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

L 4W INTELLIGENCE, _Feb. 1.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMO•
NIAL CAUSES.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CUJiLEY V. CUBLEY AND SMITH.

This suit was instituted by Francis Cubley, pro-
prietor of the Tankard publichouse, Kennington-
road, Lambeth, for a divorce, on the ground of his
wife's adultery with the co-respondent, who had
formerly been a potman in his service. Both defen-
dants appeared, and Mrs. Cubley in her answer
pleaded cruelty on the part of the petitioner. The
case stood over from Monday, the identity of the
co-respondent not being fully established, and the
facts have been already reported in this journal.
Two witnesses were called who supplied the
deficiency, and the following evidence on the plea
of cruelty was adduced :
Alexander Ennis stated that he had been a pot-
man in the employ of the petitioner about two
years and a half ago, and lived with him about 11
or 12 months. During that period he saw Mr.
Cubley frequently illtreat his wife, and on one
occasion after having had some friends to sup
with him. When they left he heard Mrs. Cubley
scream violently, and, on going into the bar, he
saw Mr. Cubley with one hand on her neck and with
a ginger-beer bottle in his other hand. Ho rushed
up to him and wrested the bottle from him. When
Mr. Cubley became calm Mrs. Cubley desired witness
to go up stairs and conceal the razors. He witnessed
several other acts of a similar character, and heard
Mr. Cubley use the most disgusting and fearful
language towards his wife.

Coun—sel having addressed the Court,
The learned judge said he considered that the
petitioner was entitled to relief, and accordingly
granted the decree nisi, and directed that the
younger 'child should remain in custody of the
zr other for the present, the petitioner allowing ss.
a-week for its maintenance. _ _ _

Dr. Phillimore ;;iended that the wife was not
entitled to the allowance, as well as the alimony
pendente lite, which had beon ordered by the Court,
and which she would retain for three months longer.
Sir C. Cresswell agreed with the learned doctor,
and said that the respondent must make her elec-
tion between the alimony and the allowance for the
child, and counsel for the respondent decided in
favour of the former.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram were
counsel for the petitioner • Mr. Best and Mr. Pater
for the respondent, and Mr. E. Lloyd appeared for
the co-respondent. •
PADMORE V. PADMORE AND TAYLOR.

This was the petition of the husband, praying for
a divorce, on the ground of the wife's adultery with
the co-respondent, and there was HO defence.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Dr. Swabey were
couns6l for the petitioner.
It appeared that the petitioner and his wife were
married at St. John's, Wapping, in 1848, and lived
together, with some interruption, until 1856, dur-
ing which period the respondent gave birth to
three children. In 1852 Mr. Padmore accepted a
situation in the commissariat department of the
English army, and went to the Crimea, where he
was absent for some time, and on his return he
resumed cohabitation with his wife at their residence
at Northampton. He subsequently went tothe Cape
of Good Hope, where heremainedfrom 1856 to 1859,
and five or six months after his return, his wife was
confined of a child, he having previously refused to
live with her, being aware that she was pregnant.
It further appeared that Mrs. Padmore was addicted
to habits of intemperance, and that a provision had