The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LOADON, SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 20, 1864.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day).

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Chief Justice Erie and Justices Williams, Keating,
_ _

and Bylea.)

THELWELL V. THE HON. MAJOR C. YELVERTON.

Mr. D. Bruce, on the part of the plaintiff, moved that the
service of a copy of the declaration and notice to plead in
this action on Messrs. Tippett and Co , of Size-lane, agents
in London of Messrs. Lang and Adams, of Edinburgh, the
solicitors of Major Yelverton in the proceedings in the ap-
peal from the Court of Scission in Scotland, relating to the
marriage of the defendant with his wife, into the House
of Lords, and also by leaving a copy of the
same with Messrs. Cox and Greenwood, his army
agents, might be held good service. The action was
trougbt by the plaintiff, a merchant of Hull, to recover the
sum of £730 12s 2d, on a judgment at-allied by the plaintiff
in the courts in Ireland, in an action brought by him against
the defendant to recover the sum of
,X 259 17s 3d for board
and lodging of the Hon. Mrs. Yelverton, the wife of the
defendant, the costs in the proceeding amounting to £470
11s 11d. The writ in the present action was issued as far
back as July, 1863, but the defendant having absented him •
self from this country, they had been unable to find out his
residence until the 2d January last, when it was discovered,
by the aid of the French police, tha ,he was in Paris, and there
he was served with a copy of the writ in the present action,
but no appearance had been entered by the defendant to such
wiit, and it was now impossible to serve him personally
with a copy of the declaration and notice to plead, as it was
believed he had gone to Constantinople.
The Court declined to grant the application, on the ground
that the serving of the writ was so recent as the 2d of Jan. ,
and that the affidavits did not show what efforts had been
made to serve the defendant, and directed that further efforts
be made, the plaintiff to rent w his application upon affi-
davits of suck efforts.
Application refused.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary)
WINGRAVE V. WINGRAVE.

This was a petition presented by the husband praying for
the dissolution of his marriage, on the ground of adultery.
No appearance was entered by the respondent.
The respondent. it appeared, separated from her husband,
and then went to reside at a farmhouse, where she received
visits from a person whose name was supposed to be Day.
When the medical attendant was engaged, Mts. Wingrave
gave the name of Mrs. Day, and on the adultery being dis-
covered, she refused to answer any question relative to her
intimacy with Day.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the Judge Ordinary
stated he was satisfied that the petitioner was not the father
of the last child of respondent; and that opinion was
strengthened by the fact that when Mrs. Wingrave engaged
the services of Mr. Morris, the surgeon, she said ber name
was Day. There was no earthly object why she should
have taken any other name but that of her husband without
it was for purposes of concealment. The petitioner had
clearly made out the allegations, and he was entitled to his
decree nisi.