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

MANCHESTER-FED. I.

There was not much business doing, but prices were
steady. Leeds, 96—Dovers, 22I—Eastern Counties, 121
—East Lancashire, 95I—Trunk Div. Debentures, 9s.—
Sheffields, 374 37!—Canada, new, 41 dis—Leeds, new £9
shares, 7-16 dis.—Brighton. Stock, 109 ex div.

LEEDS—.FEB. 1.
Sheffields, 371—Dovers, 731—Leeds, 951—Leob New
Gas (61), 4 prem.

BIRMINGHAM--FEB. 1.

The transactions to-day were as follows :—Midland
per Cent. Pref. shares were dealt in at 1041—Birmingham
Banking Co., 27t--London closed at 96-31idlands, 102.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 1.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

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

lIALLALUE V. LYON.-MAINTENANCE OF WIFE.

. .
The plaintiff in this action is the proprietor of a
Dallies' outfitting establishment at 37, Wigmore-
street, Cavendish-square, but carries on business
under the title of " Mayo and Company." The
defendant, Mr. Dania. 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 Oct. 1853,
assented to on the part of the wife through ciu res se ;
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.
ante 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. Peak-
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 th© surveillance of
Dr. Peaking, and took up her residence at 9, South
Audley-street, 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 botween this
time and the 11th June, 1858, the plaintiff sup-
plied all the goods charged in the account. The
goods charged for altogether amounted to £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
I 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 ix 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, outh 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 one 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 frein 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 whit 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.