The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 20, 1.868,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
GASKILL V. GASKILL AND ROBERTSON.
This was a petition for dissolution of marriage on the
ground of adultery, presented by the husband.
The parties were married in 1858 at Camberwell, and
resided together until the early part of last year, when the
respondent left her husband. There was no issue to the
marriage, but the respondent became addiCted to intemper-
ance. Daring the absence of her husband she was visited
by a solicitor, and also received many letters, which were
always given to her when the husband was from
home. A quarrel took place, when she left him the next
morning, and since that time she had been seen in a coffee•
shop with the co-respondent, and on one occasion they re-
mained there the whole of the night.
The Court gave a rule nisi.
MASSEY V. MASSEY AND HARRIS.
This was a similar petition presented by the husband.
From the evidence it appeared that the petitioner was a
clerk in Manchester, and was married in 1855, and they
lived together for eight or nine months, when Mrs. Massey
left with the intention of visiting her friends in the c aintry,
in Wiltshire. While she was away a report became current
that she had been locked up in prison for some offence.
This was inquired into, and found to be true, and then the
husband wrote to her and asked some explanation. When
she returned she did not come to the house in which her
husband was residing, but went to one near it, and after-
wards she came and created a disturbance in the street.
The husband told her he could nut live with her
after what he had heard, and she then came
to an unslerstanding that she was to receive a weekly
allowance. She received the money a short time, when she
left the place altogether and came to London, and there
married a second time.
4 I
The Court granted a decree nisi.

WHEELDON V. WHEELDON.
This was a petition presented by the wife against the
husband, on the ground of cruelty and adultery.
The latter plea having been clearly made out, the peti-
tioner was called to prove the cruelty.
Mrs. Wheeldon said on several occasions her husband
had treated her with the greatest brutality. Once during
the time they lived together he knocked her down with an
umbrella. On another occasion ho lifted her completely
off her feet by holding her up by the ears. The only cause
she could assign for his ill-treatment was because she asked
him to allow her to give a few lessons in music in order to
release themselves of several debts he had contracted.
The court granted a decree nisi with costs against the
huabend.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Bramwell,
Channell, and Pigott.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. SILLIAN AND OTHERS.-THE

SEIZURE OF THE ALEXANDRA.
The Attorney-General resumed his arguments this
morning, and was proceeding when we went to press.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
and Justices Wightman, Blackburn, and Mellon.)
EARL OP COVENTRY AND OTHERS V. WILLES.,
The plaintiffs in this case are members of the Jockey
Club, and the action is brought against the defendant, the
well-known sporting editor of the Morning root," Argus,"
for trespass, in insisting on his right to go and remain on
the Newmarket Race Course, after having been warned off
by the Jockey Club. The case now came before the Court
on demurrer to a number of pleas by the defendant, which
set forth that there was an ancient law and custom for the
public, that all the subjects of the Queen, of their own free
right and pleasure may go and remain on a land known
as Newmarket Heath, at all times when horse races are
there usually held, that is in the months of April, July,
and October, and witness the horse races there, and to
return from such place, and that such ancient law and
custom had existed trom time immemorial. Some of the
pleas varied the terms of the right, and asserted that New •
market Heath was a common highway, and open to all the
subjects to go and remain there of their own free right and
pleasure, to go and remain at all reasonable times to witness
and see the horse races there, there being also in such right
an exception as against persons who by reason of their mis-
conduct had been warned off the heath by the Jockey Club.
Mr, Mellish, Q.C., with Mr. Harman, appeared on the
part of the plaintiffs, in support of the demurrer, and in-
sisted that the general right and custom, as set up by the
pleas to all the subjects of the Queen to go and remain of
their own free will and pleasure to witness horse races was
untenable. He relied chiefly on the case of " Fitch and
Rawlings" in 2d Henry Blackstone. Any person might
dedicate a piece o; land for such purposes as the holding of
horse races or a fair, and that the public might go and re-
main there to see such horse races or fair, but that did not
give a common right of highway, or give all the subjects of
the Queen the right to go and remain at all times of their
own free will and pleasure, on the land.
Mr. Quain, on the part of the defendant, argued at great
length in support of the pleas. The custom existed from
time immemorial. Home race:, were spoken of as being held
at Newmarket in the time of Henry VIII., and then it was
spoken of as being a place where horse races had been
hitherto held.
Mr. Justice Blackburn asked whether the owner of the
soil would not have the right to put an end to such right?
The Lord Chief Justice said there must be cases of ex-
ception from a general common law right. For instance,
it was well known that at Goodwood the public were ad •
/flitted, but that did not do away with the legal rights of the
Duke of Richmond.
Mr. Quain said that was no doubt an exceptional in-
stance, but in such cases as at Newmarket and Chester,
which was the oldest race-course known to exist, there had
been from time immemorial a general common right to the
public, that is, all the subjects to go and remain at such
time as races were held. The learned counsel then pro-
ceeded to cite a number of authorities in support of his

views.
The Lord Chief Justice, without calling on Mr. Mellish
to reply, said he was of opinon that the custom and right
set up by the pleas were too general, he did not
think there could be a customary right to all the subjects
of the Queen, to be present, and to go and remain
on the land. A customary right only applied to the inhabi-
tants of the district where the custom existed, and not to the
general public by right at common law. He was of
opinion that the authority of Fitch and Rawlings in 2d st.
of Blackstone, was binding on them, and that for those
reasons the demurrer must be allowed, and judgment en-
tered for the plaintiff.
The other Judges concurred.—Demurrer allowed.
There are other pleas raising issues of fact which remain
for trial.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulbura.)
RE COLONEL WAUGH.

This morning was appointed for last examination and
discharge of Colonel Waugh, who was, it will be remem-
bered, connected with the London and Eastern Banking
Company. There was also a notice for renewed application
for the release of the bankrupt from custody.
Messrs. C. Brown and Dubois, who had been specially
appointed by the Court to prepare the accounts, reported
that they were of such an extensive and complicated
character that they had not been able to prepare them,
and would not be able to complete them in less than
three months.
An adjournment was accordingly taken for that time.
Mr. Roxburgh then said that he had to apply undor the
112th section of the Bankruptcy Law Consolidation Act
for the release of the bankrupt from custody. He would
briefly state the circumstances under which Colonel Waugh
was in custody. He had been adjudged bankrupt, but
before he had surrendered he was taken into custody
on a capias at the snit of the official managers of the
London and Eastern Banking Corporation, for a sum of
of £50,000, on the supposition that he was about to quit the
country. Th© claim was on a promissory note overdue,
for which the plaintiffs sought to prove under the bank-
ruptcy, but which had been rejected by Mr. Commissioner
Evans, or they would not have had the right to apply for
the copies. The bankrupt was taken into custody so far
back as March last, but the plaintiffs had not taken any
steps to proceed with the action, not even having a decla-
ration. The reason for which was clear. The plaintiffs
knew that they would be met by a plea under the
,orvheer dlueea
rmn
eo
dr e tcho aranms
elks
oyneearr s
urged
statute of limitations, the note having been
waswe e notie e utehde.
gefeedrethtahtethwerreit
slightest evidence that a debt was due, and the bankrupt
was certainly not in custody for any offences under the act.
His llonour asked how he could be called upon to alter
or reverse the order of Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, who had
refused to grant the release unless the bankrupt gave bail
himself for £l,OOO, and two securities in £2,000 each.
Mr. Roxburgh said that he did not ask the learned com-
missioner to alter or rescind the order of Mr. Commissioner
Holroyd, but under an altered statement of circumstances,
and on a question touching the liberty of the subject the
party interested could apply at any time to any competent
court. Ho then stated that the unfortunate gentleman
was now almost totally blind, and confined in a dark room
and unable to come into court. He had affidavits from
Mr. Brown (Brown and Dubois) that they would be
materially assisted if the bankrupt was released, and the
bankrupt, himself swore that he had no intention of quitting
the country, but was anxious to give all possible infor
mation and show how he had disposed of the money,
but he could not get people to go to him in prison. The
learned counsel described the pitiable condition in which
the bankrupt was, and the only prospect of his ever regain-
ing his sight would be by undergoing- a most painful opera-
tion. He, therefore, thought it was a case which the
Court, tempering justice with mercy, might exercise its
dis.lretion and order the release.
Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, and Mr. Baxley, for the
official managers, contentled that Mr. Commissioner llol-
royd's decision ought to be upheld.
His Honour ultimately said he would consult Mr. Rol-
in •
rovd before he gave his final decision.

FOR SEVEN YEARS PAST TWO MILLION GAL-
LONS OF PURE SPRING WATER have been daily pumped
into the Thames.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A FOOLISH REASON FOR ATTEMPTING TC COMMIT
SUICIDE —Mary Ann Dollard, about 39 years of age, ser-
vant to a gentleman residing in Sussex-street Pimlico,
was charged with attempting to commit suicide.

From the evidence of a park constable named Jenkins,
it appeared that hearing an alarm that a female was in the
Serpentine, he went there and found the prisoner in the
water. A young man threw off his coat, jumped in, swam
to the prisoner, and with his (the constable's) assistance
brought her out. On asking her how she came to do such
a thing she male no reply, but cried bitterly.

Mr. Andrews, in whose service the prisoner had been for
10 years, said the prisoner had had a few words on a trivial
matter willi a person in the house, and it had excited her.
She possessed a good temper.

Prisoner said she was very sorry. She was very excited
at the time, having had a quarrel..

Mr. Yardley—Do you always go to the Serpentine and
jump in when you have a quarrel ? It.is a.foulish wicked
act, and nothing like it was ever heard. A woman, 39
years of age, quarrels with another, and then she goes and
jumps into the deep part of the Serpentine.
Prisoner, who was crying during the hearing of the case,
said she would not do such a thing again.
Mr. Yardley—How can I be sure of that. I shall re-
mand you for a week.