The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-30 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings in Bunco, in Trinity Term, before the Lord
Chief Baron, and Barons Bramwell and Ciaannell.)

SAUNDERS V. EASTABLE.-ACCIDENT.

This action was brought by a cab driver against
the contractor who supplies horses for the en-
gines at the Watling-street Station of the Fire
Brigade, for bodily injuries sustained by a col-
lision with a fire engine in Finsbury-square. The
trial took place before Mr% Baron Martin at the
sittings in Westminster after last term, when the

jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages
£25.

Mr. M. Chambers, on the part oi the defendant,
now moved for a new trial, on the ground that the
verdict was against the weight of evidence. He
stated that no evidence was given for the defence,
but one of the plaintiff's witnesses, the engineer
who accompanied the engine, said that the accident
arose from the plaintiff disregarding the approach
of the engine and driving right across it, notwith-
standing the loud calls which were made to warn
him. Under these circumstances the learned coun-
sel concluded that the accident was either inevitable
or that the plaintiff so far contributed to it as to
deprive him of any cause of action.
Mr. Baron Martin read over some portion of the
evidence from his notes, and said he was not dissa-
tisfied with the finding of the jury for the plaintiff,
who had sustained very serious injuries.
The Lord Chief Baron—The Court think that the
verdict should not be disturbed,
Rale refused.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)

STEWART V. STEWART AND HARDY.-CURIOUS NO-
TION RESPECTING THE MARRIAGE LAW.

This was a suit instituted by Donald Stewart, a
mariner, for a divorce on the ground of his wife's
adultery with the co-respondent, who was also a
mariner. The parties were cited, but there was no
appearance.
_ _

Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the petitioner and respondent
were married at the Roman Catholic chapel, North
Shields, in 18M, and cohabited in that town until
1856. In that year the petitioner, who was gene-
rally engaged in the coasting trade, went on a
voyage to the Mediterranean, and was absent from
home longer than usual. On his return he discovered
that his wife had married the co-respondent, and
they were both living at his (petitioner's) house.
She expressed much surprise that he should have
objected to her marrying another man during his
life-time, and said that he was at liberty to do the
same. (Laughter.)
The Court granted the decree nisi with coats.
BAILEY V. BAILEY AND SHENTON.

This was the petition of Mr. James Philip
Bailey, described in the marriage register as a gen-
tleman, praying for a dissolution of marriage on
the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-re-
spondent, who was also in a respectable station of
life.

Neither the respondent nor co-respondent en-
tered an appearance.
Mr. Hume Williams was counsel for the peti-
tioner.

From the evidence it appeared that the marriage
was solemnised at the parish clyarch of St. Giles,
Camberwell, on the 23d of April, 1840. Some time
subsequent to the marriage Mrs. Bailey contracted
habits of intemperance, which necessitated their
occasional separation, but with these exceptions
they lived together until 1859, when the parties
went to reside at Wandsworth, and here they be-
came acquainted with the co-respondent. They
afterwards removed to Deptford, and here they were
visited by the co-respondent who was living at a
cottage in East Wickham, where he invited them
to see him. Shortly afterwards Mrs. Bailey dis-
appeared, taking £5 with her, and she was traced
to the cottage of the co-respondent. She said that
she derived much benefit from the change of air,
and requested to be allowed to remain at the co-
respondent's house for some time longer in com-
pany with his daughter, who was 25 years old.
The petitioner then made arrangements for her
remaining, and allowed a sum for her maintenance.
She returned home at the end of six weeks. It was
discovered that afterwards she spent three nights
living in a coffee-house with the co-respondent.
Amongst the witnesses examined was a young
man, the eldest son, issue of the unfortunate mar-
riage, and the evidence was of a most conclusive
character.

The Court pronounced a decree nisi, and con-
demned the co-respondent in costs.

LANG V. LANG.

This was a petition of the wife for a dissolution of
marriage on the pound of her husband's cruelty
and adultery, to which there was no appearance.

Mr. Gibbons was counsel for the petitioner.
The parties were married at Knightsbridge, in
1856, and they lived together until 1860. The re-
spondent was a commercial traveller, and according
to the evidence of the petitioner, he commenced ill-
treatment three months after marriage, and ulti-
mately his conduct became so violent that she had
frequently black eyes and bruises, the result of his
blows. He was in the habit of leaving the petitioner
frequently, and in 1860 he deserted her finally. It
NI, as also proved that he had been cohabiting with
another female since 1861. _ _

The Court pronounced a decree nisi with costs.
ALLBUT V. ALLBUT.

This also was an undefended suit by the wife for
a divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Turner were counsel
for the petitioner.
The parties are in humble life, and were married at
Redditch, Worcestershire, in Jan., 1844, and after
16 years of cohabitation the respondent deserted his
wife. Both allegations of the petitioner were made
out to the satisfaction of the Court.
Decree nisi with costs.