The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-24 00:00:00

FRANCE.

BOURSE, JAN. 23.—Transactions very moderate,
yet prices well supported, and the main feature is a
slight increase of confidence.
Three o'clock. --The market closed as follows :

4} per Cent.
End of month —
3 per Cent
End of mouth 6B 60
Credit Mobilier
End of month 163 75
Credit Foucier 1375
End of mouth 1367 50
RAIL WA I

Bank Shams 3235
Itt.P.att Loan
End of month 42 GO
➢iexican Loan
Do. Bonds
Spanish Threes
Home Debt 32 75
DeferroJ —

Account
Orleans , ... 875
Northern
Lyons and Mediterranean ......... . 8771
Southern..... 533i
Western
Eastsrn • • 533i
Sardinian
Austrian
Lombard
North of Spain
Saragossa
Roman

45j

LA W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CRABB (MISS HERBERT) V. CHABB.
Dr. Spinks, QC., and Dr. Tristram for the petitioner ;
Mr. Searle for the respondent.
This was the petition of Louisa Crabb (better known as
Miss Herbert, the manager of St. James's Theatre; for a
divorce on the ground of adultery and desertion. She
was married to the respondent in Juue, 1855,. at Holy
Trinity Church, Brixton, and they cohabited at Ouslow•
terrace and Hans-place, where a child was born in April,
1837. The rest of the c Ise is described in the evid mce.
Mrs. Helen Polto—l reside at Clifton, and am sister to
the petitioner. Her maiden name was Maynard. I visited
her after her marriase. Mr. Crabb was a s.o.:kbroker.
lie lived with my sister at Hans-place, Chelsea. They
appeared to be living comfortably. I visited them in 1857,
shortly after the birth of their son. I stayed with them
about a fortnight. There was a dispute about a servant
named Jane. The petitioner hat not recovered from her
confinement at that time. I had found the respondent
shut up with Jane i❑ his dressing room one ruorniug. 1
;,brew the door open, and said, "Mr. Crabb, I will not
allow if my sister does." They were whi,pering
;ogether. I told my sister, who said the woman must
leave the house. She refused to go, and Mr. Crabb would
not allow her to leave. Mr. Crabb then went away, and
nly sister sent for a policeman to turn Jane out of the
house, but he declined to interfere. I remained in the
house several days afterwards, but Mr. Crabb never
returned while 1 was there. On the 19th of November
last I saw the respondent in the presence of other wit-
nesses. Since then my sister has supported herself on the

stage.
Mrs. Crabb lived with my husband for a year
at Onslow-terrace, and from thence we removed to Hans-
place. I had reason to complain of neglect on the part
of my husband. He would be out all night, and his be-
haviour to me was
generally bad. When he stayed out
Ihhadad been playing
with him respecting
Playing at whist. He
did
usuallynot
d r
drink.
said d
ah altB hyie
a servant. After my confinement I was very ill for some
time. The respondent went away from me on that occa-
sion for two or three days without telling me where he
had gone. When he returned ho showed me no atten-
tion, but he occupied the entire time of the servants,
and would not let them attend to me. 1 very often
remonstrated with him about Jane. He kept her down-
stairs and gave her the keys. When the nurse asked
for wine she would not let her have it. My husband
supported her in that conduct. They went on till my
sister came to me. I don't think he slept in the house
after the time he left me, as my sister has described. 110
did, however, come to the house for some of his clothes.
‘Ve had had a dispute before that about some other
misconduct of his. Ile was very angry about it ; but
I did not know that he was going to leave me. I sent
my solicitor to him, and he said that I should have £25
a quarter on application at Hoare's bank. It was paid
me twice ; but on applying for it the third time, I found
that the respondent's account was closed. 1 afterwards
received information that he had gone away to India.
From that moment I lost all trace of him, and I have never
received money or letters from him since. I have, how-
ever, met him in the street about three times. I have
maintained my child ever since.
By the Judge Ordinary—l communicated with him
through my attorney within a few days after he left me, for
I had uo means on which to live, and I was too ill to take an
engagement. I wanted my husband to coins back to me.
I saw no written agreement for the payment of the £lOO
a year. was content that he should live separate from
me so long as that was paid.
Mr. Henry 11. Murdogh—l am a merchant at Great
St. Helen's, Bishopsgate. From 1858 to 1861 1 resided at
Calcutta. I knew Mr. Crabb, the respondent. I left him
in India. He was an indigo planter's assistant. I have
seen him since his return to England. That was at his
office, 18, Finch-lane, where he is in a stockbroker's firm.
Wm. Wright, clerk t the petitioner's solicitor, served
the citation on the respondent in St. James's-street. Had
been to his office at 18, Finch-lane.
Maria Hockington—l live in the service of Mrs. Julia
Prescott. I was with her in 1866 at 29, Stanley-villas,
Chelsea. I remember Mr. Crabb coming to the house.
He remained there all night, and slept with my mistress.
That happened more than once. Last year I saw hint in
the presence of Mrs. Polto and Mrs. Wright. Mrs. Pres-
cott was not the petitioner.
Mr. Wright, the petitioner's attorney (called at the re-
quest of the court) The prisoner desired we to communi-
cate with her husband's soliciters,Messrs. Lake and Kendal,
whose clerk had brought her £5. I was directed to arrange
terms for the maintenance of her child. She told me that
the clerk had informed her that if she had an attorney he
was to communicate with Messrs. Lake and Kendal, with
a view to an arrangement for the maintenance of the
child. I saw Mr. George Lake, and my communications
wore confined to that subject. There was no question of
Mr. Crabb's return to his wife. A written agreement was
drawn out relative to the allowance. [This was produced,
and it proved to he a regular separation. deed, executed by
Mrs. Crabb as well as the respondent.]
The Court —ln that stare of things, what becomes of the
desertion ?
Dr. Spicks—The deed was void on the ground that her
husband hail abandoned his right to the child ; awl it was,
moreover, never acted upon.
The Court -It was acted upon by the payment of the
allowances twice.
Dr. Spinks —The petitioner was only willing to live
apart if the money were paid, and that arrangement has
nut b on carried out.
The Court—lt occurs to me that though she has con-
sented to live apart, her consent cannot be held to be bind-
' iug on her after the failure of the respondent to pay the
money.
Dr. Spinks—Besides, it wa3 a case of Lloloson's choico.
It was a forced assent, not a willing CULISeI4I, and was only
intended on her part to be a temporary arrangement until
the respondent's health was restored.
The Judge Ordinary—l think, however, that it will he
better that the case stand over, and see if you cart find
any case in point, for 1 am perfectly clear that it is
im-
possible to say that there was any separation at the time
of the execution of the deed.
_ The hearing was accordingly adjourned.