The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-01 00:00:00

JUVENILE CLOTHING.
In former times Houses of high pretensions paid but little at-
tention to styles of JUVENILE ATTIRE, and frequently their
best fashions were an abbreviation of those intended for ADULTS.
Such an unnatural system has been abolished, and a plan entirely
NEW has been pursued by E. MOSES and SON. They employ he
most talented ARTISTS and WORKMEN, expressly to deN;se
NEW STYLES of DRESS for YOUNG GENTLEMEN—their age,
symmetry, and proportions being carefully observed. Hence it is
that E. MOSES and SON'S JUVENILE CLOTHING is more
stylish, appropriate, and satisfactory than any witch others have
produced. The highest order of DRESS for the approaching va,a-
tion may be obtained at E. MOSES and 'ON'S for considerably less
money than must be paid should application be made elsewhere.

Ingenious and No;e1 introductions for WIN'TER DRESS are
practical proofs of E. MOSES arid SON'S inimitable position in the
TAILORING BUSINESS. The Ready Made Departments present
a boundless STOCK of OVERCOATS in every NEW style, charged
lower prices than at any other House in the World.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
Business in Adelaide is rapidly improving. The colony is likely
to become more than ever prosperous—the farming interests have
wonderfully revived. For all EIIIGRA.NTS. CAPITALISTS,
AGRICULTURISTS, MECHANICS, or GOLD DIGGERS, E.
MOTES and SON'S OUTFITS are most approved. They contain
the best and most suitable goods, and are charged lower prices than
at any other Establishment. A complete and separate Department
is kept for OUTFITTING. Full Li-ts of OUTFITS and all neces-
sary informatlm relative to sailing of vessels, &c., may be had on
application, or post free to any part of the kingdom.
CAUTION.—E. MOSES and SON regret having to guard the
public against imposition, having learned that the untradesman like
alsehood of " Being connected with their Establishment," or " It's
the same concern." has been resorted to in many instances, and for
ouvious reasons, they beg to state that they have
No CONNEXION WITH .kNY OTHER HOUSE IN OR OUT OF LONDON,
except their own Establishments, as follows :
London City Establiement, 154, 155, 15G and 157, Minorles, 83,
84, 85, and Aldgate, opposite the Church, all conatuurnc4tir*
London West-end Branch. 586, 507, SOS, Now Oxford-street 1,2,
and 3, Hart-street, all communicating,
• Bradford (Yorkshire) Branch, 19, Bridge. street.
Sheffield Branch, 36, Fargate.
Merchant Tailors, Clothiers, Hatters, Hosiers furriers, Boot
and Shoe Makers, and General Outfitters for Ladies and GentletrE•n„
IMPORTANT.—ShouId any article not give satisfaction it will be
exchanged if desired, or, if preferred, the money will be returned
without hesitation. All goods are marked in plain figures, the lowest
price, from which no abatement can be made.
.The Kstablishmenta are closed trout sunset Friday to sunset qt
Saturdays, when business to resumed In Twelve o'clock.
• A new Book, entitled " The World's Pharos," containing the
Emigrant's Assistant, f ii list of prices, and Directions for self-mea-
surement, may be had on application, or post-free, to any part
c?' the kingdom.
A handsome Almanac for

can ho hl

•atis,

- - - - -
Id l'on pada Francais. I Qui si parla Italian°.
tiler spricht man Deutsch. Aqua so habla Espanol.

[PRICE 5D .

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS-APPEALS.
GEILS V. GEILS.

The respondent in this case was the wife of the ap-
pellant, and on the 17th May, 1849, instituted an action
of divorce against him in the Court of Session upon the
ground of adultery. She was an Englishwoman, the
daughter of Charles Dickinson, Esq., of Farley-hill, in
Berkshire; and on the Bth October, 1838, was married
by license at the church of Swallowfield, in that county,
to Mr. Geils, a domiciled Scotchman, whose residence
was in Dumbartonshire. They went to Scotland directly
afterwards, and remained there till 1845, when Mrs.
Geils, on account of alleged adultery on the part of her
husband, quitted his house, and came to England. The
summons, in this case, alleged acts of adultery with
certain women, specially named, and prayed for a divorce
a vinculo matrinwnii. Mr. Geils put in defences in
which, besides denying the alleged acts of adultery, he
stated that in October, 1845, Mrs. Geils had insti-
tuted a suit against him in the Arches Court of Can-
terbury, founded upon the same grounds of charge as
those now set up in the suit in the Court of Session; and
that in April, 1848, the Court of Arches pronounced
a sentence of separation a mend et thoro. The fact
was, that he had instituted a suit for a restitution of
conjugal rights, arid that her charges of adultery had
been made in the form of responsive allegations to his
suit. He pleaded in Scotland six pleas in law ; first,
denying the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, as the
wife was a native of England, and the marriage was
solemnised in England and according to the forms of the
English Church ; secondly, that the suit and decree in
the Arches Court were a bar to further proceedings in
Scotland ; thirdly, that the charges were vague in them-
selves, and not properly laid ; fourthly, that as the al-
leged acts of adultery took place before August, 1843,
with parties, some of whom are now dead, the delay was
a bar to the suit ; fifthly, that there had been condona-
tion, or, as it is called in the Scotch law, remissio in mu-
4arun z.; and, sixthly, that the charges were uvtenc. - On
the 16th of November, 1849, Lord Wood, the Lord Or-
dinary, repelled the first preliminary defence ; reserved
the second until satisfactory evidence of the nature of
the proceedings in the Arches Court should have been ad-
duced; repelled the third in part, but allowed the remainder
to be suspended so that they might become the subject of
proof; and repelled the fourth. The Lord Ordinary
directed that the opinions of English counsel should be
taken on the subject of the second preliminary defence,
and considering these opinions, he afterwards repelled
that defence. This interlocutor was appealed against,
but was confirmed by a majority of the judges of the first
division of the Court of Session, Lord Fullerton being
the only dissentient. An appeal was then presented to
the House of Lords, and the question was, whether the
decree obtained by Mrs. Geils as the defendant in the
Arches Court for a divorce a Me. 2,84 et thoro, prevented
her from asking as a plaintiff or pursuer in the Scotch
courts for a further and more complete remedy. The
appeal in the House of Lords was as to.the competency
of his plea, and that appeal was decided, in 1851, ad-
versely to him. The case then went to the Scotch courts
on the validity of his plea, the question being whether the
proceedings in England were an absolute bar in the
Scotch courts to further proceedings there. The Scotch
court decided against him, and he then brought the
present appeal.

Their tOrdships now gave judgment, confirming the
decision of the court below. The appeal was accordingly
dismissed, but without costs on either side.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—Nov. 30.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—Before Chief Jus-
tice Jervis and a Special Jury.)
EVANS V. EDMONDS-EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

This was an action upon an annuity deed by which
the defendant covenanted to pay his wife an annuity of
591. 19s. 6d. ; the simi sought to be recovered being two
quarterly payments of this annuity, due in February and
May. The deed was in fact a deed of separation be-
tween the defendant and his wife, and the plaintiff was
trustee for the wife. The defendant pleaded that the
deed was obtained from him by the false and fraudulent
misrepresentation that the defendant's wife was a person
of virtuous and moral behaviour, whereas the fact was
that the plaintiff had before the execution of the deed
had criminal conversation with her.

Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins, were for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., and
Mr. Atherton, Q.C., were for the defendant.
Mr. Edwin James opened the case. The plaintiff was
a hop merchant, in Southwark, and the defendant was
a wholesale chemist, in the city of London.
Mr. Roumieu, an attorney, in Lincoln's-inn-fields,
proved the execution of the deed ; and in cross-examina-
tion he stated that an action. had been brought against
Mr. Evans, who was a married man, for criminal con-
versation with Mrs. Edmonds, and that action was
settled by the payment by Mr. Evans of 2501.
Mr. Chambers then opened the defendant's case, and
stated that he was instructed that he should be able. to
viove that the `phlfitiff-had"c6thUined and colluded with
the defendant's wife to obtain this deed, he having had
adulterous intercourse with her, and that this had taken
place before the 11th January, 1844, the date of the
deed. In the year 1830, the defendant was married to
his present wife, Miss Elizabeth Getting, and 3,0001.
was settled upon her by marriage settlement. They
lived happily until they went to reside next door to the
plaintiff in Wandsworth-road. Shortly afterwards the
defendant's wife became dissatisfied ; and in April, 1843,
in consequence of some paltry dispute, she left home and
went to live in Camden-town where the plaintiff visited
her. The result was that a female child was born on the
Ist of October, 1844, and since then she had had one or
two other children, of whom he believed the plaintiff was
the father.

Martha Lipscombe was called, and she stated that she
was now living servant with Dr. Cahill, but in 1843 and
1844 she was servant to Mrs. Russell, who kept a lodg-
ing-house in High-street, Camden-:;own. During this
time Mrs. Edmonds lodged in the house. At one part
of the time she had only a bedroom, and at other times
two rooms, with a door between them. During the
whole of the time Mr. Evans visited her two or three
times a week. She saw Mr. Evans in court, and that

_
was the gentleman she pointed out. He visited Mrs.
Edmonds as Mr. Getting, her brother, and Mrs. Ed-
monds called him her brother John. He came about
four or five o'clock, and stayed generally an hour, but
sometimes until nine o'clock. When he came she rose
up to receive him and kissed him.
The Chief Justice—That is, they met as brother and
sister. _ _

Witness—Not as a brother and sister who saw each
other so often. (Laughter.)

The Chief Justice -- That would depend upon the
warmth of their family affection. (A laugh.)
Witness—They generally had tea and some spirits
afterwards. Mrs. Edmonds was particular in dress-
ing herself on these occasions, and she appeared
much pleased. Witness had seen her reclining upon ft
sofa when Mr. Evans was there. On one occasion,
whilst Mrs. Edmonds had only one room, witness found
the door locked. Mr. Evans was there ; but this took
place after January, 1844.
Mr. James objected that as this was after the date of
the deed the evidence could not be properly received.
The Chief Justice ruled that the evidence was ad-
missible.

Witness—On this occasion, when the door was locked,
witness tried it in consequence of having heard a bell
ring. Mr. Evans walked across the room and unlocked
the door. Witness walked in to take away the tea
things. Mrs. Edmonds was standing by the fire, and
she appeared very confused, and said she had not rang.
Mr. Evans seemed very red, and the foot of the bed was
very much tossed.
Mrs. Susannah Claen, of No. 4, Lower Brunswick-
terrace, Islington, recollected Mrs. Edmonds coming to
lodge with her in August, 1844. She appeared to be in
the family way. Mr. Evans then visited her, and passed
as her husband. They were called Mr. and Mrs. Ed-
monds, and he was stated to be a commercial traveller.
He never slept there. Mrs. Edmonds was brought to
bed on the 30th September. Mr. Evans visited her
once during her confinement. Mrs. Edmonds again
came to lodge with her in April or May, 1846, and she
left in the autumn of the same year. Mr. Evans then
visited her, but some time before she left they knew that
he was not Mr. Edmonds. There was another child
born in 1846. On one occasion Mrs. Edmonds said to
Mr. Evans that the first baby was like him. They
asked witness, and she said, "Of course, it's like its
father." Mr. Evans smiled, and said nothing.
Mr. William Semple said he was a surgeon and ac-
coucheur, in High-street, Islington. He attended Mrs.
Edmonds when she was confined, on the 30th September,
1844, and on the 27th April, 1846, she was also con-
fined again. The first child was nearly full grown.
Mrs. Edmonds engaged him for the first week in Oc-
tober.

This was the defendant's case.
Mr. Robert M. Evans, the plaintiff, was then called
in reply, and he stated that he resided near Maidstone.
He had known Mr. and Mrs. Edmonds for 20 years,
and he had been appointed a trustee under the marriage
settlement. This was after the separation. At first he
declined. He declined because his wife objected to it ;
but he could not tell why she objected. He remembered
the deed of separation being signed, and before that time
he had no adulterous interviews with Mrs. Edmonds.
He was positive of this. He had afterwards, and he had
in consequence paid 250/. to settle an action commenced
against him.
Cross examined—He never knew that he passed as
Mrs. Edmond's brother. He never kissed her on meet-
ing or parting. He should not like a servant-maid to
see him kiss anybody.
Mr. Chambers—Did you not kiss her over and over
again ?
The witness hesitated.
The Chief Justice—Now, if you don't answer that
question, I will send you to prison.
The witness —I will say yes,
if you like.
The Chief Justice—This man, on his oath, says he will
perjure himself if I like. You (to
the
suiting common sense by your conduct. witness) are in-
sulting
did kiss her severaltimes—perhaps over
and over again. _ _

Mr. Chambers—Perhaps you had intercourse with her
before January, 1844.

Witness—No ; I am positive of that.
The Chief Justice—Nobody on earthy can doubt that