The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-02 00:00:00

THE GREAT FIRE IN TOOLEY-ST_REET.

This fire still continues to make fearful havoc.
Everything has hitherto been done with water to
extinguish the fire, but without the least avail. A
number of gentlemen, at the direction of some of
the committee of the London Fire-engine Establish-
ment, made some experiments last night for the
purpose of trying quite a different means of extin-
guishing the flames. A gallon of sulphuric acid
(oil of vitriol) was mixed with half a ton of water,
and then discharged through the hose of the fire-
engine upon the flames, but the effect upon the fire
was nil, as far as decreasing its violence, but on the
contrary, it appeared to add fresh vigour to the
flames.
Another experiment, we understand, is to be made
this day, under the direction of Mr. Warrington,
of Apothecaries' Hall with some kind of chemicals,
but what will be the result, of course it is impossible
at present to tell. In the meantime the flames not
only engulph the different warehouses, but they rise
so high as to threaten with destruction the parish
church of St. Olave's and sundry cheese warehouses
close at hand, having a frontage in Tooley-street.
Several severe explosions of saltpetre took place
during the night, coupled with the bursting of casks
of tallow in the vaults. The rumbling noise made
by the crackling of the arches, and the boiling of
the water as the heated tallow rolls into the Thames,
is such as cannot with accuracy be described.
Even the firemen now look upon the fire with
astonishment, there being little chance of the con-
flagration being extinguished unless more than
ordinary means are used.

LAW IA TELLI4BNCE.-July 1.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUSES.

(Before the Judge-Ordinary and Common Juries.

HARRIS V. HARRIS AND PAUL.
Mr. T. J. Clark and Mr. Littler appeared for the
petitioner, and Dr. Spinks for the co-respondent.
The respondent was not represented by counsel.
Henry Harris prayed for a dissolution of his
marriage with Rachel Harris on the ground of her
adultery with James Fraser Paul, and also charged
her with cruelty. The pleas of the respondent and
the co-respondent were condonation, connivance,
unreasonable delay in presenting the petition, and
recriminatory charges of adultery, cruelty, and
desertion.

The petitioner was a tailor in Little Argyll-
street, and was married to the respondent in April,
1848. They have had four children. They did
not live happily together, and it was proved that
the wife had been guilty of various acts of violence ;
that on one occasion she gave her husband in
charge, stating that he was a lodger and had stolen
her property; that on another occasion, when they
were living in Wigmore-street, Cavendish-square,
she had set fire to the house, and had said she
wished to burn her husband in it ; that she had
caused an execution to be put into the house; and
that one night she locked her husband out, and he
had to let himself down into the area and get in at
the kitchen window. She had also been charged
at the Marylebone Police-court with threatening
her husband. A separation took place, in August,
1858. Mrs. Harris stayed in Wigmore-street, and
Mr. Harris removed to Argyll-street, and instituted
a suit for a judicial separation on the ground of
cruelty. The adultery was alleged to have taken
place while that suit was pending. The co respon-
dent, Paul, was a married man, the keeper of some
Scotch stores in Oxford-street, and had been on
intimate terms with Mr. Harris.

The witness called to prove the charge of adul-
tery was niece of the respondent, named Cox.
She stated that in October, 1858, after the separa-
tion, she was staying with Mrs. Harris, in Wig-
more-street, for a few days; that on the 22d of
October her sister spent the day with her and
Mrs. Harris ; that Mrs. Harris sent them to see Mr.
Harris in Argyll-street; that they went to Mr.
Harris's house and saw him, and were introduced
by him to Mr. Paul ; that two bottles of port wine
were sent for and drunk ; that Harris and Paul
walked back with them, and Harris left them at the
end of Wigmore-street, but Paul went in to see Mrs..
Harris; that Paul remained all the evening; that
some brandy was sent for, of which he and Mrs.
Harris partook ; that in the course of the evening
Paul took liberties with Mrs. Harris ; that they all
took home her sister, who lived at Islington, in a
cab ; that she and Paul and Mrs. Harris then re-
turned to Wigmore-street ; that there was only one
bedroom and one bed there ; that Paul undressed
and got into bed ; that Mrs. Harris then turned
down the gas and also went to bed • that she (Cos)
fell asleep on a chair, and that when she woke in
the morning Paul was still in the bed aid Mrs.
Harris was standing in the room fastening her
clothes. She added that Paul stayed to breakfast,
and about 8 o'clock, while they were at table, Harris
came in and said to Paul, "Who did you sleep with ?"
that Paul mad© no answer, and Mrs. Harris said,
" With me, of course ;" that Harris appeared to take
no notice, and that Harris and Paul went away
together in a friendly manner. Before Harris came
in Paul had said that he would not have Harris
know that he had passed the night there for all the
world, and that he would not have Mrs. Paul know
it for £5O.

It was proved by Mr. Jennings, the proctor for
the co-respondent, that Cox had made a statement
to him of what had taken place on the night of the
22d of October, 1858, which differed in several im-
portant particulars from the account she had given
upon oath. In that statement she said that Paul
was the worse for liquor, that he lay on the outside
of the bed with his clothes on, that she did not see
Mrs. Harris go to bed with him, and that when she
woke in the morning Mrs. Harris was lying on the
hearthrug with her clothes on, andithat she did not
believe any impropriety bad passed between Mrs.
Harris and Paul.
A sister of Mrs. Harris was also called to prove that
she had frequently complained of her husband's
violence, and that they had been bound over by a
police magistrate to keep the peace.
A girl named Wright stated that the petitioner
had committed adultery with her on several occa-
sions, and that she had had a child by him.
Dr. Spinks submitted that Cox's present state-
ment was much more improbable than her former
statement to Mr. Jennings, and that in the absence
of any other evidence to support the charge of
adultery the jury would not be justified in finding
that the charge had been established. He also sub-
mitted that the recriminatory charge of adultery
had been conclusively proved.
Mr. Littler, in reply, commented upon Cox's evi-
dence for the purpose of showing that her last story
was more.probable than the first, and that there was
nothing line connivance in the petitioner's conduct.
The Judge-Ordinary having summed up,
Thejury found that Mrs. Harris and Paul had
not committed adultery, that Harris had committed
adultery, and that Mrs. Harris had not condoned it.

CLARK v. CLARK AND WINDOW.
This was a petition by Josiah Latimer Clark for
a dissolution of his marriage with Margaret Helen
Clark on the ground of her adultery with Frederick
Richard Window.
Dr. Spinks (with whom were Mr. D. D. Keane
and Mr. Searle) appeared for the petitioner; and
Dr. Phillimore, Q C., for the respondent.
The petitioner was a civil engineer, living at
Hampstead, and he married the respondent, for-
merly a Miss Preece, in September, 1854. They
lived together apparently upon the most friendly
terms until about September, 1859. The corespon-
dent was in the same profession as Mr. Clark, he
was very intimate with him, and frequently dined
and spent part of the day at his house. For some
weeks before that date Mr. Window had passed a
great deal of time in the house with Mrs. Clark while
Mr. Clark was absent on his daily business. In
September, 1859, Mrs. C,ark's health was out of
order ' • she expressed a great desire to go to the sea
side alone, and Mr. Clark allowed her to pay a visit
to Hastings. She did not return. He went to fetch
her, but could not find her, and he subsequently re-
ceiNa d some letters from her, in which she said in
substance that she had always felt an antipathy to
him ; that she could not overcome it; that she there-
fore wished to live separate from him, and that she
was about to go to Australia with a family in
which she had obtained a situation. Mr. Clark,
however, caused inquiries to be made, and at last
ascertained that on Jan. 28, 1860, Mrs. Clark and
Mr. Window had gone to the Hyde-park Hotel, in
Oxford street, and had remained there for three days
and two nights, occupying the same bedroom, and
passing as man and wife. They then went away
together to the Great Western Railway station, and
it appeared that Mr. Window had since gone to
South America. It was proved by a servant in Mr,
Ciark's employment that on the evening of the 16th
Apt it last Mrs. Clark suddenly made her appearance
at his house, went into the room where he was
sitting without being announced, and stayed an hour
or an hour and a half, and saw the children in the
presence of the nurse, and was then sent with one
of the servants to her mother's house.
Dr. Phillimore did not call any evidence on behalf
of the respondent, but submitted, first, that the re-
spondent had not been satisfactorily identified as
the lady who slept at the H) de-park Hotel on the
28th and 29th of January, 1860 ; and, secondly,rywotuhaidt
jury
if adultery had been committed, the
infer that it had been condoned at the interview of
tye summed
found
rd
the 16th of April.
The The Jjuudrgyei-Ommrdeindiaar
up, and
for the
petitioner upon both issues.
Decree nisi granted, with costs against the ea
respondent.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TRE SUN Office, No. 112,Strand,
in the Precinct of the Savoy, In the County of Miidlett%
Tueodigh JO' % 1601.