ; and all sorts of
rumours were afloat as to the cause, and other cir-
cumstances attending the melancholy event. The
assailant is a man named John Ballard, a wood
carver, living on the East-road ; and the victim was
named Johnson, an itinerant dealer in whitening,
who lived in the same neighbourhood.
One of the witnesses at the inquest was George
Moore, who said-1 live in Wellington-row ;I am
a carpenter. I knew deceased ; he lived in Gas-
lane. I saw him this morning about 5 minutes be-
fore 1 talking to Ballard at his door; Ballard had
hold of the door. They appeared to be having high
words. I saw Johnson take a ball of whitening
from the boy's hand who stood by the side of him.
Johnson carries whitening to sell ; it was deceased's
own little boy. Deceased showed the ball of white-
ning to Ballard, who slammed the door in his face
as hard as he could. I was walking slowly, and
when I got as far as the Waggon and Horses I saw
Ballard open the door and make a rush out, and
then they apparently had a fight. Deceased had
his fists up, and Ballard had something, which I
afterwards found to be a gouge, in his hands.
Johnson turned round and made across the road up
to his cart, and fell flat on his face. I went back,
with two or three others, to see what was the mat-
ter, Ballard having at the time a gouge about three
quarters of an inch wide in his hand, and standing
against his door. Ballard is a carver, and the gouge
is a tool used by him in his business. Walton came
up and said to Ballard "Do you know what you
have done--you are liable to be taken—for you have
killed the man." Ballard said, " I would stab any
man if he came to interrupt me." I did not hear
anything more said. Walton said to me " Come
away, or he will stab you as well."
By the Coroner—Did you actually see Ballard
strike Johnson ?

Witness—Yes, I certainly did, sir. I did not see
any blood ; I was too far off. I felt sure he must
have cut him. I did not hear Johnson say anything.
Several persons lifted Johnson up and carried him
away. _

From other evidence it appeared that the quarrel
was caused by deceased expostulating with the pri-
soner for striking a boy, the son of the deceased.
The accused (Ballard) entered into a lengthened
statement descriptive of the grievance between him-
self and Johnson's boys on Thursday evening, and
expressed his annoyance at the boys throwing
stones at his door and windows. Ballard described
what took place between himself and Johnson on
Friday morning, and said that Johnson swore at
him. Ballard told him to be off, saying, " I want
none of your abuse." He denied ill-using the boy,
and endeavoured to reconcile Johnson. Proceeding,
Ballard said, " Johnson struck at me several times,
and I said, You old --, you had better be off.' I
held out my gouge, the handle at first, not at all ex-
cited at the moment, not intending to hurt him.
There was a scuffle between us, but I was not aware
that the gouge had pierced him, as I only held it in
front to keep him clear of me, but I did not expect
he would run against it. Walton cautioned the
people about going near me, and I told them they
need not fear, as I was quite reconciled. I acknow-
ledged to police-constable Decks that I had used
the gouge, but I said, I don't think he is stabbed
—I hope he is not hurt.' I also told Decks that the
gouge was on my bench; but I had no ill-feeling

against Johnson till that morning; I was rather
friendly with one of his broth3ro."
The Coroner, in addrcTsing the jury, said it 1-va.,'.4
quite eicil th t tl;n carne to his death by
the hand of Ballard. 'lila .f7.r flieln to con.-
sider w whether there was any pro-vocation suffi-
cient to justify the blow, and how the instrument
was-taken up. There could be no doubt but that
Johnson's children began the disturbance on the
night previous. Well, then, was there provocation
at all sufficient to justify the striking? and was the
instrument fetched with the intention of so using it?
The jury consulted for somo time, and then re-
turned a verdict of "Manslaughter" against John
Bollard, who -.Ails handed over to the custody of the
police. The superintendent of police strongly urged
for au adjournment, stating that he should be pre-
pared with more witnesses, but the coroner and jury
were satisfied with the evidence given.

LAW INTELLIGENCE,—March 15,

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)
WHEDDON V. WIIEDDON AND SMITH.

In this case, which commenced on Friday, the
husband, who is a tailor and hatter, at Bath, peti-
tioned the Court for a divorce on the ground of his
wife's adultery with the co-respondent, who was
described as a porter and who entered no appear-
ance. The wife denied the adultery, and pleaded
cruelty and neglect on the part of the husband.
The chief witness was a person named Martin, an
ex-policeman, who deposed to having seen Mrs.
Wheddon in company with the co-respondent at a
publichouse in Newington-causeway, and to having
traced them to a house of ill-fame. In the course of
a very long cross-examination it was elicited from
him that he had been employed by the petitioner,
and he gave a most confused and improbable narra-
tive of what he witnessed. It appeared also that
the co-respondent was in the employment of a Mr.
Hayes, an acquaintance of the petitioner, and who
had taken an active part in getting up evidence in
his behalf.

We have already reported the facts of the peti-
tioner's case, which was concluded on Friday.
Dr. Spinks, at the sitting of the Court on Satur-
day, addressed the jury, and contended that his
client (the respondent) was not the woman who had
been seen with the co•respondent, and that in point
of fact there had been a collusive attempt to get up
a sham case against her. The plot had, however,
completely broken down, the evidence of Martin and
other witnesses who had been called to make out the
identity being contradictory and obviously false. It
so happened, moreover, that a person who had been
in the court on Wednesday week, and who had been
sworn to by several witnesses as the respondent,
was in reality her sister, Mrs. Roberts. Feeling
convinced of the innocence of his client, and hardly
knowing how to meet the charge against her, he (the
learned counsel) had deliberately advised that she
should be kept out of the way; and she was not
near the court at all when the witnesses for the
petition mobbed Mrs. Roberts in Westminster Hall
and declared that she was Mrs. Wheddon.

The defence was fully established by the medium
of Mr. and Mrs. Roberts and other witnesses, and
upon the cross-examination of the witness Martin,
a superannuated detective, and another witness of
the name of Brushfield, both of whom swore to
seeing the respondent with Smith on a certain even-
ing walking about London, and proceed from Lei-
cester-square to Golden-square. There, however,
Brushfield said he parted from Martin, while the
latter said that he and Brushfield followed the re-
spondent and Smith, and that they saw Smith
tickling the respondent, and that they were very
familiar with each other.

The witness Martin, as well as other of the peti-
tioner's witnesses, went up to Mrs. Roberts, the re-
spondent's sister, in Westminster Hall, and pointed
to her, saying, "That's she," meaning that she was
Mrs. Wheddon ; and altogether the evidence in
support of the case was of a character that sailed
down the reprehension of the learned judge, who
asked if the witnesses Martin and Brushfield were
in court. The former only, however, was present.
He was ordered by the judge to remain in court
until the close of the case. _

Dr. Tristram, for the petitioner, in summing up
the evidence for his client, said that while he ad-
mitted a mistaken identity as regarded the respon-
dent, he yet could not suppose that there was not
some truth in the ease brought against her.
The jury, however, instantly brought in a verdict
declaring that the respondent was not guilty of the
charge of adultery brought against her.
The learned Judge then called upon the witness
Martin to stand forward. He was placed upon the
floor of the court.

The Judge then addressed him, and said that ho
had been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury in
respect to the evidence which he had given in this
case, which was a gross conspiracy to bring a charge
of adultery against the respondent. He therefore
ordered that Martin be committed to stand his trial
for perjury at the next session of the Central
Criminal Court.

Martin was accordingly given into the custody
of the officer of the court, in order to his commital
to the Queen's Bench Prison. Bail, however, would
be allowed to be taken for his appearance in the sum
of 1;50.

Sir 0. Cresswell said there was another person
who, if he were there, he would likewise have com-
mitted for perjury, and he did not know that he
would not communicate with the Attorney-General
in order to a prosecution being instituted against
the person in question. The learned judge took
occasion to express a hope that solicitors would be
careful in the getting up of their cases for that
court, for if he found any laxity in that respect he
would exercise the power vested in him to deal with
such parties as the circumstances connected with
the case might demand.

Martin was then taken out of court in custody,
and the proceedings terminated.

ASSIZE INTEL LIGEIV CE.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—CAMBRIDGE, March 15.
Her Majesty's judges of assize came here from
Huntingdon yesterday, and the commission was
opened in due course. There is not a cause for trial,
and the calendar contains the names of 16 prisoners.
Mr. Baron Martin sat in the Crown Court this
morning. . _ _

From the opening of the court this morning it was
densely crowded in all parts by members of the
university, &c., to hear the trial of
James Francis Frrington Barnes, aged 22, de-
scribed in the calendar as a gentleman, who was
charged with obtaining by' false pretences a gold
ring from Mr. Peters, the well-known silversmith,
of Cambridge.
Mr. Markby prosecuted ; Mr. Orridge defended
the prisoner. . _ _

The prisoner at the time the offence was com-
mitted, was an undergraduate of Peter-house
College, and it appeared from the opening state-
ment of the counsel for the prosecution that in the
year 1858 he was first entered at that college. Sub-
sequently he took his name off and went to prepare
for the civil service examination. Ia November of
last year he again changed his plans and returned
to his old college, bringing with him the highest
testimonials, &c., from the tutors with whom he had
been reading. During his first residence he had pur-
chased about £l2 worth of articles of jewellery at
Peters's, which had never been paid for, and it was
distinctly understood that no further credit was to
be given him. Shortly after his return in November
last he went in his cap and gown to the shop of Mr.
Peters, and selected a ring of the value of £4 10s.,
and the shopman, who had no knowledge of him
personally, asked him, as ho did not then pay for
the article, for his name and college. Upon this he
wrote on a piece of paper handed to him for the pur-
pose, " J. Barnes, Pembroke." The shopman
referred to his superior, and he was allowed to take
the ring, it being then fully believed that he was
Mr. Beene, of Pembroke College. Mr Peters and
his shopman were called and said, under no circum-
stances would he have been allowed to have the
ring on credit had they known he was Barnes, of
Peterhouse. It also appeared in evidence that
within a few hours of obtaining the ring he sold it
to a man of th© name of Tarrant, who in his turn
parted with it, and after passing through several
hands it was taken in January last by an intending
purchaser to Peters shop to have its value ascertained.
Then it was immediately recognised, and inquiries
were made which led to the apprehension
of the
prisoner. It should be mentioned that within a few
days of the ring being obtained Barnes Was sent
away from college, but, as the tutor explained, for
matters quite unconnected with this affair.
Mr. Orridge, in his address to the jury, whilst
admitting that the ring had been obtained fraudu-
lently, said there were good grounds for the belief
that the prisoner never intended to defraud the
prosecutor. The fact that men purchased
eoods on
twheelT known, and although
soon after to liarrant
one
obtainedy on credit, there was every pro-
credit and dispesedwoafs
nivbeeiinn g
tphaisi d
tfohreyready m
were
debtl ti lot sh
icsa sfea
tMherr.
Barnesswpietcht
ootfhintendethed
heatsdom ag
incurred, and Mr. Peters would
have been paid.
Mr. Baron Martin summed up, and told the jury
if they believed the prisoner had obtained the ring
upon the faith of his being Berne, of Pembroke,
even supposing there might be a notion in his own
mind that
an oining as
he wday ia
ould one for it, there was 1
bta
ment, and was intended by the act' of parlia-
they must convict the prisoner.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict
of QuiltY, and the learned judge in feeling
terms Bpoke of
the misery the prisoner's con-

duct must entail upon his family and friends,
and told him in his opinion the jury had no alter-
rative than to return the verdict they hod given.
He then sentenced him to be imprisoned for one

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YoRii, March 15.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)

ATTEMPT TO POISON A VIFE AT MIDDLESBRO'.

Richard Buckle, 35, was charged with feloniously'
administering one ounce of laudanum to Jane
Buckle, his wife, with intent to murder her, at Mid•
diesbro', on the 26th of June last.

Mr.:Blanchard and Mr. Scrie prosecuted; Mr.
Maule defended the prisoner.

On the day stated the prisoner was a police.,
officer in the Middlesbro' force. His wife had been
complaining of pain, and he gave her a dark brown
liquid, which he directed her to- take previous to
retiring to bed, and to say nothing about it to her
sister, who was then in the house. This request on
the part of the prisoner aroused the suspicion of his
wife, and she thereupon informed her sister of the
circumstance. On entering her bedroom Jane
Buckle took half of the liquid only, and not the
whole, as her husband desired. At an early hour
on the following morning the poor woman became
dangerously ill, vomited seven or eight times, and
had to keep her bed for the whole of the day. She,
however, recovered, and no notice was taken of the
matter. In about a fortnight afterwards the pri-
soner brought home a powder, which he said he
had got for her from a person named Hopper.
This powder, in the absence of the prisoner, his
wife took from his coat pocket, and substituted
in its place a powder similar in appearance, com-
posed of sugar and flour. The powder in the pri-
soner's pocket was taken to Mr. Dickenson, che-
mist, and he having made an analysation discovered
that the powder contained a considerable quantity
of strychnia. When the powder was found to
be poisonous the prisoner's wife, who was in
fear of her life, left her home with her child,
and informed the police of what had occurred. The
prisoner was apprehended and tried at the last
Yorkshire winter gaol delivery, on the charge of
attempting to administer strychnia to his wife, but
the evidence failed to bring home the charge, and.
the prisoner was acquitted ; the present charge,
therefore, of administering the laudanum was pre-
ferred against him. It was shown that the pri-
soner possessed himself of the laudanum under the
pretence that his wife was afflicted with toothache,
and that he administered it to her. Guilty. Sen-
tence of death was recorded against the prisoner,
his lordship intimating that the punishment would.
be commuted to penal servitude for life.