The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES, MARCH 18.
HORNE V.-,BORNE.
Dr. Phillimore, 9.0., nd ;Mr. J. Philips ap-
peared for the petitioner. I
Mary Ann Horne praye foiea dissolution of her
marriage with Abraham - orne on the ground of
adultery coupled with de4rtion. The.petitioner,
whose maiden name was Lawson, was married to
the respondent on the 22(1. of Auguat, 1833, at
Christ Church, Surrey. He had lived with her
until April, 1841, and had five children by her, of
whom four are living. It W 4,3 proved by Mr. Hayes,
Mrs. Horne's brother-in .law, and other friends of
the family, that they alwfys appeared on affec-
tionate terms from the matriage until the separa-
tion. In April, 1841, Mrs.knorne was staying at
Margate with her children,*hen she was surprised
by receiving a letter from ber husband, dated the
28th of that month, in which he told her that he
did not intend to continue to cohabit with her. He
said that " circumstances haE occurred which quite
precluded their ever living together again as man
and wife ; that he had notling to blame her for ;
that he had formed an unchangeable and irrevoc-
able attachment in another quarter ; that he had
not made up his mind tot separation upon im-
pulse, but after mature deliberation ; that he in-
tended to go to America, and that she had his best
wishes for her happiness." He was traced by his
brother, Mr. N. Horne, ant Mr. Hayes to Mon-
treuil, in France. He and fie woman with whom
he had run away were livini together, and passing
as Mr. and Mrs. Hellen. 'Eridence was given that
since 1858 be had been livinj; in the neighbourhood
of Walworth with anothe(*oman named Bury,
that she passed as Mrs. H , eornd that they had
had two children.
Dr. Phillimore said that the petition contained a
prayer for an order with reference to the property
settled at the time of the marriage. His lordship
would be asked under the sth sec. of the 22d and 23d
Tic., cap. 61, to declare void a contingent life inte-
rest of the respondent in the settled property for
the benefit of the children. '
The Judge Ordinary said he should certainly not
mix up the question of the settlements with the
question of adultery and desertion.
Dr. Phillimore said he 'would make an applica-
tion on the subjection a future occasion.
The Judge Ordinary, after referring to the terms
of the section, said he was itclined to think the ap-
plication could not be entertained until after the
rile nisi for a decree had been made absolute. It
was possible also that the decree might be reversed,
and then the application would be unnecessary.
A decree nisi was granted, and the respondent
was condemned in costs.
KEYS V. KEYS. .. .
Dr. Spinks was counsel far the petitioner.
The marriage took place in , Nov., 1833, and the
cohabitation continued until 1851. The respondent
had carried on business as a chemist and druggist
in different parts of Camberwell and Walworth.
Mrs. Keys stated that within a few weeks of the
marriage her husband knocked her down because
she said she was ill, and that he was guilty of re-
peated acts of violence chitin the whole of their
cohabitation. She was at lost obliged to separate
from him and to live with her mother. He had since
lived at Woolwich with a girl named Cook.
His Lordship granted a decree nisi on the ground
of adultery coupled with cruelty.
GARBET V. GARBET AND NICKLES.
Mr. Sturgeon appeared for the petitioner.
James Garbet, a zinc worker, was married to
1 Emma Marshall in Feb., 1850. They lived together
1 in different parts of London until the end of 1858.
Mrs. Garbet then committed alultery with a pot-
man named Nickles. Her humand discovered her
misconduct early in the folloving year and sepa-
rated from her.
His lordship allowed the hearing to be adjourned
for further evidence of identity, and ebserved that
it was melancholy to see cases of so much impor-
tance to the parties prepared in such a negligent or
ignorant manner.

INMAN V. INMAN.
Dr. Phillimore, Q C., and D. Spinks conducted
the petitioner's case.
The parties were married at St. Heliers, Jersey,
in May, 1855 ; the husband, according to his learned
counsel's statement, being a gentleman of good
family, and the wife a person beneath him in sta-
tion. They bad cohabited for some months previ-
ous to the marriage in Jersey.' A few months after
the marriage they removed to London and lived
together in various lodgings until Jan., 1860. They,
were not on good terms ; he had no regular occupa-
tion, and there were frequent quarrels in consequence
.of her going out by herself against his wish and re-
maining until late at night. In Jan., 1860, while
they were lodging in the Blackfriars-road, she left
the house and did not return, and it appeared from
the evidence of a servant-girl named Knights, whom
she took with her, that she had since been leading
a life of prostitution.—Decree Nisi granted.
JORDAN V. JORDAN AND SCARD.,.
Dr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner.
The petitioner, a wine merchant's clerk Bedford,
married the respondent in Dec., 1849, andlived with
her until 1853. A separation then took place, but in
Feb., 1854, they came together again. Shortly after
the renewal of cohabitation the respondent was de-
livered of a child, of which the petitioner knew that
he could not be the father, and a permanent separa-
tion followed. A deed of separation was executed
under which she had an allowance of £2O a year.
The co-respondent occupied lodgings in Newman-
street in 1858 and 1859. After he had been there
about six months he said his sister was coming
from the country, took another bedroom foe her
and brought Mrs. Jordan to the house. About five
weeks afterwards he said she was his cousin; he
took her out one morning, and when they came
back said they had been married. They then lived
together as man and wife.—Decree Nisi granted.
WRENCH V. WRENCH.
Dr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner.
Mary Ann Wrench prayed for a decree on the
ground of the adultery coupled with the cruelty of
her husband, Tryon Wake Wrench. Mrs. Wrench
was the daughter of a lady who kept.a boarding-
house at Brighton, and the marriage7-which ap-
peared to have been a clandestine oner-took place
on the 18th January, 1841. They lived together
for a few months, sometimes in London, sometimes
at Brighton, and Mrs. Wrench stated that he
behavedovith great unkindness, was in the habit of
threatening her, of standing by her with a stick
and obliging her to write letters to her mother at
his dictation, and that he once struck her. The
chief cruelty, however, consisted in his having in-
fected her with a loathsome disease for which he
was under treatment at the time of the marriage,
and his having refused to allow a medical man to
attend her until in the May following the marriage
she became so ill that she was obliged to return to
her mother's house. She never afterwards returned
to him. In 1844 his mother and his sisters were
lodging in the house of a lady named Crichton, near
the Regent's-park, and he was afrequent visitor to
them. He borrowed some money of Miss Crichton,
made her an offer of marriage, and was accepted.
Before the ceremony was performed they all went
to stay at Margate, and Miss Crichton there went
to a friend, who informed her that Wrench was a
married man. She told him what she had heard;
he did not deny it, and she immediately went home.
Miss Crichton said she soon afterwards received
wedding cards from him, and found he had gone
through the ceremony of marriage with a lady
named Gibbon, whom she had known at Margate.
She was unable to get back the money she had lent
him, and she served him with a writ at some lodg-
ings in Camden-town, where he was living with
Gibbon. He and Gibbon went to France for
about two years. On their return he called on
Miss Crichton, pleaded great distress, said that in
France he had been living in the next room to a
was now near
herme
tiur er derhe err, ,
aa dn
advice.
ict
confinement,eh a
at
nhdAi sihi
s'esd e
Cha
arr
idEc
hmtnomona
one', to pro-
said she had
no money at hand, and she gave him a gold watch,
which he pledged for £3. He lived with Gibbon
until 1858, and had children by her, and then, as
the learned counsel stated, took to another woman
named Davis.
His Lordship said it was proved beyond all doubt
that this miscreant, for he could call him by no other
name, had been guilty of atrocious cruelty as well
as of adultery.
Decree nisi granted.
SLADDON V. SLADDON AND GREENLAND.
Dr. Twiss, Q.C., and Mr. Biron were counsel for
the petitioner.
Henry Sladdon, an engine-driver, married
Mary Ann Sladdon in April, 1855, and lived with
her chiefly at the house of her mother, who kept a
lodging-house at Dover, until April, 1857. He then
accused Ler of having committed adultery with
Greenland, a clerk to a wine merchant, and sepa-
rated from her.
Mr. and Mrs. Paul, the father and mother of the
respondent, were called and cross-examined by the
learned counsel, but no evidence of the truth of the
charge of adultery was extracted from either of them.
The hearing was adjourned for further evidence.