The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 13, 1864.

MISCELLANEOUS—Continued.
Continental Union Gas, lim., 6116
Contract Corporation, lim., 44
Credit Foncier, 91 10
Credit Mobilier, 94
Discount Corporation, 16
East India Irrigation and Canal, 6
Egyptian Com. and Trading, lint, 51:5
E ~glish and Australian Copper, 14
Financial Discount, lim., 44
Fore-street Warehouse,
Gen. Credit and Finance of London, lire.,r 91 10
Hudson's Bay, 19
Imperial Financial, lint, 94
Indian Carrying, lint, 1k
International Financial Society, lim., 11
Joint Stock Discount, Bin., 74 7 4 6,1 J
Land Securities, lim., 54
London Financial Association, Jim., 261 ;
London General Omnibus Company, 2i
London Mercantile Discount, lint, 24
London Provincial Marine, 31
3Lidras Irrigation and Canal, l;
Mercantile Credit Association, Urn., 15i
National Financial, lim., 41 1
National Steam Navigation, lim., 10
Ocean Marine (Insurance), 191
Peninsula and Oriental Steam, 8:4
Rhymney Iron, 29
Royal Mail Steam, 85 4 5
Societe Finarciere d'Egypte, lim., 54 1
Trust and Agency of Australasia, 1im.,!2
Universal Marine, Insurance, lim.,
Warrant Finance, lim., 41

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde and a Common Jury.)
HICK V. RICK AND KITCHEN.
This was a suit by the husband , a tamer and ironmon-
ger at Leeds, for a dissolution of marriage, on the ground
of his wife's adultery
with the corespondent, a dyer in a
large way of business at Leeds. Both defendants denied
the adultery, recriminated the charge, and further alleged
cruelty and misconduct conducing to the adultery.
Mr Field, in stating the case, said that the parties were
married in January, 1859, and there were two children
issue of the marriage. The husband treated his wife
kindly, and they appeared to live on happy terms until last
June, when the petitioner discovered circumstances that
induced him to suspect his wife's infidelity. The corespon-
dent was introduced to the petitioner shortly after the mar-
riage, and then became a frequent visitor, particularly dur-
ing his absence.

Edward Macke, a clerk in the bank of Marsham and Co.,
I Leeds, proved having been present at the marriage, but
could not say on what terms the parties lived afterwards.
The petitioner had a shop in St. George's-street, and a pri-
vate residence at Blundell-terrace, Leeds.
Mary Ann Turner was in the petitioner's service in 1861,
and shortly after she went to the place Mr. Kitchen used to
come frequently. When Mr. Hick was at home he remained
only a short time, but when he was absent he used to stay
for a considerable time. She heard " a scuffling noise"
while Mr. Kitchen and Mrs, Hick were in the parlour
together, and when she entered the room they both rose
from the sofa. On another occasion she had seen Mr.
Kitchen's dress disordered, and she had seen him and Mrs.
Hick kissing each other.

Winifred Brown said she had seen Ritchen frequently at
the petitioner's house. On one occasion she discovered
them in a bed-room, and under circumstances that could
leave Bo doubt of the nature of the intimacy that existed
between them.
Mr 0 verend, for the respondent, said he should not deny
that adultery had been committed ; but then the respondent
was about the last person in the world 'who should have
come into this court to seek for damages for the loss of his
wife's society. The petitioner had himself been a most
abandoned person; and he should call before the jury evi-
dence to prove that the petitioner was in the habit of
attending the most immoral places in Leeds, in the com-
pany of women of the most disreputable character. After
the jury had heard the evidence ho felt they would at once
assess the damages at the lowest coin current in England.
The trial was proceeding when we went to press.