Home > London > SE17 > Duke Of Suffolk Duke Of Suffolk
	Source: Timothy Keane
The Duke Of Suffolk was situated at 59 Brandon Street. This pub has now been demolished.
Source: Ian Chapman
‘York Herald’, Tue 30 June 1874, p7. SINGULAR DIVORCE CAUSE. The case Clarson v. Clarson and Newton, was before the Divorce Court on Saturday. Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Searle appeared for the petitioner ; Mr. Bayford for the respondent ; Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., for the co-respondent. The petitioner married the respondent in August, 1853, and they lived together until the beginning of 1873. During the last few years of their cohabitation the petitioner had been in business as a publican, and from the autumn of 1871 until the separation, he was landlord of a public house called the Duke of Suffolk, in Brandon street, Walworth. The co-respondent, who was a cab-proprietor, frequently visited the house, and it was not denied that after the respondent left her house she cohabited with the co-respondent as his wife, and that they were still living together. The petitioner prayed for dissolution of marriage, and claimed damages on the ground of this adultery. The co-respondent alleged that the petitioner had connived at the respondent's adultery; that he had conduced to it by his ill treatment of her, and that he had condoned it. On the conclusion of the petitioner's case Mr. Serjeant Ballantine addressed the jury on the part of the co-respondent, and stated his case, which was that the petitioner had ill-treated his wife, that she was made vicious by the misconduct of her husband, but that up to that time she had been a pure woman for eighteen years. The learned counsel then went on to state that two years before his wife had left him the petitioner got into a maudlin state of mind, and that he had connived at his wife's adultery with other men. and the co-respondent among the rest. He did not deny the adultery, nor did he care for upholding the plea of condonation, for if he established the connivance which he had indicated there was an end of the question as to the damages sought from the co-respondent. Several witnesses were then called, who spoke as to the visits of a gentleman, whose name does not appear on the pleadings, to the petitioner's house, and as to his driving out the respondent in his dog-cart and remaining out with her for hours. Mrs. Clarson, the respondent, was next called. She stated that up to the time this gentleman visited them she had been a true and faithful wife to her husband. She got various presents from this gentleman of which her husband shared, and when they went to the Duke of Suffolk, he advanced money to put them into it. She was not aware that her husband had any direct knowledge of her connection with Newton previous to her leaving, but he encouraged his visits, and he left them alone for hours. The witness then detailed several instances in which her husband ill-treated her, knocking her down in the bar, giving her black eyes, throwing glasses at her; and she swore that she left his house in consequence of his violence. She left him on the 31st January, 1873, and for thirteen weeks after that her husband visited her, and sometimes Newton was with him. Evidence was then given in corroboration of the respondent's evidence as to the cruelty her husband had been guilty of towards her, and in consequence of which she left him. Mr. John Newton, the co-respondent, was next called, and stated that he made the acquaintance of the parties in 1872. He formed an improper acquaintance with the respondent before she left, and he believed the husband knew of it. He would swear that he did so. He had never used any contrivance to induce Clarson to condone his wife's adultery. He was not aware that he had done so until a fortnight afterwards. This being the whole of the evidence for the co-respondent, Mr. Tunnings, the gentleman by whom the respondent was alleged to have been driven about, was called in reply, and stated that to the best of his belief the petitioner had no idea of anything wrong between him and his wife. This being the whole of the evidence, the case was adjourned to Wednesday next for the address of counsel, the summing up of the learned judge, and the verdict of the jury.
Jean Ffrench (February 2015)
January 1850 Daily News, 24 January MELANCHOLY DEATH OF AN ARTIST.—Yesterday an inquiry was gone into before Mr. Carter, at the Duke of Suffolk, Brandon-street, Walworth, respecting the death of William Harris, aged 73 years, an artist, who died under very painful circumstances, in a caravan, in which he had resided for 30 years. The jury proceeded to an old caravan, situated in the corner of a filthy place, called Davy's Cow-yard, Upper Brandon-street, where they found the body of the deceased in a very emaciated state. The interior of the vehicle was quite unfit for the residence of a human being. Martha Harris stated that the deceased was her husband, he was an artist, and they had been married 47 years. Deceased, formerly, was in a large house at the west end of London; but being reduced in circumstances, the deceased completed a collection of oil paintings, which he exhibited in the caravan at the various fairs round the country. They had lived in the same vehicle for the last 30 years; but the deceased for a considerable period had been unable to get about, and therefore their means of obtaining a livelihood had been stopped. The only money they got was by the deceased painting sign-boards, window-blinds, or anything he could get to do. He occasionally executed the paintings that were exhibited outside the shows, but the remuneration was very bad. On Sunday morning last the deceased was in the act of lighting the fire in the caravan, during her absence, and when she returned the deceased was lying on the floor of the vehicle. Witness obtained assistance, but the deceased died in a few hours afterwards. The surgeon who attended deceased was of opinion that he had died from an attack of apoplexy. The Coroner—Do you mean to say that you have lived in the caravan thirty years? Witness (with tears In her eyes)—Yes, sir, we have. Mr. Cooke, the summoning officer, said that when he visited the place on Sunday morning the only money the poor woman had was one penny. The officer added that he fully believed they had suffered great privations. The jury returned a verdict of "Natural Death."
Catherine Wallace (May 2021)
Do you have any anecdotes, historical information, updates or photos of this pub? Become a contributor by submitting them here. Like this site? Follow us on Make email contact with other ex-customers and landlords of this pub by adding your details to this page.