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

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before 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 Levershulme, 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 Ile (Pilldngton) 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. Romney 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 bo
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. Manders, a Mrs.
Woolby, and a little girl would also give evidence, and if
the facts were detailed as he (the learned counsel) had
faintly shadowiid 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 MATTHEW s.—THE MULLER TRIAL.

This bankrupt was described as a cab proprietor, of 68
Earl-street, Paddington, and to-day ho came up for his
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' am entitled, for my personal benefit,
to the rewards of £lOO offered by the Government, £lOO
offered by Roberts 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.