The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-08 00:00:00

LAW-THIS DAY

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BOUQUET V. BOUQUET.
This was a suit instituted for the dissolution of marriage
on the ground of the adultery of the petitioner's wife with
divers persons.
The petitioner is a clerk in the Bank of England, and the
marriage was solemnised at Christchurch, Hoxton, on Feb.
15, 1850. In consequence of the repeated misconduct of his
wife, and the state of his health, ho was compelled to sepa-
rate from her, He allowed her a maintenance for some
time, but he afterwards discovered that she was living in a
state of prostitution. She had also fallen into habits of in-
temperance.
William Henry Cornwall, brother-in-law of the petitioner,
proved that the respondent had a child by a man whom she
called an American, and she was at present leading an
abandoned life. He knew that his brother allowed her a
certain provision, but he had since discovered that she was
receiving £2 a week from another man.
Philip Bouquet, brother of the petitioner, said in the
month of July, 1853, he went to the house at which the
respondent was staying after the separation, and saw a gen-
tleman leave her apartment. Upon being remonstrated
with, she said she had a right to do what she liked, as she
was her own mistress. He afterwards saw her in the
streets, where she accosted several gentlemen, one of whom
he saw her take to a house of ill-fame in Macclesfield-
street North.

Holland, a superannuated police officer, said he accom-
panied the last witness to Macclesfield-street. He there
found Mrs. Bouquet was in bed with a gentleman. On asking
the landlady to have the door opened she refused; she was
not going to interfere with the business of her house to
please witness. Mrs. Bouquet was afterwards seen to leave
the house.

Two sisters of the petitioner said during the illness
of the petitioner some time ago his wife used to dress and
go out to dances at the Rosemary Branch Tavern, Hox•
ton, and not return till very late at night.
A decree nisi was granted.
NUTTALL V. NU.TTALL.

This was a petition presented by the wife for judicial
separation on the ground of cruelty.
The parties resided at Rochdale, were married in 1851,
and until 1859 they lived very comfortably together. After
that time the respondent fell into habits of intemperance,and
from that period down to the time of separation, in the early
part of the present year, he ill-treated her and threatened to
starve her to death.

Elizabeth Nuttall, the petitioner, said the cruelty com-
menced in 1859. The respondent then began to get drunk ;
and in that year he first threatened to strike her because she
asked him to return home sooner than he was in the habit
of doing. In June, 1861, he asked her one night for the
key of the bedroom door, and because she could not find it
he struck her in the face and knocked her down, repeating
the cruelty every time she attempted to getup. He continued
this treatment for about two hours. In Sept. of the same year
he returned hone one night drunk ; she asked him to get
to bed, but he struck her in the face. Retried to kick her,
but in so doing he hurt his foot. This angered him very
much ; he refused to allow any one but the servant to
attend to it. In the present year he returned home one
night about seven in the evening, and to avoid him she
ran out of the back door. In following her he aimed
a blow at her, but by accident he fell, and
on that occasion he hurt his hand very much,
and told her that if she went near him he would kill her,
although he should be hung for it. He also threatened to
starve her to death if she attempted to complain.
Other witnesses corroborated the evidence of the peti-
tioner.

Decree of judicial separation grant _d with costs.

71IE CHURCH AT 711 E GRAVE.

(From the Liberator.)

When a good man, and especially when a true and faith.
ful minister of the cross, dies, it would be a gladdening
thing if one could see the ecclesiastical strifes which are
waged between thei,living suspended at the dead man's
grave. In England, with one sect claiming supremacy over
all others, denying validity of orders, excommunicating non-
adherents, taxing.and fining, and refusing even the right of
Christian burial, such a state of feeling is nearly impos-
sible. The barriers of the State Church extend along the
whole way of human life, from birth to death, separating
man from man, and Christian from Christian, and are not
even lowered at the grave.
What is not possible where there is a State Church is,
however, very possible where this upas tree does not ex-
ercise its blighting and poisoning influence on human sym-
pathies. Our readers have probably seen within the last
month an account of the funeral of the late T. Q, Stow, of
Adelaide. One account that has been published was ex-
tracted from the Church Chronicle for the diocese. This
paper tells of the presence at the grave of this memorable
man, not merely of the judges of the land, and the mem-
bers of the Legislature, but of the bishop, the dean, the
canons, and the clergy of Adelaide. Funeral sermons in
his honour were also, we are informed, preached in
several of the Episcopal Churches of the town. Nor
does the Church press hesitate to do full honour to the
memory of the dead, In the Church Chroniclo for
August 20, in an article on " Catholicity," Mr. Stow's
character and services are recognised as fully as thoughthe
deceased minister had been one of the most honoured mem-
bers of the Church of which the Chronicle is the organ.
Let the reader imagine, if he can, the English Churchman,
the Guardian, or the Record, writing thus of a Dissenting
" teacher •"
"If the world, in spite of material obstructions and na-
tional prejudices, is hastening to acknowledge that bond of
brotherly kindness, laid in that deep truth, that God hath
made ' all men of one bleed to dwell on the face of the
earth,' surely the Church of Christ should not be behind-
hand in recognising that still more mysterious bond of
union in all believers, cemented and sanctified by the blood
of the everlasting covenant I This thought seemed to
be more vividly presented to the mind when lately
standing beside the grave of an acknowledged Christian
and honoured minister, whose service in his Master's cause
has exercised an influence extended in proportion to the
catholicity of his spirit, and the unsectarian character of
his example and demeanour. Death teems to banish from
- and its haughty bearing, is the sole bit' rrier to entire our recollection the minor traits characteristic of the de-
parted. Who now thinks of Leighton and Ken, or Baxter
and Wesley, or Fenelon and Pascal, otherwise than as
members of ' the general assembly of the first-born which
are written in heaven 1' And so we would desire to regard
the memory of those Christian ministers and pioneers of
this colony, who of late have been removed from among us,
but who in its earliest days held aloft the banner of pure
and elevated Christianity—were self-denying in their la-
bours of love, and consistently maintained their distinctive..
religious principles, yet with genuine catholicity of spirit,
and the gentle courtesies of Christian charity."
May we not ask our contemporary the Guardian, wile
ther, after all, this is not better than the sneering and con-
temptuous style in which it was pleased to treat of the cha-
racter and memory of John Burnet? May we not put it
to his Christian conscience whether it is not desirable that
the feeling shown by members of his denomination in
South Australia should be possible in England?
We.. are glad to have a pendant to this pleasaxt feature of
religious society in Adelaide. In the early part of :Sep-
tember the Rev. Dr. Caulfield, first Bishop of Nassau (the
Bahama. Islands), died. His death seems to have excited
feelings in that colony identical with those occasioned by the
deceasefnr.erai of Mr. Stow. All the civil authorities attended his
. , and also, says the Nassau Guardian, the " Dis-
senlteiiiitg ministers" of the town.
possible not to contrast this state of religious society
with that which exists in England;,
well as what is known of the o
be-
tween all denominations in thegcolonies
feelingand in view
.o.f it, as
te
aprrreivvaei prevailing
other conclusion. than that the State-Church, with a't anya
as-
sumption of superiority and privilege, its intolerant'i aspirsi;
Chris-
- tian Union in England?