The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-24 00:00:00

THIS DAY.

LA IV INTEL.

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before Lord Campbell, Lord Chief Baron Pollock, and
Sir Cresswell Cresswell.)
HAMER V. RAMER AND CARTER.
This was a petition by the husband against the wife for
divorce for adultery with the co-respondent (Carter), a
solicitor's clerk.
The parties were married on the 28th of December, 1845,
and separated in May, 1&57.
Mr. Hamer, brother of the petitioner, proved the mar-
riage and separation. His brother (the petitioner) had
been engaged in a serious lawsuit, and the co-respondent,
Edward Carter, called frequently at his house relative to
this lawsuit, and became acquainted with the respondent.
The petitioner remonstrated with her as to this intercourse,
and a separation was agreed to. He left her his house and
furniture, and went to live with his master. On the 9th
November, 1857, witness, in company with a police-officer,
William Morris, went to her house, and saw Carter in the
house undressed. He took him into custody, and brought
him before the police magistrate. He broke into the house,
after knocking at the door.
William Morris, police-constable—On the night of the
10th November, 1857, I called at her house, in company
with the preceding witness, Henry Hamer. I knocked at
the door, and she spoke to me, and came down with a candle
in her hand, which was blown out. I had a candle, and
went upstairs and saw a man (Carter) by the bedside
undressed. He went down stairs. He came from the bed -
room. I took him into custody, and he was charged with
being in unlawful possession of the house, but was dis-
charged.
Dr. Addams asked the Court to make a provision for the
respondent. ,
Lord Campbell did not know upon what ground such an
application could be made---a journeyman to make a provi-
sion for his wife seduced by an attorney's clerk.
Dr. Addams contended there was a marriage settlement,
and that she was entitled to her legal rights notwithstand-
ing the divorce.
Their lordships decreed divorce, with costs.
GWYN V. GWYN.
This was a petition by the wife against the husband for
divorce for cruelty and adultery. The respondent was a
captain transferred from the Life Guards to the 15th
Hussars.
Dr. Tyler Smith proved the marriage on the 10th March,
1849, at St. John's Church, St. John's-wood.
Dr. Robert Jackson attended petitioner 10 years, from
1849 to 1858. A child was'born of the marriage. Attended
her professionally for bruises by the respondent.
Susan Webster, wife of Joseph Webster, was servant to
respondent in 6, Jermyn -street, and proved his cruelty to-
wards her on several occasions, until she was able tobear it
no longer. He went to 12, York-road, Brighton, and saw
him with another woman there, living together as husband
and wife,
Mary Ann Pittendale, in August, 1858, was servant in
the house 12, York-road, Brighton, and Captain and Mrs.
Gwyn came to live there, and lived as man and wife.
Joseph Webster was servant to the respondent, and cor-
roborated the evidence of his wife as to cruelty and adul-
tery by the respondent against the petitioner.
Dr. George Harrison attended the parties in June, 1858,
for secondary symptoms of syphilis, communicated by the
respondent to the petitioner. He acknowledged having in
stilted and treated her with cruelty on several occasions.
Their lordships decreed divorce.
STEAD V. STEAD.

This was a petition by the wife for divorce against the
husband for adultery and bigamy.
It appeared from the evidence of affidavits read that the
respondent was convicted of bigamy at the Manchester
Assizes. Their lordships decreed divorce.
WALKER V. WALKER AND WATERSON.
This was a petition by the husband for divorce against
his wife, for adultery with the co-respondent Waterson.
John Michael Stubs proved the marriage of the parties at
St. George's Church, and cohabitation with the co-respon-
dent. She had four children and two of them were in the
house at the time he called on her.
Benjamin Reed is related to Mrs. Walker, but does not
know how they lived together.
Mrs. Ann Gilliinore is sister of Mrs. 'Walker. She was
in the familyway before she was married. The parties
lived with her a short time afterwards, and she went to live
with Mr. Waterson. She has been eleven years
with him and they live comfortably together. The petitioner
did not say that she deceived him. The child was born
shortly afterwards.

Stephen Walker, brother of the petitioner, remembered
the parties' marriage. They lived happily together after
the child was born for some months.

Lord Campbell was of opinion that the petition ought to
ba dismissed, in respect that the petitioner was not entitled
to turn away his wife for misconduct previous to the mar-
riage, and make no provision for her and her children.

Chief Baron Pollock considered that the marriage and
subsequent cohabitation of the parties:-after the birth of
the child was a sufficient condonation of the previous mis-
conduct.

Petition dismissed.
RRITTAIN V. BRITTAIN AND CAMP.
This was a petition by the husband against his wife for
divorce for adultry with the co-respondent Camp. Further
hearing. An issue was tried on the 19th of February,
1859, and the only question to be proved was the marriage.
Mary Free proved the marriage of the parties at the
parish church of St. John's, Waterloo-road, Lambeth, 2d
August, 1840.
Mr. Lilly, on the authority of the case of Tout v. Tout,
asked leave on affidavits to amend the pleas of the respon-
dent and co-respondent.
Leave to amend pleas granted, with liberty to answer.

SHERIFFS' COURT.

RESULT OF DISPUTING A JUST DEBT.-COCKLE V. BORER.

This was a summons to recover a sum of money for
printing and paper.

Defendant's son appeared, and said that he disputed
about half of the account ; and upon going over the items
his Honour elicited that, out of a long list, only two reams
of paper were objected to, and these were in a short time
admitted to have been received.

His Honour ordered the debt to be paid in ten days.
Witness--I must ask for a little time.
Plaintiff—The defendant called upon me last night, ad-
mitted the debt, and said it was no use my coming to this
court, as he had sold oft all his things.
His Honour—l'll not give any time where a just-debt is
disputed, and especially after what defendant said yester-
day.—Short order.

LOAN SOCIETIES AND PROMISSORY NOTES..--ADCOCK AND

OTHERS V. LEWINGTON.
This was an action upon a promissory note for £3. The
amount 'sought to be recovered was a balance, and the
plaintiff was a mutual loan assurer.

His Honour, upon seeing the promissory note, which was
regularly stamped, told the plaintiff's representative that
he could not recover, as the note was for less than £5.

Nonsuited.

ADCOCK AND ANOTHER V. BRYANT.

This was a like action, but hero the note was for £5 ;
but his Honour seeing that there was a charge of 3s. for
letters, struck out that amount, and told plaintiff that he
must be careful what he was about or he would become
_ _

liable to a penalty of 7/50 for practising as an attorney if
ever he recovered such a charge.
Verdict for plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS _DAY.)

MANSION-HOUSE.

SINGULAR AND DARING ROBBERY FROM BREWER'S
QUAY.—John Herbert, described as a brazier, of White-
chapel, was charged as under :—Charles Harris said he was
watchman on Brewer's Quay. Last night at nine o'clock he
observed something white in the gateway of Galley. quay,
adjoining the Brewer's-quay. The white body moved, and
witness followed it out into the street. He then saw it was
a man, and that man the prisoner. Witness stopped him
on Tower-hill, and said, " What have you got there, and
where did you get it ?" The prisoner replied, producing a
bundle, " I got it from Brewer's-qUay." It was a bundle
of wet hides. Witness said " That belongs to Brewer's-quay
and you must take it back." Prisoner replied, " Very
well, then I will take it back ;" and he did so.
The gates of Galley-quay were not closed. The
prisoner was covered with a white apron, produced.
Upon being asked what induced him to commit
the robbery, he replied that a man with large whiskers had
asked him to do a job. No one had any authority to give
the prisoner such orders. The quay was not closed, and
some Russian ship was being unloaded up to ten o'clock.
The value of the property is D.

Police-constable 53 said that the prisoner was searched,
and the apron produced found in his pocket.

Partridge (the gaoler) said that the prisoner had been
there several times, and was an old thief.
Prisoner—That is a gross falsehood.
Mr. Goodman (chief clerk)—Why, I have taken the evi•
deuce against you myself three times.
Prisoner (impudently)—No, you have not.
The Lord Mayor—l shall believe Mr. Goodman.
Prisoner—l have never been in a police-court before, but
I plead guilty. ,
His lordship—You must go to prison for three months to
hard labour, and you will not be able to deny this con-
viction.

A FIRST OFFENCE.--SAD CASE.—Mary Ann Close, 20,
described as a brushmaker, of Shoreditch, a married
woman, was charged before the Lord Mayor, with picking
a pocket in Princes-street, Mansion-house, this morning.
Mary Carter said she was passing through Princes-street
this morning, and feeling a tug at her pocket turned round
and saw the prisoner walking away. She was at once
given into custody. At the station-house sheowas
searched
and a purse and the missing money found upon her.
The prisoner, with many tears, pleaded guilty and
begged to be forgiven..
The husband, man
a respectable-lookingwho also wept
most bitterly, begged hard that his wife's first offence should
be looked over.
The Lord Mayor said it was a very sad case, and one to
be much deplored. He regretted to see a woman, in an
evidently:respectable ephere of life, so committing herself.

Had there been any evidence of a fOrmer offence he should
have committed the prisoner for trial. In the absence of
any evidence of a previous offence, the prisoner must go to
Holloway for two months.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
NOVEL MODE OF FRAUD.—OBTAINING MONEY BY
FALSE PRETENCES.—WiIIiam Collins, of 12, Hill-street,
Walworth, described as a dealer in prints, was charged
before Mr. Bingham with obtaining the sum of £3 3s. by
false and fraudulent pretences, from Mr. Arthur Blucher
Fores, print publisher, 41, Piccadilly.

' The case disclosed a system of fraud which has been
1 practised very much of late, and is one which calls for
great caution on the part of purchasers of engravings.
Mr. Fores said that yesterday evening the prisoner ap-
plied to him for £3 3s. which he said he was instructed to
call for for a Mr. Rowe, of 12, Hill-street, Walworth, and
which was due from Admiral Sir Henry Keppell for
a portrait of Lord Lansdowne, from Mr. Grant's pic-
ture ; but having had a communication from Sir Henry,
requesting him to examine a print, and, if an artist's
proof, to pay the amount, and finding that it was not so,
but was one of his guinea prints with the title erased, he
communicated with the police and had an officer (as the
prisoner had been told to call that evening) in readiness.
He believed the prisoner had been carrying on a similar
system of fraud for some time. He asked the prisoner for
a receipt, which he produced in the name of Rowe, and
signed in his presence with his name " William Collins."
Charles Cole, a detective, proved stepping up to the pri-
soner from his hiding-place just as the prisoner signed the
receipt, he (Cole) having previously heard him ask for £3
3s. and seen him sign his name to the receipt. On asking
him where he came from, he said from Mr. Rowe, 12, Hill-
street, Walworth. and that he was that gentleman's ser-
vant. He afterwards said that he lived at 12, Ebenezer.
street, but he was not known there, and he wished for a
remand.
Remanded.