The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-21 00:00:00

THIRD EDITION.

LATV INTEL

Share Railways. _ Cl
Paid. Price.osing Bu: D
100 S Atlantic & St Lawrence
11 Leasedmrodßaatal inpceerncte.nt.d. all 77 80 78
18 Bo
gu. 5 percent. 135 16 17 161
18 Do all
18 Do. Addit. Capital A 6 2/ 11d
18 Do. Do. B 41 21 15 d
201 Buffalo and Lake Huron all 4 6 41
20/ Do. New l6l 5 7 d
100 f Buffalo,Brant.&Godrich 100
3p. ct. bds. 1 Aug., 187 )
100 Do. do. 1 July, 1873 100
190 Do. do. 1 June, 1874 100
20 Clcutta.&S.Eastrn.Lim. 1. 3. 0. id par
20 Cape,Eastn. Prov.(Lim.) 2s.
20 Cape Town & Dock Scrip 2s. 11 1d
20 Central Oude (Limited) 2s. 6d. --
20 Ceylon Guaranteed 6p.c 7l 1 1 d
171 Demerara
20 Eastern Bengal.g-u.sp.c 5 2 I,ld
Stock East Indian, gu. sp. c lOO 95 96 96 55
20 Do. C Shares all -
20 Do. E Shares Ext l5 --
20 Do. Jubbulpore 5
100 D 0.41 p.c. Bds. pay. '59 all 97 99 981
20 Geelong& Mel.,g-ua.sp. c. all 18 20
Soo . f Geelong Corporation 6 / 100
per cent. Bonds
Stock Grand Trunk of Canada 100 291 301
100 Do. 6 p.c. Deben.,pay.'7B all 70 74
100 Do. 6 per cent. Pref lOO 89 01 90
20 Gt.lndiaPenin.gua.sp'.e all 93 95 011
20 Do. New, gua.s per cent 4 11 lid
20 Do. do
20 Gt.S.of Ind.Lim.—Scrip 2s. 21 14
( guaranteed 5 per cent.
2 Gt.W. of Canada Shares all 13 134
201 Do. New
100 Do. Bonds pay. '7_6,with
( opt. till '6O
100 Do. do. '73 till '6O all 100 103
100 Do. do. "/3 without opt all 100 103
100 Do. 51 p. c. do. '77 do
20 Madras, guar., 41 p. c all 16 17
20 Do. do. 5 per cent all 171 181
20 Do. 41 p. c. Extension l5 16 17
20 Do. Turd Ex. gua.s.p.c l5 21 2 d
20 Do. Fourth do.
Stock Melb. Corp. 6 p.c. Bonds 100
20fNewBrunswick&Canda.
Ry.&Land(Lim.)g.6pc 10 —d
Class ACapitl.Share
▪ Do. do. Land do ..
20 Do. do. B. Capita' do lO —-d
▪ Do. do. Land do..
20 f Northof India Tramroad 2s.
I Limited, Scrip
20 Oude (Limited)
20 Scinde 43 15 —d d
20 Do.
20 Do. ' New w). 10 21 11d,
20 Do. Punjaub g ,c. 5 21 1d 2
20 Do. Indus. St. Flo. 10 2 1 d
20 St. Andrews & Quebec AlB I
10 iTrinidad(Limited) Scrip 1 id par

Business
Done.

SUN OFFICE, Six o' Clock,

NAPLES.

A letter from Naples, of the 15th, says :—" Since
the beginning of the week the King's illness has
presented more alarming symptoms, which the

official journal has not attempted to conceal; the
bulletins are every day more and more unfavourable.
In the palace, at Caserta, the greatest anxiety
prevails, for his Majesty's decease is again thought
to be near at hand. The symptoms which have
recently appeared leave no hope of amendment, as
the royal patient is evidently sinking fast."

dente.

TITT tONI)ON; gATITEDAY EVENING, MAY 21, 1859.

COURT OF DIVORCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

THIS DAY.)

(Before Lord Campbell, Lord Chief' Baron Pollock, and

Sir Cresswell Cresswell.)
V. 13RAHA3I AND mum,.
This was a petition by the husband for divorce against
his wife, for adultery. Dr. Waddilove appeared for the
petitioner.

It appeared that the litigant parties were married in
August, 1818. Two children were born of the marriage.
They did not live happily together, and she went to live
with her mother in 1851. In January, 1852, the adultery
was committed with the co-respondent, a captain in the
royal navy, and she is still living with him as his mistress.
On the 10th of June, 1858, she was living at 16, Portland-
terrace, St. John's-wood.

Susan Vauxon was called and examined as a witness—
She said she made dresses for Mrs. Braham. Saw her
living with Miller, and informed Mr. Braham of it. He
had been informed previously, but did not show any
symptoms of affliction on the subject. He said he would
have a divorce. Hannah Greatrix, domestic servant, lived
at 16, Portland-terrace, St. John's-wood. The respondent
and co-respondent passed as husband and wife, under the
name of Mr.; and Mrs. Miller. IN° correspondence was
kept up between the petitioner and respondents. She was
there on the 20th December, 1857; as their servant. They
occupied the same bed together. She did not know when
that intercourse began.
This was the petitioner's case.

Their Lordships then consulted together upon the evi

Lord Campbell said the court were of opinion that the
petitioner should attend and be examined.
The petitioner was then sworn and examined. He was
married to the respondent in 1848. He was a merchant
My wife went out one evening, and she remained out very•
late. I asked her where she had been, and she said she
was at Miss Barnes', and she told me she had
been there, and when I came back we quarrelled
and she went to live with her mother. I saw her walking
in the streets with gentlemen. I heard she was living with
the co-respondent, Miller. Her brother told me she was
living with some gentleman in St. John's-wood. I went to
the house and asked the name of the gentleman, and saw
her at the window. I asked a noble lord (Brougham) the
expense of an Act of Parliament for a divorce. I took no
further steps of procedure against her. I resolved to have a
divorce as soon as possible. On the 18th February, 1858,
I took proceedings.
Lord Campbell- said, upon this evidence, the petitioner
was entitled to a decree of divorce.
Their lordships declined to make any order as to costs,
reserving to the petitioner his right of action for damages.
OLIVER V. OLIVER.
This was a petition by the wife for divorce against the
husband for adultery with a person of the name of Jane
Carman. They were married on the 22d of January, 1850,
and went to live at Croydon. He was a hairdresser. He
afterwards lived with Jane Carman, at Chelsea.
Mary Ann Aitkinson, mother of the petitioner, proved
the marriage and separation about a fortnight afterwards.
He said he had married her out of revenge to another
party, but did not want to live with her. She wanted her
to get married to another as soon as possible. He made
her no allowance. She took her home. He left Croydon
in March. She found him living at Knightsbridge with
a person named Edgecombe. He was summoned
before the police magistrate at Lambeth, and was
sent for one month to prison for desertion. Her
daughter was confined in the workhouse and had
a child in October. She lived with me till April.
I saw him two months after and Carman with him. He
paid her a small allowance for the child, which is now dead.
Her daughter went to service, and the parish officers said
they could do nothing for her unless she went into the
workhouse. He has dote nothing for her these six years.
E. Edgecombe, hair. dresser said, that in 1850 the respon-
dent came to his employment at Knightsbridge. He lived
as a married man two or three cottages off. He was a
tenant of his. He called her his wife. It was not the pe-
titioner. There was a child with him. He went
to live at Chelsea. He was imprisoned a month for deser-
tion. The same woman is still living with him.
Mrs. Hannah Phips, Knightsbridge, said that the same
woman that lived with him in 1850 was still living with him.
Lord Campbell said—On the evidence produced the peti-
tioner was clearly entitled to a decree of di nzce against the
husband (respondent). It appeared he had no intention to
live with her, and the adultery was clearly proved.
Divorce decreed,
HURST V. HURT AND PARKER.
This was a petition by the husband against the wife for
divorce, for adultery with the co-respondent, William
Parker. They were married the 27th September, 1847.
Mrs. Jane Hurst proved the marriage. Harriet Irving
saw the respondent, Mrs. Irving, in bed with the co-respon-
dent, William Parker, during the day in her sister's house.
It was not a joke, she saw it was in earnest. She left her
husband after that. In 1855 they were living in the same
house, her sister's, and they were then living together.
They went to live in Thames-street. She was still living
with him. She lived also with one Clint. She saw the
petitioner, and had several communications on the subject of
his wife's conduct.
Mary Ann Steven accompanied last witness to Mrs.
Hurst's house, Liquorpond-street, in 1854, and saw the re-
spondent and co-respondent living together. In 1855 she
saw them in bed together, undressed, between two and three
o'clock in the afternoon. She got her living by sewing and
dressmaking.
Lord Campbell said the marriage and adultery had been
clearly proved, and the petitioner was entitled to a decree
of dissolution of the marriage.
Divorce decreed.

BRUNEL V. BRUNEL.
This was a petition by the wife for divorce against the
husband, for cruelty and adultery.

The respondent was a photographic artist. The petitioner
was a widow, and married the respondent on the 4th Feb.,
1847. They separated three days after the marriage.
Mrs. Eliza Parkman—Was acquainted with the parties.
Saw him spit at her, and had a knife in his hand ; used
violent language towards her, and said he would kill her,
and attempted to strike her. He remained in the house
eight or nine days, and left before she left, and she saw
no more of him.

Weybridge, a policeman—l know the litigant parties.
Knocked at the door one night ; went in and saw a woman
of the name of Harriet Pinnock drunk in bed. I heard her
voice. I saw Brunel next day, and he asked me if I saw any
person about the glass-house, as some person came in and
struck him. I saw him in 1858, and saw him with her at
Westbrae. On the sth of October she had breakfast with
him. I toot him out of her bed there between eight and
nine o'clock in the evening. There was a crowd in the pub-
lic streets, and they never came back again.
Lord Campbell said the cruelty and adultery were clearly
proved, and the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce.
Divorce decreed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

DARING BURGLARY IN THE ClTY.—Thomas and Eliza-
beth Barrett, two dirty-looking persons, described as man
and wife, were charged as follows :
Police •constable 436 said he was on duty this morning at
the back of the Post-office and heard the breaking of glass
in Gutter-lane. He shouted out, and saw the male prisoner
running. He stopped him, and saw the woman on the
opposite side of the road. Witness saw that the man had a
parcel, and asked him where he got it from, and received
for answer that a boy who had run away gave it to him.
He said the female prisoner was his sister. The female
made no attempt to escape. Upon examining the spot wit-
ness found a pane of glass broken over the shutter of No.
5, Gutter-lane. Witness alarmed the inhabitants, who were
already on the alert. Witness had made inquiries about the
prisoners, and ascertained that they were married, and that
the male prisoner got his living as a costermonger. At
the station-house the prisoners said that a man had given
them the parcel.
Henry Seymour said he was clerk to Messrs. W. and R.
Morley, of Fetter-lane. He slept on the premises. The
shutters of the warehouse do not completely cover the glass,
and a person, by breaking the exposed glass, could reach
some of the goods. At half-past eleven witness had been
in bed about ten minutes, and was aroused by the crashing
of glass, and upon opening the window was requested by
the officer, who was beneath with the prisoners, to come
down. The parcel was then in possession of the officer,
and was worth £2. _ _

Tho male prisoner said the female was not his wife, nor
had he been living with her as such.
Mr. Goodman said the case must go to another court.
After the usual caution the prisoners were committed for
trial.

Knight (City detective) said another robbery of this kind
took place last evening.

MURDEROUS ASSAULT ON A DETECTIVE.-Charles
Bateman, alias William Cohen, a thickset determined
fellow, was placed at the bar, before Mr. Bingham, charged
with being concerned with a man named Lee (committed)
in stealing a quantity of dresses, &c., the property of Miss
Harriet Elliott, of Hampstead-street, Fitzroy-square, and
also with committing a murderous assault on Henry Joy,
338 A, while in the execution of his duty.
From the evidence of Miss Elliott it appeared that, on
the morning of Wednesday last, she was awoke by hearing
a noise in the next room to that in which she was in bed, as
of the rustling of a silk dress, and on asking who was that,
the prisoner Lee said it was all right, and immediately
bolted out of the room and made his escape ; and after-
wards, on searching her apartments, she missed property,
consisting of dresses and a desk, of the value of £3O.
Henry Hone, a young man working in London-street,
Tottenham-court-road, deposed to seeing the prisoners
Lee and Bateman loitering about No. 6, Hampstead-street,
and seeing them go into the house, and some time after
seeing them pass the house where he worked, Lee carrying
a bundle, and Bateman a desk, he pursued them, and
assisted a constable in taking Lee into custody.
Mr. Bingham said his conduct was very praiseworthy,
and did him great credit:
Henry Joy, 338 A, a detective (who seemed in a state of