The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-11 00:00:00

LA. W INTELLIGENCE.—Nora. 10.

ARCHES COURT,
HART V. BART-DIVORCE.
This was a suit of divorce, by reason of cruelty, in-
stituted by Mrs. Emily Jane Hart, wife of Mr. James
Hart, of Leamington Priors, Warwickshire.
From the libel of Mrs. Hart, it appeared that the
parties had been married at St. John's, Nottinc,,hill, on
the 18th of September, 1847, Mr. Hart having pre-
viously been a widower. From the very commence-
ment of their married life her husband, she alleged, bad
treated her ill. A week after the wedding he wished
her to sign a deed, pledging herself not to marry again
after his decease ; promising, in the event of her com-
pliance, to settle upon her 500/. a year. She, however,
declined, and he thereupon grossly abused her. He swore
that she never should survive him, and that if she had a
child she should be murdered in her confinement. On the
next day, when at a boarding-house at Margate, she was
singing to him, and whilst so employed a gentleman lodging
in the same house came into the room, whereupon he
instantly ordered her to stop and to accompany him from
the room, She did so, and they went into their private
room, where he threatened to shoot or drown her.
On ane,ther occasion he used actual violence to her.
In tie following month (having in the interim re-
ti- Lied to their home at Notting-hill) they were drink-
,g tea at Mr. }linchcliff's, a neighbour, when Mr.
Hart became enraged at her for caressing Master
Hinchcliff, a child of five years old. Soon after-
wards, in a groundless fit of jealousy, he heat her and
said ho would shoot her. She desired him to fetch a
pistol for that purpose, and whilst he left the room
she escaped into an adjoining garden, where she re-
mained concealed in a shed until three the next morning.
She then obtained admission into the house of Mr.
Hinchcliff, and stayed there the rest of the night. On
another occasion he beat her on their way home from
church, because he thought a " white-haired old man"
had been looking at her. On the Bth of November he
again beat her, because her trustee, to whom she had
written at his request, had refused to give up a deed ;
and he also threatened to burn down two houses which
had been settled upon her. In the middle of next year
she was asked to be godmother to the child of Mr.
Hart's daughter by a former wife ; bat in the church
her husband called her an opprobrious name. As they
were going home after the christening dinner he kicked
her before him along the street until he was prevented
by the police, and when they reached home The beat her
With a candlestick until the people of the hone(' inter-
fered. Even then he followed her and threw her down
stairs. Many other instances of cruelty were also
alleged by Mrs. Hart. In April, 1850, she quitted him,
and commenced a suit of separation by reason of cruelty
and adultery. At his earnest request, however, she
agreed to live with him again ; but he soon resumed
his former habits of cruelty ; and, finally, in the following
July, he deserted her at the White Hart Hotel at Bris-
tol, where he left her very ill and penniless.
Mr. Hart himself put in no contradictory plea ; but
he had administered interrogatories to' the witnesses
with a view to discredit their testimony.
Drs. Addams and Robertson contended that the charges
against Mr. Hart had been substantiated ; and that he
on the other hand had net succeeded in at all impeaching
the conduct of his wife. They, therefore, prayed the
court to pronounce for the separation.
The Queen's Advocate (with whom was Dr. Spinks)
contended that whatever might have been the conduct
of Mr. Hart up to the date of the first separation, it
had been condoned by Mrs. Hart's consenting to renew
the cohabitation. With respect to the acts of cruelty
since alleged, the learned advocate argued that they did
not amount to legal servitia.
Drs. Addams and Robertson having bees heard in
reply,
Sir John Dodson postponed giving his judgment.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

IN RR ELLIS.- CASE OP A STOCK AND SHAREBROKER.

This was the examination meeting in the case of
Samuel Helbert Ellis, described as a dealer in stock and
shares, of the Stock Exchange. The balance-sheet,
which extended from the Ist of January, 1853, to the
date of the petition, exhibited some peculiar features.
The amount of debts is small, only 7361.; but the liabili-
ties are stated at 9,3301.; assets, only 301.; no profits ;
losses, 3921.; expenses, 5001. Deficiency at the com-
mencement of the account, 222/. The liabilities were
entirely on bills of exchange, chiefly drawn by Captain
Pugh, and accepted by the bankrupt. In explanation of
the transaction, the bankrupt made the following state-
ment :—" Some time in 1852, Capt. Pugh, who was en-
gaged in speculations on the Stock Exchange, through
me as his agent, being unable to pay his losses, applied
to me to assist him in raising the money by accepting
bills. Capt. Pugh being the son of and probable suc-
cessor to a gentleman of very large property (10,000/. a
year), aid being at that time, as he informed me, about
to borrow a sum of 10,0001., a part of which would be
applied to meet the bills, I complied with his request.
I was the more easily induced to do so as had not the
losses on the Stock Exchange been paid, I should have
forfeited my position there. These bills have been
renewed from time to time, and thus reached the amount
a above."

Mr. Lawrance supported the bankrupt. There was
no opposition. _

Hi; Honour observed that the case did not appear a
very promising one.
Mr. Lawrance said it was expected that the liabilities
would some time be discharged by Captain Pugh, who
would ultimately be a wealthy man, but the tenant fo
life persisted in living with the usual tenacity of tha
Cl t3s. (Laughter.)
The bankrupt passed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

IN RE SAMUEL HIND-SPECULATIONS ON THE STOCK

EXCHANGE.

This insolvent, who had been director of several com-
panies, and connected with the Stock Exchange, applied
to he discharged from prison.
Mr. Nichols opposed for Messrs. Druce and Co., up-
holsterers, Baker-street, Portman-square, and Mr.
Dowse, for Mr. Clark, auctioneer, in Oxford-street.
Mr. Sargood supported.
The schedule exhibited debts and liabilities to 14,0521.
19s. 4d., from November, 1852, and of that sum 10,7801.
Hs. 11, were without consideration. The insolvency
was attributed to speculations on the Stock Exchange,
and to losses sustained, and the payment of a large sum
for a person as alleged differences on stock jobbing
transactions. The insolvent had about 15,000/. when
he commenced in November, 1852, and by June, 1853,
the whole had been lost on the Stock Exchange by spe-
culations. He bad paid upwards of 6,000/, for a Mr.
Henry B. Middleton.

Mr. Commissioner Murphy remarked that there was
a very interesting list—two were transported and five
were insolvent debtors. (A. laugh.) He said he had
considered the case, and could not find any palliation
for the insolvent. The complaint was one that ought
not to be dealt leniently with, but, on the contrary,
was one that called upon the court for its severe ani-
madversion. There was a less he had been reminded
of, amounting to 6,0001., which was antecedent to the
transaction with Messrs. Druce, which especially
nquired thi insolvent not to incur fresh debts either
as a principal or surety. He was of opinion that
Messrs. Druce had given credit to him, and to him
alone, and that it was for ready money. He could not
allow the tradesmen of London to be victimised without
expressing his opinion on the conduct which bad been
pursued. He knew the insolvent had been in prison
since March, but it was his own fault that he had not
been heard at an earlier period. His Honour said he
could not consider that he had reasonable expectations
of
paying Messrs Druce, and he should not be discbarg-
ing his publio duty if he did not pass a judgment of
twelve calendar months from the vesting order (20th of
April), at the suit of Messrs. Druce.
After the learned Commissioner bad given his opinion,
I n order not to have judgment pronounced on the pre-
ent occasion,
Mr. Sargood prayed an adjournment, to insert Mr.
Peters, the coach-builder, as a creditor.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy deferred formally pro-
nouncing the judgment, and hoped the matter with
Messrs. Druce might be, settled.
The insolvent returned to the Queen's Prison.