The Sun.
London, England, 1863-01-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 23, 1863.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BROWN V. BROWN AND DEACON.

This was a petition presented by the husband against
the wife for dissolution of marriage.

The Rev. Mr. Moseley, curate of St. Augustine-the-Less,
Bristol, proved the marriage of the petitioner with the re-
spondent on the 24th June, 1840.
Miss Crutwell, the sister of Mrs, Brown, said she re-
collected her coming to Bath in 1858. She stopped there
two or three months, but afterwards she went to Clifton,
where she (witness) visited her, but at that moment she
could not reeollect the name of the street. She saw her
while she was living at Avon-terrace, Clifton. She also
knew Mr. Jas, Deacon, end she had seen him frequently
with her sister. Once on the College-green, Bristol. That
was the first time she saw him, but afterwards she met
him at Clifton, but it was not in Avon-terrace.

By the Judge—She could not recollect the house or the
name of the place she saw Mr. Deacon, He came in
after she arrived.

Cross-examined—When she first saw Mr. Deacon he was
introduced to her by that name by her sister. Mr. Deacon
did not remain with her sister while she was there. He
only stopped a few moments. The next time she corre-
sponded with her sister was while she resided at the Isle of
Man. She had seen Mr. Deacon at Bath since that, about
a twelvemonth ago. Her sister was not with him, but he
was waiting for her. She could not recollect whether it
was in a house or about. The witness afterwards said she
recollected it was at her own house. Mr. Deacon came to
the door, but did not come in. He left word that ho was
waiting for her sister. She told her that Mr. Deacon
had been there and left a newspaper, when her
sister said she was ready to go out, and she did so. She
had been staying there some time. Witness was not well
acquainted with Mr. Deacon, but she had seen him fre-
quently. He used to call her by her Christian name Mary,
but never with her sanction. She always called him Mr.
Deacon, and not James. While her sister was at the Isle
of Man and other places she corresponded with her, but
witness invariably destroyed the letters. Her sister always
signed her letters " J. 1)." She did not know the meaning
of such a signature, but she guessed the reason. She never
corresponded with her while she was living at Bessborough-
place, but the respondent told her she had given her address
there. All the letters were signed "J. D." She was
in communication with respondent while she lived in
Stafford-place, Pimlico. She did not see Mr. Deacon
when she went there. He certainly was not liv-
ing with her there. Her sister saw Mr. Deacon fre-
quently, but he did not come there while she was there.
By the Judge—She knew that Mr. Deacon was residing
with her sister as her husband.
Examination continued—Mr. Deacon had told her that
he was residing with her sister.
Proof of the service of the citation and the petition on the
parties having been given,
His Lordship said he thought he ought to know more
about the terms upon which Mr. and Mrs. Brown resided
after marriage. He could not grant relief in the case with-
out hearing something about that part of the case. The
marriage took place in 1840, the separation occurred in
1858, and surely it was necessary the court should know
something of the interval. The parties had not resided for
all those years on a desolate island. They mast have come
in contact with some one. As it stood, it really appeared a
very curious case.
The son of the petitioner was then called, but he could
only say that the separation was by mutual consent for a
short time, and that his parents always lived happily

together.
His Lordship granted a rule nisi, with costs ; remarking,
at the same time, that it was altogether an odd story.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fane.)
IN RE BLACRE AND BEHR.

In this case the bankrupts are described as of Pimlico
and Finsbury, timber and veneer merchants, and this was
an application on the part of Dr. Behr, who joined the
bankrupt Blache in partnership with tho view of carrying
out some scientific improvement.

The balance sheet by Messrs. Hart Brothers and Hayles
shows debtor to creditor, £14,601; creditor, by good debts,
£730, property given up, £6,863.
Mr. Sargood said that the only complaint against the
bankrupt was excessive expenditure, but as he was not a
man of business, perhaps a short suspension of the order of
discharge for three months would be sufficient.
Mr. Lawrence said that Dr. Behr had unfortunately em-
barked in a trade of which he knew nothiag ; and looking
at his position in life, some excuse could be found for his
large expenditure, chiefly on his family, and to advance his
son in the world as a civil engineer. His personal expenses
had been very small. As a trader the expenditure was large,
and was open to some remark. He (Mr Lawrence), there-
fore, considered the suspension proposed would satisfy all
parties, as there was no imputation on. Dr. Behr.
Order made accordingly with protection.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

IMPORTANT CASE UNDER THE CARRIERS' ACT.-WALCOTT

V. CHAPLIN AND HORNE.

This was an action to recover £4 damages, for delay in
the delivery of a certain parcel entrusted to the defendants
for carriage.
Mr. Hubert Wood appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Edwards for defendants.
Mr. Wood said that his client was the inventor of a
patent knife-sharpener, and was in the habit of attending
agricultural shows, In November last plaintiff went to the
Brighton show, and bis wares took very well. A parcel
was sent to him there, and the defendants were employed
as the carriers, it being understood that there was to be im-
mediate delivery, as the show was about closing. The
parcel was not duly delivered, thence the present action.
Mr. Edwards—This is really a monstrous claim. My
clients are not liable, but the Brighton Railway Company,
by whom I am also instructed, are perfectly willing to com-
pensate plaintiff in any reasonable sum. In fact, if we
could have found plaintiff your honour would never have
been troubled with this case. Now here Mr. Walcott says
he had six dozen sharpeners sent to him, and he puts in his
bills that he will sell them at 108. per dozen. That is only
£3, and he claims £4.
His Honour—lt is perfectly clear that plaintiff cannot
claim consequential damages in a case of this kind. It is
quite preposterous to suppose that defendants are to be liable
in the whole value of the goods; and how am I to say what
, is reasonable ?

Mr. Wood—We lost the sale.
His Honour—An action in trover will not lie, though one
in detinue might, but I suppose you are ready to deliver the
parcel ?
Mr. Ed wards—Perfecey.
His Honour—Then, I think £1 damages will meet the
merits of the case, and I may add that it is nonsense to
bring actions for such an amount of damages.
Verdict for plaintiff for D. damages.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBORO U GH-STREET.

A BRUTE PROPERLY PUNISHED.—Mr. H.dy, a general
dealer, of Saville-street, Marylebone, was charged before
Mr. Knox as follows :
Mr. Gaskin, a general dealer, said he was standing in
Marylebone-street the previous evening talking to his
wife, when the prisoner came up and knocked both him
and his wife down. While he (witness) was lying on the
ground the prisoner seized him by the throat, and so pressed
his knuckles into it that he was nearly choked.
Mr. Knox asked what provocation the witness had given
the prisoner, and the witness said that on one occasion his
wife prevented the prisoner strangling his wife on the bed,
and ever since he had entertained a grudge towards him and
his wife.

Mr. W. Davis, a gentleman residing at 34, Munster-
square, said that hearing the cry of " Murder," he ran out
of a friend's house in Marylebone-street and pulled the
prisoner off the witness; The prisoner at the time was i
doing his best to strangle the witness, and, but for his in-
terference, he believed he would have done so:
Sarah Gasltin, wife of the first witness, proved being
assaulted by the prisoner, and said the black eye she bore
was caused by the prisoner. Sho was only just out of her
confinement.
Mr. Davis said that the last witness's face was smothered
with blood, and Mr. Nathaniel Wakeling, of Charlotte-
street, Fitaroy-square, proved seeing the prisoner knock the
complainant and his wife down.
A constable said that bearing cries of " Police,' he went
to the spot and saw the prisoner A.n the top of the first
witness, nearly choking him. With the assistance of Mr.
Davis the prisoner was dragged from the witness (Gaskin).
He also observed the female's face covered with blood.
Mr. Knox said it was as brutal and wanton an attack
as he had ever heard of, and he should commit the prisoner
for three months, with hard labour.-