The Sun.
London, England, 1865-11-22 00:00:00

WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS AND PADFIELD.

In this case the husband, who was an organist and
teacher of music, prayed for a dissolution of marriage on
the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent,
a farmer, and there was no defence.

Dr. Spinks was for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married in 1856, and
that they lived happily together until 1863, when the re-
spondent became acquainted with the co-respondent, who
was a neighbour, all the parties living at a place called
Chantry in Somerset. The chief evidence rested on letters
written by the respondent to her husband, confessing the
adultery, although some evidence was adduced, including
the depositions of the mother of the co-respondent tending
to establish the improper intimacy between the defendants.

The learned Judge said that where cases rested chiefly
upon admissions made by one of the parties groat caution
should be exorcised by the Court. In this case ho did
not see any ground for doubting the guilt of the respond-
ent and co-respondent, but before making a decree ho
would wish to ask the petitioner a few questions.
The petitioner not being in attendance, the case was
postponed until Tuesday next.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL coußr—This Day,

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
THE RUSSIAN NOTE FORGERIES.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, on the part of the Russian
authorities, made an application for the postponement of
the trial of the prisoners charged with this offence on the
ground of the absence of a material witness, who was now
in Paris, and too unwell to leave that com-a..r.
ness, no doubt, would bo in attendance next session.
Mr. Sergeant Robinson for the prisoners objected to a
further postponement of the trial. The persons charged
had been a considerable period in prison, and it was ex-
ceedingly hard to send them back to prison for another
month without trial. There was no certainty, as the
material witness was absent through ill health, that ho
would be in attendance next session.
The Court granted the application.
THE CASE OP HALL AND LAUPOURCADE.
Mr. Poland, on behalf of Mr. Hall, made an application
to the Court in this matter. A true bill had been found
against Mr. Hall and Laufourcade for misdemeanour, and a
true bill had also been found against Hall for forging the
copy of a process of a court of law and acting thereunder.
Mr. Justice Byles—That is not a misdemeanour.
31r. Poland—No, my lord, it is a felony. An applica-
tion had been made the Court of Queen's Bench to remove
the trial of Hall from the Old Bailey to that court, and
that application had been granted, but the Crown officer
had, in the documents proceeding therefrom, confined the
certiorari to matters connected with the misdemeanour.
The application I have therefore to make to the court is
to postpone the trial until another application is made to
the Queen's Bench to remove the whole of the charge
against the prisoner from this to that court.
Mr. Justice Byles—l will do as you wish, and postpone
the trial accordingly.
Mr. Poland—Until next session, my lord.
Mr. Justice Byles—Oh, no. The application can be
made to-morrow morning, and I merely postpone the trial
until after that shall have been done.
TIIE ATTEMPTED MURDER IN COVENT GARDEN.
The trial of Murphy has been fixed for the first thing
to-morrow morning.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
THE CHARGE AGAINST THE EARL OF SHAFTESBTIRY'S
STEWARD.

An application was made to the learned Judge to post-
pone the trial of Waters until the result of certain pro-
ceedings in Chancery was known.
A long discussion followed, the result of which was the
trial was postponed until the April sessions.