The Sun. — 1867-06-22 (London, England)

CLAYTON V. CLAYTON. This was a suit instituted by the wife to obtain a divorce, on the ground of her husband's cruelty and  adultery. The Queen's Advocate, Mr. Stavely Hill, and Mr. Searle appeared for the petitioner, and Mr.  Inderwick for the respondent. The Queen's Advocate, in opening the case, said that this was a somewhat peculiar suit, inasmuch as the parties had lived together before marriage, and had one child. It appeared that the conduct the laly had been such that she gained respect and consideration of the grandfather of the respondent, and he had induced the latter to marry the lady. They were married in 1860, and although they hAd lived most happily together before marriage, yet afterwards, by soMe dispensation, the respondent began to prac,ise great cruelty towards his wife, especially after the death of the grandfather, which event occurred in 1863, he leaving to his grandson, the respondent, the whole of his property. There would be no doubt on his lordship'S mind, he well knew, when his lordship heard the evidence, that the death of the grand !ather had effected a great change in the feelings of the husband.  The marriage having been provtd, Elizabeth Clayton said that she was married on the 13th October, 1860, to Mr. Clayton. She had been living with him previously, as his wife, and there was a child born to them. She married in the presence of petitioner's grandfather. The petitioner began to behave unkindly to her in the summer of 1861. They were living at Malvern Villa, Hampton Wick when they went for a boat excursion on the water, and after they had lunched the gentlemen began to throw the bottles over-board, and when they came to the mustard-pot they broke the blade of the Oar, and were obliged to tow the boat. While Mr. Shanks, one of them, was doing so respondent took her by the throat, and said if it were not for Mr. Shanks he would murder her. In May of the next year he behaved unkindly to her, because she remonstrated with him for taking a lady out riding. In 1863 Mr. Clayton's grandfather died. After this he behaved very unkindly to her. In the following year they were staying in Bedfordstreet, Covent-garden, when, after they bad returned home from a dinner, he went down to the kitchen, and as she followed him he said she was listening, and seized her 'by the throat and pushed her against the wall, and then cut her lip open and gave her a black eye. A-few weeks after they went to Bedford-street, Covent Garden, again ; and as Mrs. Wale, the landlady of the house, had gone to Hampton Wick and the respondent had gone to Mr. Shanks, she did not know what to do, so she went to Mr. Shanks, and respondent kept her waiting till 10 o'clock at night, and they walked through the park as she thought towards the station, but when they came to the Marble Arch her husband left. In the same year of 1866 they went to Brighton, and in the beginning of June her husband gave her £6O to last her till the end of July, and said he was going away, but should be back, but he never came back, and this petition was then filed. Mrs. Wale, the landlady of the house in Bedfordstreet, confirmed this statement, and said that she had been a servant to the grandfather of Mr. Clayton, and had left when the old gentleman died. Evidence was then given to prove that Mr Clayton had lived adulterously at the Sussex Hotel, Cliftonville, under the name of Clark. As there was no rebutting evidence, the Judge Ordinary granted a decree nisi.