The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-01 00:00:00

SATURDAY EV Mil N 9, FEBRUARY

to go to his house that evening after I left work at'
7 o'clock. He said he would meet me at the office
door. He did not come. About a fortnight or three
weeks:afterwardsßeichberg again called with a fresh
form of type, and asked me to pull a fewproofs, pro-
ducing, as on former occasions, his own paper for
that purpose. He never left any proof with me. On
printing the third proof he held it up to the gas-
light, and examining it cri▪ tically with an eyeglass
said it was very good. After printing about 20 im-
pressions, he asked me to pack up the form again in
the same paper he had brought,which I did. Before
he left he remarked upon the toughness of the paper
on which these impressions were taken, by twisting
a piece of it and giving it to me to pull asunder, if I
could. I was unable to do so, He paid me is. 6d.
for pulling the proofs, stati▪
ng he would call again
and have 1,000 copies struckioff. About the beginning
of December Reichberg called again alone, and
brought a block with a piece of. copper-faced metal
on the top, having some foreigncharacters upon
it, saying he wanted 50 cards printed, and asked
employer agreeing
,mluperhinteMd My employer
cards, and while
what I would do them for. told him the price.
toH He it i
tdh
e mwfaosr toole
ss
doing so I asked him what the language was on the
plate. He said, " Deutsch." I asked what they
were for. He replied, "50 cards for a gentleman."
After doing them, I took off what we term the
"make ready" sheet, and gave it to a boy to file.
Reichberg objected to that, and it was given to him
at his request. He took the 50 cards, the block,
and the " make ready" sheet, and that was the last
time he called on me. I have since seen a Russian
ipsr ve
se
sriyo muchhs
I m
dkee
ww
ehraet
similar
mp
irlianrt et do forpa him.
part
rouble note. (Shown. a forged border of one.) That
Russian
rouble note.

Cross. examined by Mr. M'Donnell—A boy about
14 years of age was present when I had those con•
versations with Reichberg. Ile could be found ii
wanted.

James Skinner, a lithographer, at 47, Lower
Whitecross-street, said he remembered Harwitz and
Reichberg calling on him early in November and
asking him to take a lithographic impression of a
copper plate which they produced, and upon which
some characters were engraven. He told them he
could not do it to perfection unless he made an
electrotype impression of the copper-plate. They
said they could not leave it, as they had borrowed
it of a friend.

-

186'4.

Sir C. Cresswell, who went through the evidence
most carefully, said that at first the joint later of
the petitioner and his wife induced him to believe
that there was collusion on their part, but after
hearing the case fully, he arrived at a different con-
clusion. He must therefore pronounce a decree
nisi, with costs against the co-respondent.

The plate was that found in the piece of gutta
percha, so spoken to by the officer Scott at a pre-
vious examination.

At this stage the prisoners were again remanded.

FURNIVAL V. FURNIVAL.
This was a petition by the wife for judicial sepa-
ration, on the ground of her husband's desertion,
to which an appearance had been entered by the
respondent, denying the allegation, and stating that
be was ready to receive his wife back, and provide
her with a home.

LA TY IN TELLIGEN CB, Jan. 31.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
MARRIS V. MARRIS AND BURKE-EXTRAORDINARY CASE.
This was a suit instituted by the husband for a
divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with
the co-respondent, to which there was no appearance,
but the Queen's Proctor intervened, pleading collu-
sion, connivance, and asssistance in the alleged
adultery on the part of the petitioner.
Mr. Cooper appeared for the petitioner, and the
Attorney-General, Sir
F Slade, Q.C., and Dr.
Spinks for the Queen's Proctor.
Mr. Cooper stated the case. The parties were
married on the 2d of March, 1850, and both were
about 25 years of age at the time. They lived at
.
Sheffield for some time subsequently, and their co-
habitation Continued until the commencement of
1861, during which period there were two children
issue of the marriage, one of whom was living.
While residing at Sheffield, the mother and sister
of the co-respondent lived within two or three doors
of the petitioner, and there was a close Intimacy be-
tween the two families, which continued until Sep-
tember, 1858, when
the uetitioner and his wife
removed to Nottingham, were he set up in business
as a linendraper. Some time after that the co-
respondent also went to Nottingham, and obtained
a situation in a shop in the town. He boarded at
the petitioner's, but lodged elsewhere, and in July,
1859, he went away. He returned to Nottingham,
and applied to the petitioner to take him into his
employment, which be did, at a salary of £6O a-year.
Subsequently the
Petitioner opened another estab.
lishment at Leicester, the management of which he
entrusted to the co-respondent, and his wife used to
go there once or twice a-week to receive money. On
such occasions her habit was to sleep at a hotel in
the town. In the following year the petitioner was
compelled to become a bankrupt, and was obliged to
come to London for some time, and he heard from
his brother-in-law that he had seen his wife in
Burke's bedroom during his absence. He returned
home immediately, and mentioned the circumstance
to his wife, who denied that there was any truth in
the statement, and said she supposed she must have
been mistaken for her sister who was then at Notting-
ham. He believed her, and they lived as happily as
before, until July, 1860. One evening his wife was
asleep on the sofa, and he discovered some letters
in her pocket from Burke. He charged her with
impropriety, but she declared that beyond corre-
spondence with. Burke there was nothing improper
on her part. At his request she signed a memoran-
dum to the effect that she would have no further
communication with Burke or his family. They
resumed their fidendly terms, but on the Bth July
following the respondent said she wished to go to
Doncaster to see her mother, who, she said, was ill,
and stated at the same time that she wanted to see
Burke, but that she would not have an interview
with him alone ; but he ascertained that she did not
carry out her promise. An altercation ensued, and
she confessed afterwards that she had had con-
nexion with Burke. .Ultimately she left him, and
had since been cohabiting with the co-respondent.
Evidence was given which fully established the
charge of adultery, and letters were produced in
which the wife admitted her guilt, and entreated
her husband to receive her home, which closed the
case for the petitioner.
The Attorney-General said that information had
been furnished to the Queen's Proctor which justi-
fied his intervening, in order that justice might be
done. That information was to the effect that Mr.
Marris had not only connived at his wife's adultery,
but actually desired her to go and live with Mr.
Burke. He produced a letter which had been iden-
tified as being in the handwriting of Mr. Marris
and his wife before they separated. The envelope
was in Mr. Marris's handwriting, and bore the date
of July 10,1860, and was addressed to Mr. Burke,
at the Talbot Hotel, Bradford, Yorkshire. On one
sheet the wife wrote as follows :—" I was grieved
to find that there was no letter from you, and I
don't know your whereabouts. The important ques-
tion is finally settled, and the articles are only
waiting for you to claim. I have not felt so happy
for years. Tell me what you wish to do by letter,
or better, by telegram." On the fly-sheet Mr. Mar-
ris wrote the following
It will be better to at-
tend to this matter the first thing." The learned
Attorney-General applied to have the petitioner,
who was in attendance, examined, in order to ex-
plain the circumstances connected with the case,
and the Court granted the application.
Mr. Wm. Marris was then examined by the
Attorney-General, and deposed as follows :—The
joint letter produced is in my handwriting and my
wife's. My wife was then living with me at Not-
tingham, and shortly after she left me to go to Don-
caster. On that occasion I accompanied her to the
station, got her ticket, and paid her fare: She re-
turned the following day, and she did, to my know-
ledge, go to Doncaster purposely to meet Mr.
Burke, but not alone. She said she had to meet her
mother there. I did not know that indecent fami-
liarities had taken place between her and Mr.
Burke. I remember the memorandum signed by
my wife on the 7th of June, 1860, in which she
promised to discontinue all connection with Mr.
Burke and his family. Previous to this I had heard
that Mr. Burke had been writing to my wife, and
that he had been at my house during :my absence.
At that time Thad not seen any letter to my wife
from him. I had heard of their having been seen
together white I was from home, at Welford-grove,
which is about two miles from Nottingham. I
heard of their having been seen together at the Stag
end Pheasant, at Leicester. That was somewhere
about December, 1859. It was during one of the
visits of my wife
to Leicester, to receive money
fworeusd h e
let
from Mr. Burke, that I heard she had been seen at
tho Stag and Pheasant with him. I knew about my
wife meeting Mr. Burke at Doncaster by what she
stated herself, and she remained at Doncaster one
night. After the day on which my wife signed the
memorandum and her leaving me we had hostile
discussions relative to Mr. Burke. After my, wife
left I received a letter from her, in which she stated
that I desired her to leave my place and go and live
with Mr, Burke. [The letter was produced, and it
stated that, if witness did not discontinue the suit
on the ground of her infidelity, she would prove
that he had desired her to go and live with Mr.
Burke, and said that he promised her to seek
for a divorce on the plea of incompatibility of
temper, or of mutual consent to separate.] I
never expressed a desire that she should leave
me, or that we should live apart. I said to her,
" You must give up Burke or me. If after
ten years' living together, the thread of affection is
worn so thin, and can be broken so easily, you had
betterol
other. She said she could not give me up, and
giveresi up ni
gnhime.." I said she must do one or the
This was two or three days be-
t me. I never spoke about a divorce to
her, or said that I would act towards her as a sister.
I do not remember addressing her as a sister after
she left me ; but I said I would give her advice as
a brother. 11iire a letter was put in from the re-
spondent to the petitioner after their separation, in
which she said that except for his desiring her to
leave his house she Would not have acted as she had

Mr. M'lntyre appeared for the petitioner, and the
respondent was unrepresented by counsel.
It appeared that the parties were married in
February, 1856, and after the marriage they went
to Brighton for a few days. On their return to
London, the respondent, on their arrival at the
Bricklayers' Arms Station, asked his wife to give
him whatever money she had, as he was anxious to
place it in the bank with his own money. She
did so, giving him £2O, and then he left her. She
proceeded to a house in Paragon-place, New
Kent-road, which he had taken, but ho never
came to her afterwards. He communicated with
her through her family, and stated that he was too
poor to live with her. He said that if she would
supply him with money he would make a fortune,
and that he hated " poor people." (Laughter.) He
added that " love in a cottage was all gammon," as
far as London was concerned, and expressed a hope
that she would find the money to put him into busi-
ness.

The respondent in person cross-examined the
petitioner.
The Court pronounced the decree of judicial
separation.

done, and also another letter, in which she entreated I sOl7
him to receive her back, reminding him of the .ed in the House of Correction for two calendar
months, with hard labour.
many years she had been faithful to him, p:Lid
Mrs. Pavitt, who has amassed a large sum of
speaking in very pathetic terms
firstor her Daving money, and whose fingers were covered with ex-
passed the churchyard where their child was pensive gold rings, appeared to be astounded when
interred, and the bitter memories it conjured up.] she heard the sentence, and said she could pay a
I never told her I would advise her as a brother £lOO penalty.
until she had left me. I did all I could to dissaude Mr. Selfe would not alter the sentence.
her from going to live with Mr. Burke, With re-
spect to the joint letter, I do not remember to what
the words, " You had better attend to this the first
thing," refer, except to my statement to my wife
that she must give up me or Burke, and I presume
the term " articles" refers to herself. While I was
absent from home my wife sent a domestic to Mr.
Burke, requesting him to come to my place, and
they were seen walking in my private garden
together. I.did not see her on that day, and she
left me the next day at Eight o'clock in the morn-
ing. I saw her and Burke in a cab the following
day, but I did not speak to them.
The petitioner was cross-examined by Mr. Cooper,
and confirmed several portions of the learned coun-
sel's statement in his opening address. He added
that his wife signed the memorandum in compliance
with his wishes, and in consequence of his stating
that he could not rely on her word, as she had pre-
viously promised not to see Burke or his family,
which promise she had broken. On her return
from Doncaster, she told him that she and Mr.
Burke had slept at the same hotel, but that they
occupied different rooms. She left on the Sunday,
and on the Thursday previous he took a portrait of
Burke from her pocket. She said it was her's and
that he had no right to it. He threw it into the fire.
She then showed him a plain gold ring, which she
said Mr. Burke had given her on the first night
when he took liberties, and that she had thrown his
(petitioner's) ring into the Trent. She went to bed,
and he remained on the sofa that night. The next
' morning he went to her relations and stated what
had occurred, and they told him that he ought
never to live with her again. Her mother told him
that she was aware that her daughter had commit-
ted acts of adultery previously.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Cooper having
addressed the Court,

GREENWICH.--BRUTAL ASSAULT ON A WIFE
BY A SHIP'S CAPTAIN.—Joseph Thresh, master of
the sloop Ark, of Goole, now lying in the Surrey
Canal docks, Rotherhithe, was brought up on
remand from the previous day, charged with vio-
lently assaulting Martha Thresh, his wife.
The prisoner was brought up at this Court on
Thursday, but in consequence of a medical certifi•
cate being produced that the wife was unable to
attend owing to the injuries inflicted, he was put
back on remand. The wife now appeared, her face
and one side of her head being one mass of bruises,
and from her statement it appeared that on Wed-
nesday afternoon the prisoner returned to the ship
in a state of drunkenness, and because she refused
to supply him with money to go on shore to get
more drink with, he doubled his fists in her face
and struck her. He subsequently threatened to
burn all her clothes, and in order to prevent him
doing this she allowed the fire in their cabin to go
out. Shortly after ten o'clock at night, when the
crew on board the vessel were in their berths
asleep, he renewed his violence towards her, in-
flicted the bruises then visible, and also bruised
her about the body, when her screams brought as-
sistance and he was taken into custody.
Police-constable 56 M deposed to taking the pri-
soner into custody on board the ship in the dock,
his attention having been called to the same by the
cries of " Murder" from the wife.
In answer to the magistrate, the complainant
said she had been married 22 years to the pri-
soner, for the last 14 of which she had been in
danger of her life from his violence. She had four
children living, two very young, and the other two,
a daughter, aged 21, and a son 19, who was on
board ship.

Mr. Tr-aill inquired of the complainant how it
happened that she was on board ship at the time of
the assault ?

The complainant replied that she had been on
board the vessel with him five years, otherwise,
owing to his drunken habits, she would never have
had money to provide for her family.
Mr. Traill said, the difficulty in dealing with
such cases was, that in sending the husband to
prisOn the means of support to the wife and family
were cut off, and he wished to know whether she
(complainant) could provide for herself and
children ?

The complainant replied, that she would contrive
to do so, rather than be subjected to his ill-treatment
and being in danger of her life, as she felt he re-
quired punishment.

Mr. Train said he believed also that the prisoner
required punishment, and sentenced him to three
months' imprisonment with hard labour in Wands-
worth gaol.

WANDSWORTH.—COMMITTAL OF A RAILWAY
SERVANT.—Joshua Townley, a young man em•
ployed in the carriage department of the South
Western Railway at the depot at Nine•elms, was
brought up on remand before Mr. Dayman charged
with stealing a quantity of brass.
Mr. T. Bent, the superintendent of police on the
South Western Railway, attended to watch the case
on behalf of the company.
It appeared that in consequence of numerous rob-
beries in the fitters' department a watch was kept,
and at a quarter to six o'clock on the morning of
the 23d the prisoner was seen in the shop, at which
time none of the men had any right to be in the
departments, as work did not commence until the
hour. He was seen to fill a bag with a quantity of
brass turnings from a lathe, and afterwards a white
handkerchief. He was taken into custody, and
upon his lodgings being searched 151bs. of simitr
brass was found concealed under his bed. A num-
ber of other artioles of a similar tiesTi.,ption used by
the company were also found at his lodgings.
Blackburn, the const7:ole, stated that he had since
made a further search, and found several pieces of
mahogany similar to those used for railway car-
riages.

Mr. Wilson, an attorney's clerk, who defended
the prisoner, did not deny the charge, and pleaded
for his worship to deal summarily with him on
account of his previous good character. He had been
in the service of the company two years.
Mr. Dayman inquired whether it was the wish of
the company that the prisoner should be sent for

Mr. Bent said they were not desirous of having
him sent for trial, but they wished for an example
to be made, as the prisoner had been suspected t'or
twoyears,

Mi. Doman said it was a very gross ece:,,e, and
he was afraid that this system of plur.'3uer had been
carried on for some time. He stitenced him to six
months' imprisonment wil.t hard labour.