The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENO G, FEBRUARY 21, 1868.

100
100
100
all
100
100

100
1100
15
100
100

3 4
Of 64
440 430
10 12
6 6
2 24
14 2
~ 4
8 I)
lf 2
4 5
17 18

20 21
1
35 37
2}
6 ts
4f 5;
2i if
60 70
5 7

109 L

IC9 I

103 i

1004 t

Witness--Yes,

2 3
2 2i
29 Si
390 410
i I
37i 424
I d
13 14

I 11
11 ;2
67 69
195 205
b 5 95
16 11
18 20
85 90
6 8

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before the Right Hon. Sir J. P. Wilde and a
Common Jury.)
WORSLEY V. WORSLEY AND WIGNALL.

This was a suit to obtain a dissolution of mar-
riage on the ground of the wife's adultery.
The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Tristram ap-
peared for the petitioner ; Dr. Deane, Q.C., for the
respondent ; and Mr. Searle for the co-respondent.
The facts of the case were these. The parties
were married in 1841, the husband being consider-
ably older than the wife. They lived together
until about four years ago, when a separation took
place. She had then gone openly to live with the
co-respondent at Leamington Villas, near West-
bourne-terrace. She was see❑ there by several wit-
nesses.

Mrs. Wagstaff said that she resided at Hartland,
in Devonshire, and that she was a friend of the
respondents. She was disgusted with the habits of
intemperance of the respondent. Mrs. Worsley
visited witness at Harland, in Devonshire, for
about seven weeks. She showed her the separation
deed. She spoke of the trustee. His name she
believed was Dudley. Witness went to see her
while lodging at the house of a Mr. and Mrs.
Larkyns, near Westbourne-grove. She went by the
name of Wignall.

Cross-examined—They found eight empty bottles
after she had left. They were on good terms when
she left.

By the Court—When witness stayed in London
she was intoxicated evety day.
Mr. West Lowe said that he had known the peti-
tioner about 40 years. He served the citation on
the parties. They resided at Leamington-road-
villas. He had called there first. He knocked at
the door and asked for Mrs. Wignall. He was shown
up stairs, and the respondent came and shook hands
with him most cordially. He did not know Mr.
Wiguall, but he told her that it was likely that the'
husband would get a divorce. She replied " that
she was very glad of it, as she would
then get rid of her brute of a husband."
Mr. Wignall also said that she would now be his
wife. They kissed each other, and were very glad
iu the anticipation of getting a divorce. They
pressed him to expedite the suit as far as possible.
He addressed respondent as Mrs. Worsley, at which
Mr. Wignall was very indignant. They made a
point of having the citation served as soon as pos-
sible.

Mrs. Taylor said that she was in the service of
Mr. and Mrs. Worsley in the year 1863, and stayed
there two years and two months. She accompanied
the last witness to the house where Mrs. Worsley
was living, and saw her with Mr. Wignall. She
knew the latter ; they had met him in the Park in
1863 or 186-1. He spoke to the little boy, and Mrs.
Worsley said "This is the doctor, nurse, whom I
have consulted about the little boy." He was
paralysed.
Cross-examined—She had seen him three times.

Mary Jane Pearce said that she was a servant in
the employ of Mr. and Mrs. Wignall while they
were residing at Leamington-road-villas in 1866.
She was there four months. She saw the last wit-
ness and Mr. Lowe there. Mr. and Mrs. Wignall
were living as man and wife. They occupied one
bed• room.

Mrs. Larkyns said that the respondent and co-
respondent lived in her house at 23, Leamington-
villaso fint.emMpresr.alnVcoers. ley gave way frightfully to habits
'bis endod the case for the petitioner, and as
there was no evidence on the part of the other par-
ties, the Judge summed up, and the jury found a
verdict in favour of the petitioner on all the
issues. •
The decree nisi was postponed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

BOW STREET.

John Montague was placed at the bar, on re
mand, charged with violently assaulting Police
constable 65 E.

The constable, on the last occagion the prisoner
was before the magistrate, said the prisoner struck
him twice in the eye, which blackened it ; he also
kicked him violently on the leg, and so resisted cap-
ture, for creating a disturbance, till he was com-
pelled to call for aid in order to convey him to the
station-house. The disturbance to which the con-
stable referred took place outside the Dolphin
public-house in Tonbridge-street.
A witness of the affray between the policeman
and the prisoner was now in attendance. He said
his name was Stone, that he resided at Putney, and
was totally unacquainted with the prisoner.
_ _

Mr. Vaughan (to witness)—You have heard the
constable's evidence read over. Do you now say
that he deliberately kicked the prisoner when he
was down ?

Witness—Yes, sir.
Mr. Vaughan—Was it a savage or malicious
kick ?

Witnese—lt was such a one that I should not
liked to have had.

Mr. Vanghan—The constable says the prisoner
struck him violently in the face. Now if he did
so you must have seen it.

,
Mr. Vaughan—Well, did he do so ?
nituess —No, sir ; some of the other persons
around might have hit the policeman, but I'm sure
the prisoner never did.
Mr. Vaughan—You are a stranger, I believe, to
all the parties.

Witness—l know nothing of the prisoner. I was
found out at Putney and served with a summons
to attend here to-day. I never thought anything
about the matter after I got home the evening it
occurred.

The constable was recalled. He still persisted
that the prisoner did strike him, that he also was
the man who kicked him, and that he (witness)
never inflicted the severe kick on the prisoner to
which the witness spoke.
Mr. Vaughan said it was a most conflicting case,
but as each witness had given evidence directly con-
tradicting the other, he should order the prisoner to
be discharged.