The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Right lion. Sir J. P. Wilde.)
CLAYTON V. CLAYTON.

This was a suit instituted by the wife to obtain a
divorce, on the ground of her husband's cruelty and
adultery.
The Queen's Advocate, Mr. Stavely Hill, and
Mr. Searle appeared for the petitioner, and Mr.
Inderwick for the respondent.
The Queen's Advocate, hi opening the case, said
that this was a somewhat peculiar suit, inasmuch as
the parties had lived together before marriage, and
had one child. It appeared that the conduct
of the lady had been such that she gained
the respect and consideration of the grandfather
of the respondent, and he had induced the latter to
marry the lady. They were married in 1860, and
although they had lived meet happily together be-
fore marriage, yet afterwards, by some dispensation,
the respondent began to practise great cruelty to-
wards his wife, especially after the death of
the grandfather, which event occurred in 1863, he
leaving to his grandson, the respondent, the whole
of his property. There would be no doubt on his
lordship's mind, he well knew, when his lordship
heard the evidence, that the death of the grand-
father had effected a great change in the feelings of
the husband.

The marriage having been proved,
Elizabeth Clayton said that she was married on
the 13th October, 1860, to Mr. Clayton. She had
been living with him previously, as his wife, and

there was a child born to them. She married in the
presence of petitioner's grandfather. The peti-
tioner began to behave unkindly to her in
the summer of 1861. They were living at
Malvern Villa, Hampton Wick when they went
for a boat excursion on the water, and after they
had lunched the gentlemen began to throw the
bottles over-board, and when they came to the mus-
tard-pot they broke the blade of the oar, and were
obliged to tow the boat. While Mr. Shanks, one of
thein,.was doing so respondent took her by the
throat, and said if it were not for Mr. Shanks
he would murder her. In May of the
next year he behaved unkindly to her,
because she remonstrated with him for taking a lady
out riding. In 1863 Mr. Clayton's grandfather
died. After this he behaved very unkindly to her.
In the following year they were staying in Bedford-
street, Covent-garden, when, after they had re-
turned home from a dinner, he went down

1001 i

to the kitchen, and as she followed him he said
031 she was listening, and seized her by the throat
and pushed her against the wall, and then cut her
lip open and gave her a black eye. A few weeks
after they went to Bedford-street, Covent Garden,
again ; and as Mrs. Wale, the landlady of the house,
had gone to Hampton Wick and the respondent
had gone to Mr. Shanks, she did not know what to
0.8 do, so she went to Mr. Shanks, and respondent
kept her waiting till 10 o'clock at night, and they
walked through the park as she thought towards the
96 station, but when they came to the Marble Arch
her husband left. In the same year of 1866 they
went to Brighton, and in the beginning of June
169 her husband gave her £6O to last her till the end of
July, and said be was going away, but should be
back, but he never came back, and this petition was
1.31 then filed.

Mrs. Wale, the landlady of the house in Bedford-
street, confirmed this statement, and said that she
had been a servant to the grandfather of Mr. Clay-
ton, and had left when the old gentleman died.
Evidence was then given to prove that Mr

Clayton had lived adulterously at the Sussex
Hotel, Cliftonville, under the name of Clark.
As there was no rebutting evidouce, the Judge
Ordinary granted a decree nisi.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

~---

BOW-STREET.

ALLEGED EXTENSIVE FORGERY OF DEEDS.—
Ebenezer Jones, giving the address, 23, Shrub-
land-road, builder, was charged with uttering a
title deed, well knowing it to have been false and
forged.
Mr. Fellows, who appeared for the prosecution,
said there were a number of charges against the
prisoner, but it was only proposed to enter into one
of them on the present occasion. The charge
against the prisoner was that of obtaining money
upon a deed, upon which it seemed that a number
of copies had been made, each being used as a deposit
for a loan obtained from different persons. In the
present charge the deed was used for the purpose
of raising a loan of £72, which was in progress, and
£2O of which had been advanced, when information
was received which led Mr. Low, an auctioneer
carrying on business in Southampton-street, Strand,
to make inquiry. On the occasion of the last inter-
view between Mr. Low and the prisoner, the latter
seemed to have a suspicion that all was not going
on right, which was in reality the case, as
Sergeant Ackrill of the F division of police
was then concealed in an adjoining room.
The prisoner suddenly started out of the office
and ran down Maiden-lane pursued by the officer,
but after a very exciting chase through a number
of courts running from that thoroughfare into the
Strand ho was captured and taken to the station-
house.

Mr. Robert Low said the prisoner on the Ist of
May called on him, bringing with him a deed pur
porting to be a deed for the conveyance of cer-
tain land at Burnham, in Essex, from a Mr.
Percival to the prisoner for a consideration
of £lOO. He asked for the loan of £7O
on the security of the freehold, and said, to prove
that it belonged to him, he had granted a lease to a
person now in possession. Ile objected to any in-
quiries being made there on the ground of the ex-
pense it would cause as the property was some dis-
tance from a railway station, but gave the names
and addresses of two persons who were willing to
join in an acceptance as collateral security. The
prisoner called again on the 4th of May, but not
having had time to make the inquiries, it was
agreed that the prisoner should have £2O ht the in-
terim. On inquiry they were not sufficiently em-
qpuowtreed. red tTohasdpvrainsoenestrhegraeymeainandoerthoefr thneamie7,2
and
d-
time was tawkaesn froercefatdh,eriaincqotreyq.
ueAnefeteroftblivshi
in-
formationchSergeant Ackrell was communicated with, and an
appointment made at which he was present, though
concealed. Before any communication was made,
the prisoner made an excuse to leave the room, and
then ran away, but was brought back by the
police-
officer.

Benjamin Marsland, of 77, Lower Thames-street,
solicitor, said he knew the prisoner. He first be-
came acquainted with him by his bringing him a
deed relating to some property at Burnham, in
Essex, on the 4th of October last year. He asked
for the loan of £4O on the deed, which he witness
gave him. He also took prisoner's acceptance for
the amount at six weeks, which was dis-
honoured, and on his making inquiry relative
to the attesting witness, Thomas S. Reynolds,
at 95, Fleet-street, nothing was known
of such a person. The advance he made
remained unpaid. Ile was not known at the ad-
dress he gave, Charlotte-street, Islington. Ho had
never seen prisoner from the time he lent him the
money until last evening, when he was in custody.
Mr. Vaughan asked witness whether he had made
inquiry as to the attesting witness residing at the
address given when the deed was drawn.
The witness said he had not thought of duing so.
Mr. Abrams, who defended the prisoner, said
Reynolds at the time referred to was landlord of the
premises in Fleet-street, which was a public-house.
Ile should like to know whether there was sufficient
evidence to prove the forgery.
Mr. Vaughan said as the property conveyed
by both deeds was identically the same, it fairly
raised the presumption of fraud, and therefore he
should remand the prisoner for a week for further
inquiry.
Mr. Abrams applied that the prisoner might be
admitted to bail.
•

Mr. Vaughan said he would accept two sureties
in £lOO each for his appearance that day week.

MARLBORO UGH-STREET.
DESEUTING FROM A REFORMATORY SRlF.—Heury