The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-28 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.-April 27.

DIVORCE COURT.
,Before Sir C. Cresswell, Mr. Justice Hill, and Mr.
Justice Willes.)
PEARCE V. PEARCE AND FRENCH.

Dr. Spinks and Mr. Herne appeared for the pe-
itioner. The other parties had not put in any

answer.

This was a suit for a dissolution of marriage, in-
stituted by Mr. Henry Daniel Pearce, on the ground
of his wife's adultery with John Gainsford French.
The parties were married on the 27th of February,
1847, and they subsequently resided together at
Woodford-green and other places until 1852, when
it was agreed between them that Mr. Pearce should
go to Australia to see whether he could find a
better opening than in England for the support of
his wife and family. He had formerly been a
merchant's clerk, and had property in houses
amounting to £lOO a-year, which at the time of his
departure he settled on his wife, in order that she
might have a provision during his absence. The
wife then went to reside with her parents at Wood-
ford-peen, and continued to receive the money
under the deed of settlement, and she also corre-
sponded with her husband on affectionate terms ;
but in the beginning of 1853 she removed to ano-
ther house, where she took in Mr, French, who was
the driver of a Woodford omnibus, as a lodger.
Mrs. Pearce afterwards went to live in a cottage
belonging to the petitioner, and the co-respondent
still continued with her, and it appeared that she
had had three children by h.m. Upon the peti-
tioner's return from Australia, in 1856, his wife
refused to live with him, and he became so dis-
tressed in mind that for some time he was obliged
to be placed in Bethlehem Hospital.
Proof of the adultery having been given, and also
that there had been no collusion between the parties,
The Court pronounced for the dissolution of the
marriage, with costs against the co-respondent.
D'ARCY V. D'ARCY.
Mr. D. Seymour appeared for the petitioner.
This was a petition for a dissolution of marriage,
brought by Mrs. Mary Ann D'Arcy against Henry
Thomas D'Arcy, on the ground of his bigamy and
adultery. The parties were married on the Ist of
June, 1836, and they lived together in the county
of Meath and in other places in Ireland, and subse-
quently in England and the Channel Islands, until
a few years ago. On the 12th of February, 1859,
Mr. D'Arcy married a lady named Tempest at
Marylebone Church, and they afterwards lived
together at Union-street, Oxford-street, as man and
wif?.
The Court thought the wife was entitled to a
decree with costs.
NEVE V. NEVE AND WILEY.
Mr. Aspland conducted the case of the husband.
This was a suit for a divorce on account of the
wife's adultery with Amos Wiley, the co-respondent.
The petitioner, William Neve, was a labourer. The
parties were married in 1854, at Norwich, and one
day in January, 1856, upon the husband returning
from his work he found a letter from his wife, say-
ing she had gone away and should never return to
him. It was afterwards discovered that she was
cohabiting with Amos ;Wiley.
One of the witnesses deposed that before the
respondent left her husband men frequently visited
her in his absence, but it was not shown that the
petitioner was aware of this circumstance.
Their Lordships thought the petitioner was en-
titled to a decree with costs against the co-respon-
dent.