The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-26 00:00:00

TV INTELLIGENCE—( as Day).

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
POLLACK V. POLLACK, DEANE, AND MACNAMARA.
This was a suit instituted by the husband, for a divorce,
on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respon-
dents who entered an appearance, but there was no appear-
ance on the part of the respondent. Macnamara pleaded
denial of the adultery, condonation, and collusion, and also
that the petitioner and respondent were not married, and
Deane entered similar pleas on the record, with the excep-
tion of the denial of the marriage. The husband in his
petition prayed for damages, which he laid at £2,000.
From the evidence adduced at the trial, it appeared that
the marriage was solemnised in the parish church of St.
Pancras in 1852, and that the parties cohabited until 1859,
when the petitioner alleged that he discovered his wife's
infidelity. The acts of adultery were stated to have been
committed at a house where the petitioner and his wife were
staying, in Charlotte-street, Fitzroy-square, the Great
Western Hotel, and at Kew. Mr. Pollack was a sugar
refiner in extensive business at Konigsberg, and had one Cf
the most extensive establishments in Prussia. He had been
divorced from his first wife, as he stated, at his
own instance, and had a son by that marriage,
who was 18 years of age. One of the witnesses stated
that she had intercourse with Mr. Macnamara, who had
been seen to go into her bed room, and that he had pro-
mised to marry her if she could obtain a divorce. There
was no evidence against Mr. Deane further than that be
had occupied the same house in which Mr. Pollack and his
wife were residing, and the case against him was aban-
doned. The jury found that Mrs. Pollack had committed
adultery, but that there was no evidence to criminate Mr.
Macnamara.

The case stood over for the learned judge to consider his
decision.

Sir C. Cresswell now pronounced the decree nisi.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

------•
DOUBTFUL CASE OF FELONY.-140111Sa Morgan, a well-
dressed female, was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt with
attempting to steal a gold watch, of the value of £lO, the
property of Mr. Edward Watson, plumber, of Great Ryder-
street.
Mr. Watson said—At one o'clock this morning I was at
the end of Jermyn-street, when the prisoner mado a snatch
at this watch, but the chain fortunately breaking the watch
remained in my pocket. I lost about four inches of my
chain, but detained the prisoner.
Prisoner—l never saw the gentleman before, and never
had his watch or chain in my possession. I had £2 in my
pocket when I came out. My husband is employed at,
Pickford's.

Edward Brown, police constable, said I found a sovereign
on the prisoner, and she was tipsy. The prosecutor had also
been drinking.

Mr. Tyrwhitt—l don't think if she did it, she did it with
the intention of stealing the watch.
Prisoner—l have been here once before, but it was for
deserting my child, and my child died in prison. lau
living with my husband at 47, Gloucester-street, Queen's--
square. I never did it.

Constable—l have seen the prisoner and another woman
often about.

Prisoner—No, you have not. The inspector told me that
the prosecutor said the other female had his piece of chain.
Mr. Tyrwhitt —I will take your own recognisance to ap-
pear here on Saturday.