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

TIIE SUN. LONDON, SATURDAY E"VENING, JUNE `i2, 1867.

LAW INTELLIGENOE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Right Hon. 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, in 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
the laly had been such that she gained
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 most happily together be-
fore marriage, yet afterwards, by soMe dispensation,
the respondent began to prac,ise 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-

!ather had effected a great change in the feelings of
the husband.

The marriage having been provtd,
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
them, 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 bad re-
turned home from a dinner, he went down
to the kitchen, and as she followed him he said
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
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
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
her husband gave her £6O to last her till the end of
July, and said he was going away, but should be
back, but he never came back, and this petition was
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 evidence, the Judge
Ordinary granted a decree nisi.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.--This Day.

-1,--

BOW-STREET.
ALLEGED EXTENSIVE FORGERY OF DEEDS,

Ebenezer Jones, giving the address, 23, Shrub-
land-road, Wilder, 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. I« 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 he 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. Ile 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. He 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 iu the in-
terim. On inquiry they were not sufficiently em-
powered to advance the remainder of the £72 re-
quired. The prisoner gave another name, and
ftimeorin awt iaos tawkaesn for further
theriaincqounisreyq.
mAncfeterofthlisvhiinch-
ppi
Sergeantontni etetkmrealldewaats
whicholnul uhneilevaats present
oan
a
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. lie 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
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. He' was not known at the ad-
dress he gave, Charlotte-street, Islington. He 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 doing so.
Mr. Abrams, who defended the prisoner, said
Reynolds at the time referrel to was landlord of the
premises in Fleet-street, which was a public-house.
He 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.

Al A RLBORO UG II- STREET.
Dzsavrinr FRQI A REFORUATORY

Holland, a boy, was charged before Ai r..r. Knox with
being a deserter from the reformatorj ship Corn-
wall, lying off Purfleet.
Police-constable Lobb, 73 C, said: -that about
three o'olock that morning he saw the prisoner in
Avery-row, Bond-street, and noticing ti ►at he had
uniform trousers on, he asked him who a nd what he
was. Not being satisfied with his am tat ers he took
him to his father's, and the father to' .d him that he
belonged to the ship Cornwall.
The father said his son had absco' ided from the
ship Cornwall on Thursday afternc on, the boat-
swain communicating that fact to 1 Lim 3cstcrday.
He very much regretted what his sor c bad done, as
great trust had been placed in him by the officers
of the ship, he having been appoint xi the captain's
cabin-boy, and being allowed to g, on shore to
fetch things, and he had now betrayer 1 his trust. h
consequence of its being reported tb at when visit-
' ing his son a few d ►ys ago he had;given him 125.,
whereas he had only given him 6d., he intended to
go to the ship and see Captain Bt .rton, and ex-
plain the matter, the more particub .rly so, as be-
lieving his son was going to have a :holiday to visit
him, he left a few articles of clothing for him to put
on, his son telling him that one oE the officers of
the ship would take care of them, and which he
had put on after leaving the ship.
Mr. Knox said it was to be regretted that the boy
had acted as he had done, as a Inder man than
Captain Burton did not exist, and -the boy had in-

jured his prospects.
The father said he would like iE his boy was sent
back to the ship, to go with the officer and explain
the matter.
Mr. Knox said he had not the rower to send the
boy back without some punishment, but under the
circumstances he would make the punishment as
light as be could. The boy would be committed
for seven days to the house of Correction, and at
the conclusion of that time would be sent back to
the ship.

TILE RE.

F•om the London Correspondent of the Manchester Guardian.
The decision of the House of Commons against
Mr. Laing's motion to give a third member to each
of six large towns has caused much dissatisfaction
in various qnaliers, and a new agitation is about
to be organised not only to revise the vote, but
to set aside; the whole of the portion of the
Ministerial bill which relates to redistribution. Mr.
Scholefield, it is said, has undertaken to move that
an additional member be given to Liverpool, Man-
chester, Birmingham, and Leedzi, on the ground
that each of these great centres of industry contain
more than 200,000 inhabitants. Ile omits, how-
ever, all niention of the equally large, and, as re-
gards rateable property, more opulent, metropolitan
boroughs ; and thus inevitably provokei the jea-
lousy of those great constituencieA. Perhaps the
only scheme which could have a cha'ice of allaying
those sectional and local jealousies would be one
which evenly offered increased representation to
Liverpool and Marylebonc, Manchester and West-
minster. But the prejudice against the increase
of metropolitan representation is strong, and it
is very doubtful whether even such a scheme
would command a dechive majority of the House.
Public meetings are about to be held for the pur-
pose of urging not only the change I have spoken
of, but an entire re-casting of the redistribution
part of the Reform Bill. The one-sided complexion
of the Boundary Commission is producing-a very
uncomfortable feeling amongst men of all parties,
and it is certain to lead to angry discussions when
the names are submitted seriatim for the approval
of the House of Commons ; not that any doubt the
respectability of the individuals, but that it is na-
turally felt to be a needless strain on public confi-
dence to constitute thus partially the tribunal by
whose judgment the future political map of the
country will be framed.
The same ill luck appears to attend Ministers
whenever they proceed to the appointment,of Com-
whether it be in Church or State. The
dissatisfaction felt so widely with respect to the
composition of the Ritualist Commission broke out
a little last night in the House of Lords. But from
what I hear it is likely to find vent in a very differ-
ent form than in the speeches of ex-Whig ministers.
The refusal of the Archbishop of York to act on the
Commission, and of the Bishop of Oxford to pair off
with Lord Shaftesbury, as the latter proposed in a
letter to Lord- Derby, have contributed greatly to
stimulate the distrust and discontent. As soon as
Parliament is up, I fear that you will see the be-
ginning of a religious agitation that will occupy
men's minds during the autumn and winter. No
two graver mistakes could be made by the Govern-
ment than that of launching two commissions of so
much importance, with prejudice enlisted against
heir proceedings, and suspicion overhanging all
hat they may do in the minds of a great portion of
:he community.