The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 9, 1864

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COUR I' OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Common Jury.)
ELLYLTT V. ELLTETT, RALSE, AND TAYLOR.

This suit was instituted by the husband for a dissolution
of his marriage with the respondent, in consequence of her
having committed adultery with the co•rospondenta. The
case commenced on Saturday, and witnesses were examined
to prove that the co-respondent liaise, who was a wealthy
stockbroker, had on frequent occasions visited the respon-
dent after she had left her husband, and remained with her
for hours together.
Several witnesses having been examined,

The learned ju Ige summed up at great length.

The jury found the respondent bad committed the adul-
tery charged, and assessed the damages against Taylor at
£10; and against liaise at £5O. They also found that the
respondent and her husband seperafed mutually, and the
petitioner had connived at the adultery with the different
parties named.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A BLIND I♦IAN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT ASSAULT.
—William Michael Corner, a blind man, was charged
before Mr. Tyrwhitt with violently assaulting Augustus
Walter, barman to Mr. Mostyn, of the Roebuck, Totten-
bam-court-road.

The complainant said that about ten o'clock the previous
night the prisoner came in and began begging of the custo-
mers, having at the time a placard hung round his neck,
with the words " Poor blind—l am a saddle-tree smith"
upon it. As the customers were much annoyed by the pri-
soner and a boy he had with him he went round the counter
to put him out, when the prisoner, who he believed could
see, struck him a blow across the eye with a stick, the blow
be'ng given with such force that the stick, a littie thick
one, was broken in two, and he was felled to the ground.
The prisoner was afterwards given into custody.
The complainant's evidence having been corroborated,
Mr. Mostyn said the prisoner was a source of great
annoyance to him, coming into his house two or three
times nearly every night, and although he stated that
he was blind he could manage to see well enough to
take up persons' glasses and drink out of them.
Prisoner said he was struck, and his guide (the boy)
also, but this was denied.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he believed the prisoner was an art-
ful fellow, who used the placard as a means of annoying
persons. It was not the first time he had seen great art-
fulness and wilfulness on the part of blind persons.

Fined 405., or a month.
TEE TRADE MARKS ACT,-111r. Bradlaugh (from the
office of Mr. Leverson, St. Helen's-place), solicitor for Mr.
Thomas Rolfe, pianoforte manufacturer, and Mr. Cruch, of
Gray's-inn, solicitor for Mr. Kelly, auctioneer, of Charles•
street, Oxford-street, attended before Mr. Tyrwhitt in re-
ference to the cas,,, of Rolfe v. Kelly—a summons under tha
Merchandise Marks Act for an infringement of it, the mat-
ter having stood over that Mr. Kelly might determine
whether he would have a special case or not.
Mr. Bradlaugh, after some conversation with Mr. Cruch,
said that Mr. Kelly had abandoned all idea of having a
special case, and had acted in the most tradesmanlike mea-
ner by affording every information in his power so as to en-
able Mr. Rolfe to reach the persons from whom the piano-
fortes bearing his forged trade mark were obtained. He
now felt convinced that, in his vocation of an auctioneer,
Mr. Kelly had only acted to the best of his ability for his
clients, and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was perfectly satisfied that
there was no ground for any imputation against him.
The case against Mr. Scotchen, auctioneer, will come on
on Tuesday next.