The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF DIVORCE,
(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Common Jury.)
lIALL V. lIALL AND lIALL.
This was a suit instituted by the husband, an auc-
tioneer, residing at Banbury, against his wife, by reason
of her adultery with the co-respondent, a nephew of the
petitioner.
The marriage took place in 1813, and they resided hap-
pily together at Banbury till 1863. The co-respondent, a
young farmer, residing at Stockton, near Banburj, was
on very intimate and visiting terms with h's uncle, the
p:atitioner. Since that time ho had sold off hia stock and his
fare Tip having also a sum of £l,OOO which had been lefthim by
will, with the intention of proceeding to Australia, he
being a married man with three children. The petitioner
had no ,suspicion of the want of fidelity on the part
of his wife Plata the month of July last, when she expressed
a desire to visit her friends at Brighton during the painting
and repairing of their house, to which the petitioner
assented, and arrangements were accordingly made for
the journey. To his amazement he was afterwards in-
formed that his wife had been joined by his nephew
at the place where they occupied the same apartments in
the house of Mr. Lorimer° from the 28th of June to the
29th of July. On the respondent's returning home the pe-
titioner, having been informed of her infidelity, refused to
received her back when oho wrote a very penitent letter
acknowledging her fault, and praying and imploring for-
giveness. The petitioner refused, and instituted the present
proceedings to dissolve the marriage of which there was no
issue.

At the conclusion of the evidence,
The learned Judge said the adultery had been clearly
proved, and the only question for the jury was the amount
of damages.

The jury, after a short consultation, assessed the damages
at £l5O.

Decree for dissolution, with costs, against tho co.
respondent.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Beforo Mr. Sergeant Wheeler.)
IIELD V. BISHOP.

This was an action to reccvor 5s 3d for work done, and
defendant admitted owing 4s 7d.
His Honour—So there is only a difference of 8d between
you ?
Defendant's witness—That is all.

Plaintiff, a young female, said she had taken some pieces
of work from defendant, and agreed to do them for 9d per
dozen, although lld was the usual price. After she had
finished them she took them home, and then complaints
were made.
His Honour—What were those complaints ?

Plaintiff—That the work was badly done. It is customary
to complain of work. I offered to alter the work if I was
paid a better price, but defendant refused to allow me to
do so, saying she should give them to another hand, and
charge me with the expense. The work was accepted.
Defendant's witness said that the work was so badly done
that it could not be put in stock. She had a pattern from
which to work. The forewoman stated that plaintiff had
agreed to do the work for 9s per dozen. When she brought
it home, it could not be passed. Plaintiff thereupon refused
to alter it unless she was paid the extra 2e per dozen.

His Honour—What was the work ?
Forewoman—Sunshades.
His Honour—What do they sell for P
Forewoman—They have not been sold yet.
His Honour—You know what I mean. What is the
selling price ?
Forewoman-11s Gd each.

His lionour—The sunshades sell for Ils GLI each, and you
give 9d each for making. Why, it is almost as bad as mak-
ing shirts at ono penny each. You have put them in stock ?
Forewoman—Yes, but wa had to pay 8d for altering, too.
Plaintiff—At first I was only offered 2a 3d.

His Honour (to the forewoman) —lt appears that you
have not paid her anything yet. I think the plaintiff is
fully eutitled to recover the money, and I shall award her
the full sum claimed with costs. (Applause.)
Verdict for plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A DARING AND IMPUDENT TRIM—John Dillon, a tall
shabbily-dressed man, was charged before Mr. Knox with
stealing at 22, Old Compton-street, a number of coloured
woollen shirts of the value of £5, the property of Mr,
Charles Harris, hosier.
Mr. Harris has two shops in Old Compton-street, exactly
opposite each other, numbered 22 and 30. He attends to
No. 22, and an assistant named Wall to the other. About
8 o'clock in the evening Wall saw the prisoner endeavouring
to get some shirts from the door of No. 30, but failing in
doing so, ho crossed over to No. 22 and untied the fasten-
ing of some white shirts. Being interrupted, the prisoner
afterwards seized a bundle of coloured woollen shirts of
the value of £5, and then made off, but was pursued by
Wall and taken back the shop with the shirts under his
arm, and then given into custody.
Sergeant Gordon, 9 C, proved taking the prisoner into
custody, and that the prisoner told him that ho had been
12 years in the army, and was not going to starve while
there were plenty of things to be had. Ho had seen the
prisoner at the Clerkenwoll Sessions, and believed he had
been convicted. He had ascertained that the prisoner, who
had refused his address, had been lodging at a lodging-
house with a number of thieves in Church-street, St. Giles.
Mr. Knox remanded the prisoner.