The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-02 00:00:00

MANCHESTER-FEB. 1.

There was not much business doing, but prices were
steady. Leeds, 96—Dovers, 224—Eastern Counties, 121
—East. Lancashire, 95I—Trunk Div. Debentures, 9s.—
Sheffields, 3714 37I—Canada, new, 41 dis,-Leeds, new £9
shares,. 7-16 dis.—Brighton Stock, 109 ex div. _

Sheffieldsi 374--DoLv2e:sp,s-73F1,—EBL'eed1. s, 95I—Leeds New
Gas (6k), preen.

BIRMINGHAM-FEB. 1.

The .transactions to-day were as follows :—Midland 41
per Cent. Pref. shares were dealt in at 1041--Birmingham
Banking Co., 27f—London closed at 96—Midlands, 102.

LAW INTELLIGENCE. Feb. 1

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

',Sittings at Nisi Prius, after Term, before Lord
Campbell and a Special Jury.)

MALLALITE v. LYON.--MAINTENANCE OF WIFE.
The plaintiff in this action is the proprietor of a
ladies' outfitting establishment at 37, Wigmore-
street, Cavendish-square, but carries on business
under the title of " Mayo and Company." The
defendant, Mr. Da4tid Lyon, is a gentleman of very
large fortune, stated, indeed, by the plaintiff's
counsel to have an income of £70,000 a-year, the
owner of Goring-park, near Worthing, of a house
in London, and also of an establishment in Scot-
land. The action was brought to recover the sum
of £362, the price of certain wearing apparel, sup-
plied to the defendant's wife, who is the daughter
of Lady Charlotte Bury. There was no dispute as
to the ordering and delivery of the goods charged
for, and the points to be determined were—first,
was a certain deed of separation between the de-
fendant and his wife, bearing date 863,
assented to on the part of the wife through. Oct.,duresse ;
secondly, supposing the deed to have been properly
executed, did the defendant allow his wife an ade-
quate maintenance during the period of their sepa-
ration ; and thirdly, did he,, pursuant to a decree of
the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Court, dated
the 19th May, 1858, restore his wife to conjugal
rights. Such being the nature of the case, the in-
vestigation might naturally be expected to lead to
very painful disclosures.
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. G. Francis were
counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Lush and Mr. Phip-
son for the defendant.

It would appear that in 1848 the defendant was
married to Mrs. Lyon at the Britsh Embassy at
Florence. Mrs. Lyon had no fortune, but by her mar-
riage settlement she was entitled to a sum of £3OO
as " pin money," and to a sum of, £40,000 in case
she survived her husband. After the marriage they
came to England and resided partly at South-street,
Park-lane, and partly at Goring-park. _ They lived
most happily together until the year 1852, when
a source of difference sprung up between them.
That source of difference, as stated by the de-
fendant, was the excessive use of opiates and sti-
mulants on the part of Mrs. Lyon, as well as her
extravagant habits. These differences came to a
climax in Rome, in the month of December, 1852,
and accordingly the parties left for England, ac-
companied by a Dr. Deaking, who was in attend-
ance on Mrs. Lyon on account of bad health. Mr.
Lyon, on reaching England, took his wife to Tor-
quay, and left her there, her mother residing with
her, and she being likewise in charge of Dr. Deak-
ing. She remained there about four months with-
out once seeing her husband, when, on the 29th of
September, a paper was brought to her which she
was asked to sign. That paper was a deed of
separation between herself 'and Mr. Lyon, and
according to the plaintiff's case the lady was in-
duced to sign it by persuasion and by threats. It
was through the instrumentality of a Mr. Philip
James, a gentleman residing at Sidmouth, and an
old friend of her husband, that the separation
was brought about. By the deed—which was
witnessed by Mrs. Lyon's mother, Lady C. Bury—
it was settled that she was to receive, in addition
to her " pin money" as agreed upon in her marriage
settlement, a further allowance of £1,300 a year—
that is, altogether, £1,600 per annum, which was
to be paid in ten periodical payments through Mrs.
Lyon's bankers, Messrs. Herries and Co. The very
day after the signing of the deed Mrs. Lyon left
Torquay, being released from the surveillance of
Dr. Deaking, and took up her residence at 9, South
Audley-screet, Grosvenor-square, in company with
her mother. She lived there for a year, and then
in Paris for four months, and then in Audley-square,
and elsewhere in London, until March, 1856, when,
accompanied by her mother, she went to reside at
No. 81, South Audley-street. In the month of
April, 1857, Mrs. Lyon was introduced to the
plaintiffs establishment by her half-sister, Mrs.
William Russell, as the wife of Mr. Lyon, a
gentleman of large fortune ; and between this
time and the 11th June, 1858, the plaintiff sup-
plied all the goods charged in the account. The
goods charged for altogether amounted fo £402, but
Mrs. Lyon had paid £5O on account in the month of
March. The whole of the goods were delivered at
the house, 81, South Audley-street, and theplaintiff
had not the slightest idea that the defendant was
separated from his wife until he saw a paragraph in
the papers having reference to the proceedings in
the Divorce Court. On the 19th of May, 1858, a
decree by consent was taken for the restitution of
conjugal rights. It was admitted that, up to the
10th of April, 1858, the allowance under the deed
of separation was regularly paid, whilst the goods
supplied to Mrs. Lyon up to that period, and
charged in the present account, amounted to £236.
So far, therefore, the narrative embraces the first
two points of the inquiry—namely, as to the
validity of the deed of separation, and as to the
adequacy of Mrs. Lyon's allowance. On the 19th
of May the decree for the restitution for conjugal
rights was pronounced, and accordingly, on the
25th of May, Mrs. Lyon proceeded, by appoint-
ment, to meet her husband at the house, 46, Glou-
cester-place; Portman-square. She arrived there
about two o'clock in the afternoon, and Mr. Lyon
opened the door to receive her. According to the
lady's statement her husband received her most
rudely ; he kicked her dog off the steps of the door ;
he locked and chained the door behind her, and then
summoned the servants in the house into the draw-
ing-room to attend a meeting between them. When
all had assembled he told them Mrs. Lyon was his
wife ; that they must treat her with kindness and
respect, but that they were to obey her in nothing ;
that she was to be debarred from all society, except
from a weekly visit to her mother; that no goods
were to be received in the house as ordered by Mrs.
Lyon ; and that, finally, she was not to be allowed
to leave the house except in the company of one or
other of those present ; in fact, the contention on
the part of the plaintiff was, that Mr. Lyon had
not complied with the decree of the court ; that he
had not received his wife at his own home, but that
he had placed her in charge of keepers, and had
treated her as insane. On the other hand, as
would appear from the cross-examination of Mrs.
Lyon, the defendant maintains that the house,
46, Gloucester-place, was his house, for that he was
giving up his house in, South-street ; that there were
five or six servants in the house ; and that what he
had done at the interview of the 25th in the draw-
ing-room was to read out to the assembled servants
from a written paper certain rules with reference to
their future treatment of Mrs. Lyon's friends,
directed to saving her from the consequences of her
extravagance and imprudence in purchasing things
hurtful to her health. Mrs. Lyon remained at the
house, 46, Gloucester-place, until the Ist of June,
when she returned to 81, South Audley-street ; but
although Mr. Lyon slept in the house, at all events
once or twice during. her stay in Gloucester-place,
she had never seen him. He used to go out at six
o'clock in the morning, and refused to see her ex-
cept in the presence of 411143 of the servants. Accord-
ing to her belief, neither the house 46, Gloucester-
place, nor that at 67, Gloucester-place, said to have
been subsequently taken for her accommodation,
nor that in York-place, alleged to be her husband's
present London establishment, were the homes of
Mr. Lyon.
In her direct examination by Mr. Chambers,
Mrs. Lyon stated that having fallen into delicate
health, she had been recommended _ the use of
stimulants and opiates, but that in consequence of
the feeling entertained by her husband on the sub-
ject she had abstained from the use of them since
July, 1853, although between then and October she
had reason to believe they were administered to her
surreptitiously by the doctor. At all events, she
had certainly wholly renounced them after October.
She perhaps might have used opiates and stimu-
lants somewhat in excess. She never exactly knew
what Mr. Lyon's income was. They lived at the
rate of between £7,000 and £B,OOO a-year, but after
his mother's death he told her he came in by that
event for an increase of income of from £5,000 to
£7,000 a-year. Previous to her visiting the house,
46, Gloucester-place, she had forwarded to Mr.
Lyon certificates from Sir James Clark and Dr.
Bird as to her state of mind and as to her habits.
She had received no allowance since April, 1858.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lush—She had likewise
dealings with a person named Smith for wear-
ing apparel ; but then those were for articles of
a different character from those charged here
for. She owed £276 for wearing apparel purchasd
up to the end of February, 1858, whilst living with
Mr. Lyon. She had pledged jewellery and plate
to the extent of £3,314. She had not purchased
the whole of that. She had likewise borrowed a
sum of £1,500 from a lady. That was to pay debts
partly incurred on account of the house at Goring
Park and the house in London. But she had
acknowledged her fault in that respect to Mr.
Lyon, and he had condoned her conduct.
Mr. Hook, the son of the late Dean of Worcester,
who had. known Mrs. Lyon ever since a child,
proved that up to the time of their going abroad
Mr. and Mrs. Lyon had lived most happily together;
that in May, 1858, there was no 'pretence for de-
claring her to be insane ; and that he met her' about
the end of the month, the period of her residence in
Gloucester-place, walking one day in Portman-
square, in charge of an attendant, who acknow-
ledged herself to be a keeper appointed to wait on
Mrs. Lyon.
This closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Lush then said that, in consequence of the
plaintiff's objections to the validity of the deed of
separation of Sept., 1853, he was taken completely
by surprise. He had therefore to- apply to his
lordship; under the powers of the recent act, to.
adjourn the trial, in order that the defendant might

obtain the attendance of Mr. Philip James and Dr.
Deaking, who resides at Torquay, and whose pre-
sence would be necessary to clear up all doubts as
to the perfect validity of the instrument.
His Lordship declared the request to be a reason-
able one, and adjourned the further progress of the
trial until Saturday.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
;Before the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Justice Wight-
man, and the Judge Ordinary.)
KEATS V. KEATS AND MONTEZUIVIA.

Mr. Phinn, Q.C., on behalf of Mr. Keats, now
applied for a decree dissolving the marriage.
It will be recollected that this cause was tried
before the Judge Ordinary. a short time ago, and it
was some time before the jury could agree with re-
spect to the term " condonation," as laid down by,
the learned judge. The verdict was ultimately
given in favour of Mr. Keats, it being to the effect
that adultery had been committed, and that the
offence had not been condoned.

Dr. Phillimore opposed the application for a de-
cree dissolving the marriage, and moved for a rule
for a new trial, on the ground that the Judge
Ordinary had wrongly defined the word. "condo-
nation," and the jury found in accordance with his
lordship's definition ; and also, that the verdict was
against the evidence.
The Court granted the application on both points,
intimating at the same time that the learned coun-
sel was in the position to apply for a rule nisi.
Mr. Phinn asked their lordships when it would
be convenient for him to show cause against the
rule.

The Lord Chancellor fixed Friday next as the
day on which the Court would hear the learned
gentleman.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Feb. 1.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Abraham Kelly, who was
charged on Thursday last with having obtained
goods of various kinds under false and fraudulent
pretences from tradesmen, was brought up for re-
examination.

Mr. Wontner and Mr. Humphries attended for
several complainants, but stated that they were not
prepared with the necessary evidence, and requested
that the Lord Mayor would postpone the investi-
gation for a week.
Mr. Lewis, for the prisoner, stated that his client's
offence amounted to nothing beyond a simple debt,
as would be shown upon the production of the
evidence.

The Lord Mayor said that if such a mode of
running in debt as had been represented on the
first examination were to be endured, there would
not be a moment's security for any honest trades-
man.

His lordship remanded the prisoner for a week,
and it was intimated that the prisoner would then
be prosecuted for having conspired with others to
defraud the victims who appeared against him.
Jane Simpson, who appeared to be about 22 years
old, was brought before the Lord Mayor, charged
with having attempted to destroy herself.
Baldwin (537)—The previous morning, about 2
o'clock, I saw the defendant sitting on the steps of
a hall-door in Cannon-street. I spoke to her, but
she did not answer, and then I heard a gurgling
in her throat, and turned up her head. I then
found that she had a piece of ribbon tight round
her throat, and I undid it and questioned her. She
said that she had taken poison, and I conveyed
her to the hospital, where they told me upon exa-
mining her that she had evidently done what she
had stated.

The Lord Mayor (to the defendant)—Now you
have been here before upon a similar charge, and
we are not going to allow persons of your kind
either to take a liberty with their own lives, or to
pretend to try to destroy themselves for the pur-
pose of exciting compassion.
The defendant—l am sorry for having done any-
thing of the kind, and shall never do so again if
you let me go.
The Lord Mayor—You must find security in the
amount of £lO to be of good behaviour for two
months, and you must remain in prison until you
produce responsible bail to that amount.
The defendant was then committed.

GUILDHALL.—Maria Elizabeth Welsford, a
respectably dressed young person, described as the
wife of a printer, living at 15, Milton-street, Fore-
street, was charged with attempting to commit
suicide by stabbing herself twice in the stomach
with a knife, on Sunday morning last.
Sergeant Dellow, 34, said he was called in by
Dr. Simpson to take the prisoner into custody on
the above charge, when she admitted that she had
stabbed herself in consequence of a few words she
had had with her husband.
Mr. Welsford was unable to account for the con-
duct of his wife, and the landlady of the house
spoke to the general good character of both parties.
Sir J. Musgrove said it was a very mysterious
affair, and it would be his duty to sift it throughout.
The prisoner was charged with a very serious
offence, and he ,therefore required sureties for her
appearance on Thursday next, by which time in-
quiries should be made to clear up the matter.
The landlady offered to become bail.
Sir J. Musgrove said he was not favourably im-
pressed with the husband's manner, but the fact of
his landlady becoming bail for his wife was rather
in his favour.

Mr. Welsford said he was as anxious as any one
to have the affair cleared up.
The prisoner said she could not have known what
she was doing or she would never have attempted
such a thing.
Sir J. Musgrove then remanded the prisoner on
bail till Thursday next.

Henry Britten was summoned for assaulting and
threatening Louis Blomfield, whereby the latter
went in fear of his life.

This was a squabble between parties respec-
tively in the employ of Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Cooper, of the Court of Bankruptcy, and it was
stated by Mr. Depree, who appeared for the com-
plainant, that the defendant had committed a violent
assaulf upon his client in the Court of Bankruptcy,
and threatened to dog him to his private residence,
and there do for him, in order that he might not
again appear in that court.
Mr. Beard, for the defendant, said he had sug-
gested that as his client was not prepared with'
evidence to rebut anything that might be said
against him, he had advised the defendant to con-
sent to enter into his own recognisances to keep the
peace for 12 months, and also to apologise to the
complainant for any warmth•or hastiness of temper
he might have been guilty of. This course was
approved of by the complainant's friends, and it
only remained for the court to sanction it.
Sir J. Musgrove said he must have some better
security than the defendant's own recognisances.
He should require one surety for £2O.
This arrangement was acceded to without going
further into the case, and the defendant was locked
up in default of bail.

130 W-STREET.—A policeman ofthe A division,
named Walter John Little, who has been about a
twelvemonth in the force, was placed at the bar on
a charge of stealing from one of the dressing-rooms
in the section-house of the A division station, at
King-street, Westminster, a pair of uniform boots.
The boots had been issued to James Wenn, of
the same division, No. 68, who had left them on
Sunday last in one of the dressing-rooms. There
were two of these rooms, each accommodating 50
men, and each man having his numbered compart-
ment. On Sunday night the prisoner was seen
leaving the room in which he had a compartment.
He left the station with a bundle, and in a few
minutes returned without it. The boots being
missed he was suspected, and discharged the force,
and from subsequent inquiries it was discovered
that he had disposed of the boots to an omnibus
conductor, named Sunfield. The latter sold them
to a Jew hawker of old clothes, named Woolf
Lyons, by whom they were now produced.
The prisoner, who admitted his guilt, was re-
manded, to give time for inquiry as to other
charges, the witnesses in this case being at once
bound over to appear at the trial.

CLERKENWBLL.—John Morris Reed, aged
25, a fashionably attired man, who described him-
, self as a gentleman; Samuel Thompson, aged 34, a
clerk; and Ann Thompson, alias Barnett, aged 60,
a servant, all residing at 22, Tavistock-place, St.
Pancras ; and Thomas Smith, aged 25, of 18 Plum-
tree-court, Shoe-lane, servant, were charged with
conspiring to defraud divers persons of various
sums of money, and of obtaining from Mr. I. Otway.
of Lower Stownell, Staffordshire, the sum of ,L 1 by
false and fraudulent pretences.
Mr. John •Wakeling, solicitor, of the firm of
Messrs. S. and T. Wakeling, appeared for the
prisoners.
InspectOr Whicher, of the detective force, said
that in consequence of a large number of letters
having been received from all parts of the United
Kingdom, in which the writers said they had been
defrauded out of several sums of money, he was
directed to investigate the matter, and to explode
the thing, or connect the prisoners with the fraud.
It appeared that the prisoners had been advertising
in all the country papers under the title of the
"Mercantile Loan Fund Association; Office, 2.
Weymouth-terrace, New North-road, London, N.,"
and. they professed to make immediate cash ad-
vances. The advertisement ran as follows :—" This
association, possessing the advantage of a large
paid-up capital, offers immediate cash advances, in
sums from £2O to £5OO, with the least possible
delay, for long or short periods, at 5 per cent. per
annum, repayable by such monthly or quarterly

instalments as may suit the borrower's convenienc
The sum applied for granted in full." The adver-
tisement was signed " John Campbell, resident
manager." When persons answered the advertise-
ment it was the plan of the prisoners to write back
and say that if a post-office order was sent for the
amount of the travelling expenses, their agent
should at once call, and having inquired into the
reference, would at once pay the money. Be
should be able to prove that the prisoner Reed had
represented himself as Campbell, and had taken
the money at the post-office in that name,
but lately having met with an accident, the
woman had been to receive the money. The
prisoners did not stay long at Weymouth-terrace,
but left word at the district post-office that all letters
were to be 'forwarded to Tavistock-place. The
prisoners had received as many as thirty letters by
each post. Yesterday he went to the chief Money
Order-office, and gave to one of the pay clerks eight
marked half-crowns. About half-past three the
female prisoner came with two post-office orders,
one from Sligo, for £1 10s., and the other from
Leeds, for £1 6s. The clerk paid her the eight
marked half-crowns and other moneys. The orders
were signed "J. Campbell." The female prisoner
then went away, and was followed to 22, Tavistock•
place. She went in there about half-past five, and
about a quarter of an hour afterwards he (Inspector
Whicher), in company with Detective Williamson
and Sergeant Goodwin, 8 N, went to the door,
which was opened by the female prisoner. She
was asked if Mr. J. Campbell was at home, and she
replied in the negative. He and the other officers
then went into the parlour, when Smith was about
to leave the room, but was prevented. The prisee3F!
Thompsom was then brought down stairs in
custody. He (Whicher) then went up to the first'
floor back, and there found the prisoner Reed. Ile
was lying on the bed with his- clothes on, he having
a very bad leg. He was asked his name, and Was
told he must consider himself in custody on a charge
of conspiracy. He was afterwards searched, and
upon him was found £lB in gold and 30s. in silver,
and amongst the latter was the eight marked half:
crowns. The prisoner was asked whose money it
was, and he said, " It is mine." The other prisoners
were afterwards told the charge against them, Allen
the two men said they knew nothing about it, and
the female said she was only a servant. The female
was again asked where Mr. Campbell was, but she
declined to say.
Mr. Wakehng said at this stage of the proceed-
ings he should decline to ask the witness all
questions.
John Sharp, a constable at the Money Order,
Office, said the prisoner Reed and the female hag
cashed orders signed in the name of Campbell. ".,
Inspector Whicher, in asking for a remand, sal?
that he found no less than twenty letters ready to
go to all parts of the country by the next post.
Mr. Corrie said there could be no doubt the Prl;
soners had been carrying on a wholesale system.eth
plunder. He saw from the letters before him the
the prisoners were in correspondence with clergy'
men, postmasters, and others, who he (Mr. Cori
was surprised were so credulous. He she'll
remand the prisoners for a week. Bail refused.

SOUTHWARK.—Mary Ann Smith, a decent'
looking female, who appeared to be suffering se'
verely from some bodily injury, was brought hef°re
Mr. Burcham, charged with attempting to dreYl'
herself in the Thames, at Blackfriars-bridge.
James Duke, the keeper of a coffee stall at the
Surrey side of Blackfriars-bridge, said that shortly
,
after 10 o'clock on the previous night he heard ;
moaning noise proccoling apparently from the steps
of the bridge. He hastened down to the water;
edge and saw some one plunging about among 80111
timber in the river. He instantly called out for
assistance, and crossed the logs, when they perceiceu•
the prisoner in the river sustained by one of them'
She was quite. exhausted, and they, with conside'
able difficulty, got her out.
Alfred Nash said—He was passing over the brl
'age
about 10 o'clock, when he heard cries for help jou;
teedfrom the water's edge. He went there, an
assisted the prisoner out of the river.
Mr. Burcham (to the prisoner)—How came
to attempt to drown yourself?
Prisoner—l never attempted to commit suicidal
I was taken ill, and went down the steps, when
must have fainted away, and fallen among the OUP;
bers. I was so weak from a bowel complaint, the
I was unable to extricate myself.
Mr. Burcham—What are you ?
Prisoner—l am a charwoman, and live with. Of
husband, who is a coachman at Knightsbridge. h
Mr. Burcham—Had you had any words Wit
your husband yesterday: ?
of
Prisoner—Oh, no, sir; we live on the best

terms. f- o
Mr. Burcham—Did the prisoner say anything
the kind at the station-house ? •
Police-constable 286 A—No, sir. She was nla
very exhausted state. It might be, however,
she had stated.
Mr. Burcham—l will assume such to be the cases
and discharge her. In doing so, I really hope t!3
her story is true, and she never intended, to wino'
suicide.