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

SIAR V. SIMI.

This was a petition for Ciasolution of marriage by the wife
against the husband, on the ground of desertion, cruelty,
and adultery.

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

Dr. Phillimore appeareE for petitioner; the respondent
was not represented by coinsel.

The learned counsel said the petition was presented by
the wife, who, previous to her marriage, bore the name of
Mason. The respondent vas 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 greatest cruelty.

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 im
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
violence. On the 4th of November 1857 we were residing
at Ostend. I found the letter produced on the street door-
step. The letter was as follows :

" Mary,—l 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. SUM."

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 me 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
resklence 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 re ad,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.)

IN RE LEOPOLD REDPATH.- 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 Railway 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
declared. 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.