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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARC ti 1„9,_ 1861.

ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL, Gray's-inn-road.
Patron—The QUEEN.

This Hospital is entirely devoted to destitution in its most
pitiable form, viz., that which is accompanied by sickness and
disease, and is now of sufficient magnitude that, with ade-
quate support, it may be rendered capable of admitting into
its wards a very large proportion of the casual sick of this
great metropolis. It requires but the funds in order to have
500 beds immediately available for the reception of these the
most wretched of our fellow-creatures. Moreover, it gratui-
tously affords medical advice and medicine to more, on the
average, than 2,000 out-patients a week.
Contributions received by the Treasurer, Edward Master-
man, Esq., Nicholas-lane; also by Messrs. Coutts and Co. ;
Ransom and Co. ; Prescott, Grote, and Co.; Smith,
Payne, and Co. ; Glyn and Co. ; Jones Loyd and Co. ;
Barclay and Co. ; Denison and Co. ; Williams, Deacon, and
Co. ; Overend, Gurney, and Co.; Nisbet and Co., Berners-
street ; Drummond and Co. ; Ilerries and Co. ; Masterman
and Co. ; and at the Hospital.
STANFORD S. SMITH, Secretary.

LA IV INTBUIG_ENCE.

COURT FOR DIVORCEAND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES, YIARCH 18.
HORNE V. HORNE.
Dr. Phillimore, Q C., md Mr. J. Philips ap-
peared for the petitioner.
Mary Ann Horne prayed for a dissolution of her
marriage with Abraham :lorne on the ground of
adultery coupled with delertion. The petitioner,
whose maiden name was Lawson, was married to
the respondent on the Vd of August, 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 vas proved by Mr. Hayes,
Mrs. Horne's brother-in Isar, and other friends of
the family, that they always appeared on affec-
tionate terms from the intrriage until the separa-
tion. In April, 1841, Mrs. Horne was staying at
Margate with her children, when she was surprised
by receiving a letter from her husband, dated the
28th of that month, in which he told her that he
did not intend to continuoto cohabit with her. He
said that " circumstances bad occurred which quite
precluded their ever living together again as man
and wife •, that he had nothing 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 to a 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, and Mr. Hayes to Mon-
treuil, in France. 111 and the woman -with whom
he had run away were living together, and passing
as Mr. and Mrs. Hallcn. Evidence was given that
since 1858 he had beenliving in the neighbourhood
of Walworth with another woman named Bury,
that she passed as Mrs. Home, and 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 askedunder the sth sec. of the 22d and 23d
Vic., 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 subject on a future occasion.
The Judge Ordinary, after reletringto the terms
of the section, said he was inclimd to think the ap-
plication could not be entertaiaed mail after the
rule 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, end the respondent
was condemned in costs.
KEYS Y. KEYS
Dr. Spinks was counsel for tho petitioner.
• The marriage took place in I\)v., 1833, and the
cohabitation continued until 184. The respondent
had carried on business as a cbmist and druggist ,
in different parts, of Camberwei and Walworth.
Mrs. Keys stated that within t few weeks of the
marriage her husband knocked aer down because
she said she was ill, and that le was guilty of re-
peated acts of violence during :le whole of their
`cohabitation. She was at last )bliged to separate"
from him and to live with her =then He had since
lived at Woolwich with a girl rimed Cook.
His Lordship granted a decree nisi on, the ground
of adultery coupled with cruelty
GARBET V. GARBET ANDNICKLES.
Mr. Sturgeon appeared for th 4 petitioner.
James Garbet, a zinc worke., was married to
Emma Marshall in Feb., 1850. They lived together
in different parts of London 'mil the end of 1858.
Mrs. Garbet then committed ad)ltery with a pot-
man named Nickles. Her husband discovered her
misconduct early in the following year and sepa-
rated from her.
His lordship allowed the hearing to be adjourned
for further evidence of identity, and observed 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 Dr. Spinks conducted
the petitioner's case.
The parties were married at St. lieliers, Jersey,
in May, 1855; the husband, accaecling to his lcartr..l
counsel's statement, being a gentleman of good
family, and the wife a person beneath hiin 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 quarras 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 it^ 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 appearedfor the petitioner.
The petitioner, a wine merchant's clerk at Bedford,
married the respondent in Dec., 1849, and lived 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 for 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 marriage—which ap-
peared to have been a clandestine one—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
behaved with 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 a frequent 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
murderer, and that his "dear Emma" was now near
her confinement, and he had no money to pro-
cure her advice. Miss Crichton 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. Twi'ss, 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.

ASSIZE lIV TELLIGEN CE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, March 18.
(Before Mr. Baron Wilde.)
THE EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE AGAINST COAL-
MASTERS.
John Wright, Adam Hickman, Edwin Hickman,
and John Hickman, mine owners at Haden-hill, in
the parish of Rowley Regis, in South Staffordshire,
were arraigned for having on divers days be-
tween the Ist of June, 1859, and the Ist of June,
1860, feloniously stolen upwards of 10,000 tons of
coal from a certain mine, the property of Alfred
Haden Barrs, another coal master. Another count
charged the prisoners with having ttula.wfully,
maliciously, and feloniously obstructed an 'air-way
in Mr. Barrs' mine, with the intent thereby to delay
the working of the mine.
Mr. Motteram prosecuted ; and Mr. Huddleston,
Mr. Powell, and Mr. James defended the prisoners.
Mr. Motteram, in stating the case, said that the
colliery which the prisoners had in their possession
was originally worked by Messrs. Brettel, Hum-
phrey, and Bennett, who left off in 1856 under the
impression that there was no other coal to be got.
In 1857 the prisoners took the colliery to get the
" ribs" and " pillars," which were frequently left
after the first workings were completed. Soon after
they began to work, Mr. Barrs discovered that they H
were getting a quality of coal superior to that which
Brettel and Humphrey could get. In the month
of February, 1860, his suspicions increasing, he
asked Wright for permission to examine the mine, 1
but was not allowed. Mr. Barrs' suspicions were
still further increased by the reports of his work-
men, who said that they could hear those in the
employ of the prisoners at work. Mr. Crewe, a
mine agent, was instrusted to make application to
examine the pit, in the month of March, but the
permission was refused, till Mr. Barrs :applied to
I his solicitor, and he made application to the pri-
soners. The application was conceded in July,
1860. Then, however, it was found that a dam
constructed of brick work had been erected ,at the
entrance to the gate-road, whence the coal had
been taken from the prosecutor's mine, and the pH-
soners ref used to take it down. Tests were thee made
in Mr. Barra' mine, and there were evidences that
to the extent of 100 yards the prisoners had taken
the prosecutor's Pcoal to the width of 15: or 16
yards, the total quantity being that stated in the
indictment, and worth upwards of £2,000. The
prisoners knew that -they were taking this coal,
because they had frequently examined the
plans in the possession of a Mr. Woolwich, who
had surveyed the property oii the part of Mr.
Grazebrook, the proprietor; and as early as the
end of 1859 they were told that they were slightly
out of their own boundary, and in that of Mr.
Barrs'. They -said they knew it, but they hoped
they, should be able to purchase some of his mine
from him. -Whilst the prisoners were getting the
property of the prosecutor they took every precau-
tion to prevent the workpeople in the prosecutor's
employ from discovering them. One of these at-
tempts constituted the third count. The prisoners
lighted a fire in an air way, whence the smoke
would escape into the workings of the prosecutor ;
and of so disgusting a description was the fuel
used that it was utterly impossible for the prose-
cutor's men to continue working in a portion of
the mine.
The prosecutor and other witnesses were called
in support of the above case.
The Judge said there was no case against Wright.
Mr. Huddleston, in addressing the jury for the
Hickmans, maintained that his clients had not wil-
fully taken the coal, but had done so in error. If
they had intended to take the coal of the proseeu-'
tor they could have done so long before they
reached the portion they were. now charged with
stealing. They had made a mistake of the same
description as that the prosecutor and his bailiff
had themselves made, and Mr. Barrs' remedy was
the same as that which Mr. Mills had taken—he
should seek compensation.
The jury, after retiring to consider their verdict,
Acquitted the prisoners.