The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-13 00:00:00

His age was 46, and he had an income estimated at
upwards of £6,000 a-year. On 11th July in that
year he married the respondent, then a Miss Marett,
who resided at Barnes, and whose age was about
30. She had no fortune, and by the settlement he
secured to her the interest of £lO,OOO during her
life in the event of her surviving him, and one-fifth
of that sum absolutely. After their marriage they
resided sometimes at Braziers, an estate belonging
to Mr. Keats in Oxfordshire, and sometimes at his
town house in Gloucester-gardens. In 1857 they
made a continental tour, staying for a short time
at Lucerne, and on their return to England in
September took the house No. 4, Brunswick-place,
Brighton. Mr. Keats's term of office having ex-
pired he was frequently absent in town, because,
in addition to his usual business, he had to attend
to various matters connected with his office for the
purpose of obtaining his " quietus," or discharge
from responsibility. They saw a great deal of society,
and about this time they were introduced to Don
Pedro de Montezuma. This person was described by
Mr. Phinn as a needy adventurer, who at one time
gained his living as a teacher of
.music in Dublin.
He was a Spaniard by birth; his manners were at-
tractive, he had great musical talents and a very
fine voice. Mr. Keats, a short time after the ac-
quaintance commenced, complained to his wife that
Don Pedro's visits were too frequent, and high
words appeared to have passed between them on the
subject more than once. They continued, however,
to live upon affectionate terms, and Dr. Carter, who
attended Mrs. Keats during an illness, said that
Mr. Keats's conduct on that occasion was as kind as
possible; but Don Pedro's acquaintance was not
given up. Early in Nov. they removed to London,
and Mrs. Keats took charge on the journey of the
portmanteau of Don Pedro, who shortly followed
them. They took up their residence at a house in
Westbourne-street, and there the visits of Don
Pedro were renewed. Mr. Keats again complained,
and appeared to have said or done something offen-
sive to Don Pedro, because on the 26th Nov. he
wrote Don Pedro a letter apologising for his
"warmth on Tuesday last," assuring him that no-
thing was further from his thoughts than to be
guilty of rudeness, and asking him to forget what
had passed, and come to dinner on the following
Saturday. The quarrels with his wife on the subject
of Don Pedro were, however, renewed, and his sus-
picions because so strong that he twice left the house,
taking with him his two daughters, but on both
occasions returned after a night's absence. Don
Pedro was lodging in Norfolk-street, Strand and
Mrs. Keats visited him two or three times. On one
occasion she went in her carriage, accompanied by
her maid, Alice Adams, who was sent to look at the
Great Globe, Leicester-square, while she remained
in Don Pedro's apartments for abouts two hours.
Mrs. Keats at last proposed a separation, but before
its terms could be agreed upon, the quarrels becoming
more violent she left the house with her cousin, Mr.
Marett, and her maid, and took lodgings in Ebury-
street, Pimlico. She remained there until Jan. 20,
1858, and wrote a kind letter, with her address to
her husband. Don Pedro removed to lodgings in
the same street, and was a constant visitor during
her stay. On the 20th of Jan. she and Adams went
to Dover, leaving no address at Ebury-street, and
took rooms at the Lord Warden. A room was also
taken close to those occupied by Mrs. Keats for
Don Pedro. who soon followed them. A chamber-
maid saw him come out of Mrs. Keat's bedroom
early one morning, Adams to whom this was told,
then watched them one night, and saw him pass
out of her room to his own. She told her mistress

that she had heard remarks on her conduct, but
Mrs. Keats only said that she must represent Don
Pedro as her brother-in-law. In about a fortnight
they returned to London, Mrs. Keats and Adams
living for two or three days at the Euston Hotel,
and Don Pedro at the Victoria, an hotel opposite.
Mrs. Keats here received from her solicitor £lOO,
the amount of a legacy which had been bequeathed
to her. The party then proceeded to Dublin, and on
the journey Mrs. Keats took off her wedding ring
and presented it to Don Pedro. She also said, that
in future she should pass by the name of Miss Marsh
and Don Pedro changed his name to Don Juan de
Monteblanco. On their arrival in Dublin they took
lodgings, and passed as brother and sister-in-law.
Although they did not occupy the same bedroom,
the evidence of Adams proved that they there car-
ried on an adulterous intercourse. Adams further
stated that Mrs. Keats very often cried when she
was alone, and that her stock of jewels and dresses
was rapidly decreasing. On the 11th of March
Adams left because, she said, she did not think her
mistress was leading a proper life, and entered the
service of a family in Ireland. Mrs. Keats, about
the same time, borrowed £3O or £4O from a friend
of her husband, who happened to be at Dublin, and
who implored her to be cautious in her conduct.
At some subsequent period she appeared to have
left Don Pedro, and to have returned to her mother,
with whom she now resides.
The principal witness to these facts was Alice
Adams, whose deposition, taken in Ireland by a com-
mission, was read. Evidence was also given by the
various lodging-house keepers with whom Mrs.
Keats had lived.

The case opened by Dr. Phillimore, on behalf of
Mrs. Keats was, that she ought not to be punished
for an offence which had been mainly caused by
her husband's neglect and ill-treatment, founded on
a jealousy at first without foundation. By allowing
her to leave his house with no more than £lO in
her pocket he had thrown her into the arms of her
seducer. But the chief ground of opposition to the
petition was that there had been full condonation
after all the facts had been brought to his know-
ledge. The petition, which:contained averments of
all the principal facts, and was verified by Mr.
Keats upon his oath, was filed on the 22d of May
last, and since that time he had been in communi-
cation with her family for the purpose of bringing
about a reconciliation. In October he wrote to her
mother, Mrs. Marett, saying that he should be
happy to enter into negotiations for the purpose of
avoiding vexatious exposures, and that his " de-
ceived" wife had been the dupe of a " most out-
rageous organised family plot." He also wrote
that he knew very little of the person who had
undertaken the legal proceedings, and that the
suit had been instituted contrary to his wish.
Other letters were written to the same effect,
and in October an aunt of Mrs. Keats', Miss
Janverin; visited him by appointment, and they
actually set out to the railway station for the pur-
pose of joining Mrs. Keats at St. Leonards, but on
the road he called at his solicitor's, and went no
further. A letter dated the sth Nov. was then
received from him, stating that after the evidence
which had just been brought to his knowledge he
must decline all further communication except
through his solicitor. But further communications
were entered into, and as late as the 27th Nov., '
when there was no pretence for saying that fresh
evidence had been discovered, a meeting actually
took place between Mr. Keats, his wife, and her
sister and brother-in-law. They conversed amicably
for about an hour and a-half; he expressly declared
that he forgave her, and at parting he shook hands
and said, " Well, my dear, I hope we shall under-
stand one another better, but we must not refer to
what has passed." No doubt, it was contended, he
felt remorse for his unkindness, and was unwilling
to punish an offence to which he had contributed ;
but his family, who had always disliked the match,
obliged him to go on with the suit. Leave had
been obtained to place a plea of condonation on the
record, and it was submitted that the plea would
be fully proved by the letters and conversation of
the petioner.
Dr. Phillimore, in the course of his address, was
appealing to the jury, as the guardians of public'
morality, not to allow Mr. Keats to obtain the
remedy he sought, when he was interrupted by
Sir C. Cresswell, who said—The jury have a very
simple duty to perform, to return a verdict accord-
ing to the evidence upon the issues placed before
them. A jury cannot more efficiently guard what
you call public morality than by confining their
attention to the evidence.

Dr. Phillimore said they could not altogethe►
exclude from their consideration the consequences
of their verdict.

The Court adjourned before the opening of the
case for the co-respondent.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—YoRK, Dec. 10.
(Before Mr. Baron Watson.)
Thomas M'Voy, 28, and Ann Walsh, 19, were
charged with having, on the 25th of July, at Leeds,
robbed Jeseph Hampshire of five sovereigns, a half
sovereign, four half-crowns, and other moneys.
Mr. Middleton and Mr. Baines appeared for the
prosecution ; the prisoners were not defended.
The prosecutor, it appeared, is a stone mason at
Huddersfield, and on the night of Saturday, the
24th of July, he went to Leeds to purchase some
goods, and to spend the Sunday with his brother.
He slept in Kirkgate on the Saturday night, and
left between five and six o'clock on the following
morning. When near his brother's house he went
into a privy and fastened the door. While there a
woman knocked at the door, and said, " Make
haste, I'm in a hurry." The prosecutor refused to
open it, and immediately afterwards two men and
a woman came with a rush at the door, and broke
it in. The prosecutor then saw Walsh, M'Voy,
and two other men, by whom he was seized and
robbed of £6 or £7, one of the parties holding him
by the throat by placing his arm across it. They
then ran away, and, being impeded by the state of
'his dress, he could not overtake them. On the
following day M'Voy, who was in the company of
.
Walsh, went to Lister, a policeman, the street,
and said he gave himself up for robbing a man in