The Sun. — 1866-07-20 (London, England)

THE EXTRADITION LAW.  This was a suit by the wife for a dissolution of marries., on the ground of her husband's adultery and cruelty, to which he replied, pleading denial, condonation, and he recriminated the charge of adultery. Information reached the Queen's Proctor to the effect that there had been collusion between the petitioner and respondent to obtain a divorce, and he accordingly intervened. The parties were married at Glasgow in 1860, the petitioner being only 18 and the respondent being also young. The petitioner was possessed of property, and had an absolute re version 0f.£10,000 on the decease of her maternal grandfather. They went to reside at Liverpool, where the respon dent carried on business in partnership with another .gentleman. For about 18 months after the marriage they lived happily together, but then the respondent, who had induced his wife to assign to him her fortune of £l,OOO and her reversion of the £lO,OOO already mentioned, commenced neglecting her, being in the habit of seldom coming home till late at night, and addicting himself to gambling and drinking, although not to the ;extent of intoxication. In the year 1863 Mr. Boardman and his wife went to live in the house of a gentleman and his wife, named Bousfield, at Liverpool with whom they were on most intimate terms. They afterwards removed, and Mr. Bousfield died, which, however, did not interrupt the close intimacy that previously existed with Mr. Bousfield. Mr. Boardman allowed his wife to go to public places of amusement with Mr. Bousfield, and did not object to his kissing her in his presence The marital intercourse between the petitioner and his wife continued until, when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner in the early part of February, 1865, that her husband was keeping a woman named Smith, and that he had had an improper intimacy with other women during the• time of their cohabitation. She immediately commenced proceedings to procure a divorce ; and the respondent also filed a cross-petitlon, charging his wife with having committed adultery with Mr Bousfield. In consequence of this Mr. Bousfield brought an action against Mr. Boardman for slander, but was nonsuited on technical grounds.  . _ The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving for leave to bring in a bill on this subject, said the French Government had expressed dissatisfaction at the Treaty of Extradition, and had given notice that at the perioi of its expiration they woitld discontinue to be parties to it, but had consented to allow it to remain in operation until next December, with the distinct understanding that it should then undergo an alteration. A bill on the subject had been prepared by the late Government, and would have been introduced by the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs except for the change of Ministry. That bill met the emergency of the case, and it was the measure he proposed to introduce to the house. The present treaty, which had been extended by the consent of the French Government, was agreed to in 1840, and. lasted until 1860, when it was renewed, and was entered into between the United States, France, and Denmark, while France had no less than 53 such treaties. Having explained the anomalies of the exististing treaties, which excluded only the cases of murder, fiaudulent, bankruptcy, and forgery, he expressed a hope that the house would consent to allow him to introduce the bill. After's few remarks from the Earl of CLARENDON, the bill was then read a first time.