The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-21 00:00:00

STRINGER V. STRINGER AND STRINGER.

This was a petition on the part of William Stringer for
the dissolution of his marriage with Susannah his wife, on
the ground of adultery. The marriage took place in the
year 1846, at St. John's Church, Waterloo-road, the issue
of which was four children. During the cohabitation the
witnesses stated that they appeared to live very happily,
but about 1854 the respondent, in her answer to the peti-
tioner, stated that she had left her husband, William
Stringer, in consequence of his uneven temper. That he
(petitioner) would sit for six or seven days without speak-
ing. That he was in the habit of making causeless com-
plaints, that on account of his conduct she had threatened
to leave him,whon he replied that it would be the best day's
work she had done for some time. The separation took
place in the year 1852, and ultimately Mrs. Stringer went
to live with a Mr. Dixon Stringer, as his wife. The co-
respondent was no relative to the husband.

Evidence having been given, the Judge Ordinary granted
a rule nisi.

SIRR V. SIRR.

Tkis was a petition for dissolution •f marriage by the wife
against the husband, on the ground of desertion, cruelty,
and adultery.

The respondent denied the adultery, and also the deeer•
tion without reasonable cause.

Dr. Philliniore appeared for petitioner; the respondent
was not represented by oounsel.

The learned counsel said the petition was presented by
the wife, who, previous to her marriage, bore the name of
Mason. The respondent was a barrister, and, in the year
1843, the marriage between the parties was celebrated on
the 4th April, at St. George's, Hanover-square, after which
they proceeded to reside in China, Ceylon, France, and
Belgium, and during the whole time the petitioner was
treated with the greatetit eruelty.

Mrs. Sirr.—l am the petitioner in the case. I married
the respondent in 1843. In 1844 we proceeded to Hong
Kong, as my husband procured the appointment as Consul
at Shanghai. He afterwards proceeded to Ceylon as De-
puty Queen's Advocate. We returned to England la
1849. In 1851 we again went on the Continent. During
our residence at Hong Kong my husband treated me with
very great unkindness. It was accompanied with acts of
♦iolence. On the 4th of November 1857 we were residing
at Ostend. I found the letter produced on the street door-
step. The latter was as follows :

Mary,--I have not seen the landlord. It is impossible to
submit to the conduct you have adopted towards me. I
have therefore left. It is now an irrevocable matter.

" H. C. SIER."
I have seen my husband but once since April, 1858, and
then I met him by accident. He has never supplied me
with any money since he left me. On the occasion when
I saw my husband I entreated him not to force m• into
this court. I asked him to go with me to my trustees, but
he refused, and handed me into my carriage, bowed, and
left.

By the Judge—l complained very much of my forced
residence on the continent, being away from every friend,
but he made no other reply but reproach. As soon as
we became known in any place my husband immediately
left. My husband said I was fastidious—that other women
could live out of England, and I could do the same if I
choose.

A number of letters were read, written by the respondent to
the petitioner, in one of which he asked forgiveness of " his
damnable and accursed brutality," also excusing his dis-
gusting habits at table, and also begging pardon for having
struck her.

John Ellis—l am a tailor. I reside in the Marylebone-
road. A gentleman came to me in 1858. He called him-
self Henry Charles Sirr. He took a furnished bedroom in
my house. A female used to call upon him with messages
and letters. At first she was not shown up to Mr. Sirr's
bedroom, but shortly afterwards Mr. Sirr requested her
to come up. She remained sometimes about an hour.
In February, 1859, I became suspicious, and in May I
thought the woman remained in the house all night. I
watched and saw her leave the house the morning following
her next visit. In a month or two afterwards some boxes
arrived belonging to the female. I asked him whether she
was his wife, but he said if he did not suit he could leave.
The woman came in June and lived with Mr. Sirr till
September as his wife.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IX RE LEOPOLD REDPATII. - THE GREAT NORTHERN

RAILWAY FRAUDS.

This was a dividend meeting in the matter of this bank-
rupt, whose misappropriation of the funds of the Great
Northern Rail Tray Company led to his trial at the Old
Bailey, and subsequent sentence to penal servitude. A
dividend of ss. or 6s. in the pound has already been
deolared. It is intended in a few days to declare a further
dividend of 25., and there is some property in India which,
when realised, may prove favourable to the creditors.