The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-29 00:00:00

LA if iNTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 28.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
cßefore Sir C. Cressw ell.)
to? omAs V. THOMAS.
This was a suit instittited by the wife for a dis-
solution of marriage, on the ground of her husband's
adultery and cruelty, to which there was no appear-
ance by the respondent.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. Prideaux were counsel for
the petitioner.
It appeared that the respondent had formerly
been a shipbroker at Bristol, where the marriage
was solemnised in 1847. The parties cohabited until
1851, and had two children, ono of whom was liv-
ing ; but in the latter year he deserted her and
went to Havre. Previously his conduct to the
petitioner was described to be very brutal ;
but notwithstanding his ill-treatment she follovred
him to Havre. However their cohabitation was
not renewed, and in 1854 the petitioner returned
Ito her mother at Bristol, where she had since re-
sided with her child. In July that year the re-
spondent broke into her mother's and struck
the petitioner with a flower-pot, and after-
wards with a poker, and she suffered severely from
his ill-treatment. This violence was repeated, and
on one occasion she was compelled to call iu the
assistance of the police to protect her life. Several
other acts of ill-treatment were deposed to, and the
case was established.
The Court granted the decree nisi, and directed
that the petitioner should have the custody of the
surviving child, a daughter, who was born in 1848.
NORRIS V. NORRIS AND LAWSON.
This was the petition of the husband, a farmer,
residing at Hareham, Yorkshire, for a dissolution
of marriage, on the ground of his wife's adultery
with the co-respondent, who was a farmer's labourer,
and formerly lived in the same neighbourhood.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner, and
there was no defence.
From the evidence it appeared that the marriage
took place on the 12th of March, 1850, and the pe-
titioner
and his wife lived together until 1857, but
had no family. In the latter year it was discovered
that a criminal intercourse existed between Mrs.
Norris and the co-respondent, which she admitted.
Ultimately they went to Australia, where they have
since been living in adultery.
The Court granted a decree nisi:
CTJBLEY V. CIIBLEY AND SMITH.
The petitioner is a publican, and'proprietor of
the Tankard public-house, Kennington-road, Lam-
beth, and instituted the suit to obtain a dissolution
of marriage, on the ground of his wife's adultery
with the co-respondent, who had been a barman in
his employment. The adultery was not denied, but
the respondent ;pleaded that ,she left her husband
from his ill-treatment.
Dr. Phillimore, Q,C., and Dr. Tristram were
counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Best, Mr. E.
Lloyd, and Mr. Pater for the respondent and co-
respondent.
The marriage took place in 1847, and there were
five children, four of whom are living, and Mr.
Cubley and his wife lived together until 1859, when
the alleged adultery was discovered.
Jane Fraser was examined, and stated that she
lived with Mr. and Mrs. Cubley for about four
years from 1853, at St. Mary's-street, Walcot-
square, Lambeth. He afterwards took the Tan-
kard, and she visited them there. He appeared
very kind to his wife, and she did not recollect
their having any quarrel. Remembered it being
discovered that she (Mrs. Cubley) had pawned
some of her husband's property, and his threaten-
ing to leave her unless she accounted for the
money, and she stated that she had given it to a
widow to pay her rent. She entreated him to for-
give her, and he consented to do so on her promis-
ing not to repeat the offence. The Ico-respondent
used to take his meals at the table with Mr. and
Mrs. Cubley.
From the other evidence adduced, it appeared
that the petitioner was very kind to his wife up to
the time when she left him, and that Smith and
Mrs. Cubley had been living together as man and
wife at Sutton-street, York-road, Lambeth.
The Court requiring some additional evidence as
to the identity of Smith, the case was ordered to
stand over.