The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-09 00:00:00

-

S--;01-tn•

[FRIO/ 41)! STAMPED

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 8.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
SMITHS DIVORCE.

This was a 'petition of Henry Smith, Esq., of
Inner Temple-lane, Temple, but at present residing
at Belle Isle, Windermere, in the county of West-
moreland, barrister-at law, praying .that his mar-
riage with his now wife, Julia, might be dissolved.
It app-ared that the petitioner, who was then
about 22, was mirried on the 19th Feb., 1853, to
Miss Julia Hill, daughter of a gentleman residing
near Wolverhampton, at the church of St. Maryle-
bone, and they lived together as husband and wife
until the '4th Dec., 1856, but had no issue. On that
day Mrs. Smi h, without the knowledge of her hus-
band, Icft the howe of her married sist?r, at Wyke,
near Weymouth, Dorsetshire, where she was then
staying, her .husband being absent in the north of
England on business, and went to Southarnpt,m,
where she was met at the railway station by one
Leopold Dnterte, a . -Frenchman, residing in
France, but who had been et tying at Radley's
Hotel, Southampton, from the Ist of December.
Mrs. Smith accompanied Duterte to the hotel, re-
mained -with him for some hours, and, on the
same day, left Southampton with him for France,
since which time they have been living in open
adultery together. An action for criminal conver-
sation was brought, in wheih judgment went by
default, and damages were assessed in the Sheriff's
Court at 3,0001., but, of course, have not been re-
covered. A. divorce a men= et there, in the
Ecclesiastical Court, was obtained in April last. It
should be stated that Mr. and Mrs. Smith travelled
a good deal after their marriage, and among other
pia, es, in 1854 and 1856, they visited Dinant, in
France. Mr. Duterte is the son of a gentleman of
property, at Dinanf, and they became acquainted
with him there, and there was considerable intimacy
between them, but nothing to excite suspicion oc-
curred at any time. Mr. Smith, in the autumn of
1856, was staying with a Mr. Penny, at Liverpool,
having gone there on business connected with his
father's property, and also for the purpose of at-
tending his brother's marriage. It was there he
received a telegraphic message saying that his wife
had left her sister's on the pretence of joining him;
and, as he did not expect her, his inquiries resulted
in the knowledge that she had gone to Southamp-
ton, where Ehe met Duterte, and proceeded by rail
to eigate, and from thence by Dover to France.
Evidence having been received in proof of these
Their lordships were of opinion that the case was
fully proved, and the bill was ordered to be read a
second tinge.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT
(Before the Chief Commissioner.)
IN RE WILLIAM GEORGE HOWARD.
This insolvent, the nephew of the present Earl
of Wicklow, and heir presumptive to that title, ap-
plied to be liberated upon sureties until the day
appointed for his hearing-, the 24th inst.
Mr. M'Oubrey appeared for a detaining credi-
tor, Mr. Elmore ; and two other creditors, Mr.
Thompson and Mr. Abrahams, appeared in person ;
Mr. Sargood and Mr. Reed supported the appli-
cation.
The insolvent was arrested on the 26th of Feb.,
1853, and remained in the:Queen's Prison from that
date until now. A vesting order had been obtained
upon a creditor's petition, whereupon the present
schedule has been filed. That document states the
aggregate amount of debts to be 179,1151., of which
136,3004 are debts for which no consideration has
been received, 15,0001. are twice entered, and the
debts for consideration are 27,8151. The property
to meet these claims are 2,6001. debts and the ex-
pectancies on succeeding to the Wicklow peerage.
The sureties proposed were Mr. Edward Rawson
Clark, of Drayton-villa, Brompton, and Hednes-
ford, Staffordshire, gentleman, andi Mr. Flintoff,
of Hednesford, trainer.
Mr. Sargood requested permission for Mr. Clark,
one of the proposed sureties, to amend his affidavit
in which he had sworn that he had never had peti-
tioned this (the Insolvent) Court, whereas, in fact,
many years ago he had been discharged under the
Act at Wakefield. Mr. Clark had mentioned the
fact at the time of signing his affidavit, but had
been erroneously informed that the London court
was dist•nct from the country courts.
Mr. E. R. Clark was then examined by Mr.
M'Oubrey, in answer to whose questions he stated
that he was insolvent at Wakefield in 1834 for about
3601. He had paid the whole of those debts ex-
cept one of about 901. to a Moss Davids, which he
did not really owe. He had obtained a deed of
release from all his creditors except Davids, and
had intended to apply to have his petition removed
from the file of the Court, but bad been too much
occupied to think about it.
Mr. Thompson then questioned Mr. Clark re-
specting certain judgments which appeared to be
registered against him, but the witness swore that
they had all been satisfied except one of 1561. to
Mr. H. D. Boulton, of which he knew nothing.
The property at Drayton-villa was valuable, but
be could not say whether his father-in-law, Mr.
Kealy, had any claim upon it as trustee. The pro-
perty was settled upon Mrs. Clark at the marriage.
The Chief Commissioner, having referred to Mr.
Clark's schedule of 1834, remarked that the total
debts therein entered were 1,130/.
Mr. Clark said many debts were inserted which
ought not to have -been, and repeated his former
statement that he had settled with all the creditors
except Moss Davids.
The Chief Commissioner inquired the reason of
the insolvent's long stay in prison without appeal-
ing to this Court.
The insolvent bad been in hopes to have ar-
ranged with his creditors.
Mr. Sargood explained the necessity for the pre-
sent apt lication by putting in a medical certificate
stiting that the insolvent's health suffered from a
continued confinement. As that health was im-
portant to the creditors, his survivorship over the
present Earl of Wicklow being their only chance of
payment, it really was for the benefit of the estate
that the application should be granted.
Mr. Li tt ler, 'a detaining creditor, then asked leave
to oppose the bail. In answer to questions from
the Court he said he had been a farmer at Wal-
tham-abbey, and was the holder of an acceptance of
the insolvent for 3001., which he had received from
a Mr. Christopher, who was now the manager of
Mr. Elwes's racehorses.
The insolvent, in explanation of the debt, said
he gave three bills of exchange for 1001. each in
1849, when he was very young, to Christopher,
and had subsequently renewed them. He had
been arrested in 1852 by Mr. Littler, and Mr. E.
R. Clark had paid some money to procure his
liberation.
Mr. Clark (who had been forced to retire from
thb court on account of illness) was then examined
by A.R. Littler. He repeated his former statements
with regard to 'the property at Drayton-villa ; and
further said he had other property at Hednesford
worth at leastsB,ooo/., the whole of which was un-
encumbered. Upon striking a balance of his debts
and assets lit: reckoned the first at 7,0001., and the
latter at 90,00/. .kl.e had one horse that was
worth more than 5,0001.
Mr. Thompson wished to know the names of
the horses at Hednesford, in order to judge of their
value.
Mr. Clark refused to state the names publicly,
although be was willing to communicate them pri-
vately to the learned Commissioner. Mr. Littler
was engaged in speculations on the turf, and Mad
an interest in finding out the secrets of his (1%1 •

Clark's) stable.
Mr. Thompson then asked whether Mr. Clark's
not attached to certain bills in Mr.
name was