The Sun.
London, England, 1863-01-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 22, 1863.

SHARE

'his Day.

,SSE

Paid.
all

all
all
100
(100
[ 100

41 13
13 14
86 87
105 107
45 46
42 44
231 24;

1271 1281
133 134
138 138

104 106
67 67

1094 1101
71 73
117 118
38 39
974 08
1021 1031
41i 42!

129 ft
129
97# 1 9
91p

521 531
25# 261
991 991
-d
57 68
84 881
128 130
110 112
1 I°
16 181
11 11i
118 120
48 49
104 106

47 49
33 34
En 681
68 70
[Ol 104

7 8
ssi 39}
10 ioe p
7 7
149 151 p
21 841 51 I.
551 564
26 8 p
d p
87 90
140 145 ,

29 31

42 44
35 37
94 29

SSIONS.

Closing
niee.
65 67
105 106

5 5}
71 84
80 83
78 76
73 76
104 106
111 io9i
10 1074
106 107 i
1 4
P
li4p
214 224
75 77
65 67
34 36
48 52
34 36
34 36
1054 10641
0 P

104 105
121 12;
8 740
99 101
92 94
iP
10i 3 101
97 99
93 P 5

129
134 3,1

egg
109;

118
381
97i f
103

loi I
129

891 8/ 9}

Business done

21& i

1051
19t

21044 i
97i ,i

LAW INT

.Tbis Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before the:Judge Ordinary, Mr. Justice Williams, and
Baron Channell.)

CHICHESTER V. MIME FALSELY CALLED CHICHESTER,

This case came beforo the Court on a demurrer to the
petition of George Augustus H imilton Chichester, who
IrayEd that the marriage with the respondent might be
declared null and void.

The Queen's Advocate said the petition of Mr. Chichester
set out that the marriage, which it was now sought to dis-
solve, was celebrated on the 9th of August, 1859, between
George Chichester, and Lucy Virginia Oliver,whose former
husband's name was Mure, and who held the office of
British Vice Consul at New Orleans. The petition also
set out that the lady was incapable of entering into such
contract, because her husband Mure was still alive. A
decree of divorce was granted in this court to Mr. Mure on
the Ist of July, 1859; and the 20 and 21 of Vie, provided
that either party could appeal to the House of Lords, and as
that time had not expired, his marriage with the respon-
dent was invalid, The respondent said the averments in
the petition were bad, because from the date of the pro-
nouncing of the decree—viz., the 9th of August, 1859—she
became a femme sole to all intents and purposes, and there-
fore quite free to contract marriage. The learned gentleman
said the present proceedings would raise the whole question
of the statute, and was of the last importance to every person
in this country who might seek relief in that court. The
55, 56, and 57 sections of 65th chapter of the Act 20 and 21
of Vict, was clear under those circumstances, the marriage
of the petitioner was clearly null and void, and of no effect,
as nothing could be more definite than the meaning of those
provisions, viz., that no marriage could be contracted by
the parties to a decree of divorce before the expiration of
three months from the date of the decree, because until that
period had elapsed the House of Lords had the power of
reversing the decision of the Court of Divorce. The learned
gentleman quoted a number of authorities to support his
argument.

Dr. Middleton followed on the same side. His observa-
tions were to the effect that the marriage of Mr. Chichester
with the respondent was invalid, and therefore there was
no necessity for the present proceeding.

Dr. Spinks and Mr. Williams appeared for and supported
the petition of Mr. Chichester.

The Judge Ordinary, on the part of their lordships said
although there was no difficulty about the present case,
yet, considering that the decision will be of much import-
ance to others they would prefer putting their judgment
into waiting before it was delivered.

The peculiarity of the present case is that the marriage
of the respondent was dissolved with Mr. inure, on the
ground of her adultery with the present petitioner.

GLENNIE V. GLENNIE EOWLES.

The Queen's Advocate made an application to the Court
to order the petitioner to pay an additional sum as costs,
over that paid into Court previous to the commencement of
his suit, which was decided in its favour. The Registrar
had fixed the sum at £l5O, but the expenses had increased
beyond that sum, and therefore he asked that the husband
be compelled to pay the additional amount.
Mr. Kinglake, Q.C., opposed the application, and said it
was, he thought, too much to ask that the husband should
be compelled to pay all tho c,sts the co-respondent had in-
curred in getting up evidence to prove the accusation of
adultery against Mrs. Glonnie false, and in which ho had
altogether failed.
The Judge Ordinary said he saw no reason to disturb
the arrangement that had been made at the outset of the
trial. His lordship also directed that the costs of the pre-
sent application should be paid by the attorney on whose
behalf it had been made.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE---This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A LOST DAUGHTER.—APPLICATION TO THE MAGI-
STRATE.—A poor woman, who appeared in great distress of
mind, applied to the magistrate for his assistance under the
following circumstances :

The applicant, who said her name was Watson, and that
she resided in Denmark-place, Soho, stated that her daugh-
ter, Allison Watson, had absented herself from her home
for some days, and she was fearful that, being a good look-
ing girl, she had fallen into bad company and been decoyed
from her home for some improper purpose. The applicant
described ker daughter as of fair complexion, and stated
that when she left her home she was respectably attired,
She also stated that she had been advised to attend before
the magistrate and make a representation of the drown
stance to him, in the hope that publicity being given to her
application it might be attended with the desired result, the
restoration of her child.
The applicant having been informed by the Court that no
doubt the press would assist in her endeavours to trace her
daughter, she retired expressing her gratitude.
NIGHT CAB HORSES.—Charles Pearse, cab-driver,
badge 12,267 was charged at the instance of Mr. 'William
Love, chief officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals, as follows
George Charles Smith, one of the officers of the Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said
that about four o'clock this morning, he was in Piccadilly
in company with Young and the officer of the society,
when he observed the defendant driving a horse attached to
a four-wheel cab (2,749), and noticing the horse was very
restless he examined it, and found some large open wounds
on the shoulders of the poor animal, into which the collar
was pressing. The animal was also in bad condition and
spavined. The owner of the horse had seen it, and ad-
mitted it was in a bad state, and only fit for the knacker.
The horse was brought in front of the court, and cer-
tainly bore out in its appearance the officer's statement.
_ _

Mr. Knox said he should take the driver's own recog •
nisance to appear in a week, and in the meantime the
owner could be summoned. If the horse were destroyed
in the meantime it might have some effect on his decision,
but he would make no promise.