The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COTJRT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde and a Special Jury.)
BOARDMAN V. BOARDMAN (AND QUEEN'S PROCTOR INTER•

VEXING.)
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks appeared for the
petitioner, and the Solicitor-General and Mr. Harmer for
the Crown.

This was a suit by the wife for a dissolution of marriag
on the ground of her husband's adultery and cruelty, to
which he replied, pleading denial, condonation, and he re-
criminated the charge of adultery. Information reached
the Queen's Proctor to the effect that there had been col-
lusion between the petitioner and respondent to obtain a
divorce, and he accordingly intervened. The parties were
married at Glasgow in 1860, the petitioner being only 18
and the respondent being also young. The petitioner was
possessed of property, and had an absolute reversionof.£lo,ooo
on the decease of her maternal grandfather. They went to re-
side at Liverpool, where the respondent carried on business in
partnership with another gentleman. For about 18 months
after the marriage they lived happily together, but then
the respondent, who had induced his wife to assign to him
her fortune of £l,OOO and her reversion of the £lO,OOO
already mentioned, commenced neglecting her, being in the
habit of seldom coming home till late at night, and
addicting himself to gambling and drinking, although
not to the [extent of intoxication. In the year 1863
Mr. Boardman and his wife went to live in the house of a
gentleman and his wife, named Bousfield, at Liverpool
with whom they were on most intimate terms. They
afteewards removed, and Mr. Bousfield died, which, how-
ever, did not interrupt the close intimacy that previously
existed with Mr. Bousfield. Mr. Boardman allowed his
wife to go to public places of amusement with Mr. Bous-
field, and did not object to his kissing her in his presence
The marital intercourse between the petitioner and his
wife continued until, when it came to the knowledge of the
petitioner in the early part of February, 1865, that her
husband was keeping a woman named Smith, and that he
had had an improper intimacy with other women during
the time of their cohabitation. She immediately com-
menced proceedings to procure a divorce ; and the respon-
dent also filed a cross-petition, charging his wife with
having committed adultery with Mr Bousfield. In con-
sequence of this Mr. Bousfield brought an action against
Mr. Boardman for slander, but was nonsuited on technical
grounds.

Several witnesses were called for the purpose of dis-
proving the allegation of adultery of the petitioner; and
one of them stated that Mr. Boardman said in his presence
that his wife was as pure as snow. There was medical
evidence also to show that Mrs. Boardman was suffering
from a loathsome disease, which she alleged was commu-
nicated to her by her husband, which constituted cruelty.
The petitioner's case had not concluded at the rising of
the Court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.---This Day.

-- - -

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF ROBBERY.— Catherine
Garrard Holt (stylishly dressed) and Kate Holmes were
charged before Mr. Knox with stealing a gold watch and
chain, of the value of £B, the property of Mrs. Louisa
Leslie, who described herself as a milliner, of No. 10,
Kempsford-road, Early-road, Kennington.
The prosecutrix—l was at Barns's, the Grapes, in the
Haymarket, at a quarter to one on Wednesday morning,
taking some gin and strawberries. Holmes took my watch
and chain off my neck, and pretended to give it to some
one, but did not do so. 1 asked my niece, who was with
me, where my watch and chain were, and she said that
Holmes had got them.