The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCB.—June 8.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
SMITH'S DIVORCE.

This was a petition of Henry Smith, Esq., of
Inner Templc-lane, Temple, but at present residing
at 13elle Isle, Windermere, in the county of West-
moreland, barrister-at law, praying that his mar-
riage with his new wife, Julia; might be dissolved.
It appeared that the petitioner, who was then
about 22, was m irried on the 19th Feb., 1853, to
Miss Juli. ill, daughter of a gentleman residing
near Wolverhampton, at the church of St. Maryle.
bone, and they lived together as husband and wife
until the 4111 Dec., 1856, but had no issue. On that
day Mrs. Swi h, with gut the knowledge of her hus-
band, left the houYe of her married-sister, at Wyke,
near Weymouth, Dorsetshire, where she was then
staying, her hu4baud being absent in the north of
England on business, and went to Southampton,
where she was met at the railway station by one
Leopold Duterte, a Frenchman, residing in
France, but who had been staying at Radley's
Hotel, Southampton, from the Ist of December.
Mrs. Smith accompanied Duterte to the hate), re-
mained with him for some hours,—and, on the
same thy, left Southampton with him for France,
since which time they have been living in open
adultery together. An action for crimieal conver-
sation was brought, in whcih judgment went by
default, and damages were assessed in the Sheriff's
Court at 3,0001., but, of course, have not been re-
covered.. A. divorce a rnensa et thoro, in the
Ecclesiastical Court, was obtained in April last: It
should be stated that Mr. and Mrs. Smith travellel
a good deal after their marriage, and among other
places, in 1854 and 1856, they visited Dinant, in
France. Mr. Duterte is the son of a gentleman of
property, at DittanL, and they became acquainted
with him there, and there was considerable intimacy
between them, but nothing to excite suspicion oc- •
curred at any time. Mr. Smith, in the autumn of
1856, was staying with a Mr. Penny, at Liverpool,
having gone these on business connected with his
father's property, and also for the purpose of at-
tending his brother's marriage. It was there he
received a telegraphic message saying that his wife
had left her sister's on the pretence of joining him;
and, as he did not expect her, his inquiries resulted
in the knowledge that she had gone to Southamp-
ton, where she met Duterte, and proceeded by rail
to eigate, and from thence by Dover to France.
Evidence having been received in prof of these
allegation-, _

Their lordships were of opinion that the case was
fully proved, and the bill was ordereito be read a
second time.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT
(Before the Chief Commissioner.) •
IN RE WILLIAM GEORGE HOWARD.
This insolvent, the nephew of the present Earl
of Wicklow' and. heir presumptive to that tide, ap-
plied to be liberated upon sureties until the day
appointed for his heariw, the 24h inst.
Mr. M'Oubrey appeared for' a detaining credi-
tor, Mr. -Elinor° ; and two other creditor=, Mr.
Thompson and Mr. Abrahams, appeared in person ;
Mr. Sargood and Mr. Reed supported the appli-
cation.
The insolvent was arrested on the 26th of Feb.

1853, and remained in the:Queen's Prison from that
date untd now. A vesting order had been obtained
upon a creditor's petition, whereupon the present
schedule has been filed. That document states the
aggregate amount of debts to be 179,1151., of which
136,300/. are debts for which no consideration has
.been received, 15,000/. are twice entered,- and the
debts for consideration are 27,8151. The property
to meet these &aiws are 2,6001. debts and the ex-
pectancies on succeeding to the Wicklow peerage.
The curt ties proposed were Mr. Edward Rawson
Clark, of Drayt ,n-villa, Brompton, and Hedn-ts-
ford, Staffordshire, gentleman, and Mr. Flintoff,
of Hednesford, trainer.
Mr.. Sargood requested permission for Mr. Clark,
one of the proposed sureties; to amend hi,4 affidavit
in which he had sworn tint he had never hal peti-
tioned th's (the Insolvent) Court, whereag, in fact,
many years ago he had been tlscharge I under the
Act at Wakefield. Mr. Clark had mentioned the

fact at the time -of signing his affidavit, but Ind
been erroneously informed that the London court
was d,stinct from the country courts.
Mr. E. It. Clark was then examined by Mr.
McOubrey, in answer to whose questions ho stated
that he was insolvent at Wakefield in 1834 for about
3601. Ho ha 1 pa'd the whole of those debts ex-
cept one of about. 901. to a Moss Davids, which be
did not really owe. He had obtained a deed of
release from all his creditors except Divids, an 1
had intended to apply to have his petition removed
from the file of the Court, but had been too much
occupied to think about it.
Mr. Thomps n then questioned Mr. Clark re-
specting certain judgments which appeared to be
registered against him, but the witnees swore that
they 11,1 d all been satisfied except one of 1561. to
Mr. H. D. Boulton, of which he knew nothing.
The property at Drayton-villa was valuable, but
he could not say whether his father-in-law, Mr.
Keaty, had any claim upon it as trustee.. The pro-
perty was settled upon Mrs. Clark at the marriage.
The Chief Commissioner, having referred to Mr.
Clark's behedUle of 1834, remarked that the total
debts therein entered were 1,130/.
Mr. Clark said many debts were inserted which
ought not to have been, and repeated his former
statement that he had settled with all the creditors
except Moss Davids.

The Chief Commissioner inquired the ream of
the insolvent's long stay in prison without appeal-
ing to this Court.
The insolvent had been in hopes to have ar-
ranged with his creditors.
Mr. Sargood explained the necessity for the pre-
sent aptlcation by putting in a medical certificate
,t,t ding that the iusolvent's health suffered from a
continued confinement. As that health was im-
portant to the creditors, his survivorship over the
present Earl of Wicklow being their only chance of
payment, it really was for the benefit of the estate
that the application should be granted.
Mr. Litt ler,Padetaining creditor, then asked leave
to oppose the bail. In answer to questions from
the Court he said he had been a farmer at Wal-
tham-abbey, and was the holder of an acceptance of
the insolvent for 3001., which he had received from
a Kr. Christopher, who was now the manager of
Mr. Elwes's racehorses.

The insolvent, in explanation of the debt, said
he gave three bills of exchange for 1001. each in
1849, when he was very young, to Christopher,
and had subsequently renewed them. He had
been arrested in 1852 by Mr. Littler, and Mr. E.
R. Clark had paid some money to procure his
liberation.

Mr. Clark (who had been forced to retire from
the court on account of illness) was then examined
by Mr. Littler. He repeated his former statements
with regard to the property at Drayton villa ; and
further said he had other property at Hednesford
worth at least 8,0001., the whole of which wag un-
encumbered. Upon striking a balance of his debts
and assets he reckoned the first at 7,0001., and the
latter at 90,0001. He had one horse that was
worth more than 5,000/.
Mr. Thompson wished to know the names of
the horses at Hednesford, in order to judge of their
value.

Mr. Clark refused to state the names publicly,
although he was willing to communicate them pri-
vately to the learned Commissioner. Mr. Littler
was engaged in speculations on the turf, and had
an interest in finding out the secrets of his (Mr.
Clark's) stable.
Mr. Thompson then asked whether Mr. Clark's i
name was not attached to certain bills n Mr.
Mather's hands.
• Mr. Clark admitted the fact, but denied that he
was liable. Mr. Mather had given a written
guarantee to hold him harmless if he would place
him in a position to sue Mr. Frank Villiers.
Upon W .
Wither examination appeared that Mr.
Clark had held three post obit bonds given by the
insolvent to secure payment of a
.debt due for trans-
actions upon the turf, they having been "confe-
derates." One bond to secure the payment of
15,000/. he had sold in February last with the in-
solvent's concurrence to a Mr. Glenny.
Mr. M'OunanY then summed up his objections
to the bail. The error in Mr. Clark's affidavit was,
he submitted, fatal. Even if that were not the
case his unencumbered property was too ill defined
to justify the court in receiving him as a surety for
5,400/.
Mr. Sargood submitted that, omitting the pro-
perty at Drayton-villa, Mr. Clark had- sworn- to
property at Heduesford of the value of 8,0001.,
which was sufficient for the proposed bail, 'f the
court
court should consent to that amount I
.
The Chief Commissioner said he could not accept
Mr. Clark's security so lone- as he remained a peti-
tioner to this court. Before' his surety could be
received that petition must be removed from the
file. In the next place, the statement of his pro-
perty was not sufficiently clear ; the extent of lia-
bility under the marriage settlement was not de-
fined, and no specific account of the value of the
other property had been given. Mr. Clark might