The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-18 00:00:00

The further hearing of this case, in which the damages
are laid at £lO,OOO, was resumed this morning by the exa-
mination of witnesses to rebut the evidence given yesterday
of extreme cruelty on the part of the husband, the petitioner.
Mr. Narracott, brother of the petitioner, was examined at
some length to show that the respondent was always treated
in a very kind manner during the whole time she lived with
the petitioner.

The Queen's Advocate then cross-examined him, and in
answer to questions put to him by the learned gentleman,
the witness said he had not given the slightest intimation
to any person of the nature of his evidence, He had merely
received a sulopcona to attend, and he had done so. The
solicitor for his brother had never asked him any questions,
and the only circumstance he thought that could explain
his being in the witness-nos was that being in court
yesterday whilst some of the witnesses for the respon-
dent were being examined, he merely said he could cor-
roborate many of their statements. He resided with his
brother at the present time. He did so for two years
after the petitioner was married• After that ticaa his
brother removed to Carey Cottage, but he always came to
his (witness's) residence every day, as it was the premises
in which their business, as grocers, was carried on. He
would swear that Mrs. Narracott, when she went to her
mother's, had sufficient and suitable clothing. He did not
know whether she took it with her, but he knew for a fact
she had it. She also had food of the best quality, Ho did
not dine with them—on the contrary, his brother dined at
his house. The learned gentleman pressed the witness
here very closely as to the number of times the petitioner
dined with him, and after some difficulty it was elicited he
took his dinner as frequently at witness's table as he did
at his own.

Other witnesses having been examined,
The Solicitor-General replied on the part of the petitioner.
The learned Judge was summing up the evidence to the
jury when we went to press.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

A NOVEL POINT IN THE LAW OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.
SARL AND OTHERS V. MARKWITH.

This was an action to recover a balanco of account—Mr.
Pinning appearing for plaintiff.,, and Mr. Buchanan for
defendant.

Mr. Pinning called a witness, who deposed to the supply
of goods to defendant.

His Honour—Well, Mr. Buchanan, what do you say to
this ?

Mr. Buchanan---•We say that we have paid into court all
that plaintiffs have asked us for. This letter is our de-
fence.

Plaintiffs' letter was handed up to his Honour, who
found that they agreed to accept £l2 odd, it the money was
paid without further trouble.
Mr. Buchanan—And that money we have paid into
court.

Mr. Vinning—But I contend you are not entitled to any
deductions in the shape of discount, inasmuch as you did
not pay the money without further trouble.
Plaintiffs' witness—The discount, as deducted from the
invoice, represents what is customary to the trade, and it
would not have been allowed to the defendant but that we
expected a large order from him.
Mr, Vinning—There was no consideration for the pro-
mise to take £l2.

Mr. Buchanan—The money paid in is all that you asked.

His Honour—So far as I read it, it seems to mean that if
the defendant pays the £l2, without the trouble of driving
plaintiff into law, they will accept it.
He has not done so, therefore I think plaintiffs are entitled
to the balance.
Verdict for plaintiffs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

YIELDING TO TEMPTATION.—John Potts, a respectable
looking lad, in the employ of Messrs. Hollis and Henaing-
ham, stationers and post-office keepers, of Mount-street,
Grosvenor-square, was charged before Mr. Knox with being
in possession of two silver spoons, the property of Mr.
Henningham.
A palice-constable said that about nine o'clock this morn-
ing he was called to Mr. Mellish's, pawnbroker, in Duke-
street, Grosvenor-square, and told that the prisoner had
offered two spoons in pledge which were believed to have
been stolen. The pawnbroker declined to give the prisoner
into custody, and he (the constable) then asked the prisoner
whose spoons they were, and he at first said they were his
mother's, but afterwards said his muther was dead, and that
they were his master's spoons, and that he had taken them
from the plate-basket that morning.

Mr. William Henningham, 5, Mount-street, Grosvenor,
square, said the spoons were his property, and of the value
of 30s. He did not wish to prefer any charge against the
boy, who had been in his service for 7 years, and always
behaved himself. The boy's father had been known to him
for many years, and was a very respectable man, and it was
out of respect for the father that he did not wish to prose-
cute the boy, who he had no doubt had given way to temp-
tation in taking the spoons.
The prisoner who, during the hearing of the case, buried
his face in his hands, and seemed overwhelmed in grief, said
he had no questions to ask.
Mr. Knox said he would remand the prisoner for a week
to see what could be done, so as to send him out of London
and away from bad acquaintances he might have formed.
The prisoner was then 'emended.