The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-27 00:00:00

Paid. r Leasing Closing Business
• Co.'s. Price. Done.

Share Railways.

I closing lisusinegs done
Pahl' Price.

all
100

all
}lOO
100
100
11. 3 0.

3s.
3s. Od.
5
100

89 91

97} 9 tif
id # d
4i sdl

100
all
}lOO
100
all

51 6

par f p

lf Idi

I id

id d
101 101 i
par ip
1000} 1001
1001
1011 101
19 21

35 U
95 96
75 77
87 89
78 80
77 79
984 994
4
121 12f
7/d
98 102
98 102
98 102
92 95
AS 92
974 984
92 94

all
all
all
100
6
110
all

Id i d

194 101
Id d
I id
id i

it;

1011 1 1

Id it

35 6 41 5}
90 51

LAW INTE.

This Day.) I

COURT OF DIVORCE

(Before Sir C. Cresswell, Mr. Justice Wightrnan, and Mr.
Baron Watson.)
BOYNTON V. BOYNTON.

This was a suit instituted by Elizabeth Laura Boynton
for a divorce from her husband, a younger Km of the late
Sir Henry Boynton, on the ground of his adultery and
cruelty, to which the respondent pleaded denial.
It appeared that the parties were married in 1849, the
petitioner being 17 years old and the respondent 27. At
the time of the marriage the respondent retired from the
army, in which he held the rank of captain. Sometime
previouslyhe became acquainted with the petitioner, whose
maiden name was Keeling, and who was entitled to pro-
perty amounting to £19,000 pounds. The mother of the
petitioner had formed a second matrimonial alliance with a
gentleman named Hodges, a captain in the army, and her
daughter's marriage was without her knowledge.
Mrs. Boynton, the petitioner, stated that she was mar-
ried to the respondent at St. George's, Hanover-square, and
after the ceremony they left town by the Great Western
Railway. When they reached Slough they were over-
taken by Captain Hodges, accompanied by her mother and
one of her sisters, and, after an angry altercation
between them and her husband, the latter was induced to

enter into an arrangement by which he settled two- thirds

of her money on her, and reserved only one third of the
interest for himself. He did not settle any propeety of his
own on her, though she understood that he was possessed
of some at the time. After the marriage he took her to his
father's residence in eorkshire, where she was treated very
unkindly by his sisters. They afterwards removed to Bur-
ton Agnes, and there he commenced his ill-treatment.
They then came to London, where he continued his ill-
treatment, from which her health suffered materially, and on
one occasion he made her walk a quarter of a mile through the
snow. The cause of his ill-treatment was the arrangement
ho had been forced to make relative to her money.
Sometime subsequently he had recourse to further violence,
having dragged her out of a room and pulled her by her
hair. While they were staying at Cheltenham, she asked
him for £4lO or £5O, and he gave her a cheque for the latter
amount. Sho forwarded it to Captain Hodgea to have it
cashed, but in the meantime the respondent wrote to his
bankers desiring them not to pay it, and it was returned to
her dishonoured. In 1856 they went on the Continent for
the benefit of her health, and while at Brussels some
trivial dispute occurred between them at a shop
in the town relative to the price of an article
they were purchasing. On that occasion he
dragged her out of the shop, pushed her along the street
until they reached their residence, when he locked her up
in a room. On their arrival at Nice he locked her in a dark
apartment, and she was released from her confinement by
a lady in the house, being at the time in a state of great
agitation and distress. He also intercepted letters addressed
to her from her family. On their return to England she
gave birth to a child, but the respondent's conduct was un-
altered. They resided for some time at Beverley, in York-
shire, but the respondent neverintroduced her into society;
and on one occasion he brought a person connected with the
turf home to dinner, whose conversation was so coarse
that she was compelled to leave the table. He left
her at her mother's for a considerable period, during which
he absented himself for weeks. At Brighton he walked
about with a female, and did not notice her when they met
in the streets. The petitioner then detailed various acts of
a similar character until 1858, when he so misconducted
himself that she determined to leave him, and went to her
sister's.

!ell!

Several witnesses were examined, who gave corroborative
testimony, and deposed to the commission of several acts of
adultery by the respondent since his marriage, which closed
the case for the petitioner.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

62 i

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
SERIOUS ASSAULT.-LE GRAND V. MASSON.
This was an action for assault, defendant having allowed
judgment to go by default. The jury now had to assess
damages.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a fruit salesman in the
Borough Market, and defendant is the skipper of a vessel
bringing over fruit. Some dispute arose, which led to de-
fendant knocking the plaintiff down, cutting his head open,
and inflicting other injuries, which might have resulted in
much more serious consequences.
The plaintiff was called, and his counsel explained that
the plaintiff could not speak English well, but it would be
an additional expense in calling an interpreter.
The learned Secondary —No doubt he will make himself
understood ; it is not so difficult now as formerly.
Plaintiff was then examined, and gave his evidenoe in a
very candid manner. He admitted that there was a great
deal on both sides. Defendant had told a great many un-
truths, and ultimately made an assertion against him
(plaintiff), and he said, " you're a liar," on which defend-
ant struck him a violent blow, and knocked him backwards
on the table in the Market-house, and his head was cut
open, and he was rendered insensible ; he was taken to the
hospital, where the wound was dressed, and he was after-
wards attended by Mr. Lacy, a surgeon. Ho had lost a
good deal by the sale of his stock, which he had been obliged
to sell through a commission agent.

Mr. Lacy was called, and said plaintiff was very feeble
when he was called in, and erysipelas had commenced, and
the white of one eye was suffused with blood and swollen
above the earner. The erysipelas was subdued, but it was
at first very threatening. Ho had charged a guinea.
The learned Secondary said that in some instances the
words used by plaintiff might have justified a blow, but it
appeared that the defendant had been the first to use lan-
guage likely to provoke an assault, and plaintiff was en-
titled to be paid for his sufferings and any loss he had in-
curred.
The jury gave a verdict for £l5.

THE7SUN,7I4ONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 27, 1860.