The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Rac. 20.
MEGNIAC V. REYNOLDS.
This was an action by the indorsee of two bills of ex-
change, for 100/. and 600/., against the acceptor. The
defendant pleaded infancy. The bills were accepted in
April, 1837.
The surgeon, who had attended the defendant's mother
in her confinement, was called to prove that the defendant
was born in May, 1816. He himself had little recollec-
tion of the circumstance. His day-book was destroyed,
but he still had his ledger ; and he proved that the entries
made in the ledger were made by him from the day-book,
at furthest within a month, and generally within a week
after they had been entered in the day-book. From the
entries in the ledger his memory was refreshed as to the
matters there recorded, and he was able to speak to the
fact of his attending the defendant's mother in her confine-
ment in May, 1816.

An objection was taken as to the admissibility of this
evidence, which Lord Dziof AN received ; and, finally, the
matter was arranged between the parties, a verdict being
taken by consent for 200/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 20.
MATER V. DUBUISOT.
The defendant was an engineer, the plaintiff a merchant,
owning a sugar-cane estate in the island of St. Lucia ; and
the action was brought to recover damages for a breach
of a contract.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, and the Jury,
having retired for a short time, found a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages 501.

CONSISTORY COURT, Dm. 20.
PEMBERTON v. PEMBERTON.

This was a suit for divorce, by reason of cruelty, pro-
moted by Lydia Maria Pemberton against George Pem-
berton, her husband. The marriage between the parties
took place on the 9th of April, 1836, and their cohabita-
tion continued till the Ist of January, 1837, on which day
Mrs. Pemberton quitted the house of her husband, and re-
turned to the protection of her father. This suit was sub-
sequently commenced, and the sentence for separation
sought for on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The
last charge has, however, during the course of the suit,
been abandoned.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE, on behalf of Mrs. Pember-
ton, contended that that lady was entitled to a sentence of
divorce, as prayed for. Mr. Pemberton, a man who had ad-
vanced to the age of 53 years, and who had four children
by a previous wife, married a very young woman of 23,
and found, as naturally would be the case, that a disparity
in temper existed as well as a disparity in years ; and,
being thus disappointed, had constantly exercised towards
her a system of unkindness and harshness, even im-
mediately after the marriage, which terminated after a
few months in actual cruelty. No charge had been set
up against the wife:; her conduct was irreproachable.
Dr. PHILLIMOItE was on the other side. There was
no sufficient evidence to prove the charge made against
Mr, Pemberton, There might have been harshness in
his conduct, but there was no cruelty—no legal cruelty,
by which a divorce could be obtained.
After hearing the reply,

Dr. LUSHINGTON gave his decision. The Court was
of opinion that the wife was entitled to a separation, be-
lieving that she could not return to the house of her hus-
band with safety to life and limb.

" Sir Walter Scott," said Captain Hall, in the
Diary of his Visit to Abbotsford, " never reads the criticisms
on his books. This I know from the most unquestionable
authority. Praise, he says, gives him no pleasure, awl cen-
sure annoys him."